pc_05 13 1986subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
MAY 13, 1986
1:00 P.M.
I. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were read and approved.
II. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being 11 in number.
III. Members Present: J.
D.
W.
J.
I.
D.
W.
F.
R.
J.
B.
Schlereth
Arnett
Ketcher, Chairman
Nicholson
Boles
Jones
Rector
Perkins
Massey
Summerlin
Sipes
IV. City Attorney Present: Pat Benton
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
MAY 13, 1986
1:00 P.M.
I. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were read and approved.
II. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being 11 in number.
III. Members Present: J.
D.
W.
J.
I.
D.
W.
F.
R.
J.
B.
Schlereth
Arnett
Ketcher, Chairman
Nicholson
Boles
Jones
Rector
Perkins
Massey
Summerlin
Sipes
IV. City Attorney Present: Pat Benton
1
TENTATIVE SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
MAY 13, 1986
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Avonshire "Short -Form PRD" (Z -4629)
B. Captain D's at Markham "Short -Form PCD" (Z -4631)
C. Mabelvale Church of Christ "Long -Form PRD" (Z -4630)
D. (Z- 4555 -A) - Shackleford Road, South of Colonel Glenn
Road - "MF -18" to "I -1"
E. (Z -4641) - West of Shackleford Road, South of Colonel
Glenn Road - "R -2, "MF -18" to "I -1"
F. (Z -4644) - South University, South of Boyle Park Drive/
West 19th - "R -2" to "C -3"
PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1. Perry Place Subdivision
2. Chenal Ridge Addition
3. Piedmont Subdivision (Lots 1 -3, 45 -47)
4. Huntington Subdivision
5. Springer Addition
6. Longlea Manor - Revised Preliminary
7. Southwest Community Complex
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS:
8. Morris Moore "Long -Form PID" (Z- 4596 -A)
9. Taco Bell on Markham "Short -Form PCD" (Z -4654)
10. Scott Street Addition "Short -Form PCD" (Z -4655)
REPLATS:
11. Executive Park Replat (Plat of Lot 5R)
12. Bernard C. Lensing Replat (Lot 55 by 56, Shannon
Hills East)
TENTATIVE SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES - CONTINUED
MAY 13, 1986
SITE PLAN REVIEW:
13. J.A. Riggs - Site Plan Review
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
14. Radium Petroleum CUP (Z- 2538 -A)
15. First Assembly of God Church CUP (Z -4652)
16. Kanis Mini - Storage CUP (Z- 4653 -A)
16A. Rezoning from "R -2" to "C -3" (Z -4653)
RIGHT -OF -WAY CLOSURES
17. Kimball Street Closure
18. Turtle Creek Drive - Street Closure
19. Alley Closure - Block 14, Midland Hills
20. Street Closure - East 26th Off South Main Street
21. Alley Closure
OTHER MATTERS:
22. Parkway Place Preliminary Modification
23. Extraterritorial Land Use Plan
24. First Federal, ERC, Aldersgate Development Discussion
May 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME:
Avonshire Building
Mixed Used "Short -Form PRD"
(Z -4629)
n VN7VT nnVD. TDOUTrPVOM.
Thomas
Johnson
Thomas
Johnson & Assoc.
421 E.
9th
421 E.
9th Street
Little
Rock, AR 72202
Little
Rock, AR 72202
Phone:
375 -0334
Phone:
375 -0334
AREA: .10 acres NO. OF LOTS: FEET NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R -5"
PROPOSED USE: Apartment /Offices
I
A. Development Objectives
1. Conversion of an existing four unit condominium
development into two quiet office uses on the
downstairs level and two apartments units
upstairs.
2. To provide a project that is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, will result in
preservation of the building, and to alleviate an
existing parking problem.
B. Proposal
1. Conversion of a four -unit condo development on .10
acre into two quiet office uses (architectural
firm and psychologist office) and two one- bedroom
apartments.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
2. Office space will consist of 1800 square feet.
3. Parking - Three new on -site parking spaces at the
rear of the building and preliminary permission
from the pastor of the adjacent Pulaski Heights
Baptist Church has been received for the use of
two to four additional parking spaces on its
parking lot during normal office hours. Formal
written approval from the Board of Deacons is
anticipated at the March meeting. A copy will be
provided to the Commission.
C. Analysis
There are several issues to be discussed, the most
important is parking. Staff is a little uncomfortable
with acceptance of such agreement; however, it is
requested that the applicant submit a copy of agreement
with the church as soon as possible. Also, the
short -form PUD process is not necessarily for the
conversion of older structures. The application is
deficient in all bulk and area requirements of the
Ordinance. Furthermore, it is contrary to the
Hillcrest Plan, which does not allow office uses. The
present zoning is "R -5."
D. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
E. Subdivision Committee Review
The Committee felt that the main issue to be discussed
was the use, and its potential for starting precedent
for this type of development in the area. The parking
was not considered to be the major issue since the
church's lot is not extensively used during the week.
The applicant was asked to provide specifics of the
agreement worked out with the church.
Utilities:
Sewer - Sewer available - Capacity contribution
analysis required.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicants were present. Staff reported that one
parking space was inaccessible. The issues to be discussed
were identified as: (1) deciding where to draw the line
regarding use changes, and a fear of setting a precedent for
further commercial expansion; (2) parking - especially since
the agreement with the Church seems somewhat noncommittal on
the Church's part. Mr. Tom Johnson, one of the applicants,
described the project as being a "narrow exception" to the
Zoning requirements, not precedent- setting.
Ten residents were present in opposition. Mr. Davis
Cockcroth was concerned about "encroaching commercial uses"
in the area. Mr. Walter Riddick spoke of "impinging
commercialization," and the potential for problems at the
nearby intersection and parking to get worse as traffic
increases and commercial uses expand. Ms. Margaret Whitlock
felt that each additional business use approved, took a
little more spirit away from the neighborhood. Ms. Tinckney
of 2116 Kavanaugh, asked the Commission to vote against this
project.
One Commissioner felt that this proposal would provide the
most minimal impact on Kavanaugh, even though he was a firm
supporter of the Heights - Hillcrest plan. He felt that if
there was ever an exception - this was it.
A motion was made for approval, subject to: (1) two signs
one square foot each; (2) restriction to one architects and
one psychologists office, with no employees and individual
clients only. No groups allowed.
The motion was automatically deferred for thirty (30) days
due to a vote of 4 ayes, 5 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6 -6 -86)
A motion to withdraw, as requested by the applicant, was
made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6 -6 -86)
A motion to withdraw, as requested by the applicant, was
made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME:
AGENT:
Olan Asbury
Thomas Harding, Jr.
c/o 2228 Cottondale Lane
Suite 102
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 663 -7005
Captain D's on Markham
"Short -Form PCD" (Z -4631)
NE Corner of North Fillmore and
West Markham
011en D. Wilson
T nnTl'rM nnm_
Gerald Rogers
220 North Van Buren
Little Rock, AR 72204
Phone: 663 -8623
AREA: .445 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2.5
ZONING: 110 -3"
PROPOSED USE: Restaurant
A. Development Proposal
FEET NEW ST.: 0
1. The construction of a seafood restaurant,
containing 2,500 square feet on a lot of .445
acre, which is currently zoned "0 -3" for office
use.
