pc_09 09 1986sub)
}
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSI ON
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
SEPTEMBER 9, 1986
1:00 P.M.
1.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 11 in number.
2o Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were read and approvedQ
3 ., Members Present: Commissioner Schfereth Commissioner Massie Commissioner Nicholson Commissioner Boles Commissioner Ar nett Chairman Ketcher Commissioner Riddick Commissioner Perkins Commissioner Jones Commissioner Rector Commissioner Sipes
4o City Attorney Present: .Steven Giles
)
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION AC TIVITITE S
September 9, 1986
Deferred Items
A.Barrow Plaza Addition
B.Marriot Courtyard Hotel "Short-Form PCD" (Z -4485-A)
C.Whitewater Tavern "Short-Form PCD" (Z-4704)
D.Asher Avenue CUP (Z-4682)
E.Agape Church CUP (Z-3789-A)
F.Bible Church of Little Rock CUP (Z-4032-A)
G.Washington Street Day-Care CUP (Z-4702)
H.Unity Church CUP (Z-4706)
I.Tanphil Addition
J.Pleasant Heights Addition
Preliminary Plats
1.Cedar Ridge Two
2.Lot 12RR, Eagle Commercial Subdivision
3.Bristow Subdivision
4.Mabelvale West Industrial Park
Planned Unit Development
5.Pine Shadows "Long-Form" PRD (Z-4719)
Site Plan Review
6.Southwest City Mall -Revised Site Plan Review
7.K-Mart Shopping Center -Revised Site Plan Review
Conditional Use Permit
8.South University CUP (Z-2658-A)
)
)
)
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITITES -CONTINUED
September 9, 1986
Zoning Site Plan Review
9.St. Vincent Hospital (Z-3001-D)
10.Baseline Square (Z-4676-A)
Building Line Waiver
11.Bell Building Line Waiver
Right-of-Way Closures
12.Unnamed right-of-way closure
Other Matters
13.Consideration of a private street system withoutbenefit of a plat
14.Little Rock Port Industrial Park, Tract M
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME: Barrow Plaza Addition
LOCATION: John Barrow at Labette, West
Side
nncsnr nrinn _ nrTn rrTnnn _
Big K Developers, Inc. Richardson Engineers
c/o Richardson Engrs. 1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664 -0003
AREA- 10 acres NO. OF LOTS: 7 FT. NEW ST.: 630'
ZONING: "'0- 3"/"MF -12°'
PROPOSED USES: Mixed Used
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Existing Conditions
The land involved is located in an area that is
primarily developed as single and multifamily; however,
there is some office zoning along Barrow Road.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting to plat 10 acres into seven
lots for office and multifamily use. The amount of new
street will consist of 630 linear feet. The proposal
includes the extension of Labette, a 60' right -of -way
to the west. Lot 1 of this plat is to be used for an
office /unloading /sorting facility (see No. 12.).
C. Engineering Comments
1. Show location of Parkview Drive and the street to
the south.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
D. Analysis
The applicant has identified this as an
office /multifamily plat, which makes it a little
difficult for staff to determine which bulk and area
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance apply. Those
office and multifamily zonings crossed the proposed
lots. It is recognized that a mixed use PUD
application has been submitted for Lot 1. The
applicant must designate his plans for the remainder of
the plat. If for some reason approval is not obtained
for Lot 1, please indicate the desired use. Notices to
adjacent landowners are required.
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until further info received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RE VIEWi
The applicant agreed that he would work out the zoning,
construct Labette all the way to the west property line and
that notices would be sent.
WATER WORKS - Water main extension required.
SEWER - Add easements required across Lots 1, 6 and 7.
Sewer main extension required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The applicant, Mr. Kelton Brown, and his engineer, Mr. Bob
Richardson, were both in attendance. Discussion regarding
Federal Express "PCD" (see #12) was held first. His
proposal was to be located on Lot 1 of that proposal. The
application for #12 was withdrawn. Staff informed the
applicant that the lot sizes were inadequate for "MF -12"
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
zoning. The applicant was asked to submit a revised plan
with the appropriate lot sizes for the next meeting.
A motion for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed by a vote
of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8- 28 -86)
The revised plan was reviewed by the Committe and passed to
the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
September 9, 1986
t,
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME°
Mariott Courtyard Hotel
(Garden Plaza Revised PCD)
(Z- 4485 -A)
LOCATION: North Side of Financial Centre
Parkway, approximately 600'
west of Shackleford
AGENT:
Seth Barnhard Edward G. Smith and Associates
401 Victory
DEVELOPER: Little Rock, AR
Phone: 374 -1666
Courtyard Development
c/o Financial Centre
Dev. . Co.
