pc_04 08 1986subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
APRIL 8, 1986
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 11 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were read and approved.
III. Members Present: J. Summerlin
j J. Schlereth
R. Massie
B. Sipes
J. Nicholson
W. Rector
W. Ketcher
D. Arnett
D.J. Jones
I. Boles
F. Perkins
III. City Attorney Present: Pat Benton
I
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
APRIL 8, 1986
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. South Park Street CUP (Z -4600)
B. Granite Ridge Addition
PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1. Shadow Ridge Preliminary, 2nd Addition
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
2. Avonshire "Short -Form PRD" (Z -4629)
3. Hunter's Cove "Long -Form PRD" (Z -4633)
4. Captain D's at Markham "Short -Form PCD" (Z -4631)
5. Mabelvale Church of Christ "Long -Form PRD" (Z -4630)
CTMV nT AM nVX7TVTe7.
6. Security Storage - Revised Site Plan Review
7. Simmons Center - Site Plan Review (Z- 2959B)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
8. Razorback Square CUP (Z- 3763 -A)
9. Marie. Montessori Children's Center CUP (Z- 4028 -A)
10. Greater Center Star Baptist CUP (Z- 4420 -A)
11. Second Baptist Church CUP (Z -4632)
OTHER MATTERS:
12. Little Rock Freezer Addition Phasing Plan
13. Block 16, Bowman's Addition, Alley Abandonment
14. C.J. Dixon Building Line Waiver
15. Appointment of Nominating Committee for Distinguished
Development Awards
April 8, 1986
r SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
1D0n'Dncnr .
South Park Street Duplex
Conditional Use Permit
(Z -4600)
Just South of 22nd Street on the
West side of South Park Street
(2224 South Park Street)
Miriam Ford /Garland Ford
To convert an existing 2,140 square feet single family house
to a duplex and pave three parking spaces on land that is
zoned "R -3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site location
Adjacent to a residential street (South Park).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The property adjacent to the south is used as a duplex
while the surrounding adjacent uses are single family.
The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding
area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The proposal contains one paved access (South Park
Street) and three paved parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
5. Analysis
The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding
area. The proposal to renovate the existing structure
will enhance the neighborhood as the structure is
currently condemnable condition. The applicant needs
to be advised that he will be required to meet City
landscape requirements.
6. Citv Engineerinq Comments
The parking area should be approved by the Traffic
Engineer prior to construction.
7. Staff Recommendation
The staff recomends approval as filed and: (1) reminds
the applicant that he will be required to meet City
landscape requirements; (2) approval is subject to City
Engineering comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff's
recommendations.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 11, 1986)
The applicant was not present. The Commission voted 8 ayes,
0 noes, 3 absent to defer the application until the
March 11, 1986, Planning Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The item was not discussed.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (March 11, 1986)
The applicant was not present. The Commission voted 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent to defer this application until the
April 8, 1986, Planning Commission Meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The item was not discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4 -8 -86)
1
The applicant was present. One person objected to the
length of time that it would take to renovate the existing
structure. The Commission stated that time was not an
issue. The Commission then voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent to approve the application as recommended by the
staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to
by the applicant.
ADDENDUM TO APRIL 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
April 8. 1986
Item No. C - Hiahwav 10 District Land Use Plan -
Extraterritorial Study.
The first of the district level land use plans for the
extraterritorial plan has been prepared by the consultant
and staff. The Highway 10 Plan has been reviewed by the
Extraterritorial Citizen Advisory Group, the Highway 10
Citizen Group and the Plans Committee.
The details of the plan will be discussed at the meeting by
the consultant and staff.