2. One -way traffic flow on the site with ingress from
Markham and egress onto Markham or Fillmore.
3. A drive -thru, pick -up window will be included.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
B. Analysis
This property is located on a major arterial and in an
area that is mainly comprised of office and
institutional uses. The property to the east is zoned
"C -1," the properties to the north and west are zoned
for office and to the south is St. Vincent Hospital.
Staff's site investigation reveals that this a very
poor site for the commercial use proposed due its size.
Furthermore, this use is not shown on the Land Use
Plan.
Relative to the site plan, staff opposes the one lane
through the site since two movement lanes are needed in
developments of this nature. The design of the parking
at the entrance is not allowed, and the drive should be
restricted to one access point on Markham. The
applicant must demonstrate that he can conform to the
landscaping and handicapped ordinance requirements.
A minimum of 10' right -of -way on Markham and all
boundary street improvements on North Fillmore are
required.
C. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff reported that the applicant had requested a 30 -day
deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for a 30 -day deferral as requested by the
! applicant, was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes
and 0 absent.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6 -6 -86)
A motion to withdraw, as requested by the applicant, was
made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
I
9
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER /OWNER:
Mabelvale Church of Christ
10820 Mabelvale West
Little Rock, AR 72103
Phone: 455 -2548
Mabelvale Church of Christ
"Long -Form PRD" (Z -4630)
10820 Mabelvale West Road
ARCHITECT:
Horace A. Piazza and Assoc.
Prospect Building
Suite 466
Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone: 664 -0364
AREA: 18.36 acres with right -of -way
11.4 acres without right -of -way
NO. OF LOTS: 1 unplatted tract FEET NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Church /Elderly Housing
A. Development Obiectives
1. Reclassification of property from "R -2" to PRD to
allow for the existing church and housing for the
elderly.
2. Immediate negotiation for the City purchase of
approximately 6.7 acres at the north end of the
property or the release of this property for use
by the applicant. (This property was made part of
the Master Street Plan by the Board of Directors
on March 5, 1985, for use in the extension of
I -430 East to Mabelvale West Road.)
May 13, 1986
j SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
B. Development Proposal
1. Parcel size ..................
11.4 acres
2.42
Acreage with right -of -way
18.36 acres
coverage ..........
1.27
2. Project floor areas -
Common open
spaces .........
8.00
Existing church .............
21,730
sq.
ft.
Existing residence ..........
4,233
sq.
ft.
Proposed 2- bedroom apts. -
Parking
ratio ..............
1.9
16 at 825.75 ................
13,212
sq.
ft.
Proposed 1- bedroom apts. -
20 at 633.75 ...............
12,675
sq.
ft.
Total project floor areas ..
51,850
sq.
ft.
3. Project building cover .....
55,497
sq.
ft.
Percent coverage ...........
11%
4. Common space
Parking
and drives .........
2.42
acres
Building
coverage ..........
1.27
acres
Common open
spaces .........
8.00
acres
5. Parking
for apartments
Total ......................
67 spaces
Parking
ratio ..............
1.9
spaces per
unit
6. Existing church seats 760 persons
C. Analysis
A copy of "History of Events" and additional
information, as submitted by the applicant, is
attached.
r
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
The main issue discussed involved the phasing of the
development. It was decided that the applicant should plat
Lot 1 as Phase 1 and indicate the rest for future
development, and he should work with staff on tying the
improvements on Mabelvale West to the phasing plan.
Utilities:
Sewer - Available - Capacity contribution analysis required.
Water - An acreage charge of $150 per acre will apply on the
north 1.9 acres, plus on -site fire protection required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for deferral as requested by the applicant was made
and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6 -6 -86)
A motion for withdrawal, as requested by the applicant, was
made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
May 13, 1986
Item No. D - Z- 4555 -A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Big K Development Corporation
Joe D. White
Shackleford Road south of
Colonel Glenn Road
Rezone from "MF -18" to "I -1"
Industrial
8.9 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
- Vacant,
Zoned
"R -2"
South
- Vacant,
Zoned
"R -2"
East
- Vacant,
Zoned
"R -2"
West
- Vacant,
Zoned
"R -2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone the two tracts to "I -1" for
unspecified industrial use. (This property is adjacent to a
26 -acre site which is also on this agenda, Item E (Z -4641)
for an "I -1" rezoning.) The property is located south of
Colonel Glenn Road on Shackleford Road in an area where the
majority of the land is still vacant. To the northeast,
there is a partially developed single family subdivision,
and to the north along Colonel Glenn Road, there is a mix of
residential and nonresidential uses, including some
industrial operations. The subject site is vacant and
wooded. The property was rezoned to "MF -18" in 1985. There
is no documented neighborhood position on this site.
The general area is suitable for this type of zoning. A
number of light industrial uses already exist in the general
area. Also, sites for light industrial purposes are needed
to serve the western part of the City. To the northeast,
catercorner to the property, is an area that is zoned "I -1."
The I -430 Plan shows light industrial to the north in the
vicinity of Colonel Glenn and Shackleford Road. A plan
amendment will be prepared for the area to reflect this
rezoning and the rezoning under Item E. The plan amendment
will probably include a larger area extending to the north
up to 36th Street.
May 13, 1986
Item No. D - Continued
Shackleford Road is classified as a minor arterial, so
dedication of additional right -of -way will be required
because the existing right -of -way is deficient. Also, a
replat of the property will be needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "I -1" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(April 22, 1986)
The staff recommended that the item be deferred to the
May 13, 1986 meeting. The applicant concurred with the
recommendation. A motion was made to defer the request to
May 13, 1986. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes
and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted to recommend approval of the "I -1" request
as filed. The vote 11 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
4
May 13, 1986
Item No. E - Z -4641
Owner: Grover C. and Betty Bolin and
Big K Development
Applicant: Joe D. White
Location: West of Shackleford Road south of
Colonel Glenn Road
Request: Rezone from "R -2" and "MF -18" to
11 1-1 11
Purpose: Maintenance /Distri'oution Center
Size: 26.5 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" and "MF -18"
West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
I STAFF ANALYSIS:
The proposal is to rezone the property in question to "I -1"
for a maintenance /distribution center to be used jointly by
the Little Rock Municipal Water Works and Little Rock
Wastewater Utility. The uses on the site will include two
warehouses, a vehicle /equipment maintenance building, a
meter shop and a vehicle washing facility. There will be
some outside storage of vehicles, construction materials and
associated equipment. The site is west of Shackleford Road
and south of Colonel Glenn Road with the main access being
from Shackleford Road. Zoning in the immediate vicinity is
residential either "R -2" and "MF -18," and the area is still
primarily vacant with some single family residences on large
tracts. This property is adjacent to another "I -1" request,
Item D of this agenda. The subject site is vacant and
wooded. There is no documented neighborhood position or
history on the site.
The general area is suitable for this type of use, since it
contains large vacant sections and several existing light
industrial uses.
May 13, 1986
Item No. E - Continued
To the northeast is an area zoned "I -1." The I -430 Plan
shows light industrial to the north in the vicinity of
Colonel Glenn and Shackleford Roads. A plan amendment will
be prepared to reflect this rezoning. The plan amendment
probably will include this area and an area further to the
north extending up to 36th Street. No additional "I -1"
zoning should be allowed south of the line established by
the southerly side of this property. The topography rises
to the south, and this should help prevent strip development
of Shackleford Road by industrial uses extending south to
Stagecoach Road.