P.O. Box 56350
Little Rock, AR 72215
Phone: 224 -9600
AREA: 4.35 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C- 3 "/ "O -3" to PCD
PROPOSED USES: Hotel
A. Development Objective
(1) To develop a hotel resulting from "The Courtyard
Concept," which is targeted toward the moderate
segment of the population. The concept provides
hotels with: (1) attractive, comfortable,
functional rooms; (2) a relaxing, secure
environment; (3) a simple restaurant with good
food; (4) a well managed operation with friendly,
helpful employees; and (5) an affordable price.
B. Proposal
(1) The construction of a building for use as a hotel
according to the following:
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
(a) Number of rooms .............
(b) Number of suites ............
(c) 2 conference rooms ..........
(d) Restaurant ..................
(46 seats)
(e) Lounge ......................
(36 seats)
(f) Guest room wings are 3- stories
where public areas are 1 -story
(9) Parking .....................
(h) Building area ...............
(i ) Ratio of bldg. to land ......
(2) Developmental Time Frame:
149
12
1525 sq. ft.
1090 sq. ft.
960 sq. ft.
164
87,000 sq. ft.
19.9
Opening Date - 4th Quarter of 1987
Construction - Begins lst Quarter of 1987
(3) Drainage:
The developer will utilize the parking lots or an
underground system for retention areas as required
by the City Drainage Ordinance.
(4 ) Platting:
A one lot replat will be submitted.
(5) Landscaping /Site Development:
The property will be developed in such a way as to
minimize excavation as much as possible. The lawn
and planting areas around the hotel will be
heavily planted. Included is a 25 to 32 -foot
landscaped buffer strip along adjacent residential
areas.
C. Enqineerinq Comments
(1) The Traffic Engineer requires that the opposite
side of the street on Financial Centre Parkway at
the western access point be shown in order to
determine the proper location for the access point
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
in regard to the existing median cut on Financial
Centre parkway.
(2) Stormwater detention calculations are required in
the location shown on the preliminary plat.
(3) Right -of -way dedication on Financial Centre
Parkway may be required.
D. Analysis
The applicant has stated that changes from the proposal
that was originally approved on this site include: (1)
the reduction to 3- stories from 5; ( 2 ) size reduction
of meeting rooms, restaurant and lounge facility; (3)
reduction of rooms by 59; (4) reduction in the scale of
the building and no orientation of rooms toward the
neighborhood. The original plan had one wing facing
the neighbors and more parking located next to the
1 neighborhood.
The main issue is the location of the building closer
to the neighborhood than originally sited. However,
the landscaped buffer zone remains a minimum of 25'
wide along the north and has been increased to 32' at
the northwest corner. Staff expects some input from
residents regarding this change. Enqineerinq comments
have been addressed.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval as revised.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (7- 31 -86)
The applicant requested a 30 day deferral.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
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.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8- 28 -86)
The applicant was present. He outlined several differences
between this proposal and the previous hotel approved for
this site. Staff indicated that all concerns had been
addressed. The item was passed to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The application was represented by Mr. Dave DesForges from
The Mariott Corporation, Mr. Mike Green and Mr. Edward
Willis from the Financial Development Corporation. A few
residents from the Birchwood Subdivision were in attendance.
Mr. James Johnson of 420 Birchwood asked that any fill put
in the 25' buffer strip and the retaining wall be amenable
to the adjacent single family area; and that an 8' fence be
provided somewhere near the middle of the buffer area.
Mr. Willis requested flexibility, which would be dictated by
the design and approval of a new grading plan in locating
the fence. He stated that lighting would be oriented toward
the parking lot.
A motion was made and passed for approval subject to
construction of a fence not to exceed 8', and the developer
to be given the option, at his discretion, to move the fence
inward 12.5'. The vote: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C
NAME:
LOCATION:
AGENT:
Geoff Treece
Phone: 374 -9977
nViTVT nnVn .