The Plans Committee has r: commended the adoption of the plan
with two areas of concern. These are the 150' building
setback line and the preservation of Pankey for single
family. The Plans Committee felt that Pankey should have
two land use options for discussion: (1) single family and
(2) transition zone.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 25 -86)_
After hearing consultant and staff presentations and
j testimony from property owners and other interested persons,
the Commission voted unanimously to close the public hearing
and to defer voting on the plan until April 8, 1986. Voting
was deferred to allow time for members of the Commission,
consultants, and staff to consider possible amendments to
the plan.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME: Granite Ridge Addition
LOCATION: North side of Woodyard Road,
approximately 300 feet from
Southwest intersection of
Dixon Road and Woodyard Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Metropolitan Trust Co. Thomas Engineering Company
3901 McCain Park Drive 3810 Lookout Road
No. Little Rock, AR 72116 North Little Rock, AR 72116
Phone: 758 -1212 Phone: 753 -4463
AREA: 28.86 acres NO. OF LOTS: 63 FT. NEW STREET: 3,425
ZONING: Outside City
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Existing Conditions
This area is currently located in a community outside
of the City that is mainly composed of single family
and industrial uses. The land involved is wooded and
elevations range from 300' to 370'.
B. Development Proposal
This proposal contains 28.86 acres, 63 lots and 3,425
linear feet of new street. Sewer will be provided by
septic tanks.
C. Engineering Comments
(1) Right -of -way and boundary street improvements will
be required of Woodyard Road. The right -of -way is
a total of 50', and a paved width of 27'.
1 Therefore, one -half of the street improvements and
right -of -way dedication will be required.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
(2) Stormwater detention required on -site.
D. Analysis
This site is located in a mining area which is
experiencing some development pressure. The applicant
should provide: (1) proof of percolation on sample
lots and provide a State Health Department letter;
(2) change the name of Castle and Callen Drives; and
(3) look at the elimination of part of Gurden Drive in
Block 4 and the provision of a cul -de -sac. Staff feels
that the lots are a little small for septic tanks.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant, Mr. Basil Shoptaw, agreed to provide the
requested cul -de -sac, but reported that he hadn't gone to
the Health Department as of yet. The applicant asked for
reduced street standards. It was requested that he meet
with Engineering and discuss street standards and meet with
the State Health Department also.
Water Works - Main extension required plus an acreage charge
of $100 per acre will apply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for deferral, as requested by the applicant, was
made and passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of
the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
By request of the applicant, a motion for deferral was made
and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Properties West, Inc.
262 S. Shackleford
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: 224 -3055
Shadow Ridge 2nd Addition
Shadowlake Drive and Farris St.
Edward G. Smith and Assoc.
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374 -1666
AREA: 1.29 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
FEET NEW ST.: 0
A. Existing Conditions
This is a wooded parcel that is located in an area that
generally consists of mixed residential uses. It is
bordered by a 10' alley on the west, a 50' right -of -way
on the north )Shadowlake Drive), a 40' right -of -way on
the east (Farris Street), and a 40' right -of -way on the
south, (Cates Avenue). Improvements are in place on
Shadowlake Drive.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing to replat 1.9 acres into
four lots for residential use. The lot sizes will be
70' x 200.53' and 70' x 200.541. Improvements are
proposed for Nix Road and Cates Avenue.
April 8, 1986
} SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
C. Analysis
This property was recently before the Commission for
review as a Multifamily PUD. During that review, there
was opposition to the proposed closure of Farris
Street, which is currently physically unopened.
Staff review of the item revealed that the proposed
lots do meet the required width to depth ratio. The
ordinance prohibits lots that are more than three times
as deep as they are wide. Also, a 50' right -of -way on
Farris Street, plans for stormwater detention and
closure of the alley are requested. The applicant is
asked to provide 75' on corner lots and the required
building line on Farris Street.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Several issues were discussed. Engineering reported that
the improvement of Farris Road would be both difficult and
expensive because of a large drainage swale. They felt that
closure of this right -of -way was better, but realized that
politically this may be difficult due to previous
opposition. The applicant's engineer felt that improvements
to Farris Road would require him to revise the plat.