Shackleford Road is classified as a minor arterial, so
dedication of additional right -of -way will be required
because the existing right -of -way is deficient. Also, a
replat of the property will be necessary.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "I -1" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff recommended that the
May 13, 1986, meeting. Joe
the deferral. A motion was
the May 13, 1986, meeting.
ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
(April 22, 1986)
item be deferred to the
White, the applicant, agreed to
made to defer the request to
The motion passed by a vote of 9
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted to recommend approval of the "I -1" rezoning
as requested. The vote 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
}
May 13, 1986
Item No. F - Z -4644
Owner: Francis K. Wood and Telka K.
Connerly
Applicant: William H. Asti
Location: 1900 Block of South University
Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3"
Purpose: Auto Speciality Shopping Center
Size: 10.0 acres +
Existing Use: Vacant
STTRROTTNT)TNG LAND TTSR ANT) ZONTNG:
North - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R -2"
and "C -3"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone a 10 -acre site from "R -2" to
"C -3," and the proposed use is an auto speciality
shopping center. It appears that certain uses that are
to be included in the center will require conditional
use approval also. The property is located on South
University just south of the commercial strip between
West 12th and West 19th /Boyle Park Drive. The site
abuts single family residences on three sides, and on
the east side of University, there is a large vacant
tract which is owned by the University of Arkansas at
Little Rock. At the northeast corner of the property,
there is a commercial use zoned "C -3." The remaining
portion of the land is surrounded by "R -2" zoning. The
property in question appears to be removed from what
would be considered a more desirable commercial
location and has significant issues that need to be
addressed, such as access and its relationship to the
single family neighborhood. For an auto related use
such as being proposed, the site has very inadequate
access because there is no median cut along University
in that area, and direct access at this time is only
from the north.
May 13, 1986
Item No. F - Continued
2. The property is vacant and has been significantly
modified over the years because of some site work.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with the request.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. Staff has received some information calls regarding the
rezoning. There is no documented history on the site.
7. Staff feels that the site is not a viable commercial
location, especially because of the access issue and
does not support the request. Another major concern is
that a "C -3" rezoning could have some adverse impacts
on the surrounding single family neighborhoods which
appear to be very stable. A use such as is being
proposed could disrupt the livability of those
neighborhoods because of generating excessive noise
levels and needing bright lights. The Boyle Park
District Plan which this location is a part recognizes
that the site is not a single family area and
recommends an office use for the property. The intent
of the plan was to provide some development potential
for the site with a use that would not create heavy
traffic loads. Because of being in conflict with the
plan, the access question and the potential impact on a
single family neighborhood, the "C -3" reclassification
should not be granted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" rezoning as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 22, 1986)
The applicant, William Asti, was present. There was one
objector in attendance. Staff recommended that the item be
deferred to allow the City's Traffic Engineer to review the
access issue. Mr. Asti indicated they had no problems with
the deferral and presented some information to the
Commission. A resident of the neighborhood then spoke. He
said he opposed the "C -3" rezoning and objected to the
deferral request. Mr. Asti made some additional comments.
A motion was made to defer the rezoning to the May 13, 1986,
meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes 0 noes
and 5 absent.
May 13, 1986
3 Item No. F - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(5- 13 -86)
The applicant, William Asti, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Asti discussed the possibility of utilizing
"C -2" for the site and providing substantial buffers.
Several of the Commissioners questioned Mr. Asti about why
he was unable to meet with the City staff to address the
various issues. It was pointed out that the request was
deferred at the April meeting to allow Mr. Asti to work with
the City staff. There was a long discussion about another
deferral and other issues. At this point Mr. Asti asked
what would be appropriate zoning for the site and agreed to
a deferral. A motion was made to defer the rezoning to the
May 27, 1986, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME:
Perry Place Subdivision
LOCATION: Approximately 320° West of
Point Cove Court and
Yarberry Lane, North Side of
Yarberry
n VX7L'T.no VD .
Odes Perry
c/o 1001 Fair Park Blvd.
Little Rock, AR 72204
Phone: 666 -4418
RNaTNRRR
Bill Dean
Civil Design, Inc.
1001 Fair Park Boulevard
Little Rock, AR 72204
AREA: 15.56 acres NO. OF LOTS:
ZONING: 12R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Existina Conditions
60 FEET NEW ST.:
This site is located in an area that can be
characterized as rural -like, with the general use being
residential. Elevations range from 280 feet to 310
feet.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting that he be allowed to
develop 15.56 acres into 60 lots for single family
use. He asked that a waiver be granted on sidewlaks;
since there are no sidewalk linkages which connect the
project and no arterial street designations and such a
waiver would be in keeping with the developers
objective of low -cost affordable housing. A waiver of
the 27 foot back -to -back requirement where the proposed
cul -de -sac streets is requested. A width of 24 feet is
preferred. The reason offered is the low -cost
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
objective of the development. The project will be
developed in three phases.
C. Legal Issues
1. Please submit preliminary Bill of Assurance.
2. Please notify adjacent property owners as required
by the Subdivision Ordinance.
D. Analysis
The applicant is asked to: (1) justify the width of
those lots less than 60 feet, (2) check with
David Hathcock (371 -4808) regarding a possible conflict
with the street name, Ponderosa, (3) show existing
right -of -way.
Staff is favorable to the request for a reduced
pavement width on the culs -de -sac; however, a waiver of
the sidewalk requirement is not recommended. Staff is
against deviating from the policy established in prior
years, regarding the waiving of sidewalks.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to comply with staff's recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was asked to explain his request for sidewalk
waivers and inadequate lot sizes. He felt that a sidewalk
variance would be compatible with the modern income concept
of the development and would submit a plan with all lots
meeting the minimum requirements. The Committe was not
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
favorable to the sidewalk waiver request. A motion for
approval was made and passed, subject to the provision of
"No Parking" signs, if the street width is reduced to 24
feet. The vote 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
1
Item No. 2
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Deltic Farm & Timber
Company, Inc.
200 Peach Street
E1 Dorado, AR 71730
Phone: 862 -6411
Chenal Ridge Addition
West End of Pebble Beach Drive,
North of Beckenham, West of
Hickory Hills Addition
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374 -1666
AREA: 108 acres NO. OF LOTS: 128 FEET NEW ST.: 13,700
ZONING: 11R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
(1) Lower standard on minor arterial street and valley.
(2) 15' setback on steep slopes as shown.
(3) Cul -de -sac length.
A. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area developed as single
family. Elevations range from 400' to 532' in the area
proposed for immediate development, and up to 757' in
the area designated for development in the future.
B. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to develop 108 acres into 128 lots
for single family use. New streets will consist of
13,700'. Waivers requested include: (1) lower
standard on minor arterial street and valley;
(2) 15 -foot setback on steep lots as shown.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
C. Legal Issues
1. Please submit preliminary Bill of Assurance and
address maintenance of open space.
2. Give notice to adjacent property owners as
required in the Subdivision Ordinance.