Rick's, Inc. /Larry Garrison
7th and Thayer
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 374 - 3801/834 -2122
'Whitewater "Short -Form PCD"
(Z -4704)
7th and Thayer Streets
DESIGNER:
Paul Davenport
Phone: 376 -4411
AREA: 33,298 sa. ft. NO. OF LOTS:
ZONING: 11R -3, 11R -2, "I -2" to PCD
PROPOSED USES: Commercial Restaurant
A. Proposal
FT. NEW ST.: 0
(1) To provide continued use of a commercial
restaurant building on 33,298 square feet.
(2) To provide a paved parking area.
(3) To enhance the site through landscaping, fencing
and paving.
(4) To allow for the addition of a barbeque smoker,
which increases the building size from 2800 square
feet to 2965.
(5) Parking includes 28 spaces.
(6) Landscaping /screening - 6' wooden privacy fence
will be built to the rear and along the south side
of the building and between the existing building
and a house just north of the northern boundary
line.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
(7) Development schedule
- Fencing, landscaping - 1 year
- Curb, gutter and parking lot - 2 years
B. Enqineerinq Comments
(1) No exterior landscaping has been shown around the
parking lot.
(2) Street improvements and right -of -way on Thayer
Street shall be required.
(3) Detention calculations and detention facility
locations shall be shown on the preliminary plat.
(4) Parking lot shall be redesigned in the area of the
railroad right -of -way, due to inadequate turning
radius. Contact the Traffic Department.
C. Analysis
This is currently a nonconforming use with a long
history of dealings with the City. Further information
will be provided at the meeting. The parking lot is
inadequate.
D. Staff Recommendation
To be provided at the meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was informed that he needs 30 parking spaces.
Land use was identified as the predominant issue.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
1
Staff stated its recommendation as denial and explained that
this was a nonconforming use, with no parking that had been
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
expanded without benefit of a building permit. The
expansion was cited by the Enforcement Department. The item
was then taken to the Board of Adjustment for
interpretation. They ruled that it was, indeed,
nonconforming.
Mr. Geoff Treece of Davidson Law Firm represented the
applicant. He explained that they were under contract with
Sims Barbecue. who was operating from an existing slab on
the back of the kitchen of the building. The State Health
Department informed them that it would have to be screened
and covered. They did not feel that it was an expansion
because of the existing slab. After the Board of Adjustment
disagreed, they were informed that their only alternative
was to seek rezoning. He went on to explain that this
proposal added a parking lot with 37 spaces, curb and
guttering and fence. It was an attempt to upgrade the area.
Commissioner Jones identified the issue as one of use and
whether the Commission would allow continued use.
Mr. Treece's response was that they were trying to upgrade
the area and provide the City with a trade -off, or a
concession to the City since they were going to be there
regardless of whatever this Commission took. Their wish,
also, was not to inconvenience their relationship with Sims
Barbecue. If a trade -off was denied, then there would be
still a gravel parking lot and no curb /guttering. He felt
that this was the best use for the property. A revised plan
addressing Engineering concerns was presented. Staff
reported that Mr. Steve Turnaprovitch, who lived next door
to the restaurant, had called and stated opposition.
The neighborhood was represented Ms. Pilachowski of
2612 West 6th Street, a member of the C.D.B.G. Committee of
the area. She explained that they were very upset that the
applicant was asking for approval after the addition had
been made. She felt that this would interfere with traffic,
and parking in the area and be detrimental to the enjoyment
and use of the property of residents in the area. She
disagreed with Mr. Treece's claim that this was the best use
for the property. She felt that residential use was best.
Also, there was a complaint that this was not in the best
interest of the neighborhood since those residents did not
frequent the bar. She felt it served mostly patrons from
other areas like the Heights and Pleasant Valley. Mention
was made of the extreme amount of smoke that was a nuisance
? to the area.
} September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
The Commission then entered into a discussion of the issue.
It was noted that it was now zoned for a more intense use
( "I -2 ") than would be provided if this PCD was approved.
One Commissioner felt that previous consideration of this
case yielded a strong stand against commercial rezoning of
the property; thus, resulting in the granting of a
conditional use permit.
Another felt that this submission provided a substantial
difference since it provided an opportunity to upgrade the
area and restrict the use of the property to a less
intensive use by eliminating the "I -2" zoning on the parking
lot property. It was felt that the trade -off presented more
positives than negatives.
Further discussion yielded more comments from the Commission
referring to the extensive amount of time spent considering
the nonconforming status of this property, and expressing
concern that the applicant still constructed an illegal
expansion. It was noted that the industrial use on this
property would not be offensive, since it would probably
consist of a lumber storage yard at the most; and to allow
additional parking would encourage continued success of the
business and create more traffic.