It was decided that the applicant should: (1) close the
alley, (2) revise the plat to reflect 75' on corner lots,
(3) be allowed flexibility in creating intersections on
existing conditions (this would include a waiver of
5 percent street grade requirement), and (4) be allowed to
waive street improvement on Farris.
r1t i 1 i t i P�-- _
Water - Main extension required in Nix Road and Cates
Avenue.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A motion for approval of the
plan, subject to all comments made, was passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - A - Street Right -of -Way Abandonment
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
STAFF REVIEW:
Alley in Block 4 of Gibralter
Heights Addition
Between Cates Avenue and Shadow
Lake Drive
Properties West, Inc.
To abandon the alley and replat
the right -of -way into the
adjacent residential lots.
T. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
None inasmuch as the alley has not been in use.
2. Master Street Plan
No right -of -way issues attendant to this petition.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
Adjacent streets are either to City standard or being
platted as such by a replat of the block.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
Rough undeveloped land with minor grade changes.
5. Development Potential
The Planning Commission recommends abandonment of this
alley as a condition of approval of a replat of this
block. The alley has little or no potential except as
a portion of this replat.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - A - Continued
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
This neighborhood is mixed; multifamily on the north,
vacant land east and south with single family plat
underway on the west. No adverse effect should occur.
7. Neighborhood Position
None expressed at this writing. None is expected
inasmuch as this petitioner owns all of the abutting
land.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
No adverse effect.
maintained.
9. Reversionary Rights
All utility easements will be
To this petitioner entirely.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
1. The elimination of this paper alley will
return to the tax rolls a piece of
unproductive land which will be yard area of
new single family homes.
2. The Potential for public maintenance is
removed.
3. Unnecessary intersections are eliminated
which could cause conflict for traffic access
to the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval subject to retention of utility
easement rights within the Abandonment Ordinance.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4 -8 -86)
There were no objectors present. Mr. White was present
representing the petitioner. After a brief discussion, the
Planning Commission voted to recommend approval as
recommended by the staff. The vote 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1
absent.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME: Avonshire Building
Mixed Used "Short -Form PRD"
(Z -4629)
DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT:
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
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.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - 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.
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 - espec -ially 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.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME:
LOCATION:
nLINT LIT M3 LID .
Properties West, Inc.
262. S. Shackleford
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: 224 -3055
Hunter's Cove "Long -Form PRD"
(Z -4633)
West end of Hunter's Glen
Boulevard
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith & Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374 -1666
AREA: 9.95 acres NO. OF LOTS: 41 FEET NEW ST.: 2,000
ZONING: PRD
PROPOSED USE: Residential PRD
A. Development Objectives
1. To provide a zero -lot -line single family
residential development.
2. The construction of 41 lots on 9.95 acres.
B. Development Proposal
1. The construction of single level garden homes on
all exterior lots with some two level units in the
interior of the project. Dwelling sizes will vary
from 1800 square feet to 2600 square feet.
2. Lot sizes will vary from 52' x 115' to 100' x
117'.
3. All garages will be rear or side loaded. The
streets and driveways will be concrete.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
4. Landscaping will surpass those required.
5. Streets are to be public.
6. The draw on the west side will be left in its
natural state by crossing it at right angles with
access streets. A small pond will be developed in
the draw to provide a point of interest in the
open space planned along the draw. A walking path
is also planned as shown.on the plat.
7. A property owner's association for permanent
maintenance of driveways and open space is
planned.
C. Analysis
Staff feels that this will be a very good project.
There is no problem regarding the use, and the plan
density is about 4.6 units per acre.
The streets as designed with stub -outs cannot be
public. They must be private or redesigned with a 15'
alley around the development and an increase of
right -of -way to 50' and 27'. The applicant should also
make all the stub -outs private. The vicinity map on
the plan is wrong.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
E. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant was asked to meet with Engineering and
work out an agreement regarding the proposed streets.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
Utilities:
Water - Main extension required.