D. Analysis
The applicant should: (1) place street names on plat
and get them approved by David Hathcock (371- 4808);
(2) show building line; and (3) state purpose of open
space. Staff is concerned about maintenance. The
applicant may be asked to extend lot lines across the
open space area.
A waiver for the length of the cul -de -sac is needed.
The applicant is asked to submit the required letter of
transmittal that describes the project and notes any
variances.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant amended his application to request a waiver of
the cul -de -sac length. A letter was submitted prior to this
meeting, giving justification for variance No. 1. It
explained that the request was for full right -of -way
dedication with a pavement with 36 feet without curb and
gutter, instead of the full 48 feet width of pavement with
the curb. The street is along the valley between steep
slopes. The area of the valley to the east of the road will
be left as a natural drainageway. Most of the slope to the
west is too steep for reasonable development at this time.
The developer has no incentive to construct this road
without marketable property along its route. Engineering
accepted the justification offered.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. One adjacent landowner,
Mr. Dean Williamson, was in attendance. He objected to the
proposal unless the applicant provided him access to his
property by building a street that was in Phase VI of the
development before the subdivision is completed.
Staff requested that the applicant provide "No Parking"
signs on the 24 foot streets and that the remainder of the
phasing plan be submitted. The applicant then amended his
plan to provide 27 foot streets.
A motion for approval of the minute application was made and
passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
I
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME:
LOCATION:
Piedmont Subdivision
Southwest Corner of Sam Peck
Road and Peckerwood Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Piedmont Corporation Edward G. Smith Associates
P.O. Drawer 5151 401 Victory
NLR, AR 72119 Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 372 -3456 Phone: 374 -1666
AREA: 2.11 acres NO. OF LOTS: 6 FEET NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family Homes
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Existing Conditions
This property is located at the southwest corner of a
residential and a collector street. Most of the
immediate area is developed or is zoned as single
family residential, except for the West Side Tennis
Club and facilities to the north. Elevations range
from 400 feet to 440 feet.
B. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to develop 2.11 acres into six lots
for single family use. No variances are requested.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
C. Legal Issues
1. Please submit preliminary Bill of Assurance.
2. Please give notice to abutting property owners as
specified in the Subdivision Ordinance.
D. Analysis
No problems have been found with the proposed other
than the applicant's failure to comply with the basic
submission requirements regarding building lines and
stating of abutting ownerships on the plat. The
applicant should follow the submittal requirements in
the ordinance.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to conform to basic subdivision
submission requirements. No other issues were discussed.
WATER - A pro -rata charge on Lot #2.
SEWER - Additional sanitary easements shall be required for
existing line crossing proposed lots.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval of the plan was made and passed by a
vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME:
Huntington Subdivision
LOCATION:
South of Highway 10 and
Pinnacle Valley Road
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
Rob Thorpe
Manes, Castin, Massie and
McGetrick
2501 North Willow Street
NLR, AR 72115
AREA: 16.2 acres NO. OF LOTS:
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Residential
A. Existing Conditions
24 FEET NEW ST.: 1,880
This proposal is located on the south side of State
Highway 10, in an area that is generally composed of
single family, but consisting of some commercial along
the major Highway 10. A portion of the property
consist of both the floodway and floodplain and has a
50 -foot water line running diagonally across it.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is asking for preliminary approval of a
single family subdivision that consist of 24 lots, 1
tract and 1,900 feet of new street. He is proposing
minor streets, so he feels that sidewalks are not
required.
C. Legal Issues
1. Bill of Assurance must specify the use and
maintenance of the open space areas in Tract A.
2. Notices to abutting property owners are required.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
D. Analysis
Staff has no problems with the design or use of the
property. It abuts other single family uses. A waiver
of the cul -de -sac length is needed. The applicant
should: (1) provide floor elevations on Lots 1 -3;
(2) provide stormwater detention data; and (3) tie
right -of -way down to State Highway Department plans and
Highway 10.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to comply with staff's comments.
j Pat McGetrick, Project Engineer, stated that the Highway 10
right -of -way shown is consistent with the State Highway
Department plans.
SEWER - Additional easements required.
WATER - Water main extension required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 10
ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME:
Springer Addition
LOCATION: East Side of Edge Street
Approximately 150' South of the
Intersection of Dover and Edge
APPLICANT:
Joe White
Edward G. Smith & Assoc.
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 374 -1666
A. Staff Report
This submittal is located in an area developed to
single family. The parcel consists of 2.4072 acres.
There is currently an existing one story frame
residence on the site. The applicant is proposing to
divide the tract into two lots and one tract. A one
story single family residence will be built on Lot 1.
Staff asked the applicant to provide information on
when the excluded portions of what was previously a
part of this ownership was sold. An existing carport
on the northernmost excluded parcel encroaches over the
lot line of Lot 1. The applicant is asked to provide
information on existing rights -of -way on both streets
and is advised that the 49' x 150' sliver of land that
is a part of Tract A cannot be sol off.
B. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until further information is received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of
the item.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
WATER - Contact LRWU.
SEWER - On -site fire protection is required for Tract "A."
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86)
A motion for a deferral, as recommended by staff, was made
and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
r
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Land Projects, Inc.
1125 Arcade Drive
Suite "E"
Little Rock, AR 72112
AREA: 40.7
ZONING: "R -2"
Longlea Manor - Revised
Preliminary
500' Northeast of Pleasant
Forest Drive
ENGINEER:
Marlar Engineering Co., Inc.
5318 JFK Boulevard
North Little Rock, AR 72116
Phone: 753 -1987
NO. OF LOTS: 77 FEET NEW ST.: 5,060
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
VARIANCES: Sidewalks on Old Mill Lane
A. Staff Report
This proposal is located in an area currently developed
to single family. The request is to revise a
previously approved single family plat of 120 lots on
40.7 acres to 77 lots. The applicant is also asking
to: (1) continue the previous agreement to construct
Old Oak Drive as a 36 -foot wide collector on a 50 -foot
right -of -way without sidewalks; (2) use of
streetlights; and (3) waiver of sidewalk requirement
for Old Mill Lane due to the fact that topography will
make sidewalks difficult to construct, and the fact
that there are no sidewalks in the area.
Staff suggests continuance of previous agreement, but
construction of sidewalks on Old Mill should be
required. Old Mill Lane should be called Old Mill
Circle and the name Den Oak Circle should be changed.
The fire hydrant and water line system and building
line should be shown.
May 13, 1986
I SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
B. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The main issue discussed was a request by the applicant to
waive sidewalks. Also, that sidewalks be allowed on Old Oak
Drive in -lieu of Old Mill.
After the meeting, the applicant informed staff that it
would drop the issue of street lighting.
WATER - Water main extension required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86)
A motion for a deferral, as requested by the applicant, was
made and passed by a vote 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 noes.
f
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME:
Southwest Community Complex
LOCATION: South of Intersection of
Baseline Road and Verbena Drive,
West End of Senate Drive, West
of Denham Drive, North End of
Warren
APPLICANT: Julius Breckling /City of
Little Rock
A. Staff Report
The City of Little Rock is seeking to subdivide 51.2754
acres. This plat was prompted by a land swap made with
St. Theresa's Church to the east.