Commissioner Jones felt that the applicant had not held up
their part of the bargain and a dangerous precedent would be
set by giving them credibility through approving commercial
zoning. Commissioner Ketcher felt that the presented a good
use of the land.
A motion for approval was made and automatically deferred
for 30 days because of a split vote. The vote: 4 ayes, 4
noes and 3 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8- 28 -86)
The applicant was not present. There was no further
discussion of the item.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-9-86)
The application was presented by Mr. Geoff Treece. Staff
reported that a letter in opposition had been received from
the C.D.B.G. Committee.
Mr. Treece stated that he had received six letters favorable
to the proposal from owners within 200 feet of the site. He
sent letters to owners of 19 tracts, four of which are owned
by the State or City. He also stated disagreement with the
opposing letter from the C.D.B.G. Committee, since he felt
that this was not an expansion of a nonconforming use, but
an improvement to the area. He also stated that the Courts
had recognized that the structure would continue to be at
its present location. He felt that the proposal offered a
trade-off to the City and would allow the continued business
relationship with Sims' Barbecue which was vital to the
success of the business.
Mrs. Dorothy Pilachowski represented the C.D.B.G. Committee.
She questioned whether the letters sent were to owners or
renters. She was informed that the abstract list was the
source of the names. She also reiterated the opposing views
expressed by the C.D.B.G. Committee.
Mr. Mike Turna-provitch, who lives on property abutting the
Whitewater requested a privacy fence adjacent to his
property and the removal of a dumpster nearby that currently
attracts flies. He asked that the fence be built in less
than one year as proposed by the applicant. The applicant
agreed.
Mr. Leland Sikes of 201 Thayer was concerned about the high
volume of traffic during happy hour and the large liquor
trucks going to and from the site. He initially asked that
something be done to curtail traffic. The Traffic Engineer,
however, felt that STOP signs and other measures were not
appropriate for addressing the problem mentioned. Mr. Sikes
then revised his comments and asked for denial of the
request, which would solve the traffic problem by
eliminating the business.
A motion for approval as amended was made, subject to:
(1) providing fencing and landscaping in 30 days and (2)
providing improvement of the parking lot within one year.
The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent
(no votes - Sipes, Nicholson).
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
Reasons for disagreement with staff were based on a belief
that the trade -offs offered were in the best interests of
the neighborhood. It was felt that the current "I -2" zoning
would allow uses more detrimental than The Tavern, the fact
that the structure has been in existence for over 40 years,
and that it will continue to be in existence (as determined
by the courts) also had an impact.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
Asher Avenue - Conditional Use
Permit (Z -4682)
The Southeast Corner of Manor
Road and Asher Avenue
(8421 Asher Avenue)
Rayburn Burris /Marcus Miles
PROPOSAL: To obtain a conditional use permit which would
allow the continuance of a 1400 square feet auto repair
garage and an adjacent used car sales lot on land that is
zoned "C -3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to an arterial street (north, Asher Avenue).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is abutted by commercial uses on the
north, west and east. A single family use is located
to the south (the houses as well as both commercial
uses are owned by the same person). The proposal
contains nothing that does not already exist. The
staff does not foresee any adverse impact to the
surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkin
The entire area in front of the auto repair garage is
paved. The pavement extends into Asher Avenue. The
used car lot is also paved and has a paved access on to
Asher Avenue.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D - Continued
4. Screenina and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
5. Analysis
The proposal will not change anything that does not
already exist. The property is surrounded on three
sides by commercial uses. The staff does not foresee
any adverse impact to the surrounding area as a result
of this proposal. The applicant will, however, be
required to meet City landscape requirements.