Sewer - Sewer available - Capacity contribution
analysis required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval subject to an agreement with Engineering
regarding the stubout streets was made and passed by a vote
of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
April 8, 1986
l SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME: Captain D's on Markham
"Short -Form PCD" (Z -4631)
LOCATION: NE Corner of North Fillmore and
West Markham
AGENT:
Olan Asbury
Thomas Harding, Jr.
c/o 2228 Cottondale Lane
Suite 102
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 663 -7005
SURVEYOR:
011en D. Wilson
ARCHITECT:
Gerald Rogers
220 North Van Buren
Little Rock, AR 72204
Phone: 663 -8623
AREA: .445 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2.5 FEET NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "0 -3"
PROPOSED USE: Restaurant
A. Development Proposal
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.
1,
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - 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.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
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:
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USE:
1 unplatted tract FEET NEW ST.: 0
Church /Elderly Housing
A. Development Objectives
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.)
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
B. Development Proposal
1. Parcel size ..................
11.4 acres
Acreage with right -of -way
18.36 acres
2. Project floor areas -
Existing church .............
21,730 sq. ft.
Existing residence ..........
4,233 sq. ft.
Proposed 2- bedroom apts. -
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.
April 8, 1986
y SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
Staff recognizes the applicant's problem due to the
existing policy that all rights -of -way be dedicated to
the City and that improvements be made at the time of
platting. The applicant has 6.7 acres of his property
in the right -of -way. Staff recommends an alternate
solution at this time:
(1) Submission of a two -lot final plat.
(2) Right -of -way dedication on Mabelvale West Road.
(3) Boundary street improvements on Mabelvale West.
(4) Phasing plan showing when housing units are to be
built /reserved tract.
(5) Redesign of the drive in front of the existing
church.
(6) Detention ponds.
(7) Dimensions on drives and parking areas.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was represented by Attorney Herb Rule and
Architect Horace A. Piazza. Staff clarified the implication
in the write -up that the City wanted the church to dedicate
the right -of -way. The item was discussed. Mr. Rule asked
for further clarification on the procedure. He was told by
Engineering that the state or city would have to purchase
property within one year of the date the plat was approved
and give 60 days notice. Mr. Piazza explained that the
church needed to get the right -of -way issue cleared up since
they were currently paying interest on the property and
needed the money to do further development.
April 8, 1986
I SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - 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.
MARCH 1986
MABELVALE CHURCH OF CHRIST: HISTORY OF EVENTS SINCE FIRST
PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR DEVEL-
OPMENT OF ELDERLY HOUSING.
A. HISTORY
In October of 1983 the Church purchased a 6.4 acre
site West of and adjoining the West property line of their
9.7 acre Church site. This new site was for development
of housing for Elderly church members. In March of 1984
the architectural firm of Horace A. Piazza and Associates
began working on the design development plans for this
site.
In May of 1984, Luke Quinn and representatives of
Riverview Hospital approached the Church on trading an
8.6 acre site North of and adjoining the church North
property line for the 6.4 acre site on the West. Exchange
of these properties was negotiated and was finalized by
August of 1984.
The basic reason for this exchange was to accommodate
the Riverview Hospital because the 6.4 acre site allowed
their property to be one large tract of land without any
doglegs, At the time it was also considered a good ex-
change for the church since the 8.6 acre site was farther
removed from the traffic of Mabelvale West Road.
With the exchange finalized the architect began design
development plans on the 8.6 acre site. In a December 1984
meeting with Comprehensive Planning regarding this site
development we were informed that preliminary studies for
extension of I 430 to the East was under way by the Highway
Department and the Pulaski Area Transportation Study
Coordinating Committee. A drawing was revealed showing
three proposed routes for extension of I 430 to Mabelvale
West Road.
The proposed routes consisted of a route A which
traversed in a South direction across the Riverview Hospital
property which would have eliminated construction of the
Hospital on their site. A route B which traversed diag-
onally across the 8.6 acre Church site obtained in the
exchange mentioned above. A route C which was farther North
and would have taken only a corner of the 8.6 acre Church
site.