Staff strongly suggests the extension of the Warren
Road collector through the site. The width should be
increased to 36 feet from the existing 30 feet and
stormwater detention facilities on -site are required.
B. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee felt uncomfortable with differential treatment
of the City as Subdivide, than that of a private developer.
They felt that specifics should be given as to who will
build and dedicate warrant.
WATER - On -site fire protection required plus a 15 foot
utility easement along the south, east and west
lines of Tracts "B" and "C."
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Bill Bunten of the Department of Parks and Recreation
represented the Developer /City. The discussion centered
around a collector extension through the property. It was
decided that the plat would be approved subject to: (1)
keeping Tract C on preliminary status and showing on this
tract, the extension of the street from its existing
termination point due north to Baseline Road, and (2)
stormwater detention plans. The motion was approved by a
vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
May 13, 1986
A
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME:
LOCATION:
AGENT:
Lindy Culvert
12115 Hinson Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
Morris Moore "Long- Form" PID
(Z- 4596 -A)
9620 Baseline
Morris Moore
9620 Baseline
Little Rock, AR 72209
Phone: 224 -1234
SURVEYOR:
Troy Laha
Phone: 565 -7384
AREA: 2.31 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1
ZONING: "R -2"
FT. NEW ST.: 0
PROPOSED USES: Automotive Sales and Repair
A. Site History
This item was recently considered for rezoning. The
PUD approach was suggested as a means to accommodate an
existing situation.
B. Plan Objectives
1. To allow for development and use of the entire
property while protecting the neighbors from the
many varied uses allowed in "I -2" zoning.
2. To allow the uses established over the past 20
years.
3. To remove one existing building and add two new
structures.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
C. Proposal
1. The allowance of various industrial uses on a
tract that is 591.75' x 170.5'.
2. The use breakdown will consist of:
Sales - 30 percent
Design - 20 percent
Repair - 50 percent
3. A building breakdown is as follows:
Building
Proposed
Existing
Proposed
Existing
D. Analysis
Type
Truck /automotive repair
Hydraulic design, sales
and repair
Single family residence
Size
50' x 100'
50' x 100'
50' x 100'
58.4' x 25.5'
Staff is not happy with the proposal submitted. It is
felt that it proposes more than what was envisioned at
the rezoning hearing. Furthermore, the plan is very
insufficient in relation to the submittal requirements.
Engineering suggests that a 50 -foot right -of -way be
dedicated from the centerline and that only one
driveway be allowed.
OCP staff is requesting extensive revision of the plan
to include: (1) the shifting of parking to the side of
the property adjacent to the State Highway Department;
(2) limiting the combined building areas on the south
half to 5,000 square feet; (3) provide buffer and
drainage detail; and (4) design the two metal buildings
parallel to each other with parking in between.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
N
May 13, 1986
} SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant for a 1 -month deferral to respond to staff's
design suggestions.
SEWER - Available, extension required.
WATER - On -site fire protection required.
FIRE - On proposed structure, where automotive parts and
tire sales and welding and fabrication shop, a potential
fire hazard could be where they are in some building.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86)
A motion for a deferral, as requested by the applicant, was
made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME:
DEVELOPER:
c/o Donna McCurty
Taco Bell
7606 Pebble Drive
Ft. Worth, TX 76118
Phone: (405) 324 -5444
AREA:
ZONING: PCD
Taco Bell - Markham Street
"Short- Form" PCD (Z -4654)
FMnTNRRR
Arthur Thomas
Phone: 753 -4463
Taco Bell
817 -5100
c/o Jerry Hunt
NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
PROPOSED USES: Commercial - Restaurant
A. Plan Obiectives
1. To improve the use at this location by developing
a new restaurant that will blend in with the earth
tone environment, instead of the existing unkempt,
small rental homes and an institution known as
Peck's, which is in dire need of repair.
B. Proposal
The construction of a tan stucco Taco Bell Restaurant
on a 92' x 250' corner lot. The building will consist
of 28' x 70' of space with 60 parking spaces.
Landscaping will consist of a 4 -foot wide strip around
the property and a 6 -foot fence on the east property
line to buffer the existing apartments. New curb and
gutter will be installed on the entire site. The
ingress and egress on Markham is a controlled single
driveway for improved traffic control.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
C. Analysis
A proposed commercial use at this location was rejected
previously due to its noncompliance with the
Heights /Hillcrest Plan. Staff opposes the project
based on the proposed use and design.
The site is not adequate to place the required lanes
and provide for stacking distance. The plan also
impacts the residential area to the north and does not
allow adequate buffer areas on the east. Engineering
reports that the Traffic Engineer's review is a must,
due to numerous design problems.
D. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was asked to work with the City and Traffic
Engineers to resolve design issues before the public
hearing. The basic problem was identified as use, since the
proposal does not conform to the Heights - Hillcrest Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86)
A motion for a deferral, as requested by the applicant, was
made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Scott Street Addition
"Short- Form" PCD (Z -4655)
Northwest Corner of East
Roosevelt and Scott Streets
ENGINEER:
Thomas Taylor Marlar Engineering Co., Inc.
102 East Roosevelt 5318 JFK Boulevard
Little Rock, AR 72206 North Little Rock, AR
Phone: 374 -9342 Phone: 753 -1987
AREA: .44 acre NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C- 311/ 1'C -4"
PROPOSED USES:
Auto Sales Expansion
STAFF REPORT /ANALYSIS:
This is a proposal to use .44 acre that is currently vacant,
as an auto display area. The existing sales office /shop is
located on an adjacent parcel to the west.
No buildings are planned for this parcel. Thirty -two spaces
are designated for inventory parking.
At the Subdivision Committee meeting, staff had received no
site plan. A detailed plan was received a few days
afterwards. The applicant also explained that the 28'
adjacent to Roosevelt Road that was not in his ownership was
excluded when Roosevelt was built.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was represented by Attorney Coombs. No one
was present in objection. Staff recommends approval,
subject to: (1) Relocation of the 6' opaque fence and
utility pole southward; (2) no access on 25th Street;
(3) widening of Roosevelt entrance to 24', with 20' the
remainder of the drive; (4) elimination of parking stalls 17
and 32. The applicant did not wish to eliminate access to
25' street due to the immense amount of traffic on
Roosevelt, and felt that a fence would be better located on
the property line so as to prevent damage to the cars from
rocks thrown by vandals. The Commission agreed with the
applicant.
A motion was made and passed for approval, subject to
dedication of the needed righ -of -way along Roosevelt. The
vote: 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME:
T /1l1T TT1111 _
DEVELOPER:
James H. Cone
P.O. Box 7387
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 224 -1048
AREA: .95 acres
Executive Park Replat
(Plat of Lot 5R)
10421 West Markham (Southeast
Corner of Executive Court and
West Markham)
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 374 -1666
NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING:
PROPOSED USES: Offices
VARIANCES REQUESTED: 2' encroachment into area established
by 25' setback.
A. Staff Report
The applicant is seeking to legally correct an existing
situation where the structure was built two feet over
the building line.
Staff has no objections.
B. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
SUBDVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
No issues for discussion were identified.
j May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME:
Bernard C. Lensing Replat
LOCATION: Immediately South of #5 Amherst
Cove
DEVELOPER: SURVEYOR:
Bernard C. Lensing William Davis
#5 Amherst Cove
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 663 - 5216/378 -6073
AREA: NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: 11R -2"
PROPOSED USES:
Single Family
This item was withdrawn from the agenda.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME:
LOCATION:
Riggs Tractor Co.
9125 I -30
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 568 -1021
AREA: 40 acres
ZONING: 11I -2"
J.A. Riggs Tractor
9125 I -30
ENGINEER:
Summerlin and Associates
1609 S. Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72206
Phone: 376 -1323
NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
PROPOSED USES: Expansion of existing industrial use.
1. Proposal
The construction of
additional
buildings,
building
expansions, apartment structures, drives
and parking.
2. Use Breakdown
Existing
Proposed
Future
Usage
S.F.
S.F.
Total S.F.
Main office
19,512
2,688
22,200
Parts whse.
15,600
18,050
93,650
Service department
21,000
7,800
28,800
Paint bay
6,000
0
6,000
Fabrication
14,400
700
15,100
Used parts
17,200
10,800
18,000
Truck shop
0
21,200
21,000
Lift truck Sac. 3
0
30,000
30,000
Chassis dyno
0
2,500
2,500
Miscellaneous
0
3,600
3,600
Total
83,712
97,138
180,850
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
3. Phasings
A. 1986 construction
Truck stop entrance road, new fuel island, machine
loading dock, new wash rack and large employee
parking site relocated at perimeter fencing.
B. 1987 -1990 construction
Additional buildings and building expansions, and
associated site improvements.
4. Analysis
There are Master Street Plan problems relating to the
extension of Chicot Road, which are to be resolved with
Engineering. A drainage plan is needed on the east
side. A 50 -foot setback from the street is required.
A 40 -foot right -of -way from the centerline is required.
5. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until further info is received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The real issue to be dealt with was identified at the timing
of the City's land acquisition as related to the Chicot Road
extension.
WATER - A 15 foot easement is required adjoining I -30
right -of -way and on -site for protection is required plus an
acreage charge of $150 per acre.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
3. Phasings
A. 1986 construction
Truck stop entrance road, new fuel island, machine
loading dock, new wash rack and large employee
parking site relocated at perimeter fencing.
B. 1987 -1990 construction
Additional buildings and building expansions, and
associated site improvements.
4. Analysis
There are Master Street Plan problems relating to the
extension of Chicot Road, which are to be resolved with
Engineering. A drainage plan is needed on the east
side. A 50 -foot setback from the street is required.
A 40 -foot right -of -way from the centerline is required.
5. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until further info is received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The real issue to be dealt with was identified at the timing
of the City's land acquisition as related to the Chicot Road
extension.
WATER - A 15 foot easement is required adjoining I -30
right -of -way and on -site for protection is required plus an
acreage charge of $150 per acre.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval, subject to the agreement worked out
with Engineering was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0
noes and 0 absent.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME: Radium Petroleum
Conditional Use Permit
(Z- 2538 -A)
LOCATION: Approximately 1/2 mile east
of the interesection of
Fourche Dam Pike and Lindsay
Road (8401 Lindsay Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Radium Petroleum /Jack Craft
PROPOSAL:
To construct two additional 70,000 barrel petroleum storage
tanks (112' in diamater and 40' in height) to an existing
facility (5 existing storage tanks, 4,000 square feet office
and 9 parking spaces) on 10 acres of land that is zoned
"1-3.11
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to Lindsay Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is part of the Little Rock Port
Industrial Park. It is surrounded by vacant property
with one industrial use located to the west. This
proposal is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
Two existing 36' paved drives serve as access to
Lindsay Road. This property also contains 9 paved
parking spaces.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use the existing trees
and shrubbery.
5. Analysis
Staff feels that this proposal is compatible with the
surrounding area. The application meets City Ordinnace
requirements. *The applicant should check with the
City Environmental Codes Department concerning possible
landscape requirements.
6. City Engineering Comments
None.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. The staff stated that the Fire Department
had requested: (1) a 20 -foot (interior site) all weather
road which would allow access to all storage tanks; (2) that
the future dike be constructed across the entire width of
the property when the next storage tank is constructed. The
applicant agreed to meet with the Fire Department to resolve
the aforementioned issues.
May 13, 1986
I SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The staff stated that the
applicant had meet all requirements and that the Fire
Department had stated that a gravel interior drive would be
adequate. The Commission then voted 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0
absent to approve the application as recommended by the
staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and agreed to
by the applicant.
May 13, 1986
} SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15
NAME:
First Assembly of God Church
Conditional Use Permit (Z -4652)
LOCATION: The north side of Hermitage
Road just east of Autumn Road
(11500 Hermitage Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: First Assembly of God Church/
Charles J. Carlsen
PROPOSAL:
To operate a day -care and school in the present and future
facilities; to build a future Family Life Center of 28,000
square feet (two story); to construct a ball field and a
park; and to provide additional future parking spaces of
4.52 + acres of land that is zoned "R -2."
1
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to Hermitage Road (future Financial Centre
Parkway).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is abutted by single family uses on the
south and east. Vacant property lies to the north and
west. The adjacent properties to the south and west
are zoned "C -3" while property that is located to the
east is zoned "0 -3." The only property that is zoned
single family is adjacent to the northeast. Financial
Centre Parkway will eventually be constructed adjacent
to this property to the south. The church use is
compatible with the surrounding area.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and did not feel adequately
prepared to discuss the myriad of issues associated with
this proposal. He stated that he was thinking of amending
his proposal. The applicant was advised and, subsequently,
agreed to defer the application to the June 10, 1986,
Planning Commission meeting. The staff stated that the
Sewer Department had commented that sewer service was not
available to this property.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86)
The applicant was not present. The Commission voted 11
ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent to defer this application (as per
Subdivision Committee review) until the June 10, 1986,
Planning Commission meeting.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
Kanis Mini - Storage
Conditional Use Permit
(Z- 4653 -A)
The south side of Kanis Road
just west of Bowman Road
(12101 Kanis Road)
Kanis Limited Partnership/
John Collins Burkhalter
of Jim Summerlin & Associates
PROPOSAL:
To construct two new storage buildings (16,140 square feet
total) to an existing mini - storage facility (5 buildings,
37,275 square feet) on approximately 2.6 acres of land that
is zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to an arterial street ( Kanis Road).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is located in an area that is primarily
commercial. It is surrounded on three sides by
commercial uses. A single family use is located above
grade and to the south. The I -430 District Plan
designates this area as neighborhood commercial
center. This existing commercial use is located in a
commercial area that is designated commercial in the
district plan. The staff feels that this land use
proposal will be compatible with the surrounding area.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
This site is served by one 23' paved access drive to
Kanis Road. Virtually, the entire site is paved
(excluding buildings) and can be used for parking.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan.
5. Analysis
The staff foresees the proposed land use as compatible
with the surrounding area. There are, however,
improvements that will be required.
6. City Engineering Comments
The applicant will be required to: (1) dedicate
additional right -of -way on Kanis Road and to construct
Kanis Road to minor arterial standards; and (2) meet
stormwater detention requirements or to provide
off -site drainage improvements.
7. Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends approval, provided the applicant
agrees to comply with the City Engineering requirements
numbered 1 and 2 and subject to the Commission's
approval of the rezoning of the property to "C -3."
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with the
staff's recommendation. He stated that he would meet with
the City Engineer to resolve Engineering issues.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The staff recommended approval with the exception of a
clarification. The staff stated that on -site stormwater
detention was required and that off -site drainage
requirements were the prerogative of the Planning
Commission. The applicant was present. There were 4
objectors also present. Mike Skipper objected on the
grounds that his client was not notified properly. The staff
commented that the applicant had met notification
requirements. The Commission declined to defer the
application. Mr. Earl Williams and Mr. Gary Ferral spoke of
drainage problems whose cause they attributed to this site.
A lengthy discussion ensued over drainage and the best way
to control it. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0 absent,
2 abstentions (Summerlin and Rector) to approve the
application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee, agreed to by the applicant, and
amended by the full Commission to require a 1 in 50 year
rainfall on -site detention versus the ordinary requirement
of 1 in 25 years.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 -A - Z -4653
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
PURPOSE:
SIZE:
EXISTING USE:
Kanis Ltd. Partnership
G. Warren Stephenson
12101 Kanis Road (west of
Bowman Road)
Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3"
Mini - Warehouses
2.6 acres +
Mini- Warehouses (nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
East - Commercial (Vacant), Zoned "R -2"
West - Commercial, Zoned "PCD"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone the tract to "C -3." The site is
occupied by a nonconforming mini - warehouse facility, and the
proposal is to add some additional units which also requires
approval of a conditional use permit (Item No. 16 on this
agenda). The property is located on Kanis Road, west of
Bowman, in an area that has a number of nonconforming uses.
On the north side of Kanis, there is a large nursery and on
Bowman south of Kanis, there are some nonresidential uses,
all having nonconforming status. The zoning is primarily
"R -2" in the immediate vicinity with a "PCD" on the west
side of the property in question and a "C -3" site on Bowman.
Further to the west on Bowman, the zoning pattern is more
diverse with "MF -18, "0 -1," "0 -3" and "C -3."
The I -430 District Plan identifies the site for commercial
use, part of a neighborhood commercial service area. A
"C -3" reclassification is appropriate for that type of
zoning pattern, and staff supports the rezoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" as filed.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 -A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was represented by John Burkhalter, an
engineer. There were four persons present who expressed an
interest in the item. Mr. Burkhalter spoke briefly and
discussed both the conditional use permit and the rezoning.
He also addressed the drainage issue and some possible
solutions. Mike Skipper, representing a property owner to
the east, then spoke. He said that his client had not been
notified and requested a possible deferral because of the
lack of notification. Staff informed the Commission that
all the required notices had been mailed using the
information provided by an abstract company. Gary Ferrell
said he had no problems with the "C -3" rezoning, but was
very concerned with the runoff /drainage situation. There
was a long discussion about the drainage which included
comments made by Mike Batie of the City Engineering staff.
Earl Williams, another property owner, also discussed the
drainage problem. Mr. Skipper questioned the Commission
about the deferral request. It was pointed out that no
motion had been offered to defer the item. The Commission
then voted on the "C -3" zoning as filed. The vote 9 ayes,
noes, 0 absent and 2 abstentions (Bill Rector and Jim
Summerlin).
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Other Matters - Street Abandonment
NAME: Kimball Street
LOCATION: A street running north to
south between East 3rd Street
and East 4th Street
OWNER /APPLICANT: Larry W. Sanders
REQUEST: To abandon the right -of -way
and join with abutting lots
as yard area
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
None, inasmuch as the street has never been opened to
public usage.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no requirements for this right -of -way.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
None, as all of the abutting streets are to City
right -of -way standards.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
A flat tract which is maintained by abutting owners and
terminates at a levee on the north.
5. Development Potential
None, except as yard area for abutting lots.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
No adverse effect should be experienced since the
physical characteristics will not change.
I
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
7. Neighborhood Position
None expressed or expected.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
None, except that the ordinance of abandonment should
contain the standard utility clause.
9. Reversionary Rights
To be divided equally between the two abutting owners.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
This abandonment of unopened and unused right -of -way
will return to the private sector a land area that will
be productive for the real estate tax base.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends approval of this abandonment as
requested, subject to retention of utility and drainage
easement rights.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. The staff offered a recommendation of
approval. After a brief discussion, the Planning Commission
voted to approve the petition and recommend the abandonment
to the City Board. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes
and 0 noes.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Other Matters - Street Abandonment
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
Turtle Creek Drive
South of St. Charles Boulevard
1/2 block east of Napa Valley
Road
Agape Church, Inc.
To abandon the right -of -way
and combine with abutting
church holdings
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
None, inasmuch as the Agape Church has acquired all
abuting lands to the south, east and west. These lands
have been incorporated into the church site. This
street is not needed as an access to the church
properties.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no requirements.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
None, inasmuch as the neighborhood streets have been
platted and constructed to City Master Street Plan
requirements.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
A standard residential street of 27' in width and 129'
in length. There is a minor grade rising from north to
south. The right -of -way is currently under fence.
5. Development Potential
This street was platted for purposes of access to later
phases of Turtle Creek Residential Subdivision. These
phases did not occur inasmuch as the Agape Church
acquired those lands from the developer; therefore,
this street serves only two platted lots now vacant.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Continued
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The area to the east and north are built up as single
family. To the south lies a church and on the west a
vacant lot on Napa Valley Road. No adverse effect is
expected.
7. Neighborhood Position
None expressed, none expected.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
The only comment received of a negative nature was from
the Little Rock Fire Department. They have stated they
oppose this action.
9. Reversionary Rights
This right -of -way will revert to the church as the
single abuting owner. The church holds titles to lots
on both sides as well as to the south.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
(1) The abandonment of this unopened and unused
segment of street right -of -way will return to the
private sector a land area that will be productive
for the real estate tax base.
(2) The abandonment will eliminate the potential for
the extension of access to an area which could
prove hazardous and possible vehicle congestion at
a busy intersection.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends a denial of this abandonment
based on the objection of the Fire Department. In the event
that resolution of that problem can be gained by the date of
the Planning Commission meeting, we will support the
abandonment conditioned on the following items:
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Continued
a. Retaining utility and drainage rights within the
ordinance.
b. The removal of all vestiges of the existing street
within what will become the right -of -way of
St. Charles Boulevard across the intersection.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. The Planning staff offered a modified
recommendation in light of the developing opposition from
the Turtle Creek neighborhood and the Fire Department's
objection to abandonment. The recommendation encouraged a
30 -day deferral or until June 10, 1986, in order to provide
sufficient time for the church and the various neighborhood
leaders to work out differences. The applicant agreed to
the deferral. A motion was then made to defer this matter
to the June 10, 1986, Planning Commisison meeting. The
motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 noes.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Other Matters - Alley Abandonment
NAME: Block 14, Midland Hill Addition
LOCATION: All of the remaining alleys in
the block between Ridgeway,
Alpine Court, Crystal Avenue
and West Markham Street
OWNER /APPLICANT: Randy Breece
REQUEST: To abandon all of the
right -of -way and join with
adjacent lots for reuse as
private yard areas
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
This right -of -way has not been in use by the general
public, especially since the north 100' has been closed
for several years. The south entry off West Markham
Street had physical access limitations. Access to the
properties surrounded by the alley is by way of a
private access easement between adjacent structures.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no requirements.