Page 2
On January 8, 1985 the Pulaski Area Transportation
Study Coordinating Committee endorsed a route for alignment
of I 430 extension to the East to the Board of Directors
for approval. The endorsed route was plan B which consumed
approximately 6.7 acres of the 8.6 acre church site and
0.2 acres of the original church site. Attached is a
drawing showing this route.
On March 5, 1985 the Little Rock Board of Directors
approved this alignment of 3 430 extension as part of the
Little Rock Master Street Plan.
B. REFLECTIONS
The original concept in 1983 for housing of Elderly
church members was to purchase a separate adjacent site
that would have space for 50 or more apartments in cottage
type units plus supporting facilities, for a complete
retirement complex. This concept retained the original
church site for expansion of church facilities and outdoor
activity areas.
With only 1.7 acres net gain after the property for
the proposed right of way was consumed by the master street
plan, the only possible way to develop housing for the
Elderly was to utilize the existing church property.
Cost of construction will be more due to the drainage
area and sewer easement across the original church site,
than if the development were on the higher ground of the
8.6 acre site.
PROPOSED 1 430 EXTENSION
First 6.4 acres purr ha
a
for Elderly housing t
!exchanged for property
Nprth of orig. Church
property.:
ERYtEW HOSPITAL
ORIGINA1.1 CHURCH: PROPERTY'
V
:GPERTY
MABLEVALE, WEST; ROAD:
x`
..�1
- ?�t�i, a..h.
a
PROPOSED I 430 EXTENSION
f %
i
i First 6.4 acres purcha
for Elderly- housing th
l exc hanged for property
Nprth of orig. Church
property.
liEF2WiEVI HOSPtTAL
0PERTY
I
ORIGMIAL .CHURCH PROPERTY
:UABLEVALE -W.EST ROAD
1
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Security Storage
Partnership
Security Storage Revised
Site Plan Review
Northwest corner of Chicot
and I -30
APPLICANT /ENGINEER:
Allen Curry
Brooks and Curry Engineers
P.O. Box 897
North Little Rock, AR 72115
Telephone 372 -2131
A. Staff Report
This is a revision of a previously reviewed site plan.
The applicant has revised the plan according to staff's
request. He has provided at least ten feet between the
buildings and identified the proposed uses in the one
story buildings. He now needs to show the required
parking to support the uses shown.
B. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until further information is received.
C. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant was asked to indicate handicapped spaces
and landscaping on the plan.
rtti 1 i ti ems-
Water - On -site fire protection required as platted.
Sewer - Proposed plans are approved; sewer available.
I April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
f
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME:
Simmons Center Site Plan
Review (Z- 2959 -B)
LOCATION: 622 feet east of the
intersection of Rodney Parham
Road and Pleasant Valley Farm
Road
OWNER /APPLICANT: Chris Robertson /Polk Stanley
Gray Ltd, Kevin McClurkan
PROPOSAL:
To construct two three -story office buildings (39,890 square
feet each) and 284 paved parking spaces on 4.57 acres of
land that is zoned °0-2.°
ANALYSIS:
This property is the first phase of what will be a
substantial office development. The property is well suited
to office development. This proposal meets City ordinance
requirements with regard to parking and bulk and area
requirements. There are a number of engineering issues that
need to be resolved.
CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
(1) The applicant needs to meet the City's detention
requirements;
(2 ) Increase the width of all access drives to 25 feet and
adjust the proposed south drive so that it is
perpendicular to Anderson Drive;
(3) Check with Environmental Codes to ensure that landscape
and handicapped parking requirements have been met; and
�. (4) Approval of this project is subject to the resolution
of all related Traffic Engineering issues.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to the applicant agreeing to comply with
City Engineering requirements numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. A lengthy discussion was held on
the traffic issues. It was reported that the Rodney Parham
and Pleasant Valley Farm Road issue had been resolved to the
satisfaction of all parties. Additional traffic issues were
discussed without resolution. The Committee requested a
thorough report on this matter on the 8th of April. The
Little Rock Wastewater and Water Works Utility reported that
water and sewer main extensions will be required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The City Traffic Engineer stated
that an agreement had been worked out with the developer and
that all the issues had been resolved. The Commission then
voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent to approve the
application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Razorback Square - Conditional
Use Permit (Z- 3763 -A)
The NW corner of the
intersection of Riverfront
Drive and Cantrell Road
First Real Estate Development
Corporation /Barnes, Quinn,
Flake and Anderson, Inc.,
(Sam Anderson)
To use 5,954 square feet of space in the Razorback Shopping
Center for retail sales and installation of cellular mobile
phones, on land that is zoned "C -3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This property fronts on a major arterial (Cantrell
Road).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is surrounded on three sides by
commercial uses. A railroad lies adjacent to the
north. The proposed use is compatible with the
surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkin
This proposal is part of a larger development that
contains four access drives to Cantrell Road and
hundreds of existing paved parking spaces.
i
April 8, 1986
i
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
The development is existing and has been landscaped.
5. Analysis
This proposal is compatible with the surrounding area.
The two auto service bays located in the rear of the
building provide an adequate (30 feet) paved service
drive. The staff foresees no adverse impact to the
surrounding area.
6. City Engineering Comments
None.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent to approve the
application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
i
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Maria Montessori Children's
Center - Conditional Use
Permit (Z- 4208 -A)
The SE corner of 16th and
Marshall Streets (1601 Marshall
Street)
Diocese of Little Rock /Dixon
Flake
To obtain a conditional use permit which would allow a
pre- kindergarten and elementary school (grades 1 -8) (maximum
capacity 125 total) in an existing school building that is
zoned "R- 4 " /C.U.P.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site is located adjacent to three residential
streets (West 16th Street on the north, West 17th
Street on the south, and Marshall Street on the west).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is located in a mixed use area. Single
family uses are adjacent to the north and west (and
also a church), a multifamily use is located to the
south and a college is located to the east. The
existing structures have been used as an elementary
school in the past as well as a business college. The
proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
Two paved accesses currently service the site (Marshall
Street and the alley). Parking consists of 33 paved
spaces.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
The site is completely built and developed. The
applicant will be required to meet all pertinent
landscape requirements.
5. Analysis
This proposal is compatible with the surrounding area.
The existing facility has a long history of use as an
educational institution, first as a private elementary
school and later as a business college (which required
a conditional use permit). The proposed montessori
school will in all likelihood, be a less intense use
than the previous use (business college). This
proposal meets the ordinance parking requirements.
6. City Engineering
Approval, subject to the applicant meeting with the
City Traffic Engineer to resolve traffic circulation
issues.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) meet
all City landscape requirements; and (2) meet with the
Traffic Engineer to resolve traffic circulation
issues.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The applicant stated he could
accept the Staff comment and would work with City Traffic
Engineer to resolve circulation issues.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent to approve the
application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
PRnP(1SAT,
Greater Center Star Baptist
Church - Conditional Use
Permit (Z- 4420 -A)
The NE corner of West 33rd and
Izard Streets
Greater Center Star Baptist
Church /Raymond Branton
To clear the site of four residential and two church
structures, and to construct a church building (13,362
square feet, capacity 300) and 77 paved parking spaces on
land that is zoned "R- 4 " /C.U.P.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to four residential streets (West Short 32nd
Street on the north, West 33rd Street on the south,
Izard Street on the west, and Riffel Avenue on the
east).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The existing church is located in a predominately
single family area. The church has, however, purchased
additional property which unified its holdings (as
opposed to the originally approved conditional use
permit). The staff feels that this assemblage of
property will provide for a superior site development
and be more compatible than the existing approval
and /or church use.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The proposal contains three access drives (two on
Riffel Avenue and one on Izard Street) and 77 paved
parking spaces.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the current proposal is compatible
with the surrounding area. The staff also feels that
this proposal is superior to the initial application.