3. Need for Right-of-Wav on Adiacent Streets
All abutting streets are to City standards.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
Most of the several alley components are either filled,
cut, inaccessible or unimproved. Currently, only one
abutting owner has use of this right -of -way.
5. Development Potential
None, except in conjunction with the redevelopment of
abutting residential lots.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Continued
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
All abutting lots are built upon as residential and
used as such. The effect of this abandonment will be
to preclude access and development of the interior of
the block in an adverse fashion.
7. Neighborhood Position
All of the abutting owners are participants in this
petition. There is no known objection.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
All utilities and drainage easement rights should be
retained.
9. Reversionaty Rights
This right -of -way will be equally distributed between
the abutting owners based on their frontage.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
a. The abandonment /of this unopened and unused
segment of alley right -of -way will return to
the private sector a land area that will be
productive for the real estate tax base.
b. The abandonment will eliminate the potential
for the extension of rights -of -way to West
Markham Street which could prove hazardous to
both vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of these
several alley segments as requested with the following
conditions:
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Continued
1. That the owner file a subdivision replat of the
affected lots and right -of -way including the two
abutting lots on West Markham Street. The purpose of
this plat will be the restructuring of both access to
the internal lot in the middle of the block numbered 18
and provide for a legal frontage for that lot on West
Markham Street.
2. That the plat and subsequent construction provide no
through traffic between West Markham Street and
Ridgeway or Crystal.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86)
The Planning staff briefly discussed the status of this
petition inasmuch as several of the petition signatures have
been removed by specific requests of Attorney Steven
Quattlebaum. The staff suggested that the petition no
longer has a formal status before the Commission. The
applicant, Mr. Randy Breece, was in attendance and offered
comments on his proposal. There were several objectors
present. The issue of the petitioners withdrawing names was
discussed at length. The attorney for six objectors which
are the persons whose names were removed, presented a letter
of withdrawal. The City Attorney Pat Benton, offered
comments to the effect that the petition is flawed once the
names are withdrawn and under the State Statute which
establishes the procedure all of the abutting owners are
required to sign. A general discussion then followed
whereby the Planning Commission received comments from both
sides of the issue. Those offering comments were:
Mr. Mason Lawson, Mr. Steve Quattlebaum, Mr. George Wimberly
and Mr. James Ryan. The comments of these several speakers
ranged from flooding damage due to Mr. Breece's current
construction work, to West Markham Street access and unknown
land use issues. The chairman declared the hearing closed.
A motion was made to remove the item from the agenda. The
motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 noes.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 - Other Matters - Street Abandonment
NAME: East 26th Street
LOCATION: One block south of Roosevelt
Road running east off South
Main Street
OWNER /APPLICANT: St. John Baptist Church
REQUEST:
To abandon the one half
block of street and reuse
as church property
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
None, as evidenced by many years of never being in use
or improved.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no requirements.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
There are no requirements.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
The street currently is a flat grade and unimproved.
5. Development Potential
None, except as a portion of the abutting lots.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
No adverse effect should be experienced. The
petitioner has acquired most of the several abutting
blocks for expansion of the church and will
incorporate this right -of -way in that development.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 - Continued
7. Neiqhborhood Position
None reported at this writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
The church will negotiate removal of utilities so as to
be able to build across this right -of -way with a new
church structure.
9. Reversionary Rights
The church will receive the entire right -of -way after
abandonment.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
This street serves no one at this time. It will be
better utilized as private property. There are no
specific issues attached to this right -of -way inasmuch
as it has never been in use as a public street.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff recommends approval as requested with a
condition that the utility companies provide a written
release of easement rights prior to the City Board approval
of the ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted
to recommend approval of this abandonment petition to the
City Board. The motion conditioned on those items raised by
staff. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 noes.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21 - Other Matters - Street Abandonment
NAME:
Unnamed Street (an extension
of Baker Street)
LOCATION: A two block street right -of -way
less and except the west 325'
running east and west
of Kanis Road, two blocks
south of Pride Valley Road
OWNER /APPLICANT: William E. & Laverne Jones
by Hal Joseph Kemp
REQUEST: To abandon an unopened and
unused street for purposes
of land redevelopment
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Riqht -of -Wa
None, as evidenced by the right -of -way not being used
or constructed since the initial platting.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no Master Street Plan requirements.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
There are no abutting street issues.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
A gentle grade rising from west to east. The
right -of -way is currently encroached upon by a
residential structure.
5. Development Potential
None without substantial modification of several
ownerships and then only with abutting lots. It would
not serve the plat being developed at its east
terminus.
May 13, 1986
1 SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(5- 13 -86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. The Commission voted to recommend approval of
the abandonment to the City Board of Directors subject to
staff comment. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0
noes.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22
NAME:
Parkway Place Preliminary
Modification
LOCATION: East of High Point and High
Point Cove
APPLICANT:
Joe White
Edward G. Smith & Assoc.
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374 -1666
A. Staff Report
The applicant is requesting that the plat be revised to
eliminate one lot and add a new street connection in
its place.
Staff has no problems with the request.
B. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission without
adverse comments. Staff indicated that this would be
followed by a final plat submission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.23 - Extraterritorial Land Use Plan
The general plan for Areas 1 -3 of the Extraterritorial Plan
have been prepared by the consultants (MCMM, Garver and
Garver) and the staff. The plan illustrates proposed land
uses, steep slopes, floodplains and streets.
This plan is general in nature and will be later refined
through the No. 2 and No. 3 District Plans. The Highway 10
Plan was the first district plan in the three -plan series.
Of particular interest are the commercial, office and
multifamily allocation areas of the Rock Creek Parkway area.
The staff has modified the consultant's original
recommendation in the Parkway to shift the major node of
commercial north to the intersection of two proposed
arterials. The staff considered the intersection of the
arterial coming south from Taylor Loop with the Highway 300
arterial as a major intersection justifying a major
commercial commitment.
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24 - Other Matters
Discussion: First Federal, ERC
Aldersgate Development
�
DATE� / j,g,g
PLANNING ·c OM MISSION
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
·ZONING SUBDIVISION
MEMBER
J.
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Sipes
J.Nicholson
w.Rector
W.Ketcher
D.Arnett
O. J. Jones
I.Boles
F.Perkins
VAYE @ NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
,..___
oATEd44/f&
PLANNING ·c OM MISSION
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
·ZONING ·· SUBDIVISION
MEMBER /.7 /JJ /9 22 �/ � 23 J£j
J.SummPrlin v / / / / / ,//.
J .. Schlereth / / / / / / J/
R.Massie / t/ � / / / lr1
B.Sipes / ,/ ,V / V / vii'
J.Nicholson 1/ / / / / /
w.Rector / V ti / / / /
V / i/ :./ / / /..w.Ketcher
D.Arnett / ( V / / I V
O. J. Jones / i/ ti / �/ / ,
I.Boles V I / //, / / J/
F.Perkins V / I I / I v
VAYE NAYE A ABSENT' -�ABSTAIN
,,
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 P.M.
11hairman
ASecreta
Date