6. City Engineering Comments
The applicant needs to close the alley and change the
alley access drive so that it is perpendicular to
Riffel Avenue. The applicant needs to meet handicapped
parking requirements.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to the applicant agreeing to comply
with the City Engineering requirements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to the alley being
closed prior to the Certificate of Occupancy Permit being
issued.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Mr. Ron Settles stated that he
would like more information about the church's proposal.
Mr. Settles later stated that he was satisfied with the
church proposal. The Commission then voted 8 ayes, 0 noes
and 3 absent to approve the application as recommended by
the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed
to by the applicant.
April 8, 1986
? SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME:
Second Baptist Church -
Conditional Use Permit
(Z -4632)
LOCATION: The NW corner of Tatum and West
39th Street Right -of -Way
(3900 Tatum Street)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Second Baptist Church
Drula Rawlins /Rev. Billy Simmons
nT)nT3nenr .
To construct a 1,000 square foot education building addition
to an existing church which has a capacity of 200 on land
that is zoned "R -3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (Tatum Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
Vacant land abuts the existing church on both the north
and east. A single family use is located adjacent to
the parking area to the south with vacant land and a
single family use located to the west. The church is
compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parki
The church has one access drive from Tatum Street and
parking (for 40 cars) (all gravel) *.
*The church requested that it not be required to pave
the parking area due to the fact that the property is
leased, not owned, and the fact that the church owns
property on John Barrow Road where it intends to
construct its future facility.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that this proposal will not have an
adverse impact on the surrounding area. The applicant
will, however, be required to meet City landscape and
handicapped parking requirements.
6. City Engineering Comments
The parking lot must be constructed to City standards.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) meet
City landscape and handicapped parking requirements;
(2) construct a parking area to City standards.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The applicant made comments
relative to the variance that they are requesting which
would allow them to not be required to pave the parking
lot. The applicant also stated they will further pursue it
at the hearing and will deal with landscaping and
handicapped parking with Environmental Codes.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Contin
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
applicant requested that the church not be required to pave
the parking area due to the fact that they did not own the
property, that the cost would be $10,000 to $12,000 and that
they plan to move in 3 to 5 years to a new facility on
John Barrow Road. The staff stated that they had received
proper documentation allowing the church to use the parking
area and that the parking lot must be constructed to City
standards. A lengthy discussion ensued. The Commission
informed the applicant that they could request relief from
the Board of Directors. The Commission then voted 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent to approve the application as
recommended by the staff and reviewed by the Subdivision
Committee.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.
NAME:
Little Rock Freezer Addition
Phasing Plan
LOCATION: NE of Patterson Avenue and
Hoerner Street Intersection
immediately east of MoPAC
Railroad
APPLICANT:
Edward G. Smith & Assoc.
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 374 -1666
REQUEST:
(1) To plat Lot 2 as Phase I and improve Patterson Avenue
to Master Street Plan standards in front of Lot 2.
(2) To improve Freezer Road and the remainder of Patterson
Avenue in subsequent phases as shown on the attached
sketch.
A. Staff Report
The developer is asking to plat Lot 2 as Phase I and
improve Patterson Avenue to Master Street Plan
standards in front of Lot 2. Freezer Road and the
remainder of Patterson Avenue would be improved in
subsequent phases.
B. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until a plan is submitted showing how lots are
to be phased.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to submit the plan as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Other Matters
NAME: All of the Alley in Block 16 of
Bowman's Addition
LOCATION: Lying east and west between
West 29th Street and West 30th
Street east off High Street -
approximately 20 feet wide by
200 feet in length
OWNER /APPLICANT: A.G. Sears
REQUEST: To abandon and join with the abutting lots for
redevelopment.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
The alley is open and in use by a residence and a
barber shop. Both are owned by this petitioner who
owns all of the abutting lots. This block has four
open streets abutting, accessing the elementary school
to the southeast and the commercial properties to the
north. The general public does not appear to need this
right -of -way for access.
2. Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan does not propose usage of this
right -of -way.
3. Need for Right- of -Wav on Adiacent Streets
High Street is on the Master Street Plan; however, its
current right -of -way of 60 feet is sufficient for a
minor collector street.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
This alley is paved +12 feet. The alley grade falls
from west to east approximately five feet across the
block. The adjoining lots on either side are at grade.
I
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
5. Development Potential
None except in association with the redevelopment of
the abutting lots.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
This block contains several commercial and apartment
uses as well as single family. Several of the lots are
vacant. No adverse effect should be experienced.
7. Neighborhood Position
None reported at this writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
None at this writing except that the right -of -way is
needed as utility easements for several utilities.
9. Reversionary Rights
The right -of -way will become part of this petitioner's
ownership totally.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
The alley serves little or no public need and may cause
traffic conflict with the barber shop parking lot now
unimproved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends approval of this right -of -way
abandonment subject to the petitioner meeting with the
Public Works staff to work out details of physical removal
of the street entry points. Driveway replacement for alley
entry is required. This should be determined prior to the
redevelopment of the adjacent property. Further, the
ordinance providing for abandonment should contain the
standard utility and drainage easement clause.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4 -8 -86)
There were no objectors present. The petitioner was
present. After a brief discussion of the item, the
Commission voted to recommend the abandonment as recommended
by the staff. The vote - 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME:
A. Existing Conditions
C.J. Dickson Building Line
Waiver
This property is located in an area that is developed
as single family. The BOA for Kingwood Place expired
on June 1, 1978.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting a 4 -foot encroachment for a
10' x 12' room addition into an area established by a
30 -foot building line.
C. Analysis
The applicant asked the Commission to consider the fact
the the Bill of Assurance has expired and that the
current ordinance requires only a 25' building line;
thus, he is already in conformance with what is
required. He has been told by the staff that a replat
and amended Bill of Assurance is still needed. If the
Commission decides not to relieve him of thise
requirements, then he's willing to do them.
D. Staff Recommendation
Staff will provide further information at the meeting.
E. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant was asked to notify their closest
neighborhood even though the Committee did not feel
that the addition would adversely affect the area.
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
I
April 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Other Matters
Appointment of Nominating Committee for Distinguished
Development Awards.
DATEk/&; /�
PLANNING ·c OM MISSION
V O T E R E C O R D
I
·ZONING ·SUBDIVISION
MEMBER A J e J
J.C::ummt:)rHn / / ,/
J.Schlereth / / / /
R.Massie / / t /
B.Sipes ,/ / / /
J.Nicholson J/ :/ I/ r/
w.Rector t/ / I /
W.Ketcher / / / /
D.Arnett {/ / " /
D.J. Jones V / V 14
I.Boles V / / /
F.Perkins / / t/ /
I-A
I-� V /
/ / i/ V / v/
/ /
�
ITEM NUMBERS
z 3 'f s-�rJ • � _;/ V / V•/ ,/ I /" /•I V ,/ / �•I / ,/ � AII � ;/ :-/ / /-,/ / / � ·Ii
V / / / � V:
V / / / V i/
I}M j/ I / A
V / '/ / // / v . ti V / � /
VAYE NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
...-...,_
I
fl q /{)
/ / �/ / V/ / / / / /
/ 1/ If
t/ / IJ / / / / / ,/ / V Ir / V / i/ y' / 7
1 /3,./� I II Jz •,/ / /•/ / /• / / /• / / /
Ir _/ / /
� / / /•� /•/. V /# / / /"' / /" / / /
May 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 P.M.
Chairman
SeCretap
Date
l