6. City Engineering Comments
The applicant will be required to dedicate the
necessary right -of -way to a total of 50' on their side
of Asher Avenue.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) meet
City landscape requirements; and (2) dedicate the
necessary right -of -way on Asher Avenue.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to make an effort to
comply with staff recommendations. The applicant stated
that he would meet with the Environmental Codes staff about
potential landscape requirememts and that he would ask the
owner of the property to dedicate the necessary right -of -way
on Asher Avenue.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7 -8 -86)
The applicant was not present. The staff stated that they
had not received proof of notice and recommended deferral of
this item until the August 12, 1986, Planning Commisison
meeting. The Commission voted 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent
to defer this item until the August 12, 1986, Planning
Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (7- 31 -86)
The applicant was not present. The item was not discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 12 -86)
The applicant was present. Staff stated that the applicant
had not met proper notification procedures. The applicant
stated that the owner would not dedicate the required
right -of -way on Asher Avenue. The Commission stated that
they could not endorse this project without the required
street dedication. The Commission then voted 10 ayes,
0 noes, 1 absent to defer this item until the
September 9, 1986, Planning Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8- 28 -86)
The applicant was not present. The item was not discussed.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9 -9 -86)
The applicant and the owner were present. The owner agreed
to dedicate the necessary right -of -way on Asher Avenue that
included all of the frontage of Lot 50 and 1/2 of the
frontage of Lot 49. The Commission then voted 11 aves, 0
noes to approve the application as recommended by the staff
and agreed to by the owner /applicant.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E
NAME:
Agape Church - Conditional Use
Permit (Z- 3789 -A)
LOCATION: The Southeast Corner of Napa
Valley and St. Charles Blvd.
(701 Napa Valley Drive)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Agape Church /Joe D. White
PROPOSAL: To construct 138 new parking spaces (after
closing Turtle Creek Drive) on three lots (Lots 105, 127,
and 144, Turtle Creek Subdivision) all zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a minor arterial street (Napa Valley Drive)
and a collector street (St. Charles Boulevard).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The three lots are abutted by single family uses on the
north, Church on the south, vacant land on the east and
multifamily on the west. The Church use exists. The
proposed use (parking) would be compatible provided it
was properly landscaped and screened from the single
family area located to the north.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The Church has two existing access drives (Napa Valley
Drive) with no further access proposed. The Church
also has 252 existing parking spaces with an additional
138 spaces proposed.
1
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant has proposed the construction of a 6'
brick fence (on top of a berm) along the north line of
Lots 127 and 144 as well as the realignment of the curb
along St. Charles Boulevard (plus landscaping). The
proposal also contains landscaping and a 6' brick fence
on the north line of Lot 105.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed use is compatible
with the surrounding area due to the fact that all the
single family structures are below grade and the fact
of the proposed extensive fencing and landscaping
work. The staff does, however, have some question
about the possible preclusion of a parking use within
the existing Bill of Assurance. The staff also
recognizes the fact that other land is available for
parking on -site. In addition, the Fire Department will
not recommend approval unless they are assured of
on -site water lines for fire protection (3 fire
hydrants - 1 on the lower portion of each access drive
and 1 adjacent to the Church building). Finally,
approval of this proposal is subject to the approval of
the closure of Turtle Creek Drive.
6. City Engineering Comments
Physically close Turtle Creek Drive by continuing the
curbing and sidewalks on St. Charles Boulevard which
has been shown as a proposed entrance into the Church
(if closure is approved).
7. Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends approval of the proposed use
subject to: (1) the applicant agreeing to provide
on -site fire protection for the entire Church property;
(2) the approval of the proposed street closure; (3)
City Engineering Comments; (4) the applicant proving
that the construction of a parking facility is
allowable (as per private restrictions); and (5)
exploration of other possible parking areas on -site.
f
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. The applicant also stated that there were
private restrictions pertaining to the proposed use. The
staff stated that it simply wanted to point out the issue of
private restrictions on the property.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 12 -86)
The applicant was present. The staff stated that proper
notification had not been made and recommended that the item
be deferred on the September 9, 1986, Planning Commission
meeting. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes to defer this
item until the September 9, 1986, Planning Commission
meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8- 28 -86)
The applicant was present. The staff stated that proper
notification had been received and also recommended that the
applicant modify their existing proposal to include a 50'
open space (undisturbed area) along the north line of Lots
105, 127 and 144, and on the east line of Lots 105 and 127,
and as well as the west line of Lot 105. The staff also
recommended that a brick fence be extended along the
perimeter of the recommended buffer area. The staff also
requested that the applicant meet with the neighbors prior
to the September 9, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. The
applicant stated that he was revising his proposal to
include two large parking lots on the south portion of the
church property. The staff stated that they did not have a
revised proposal. The applicant stated that they would
submit a revised plan and meet with the neighbors.
r
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present and was represented by Dave
Thomas, Attorney, Happy Caldwell, Pastor and Joe White,
Engineer. The opposition was represented by Hal Kemp,
Attorney for the Turtle Creek Property Owners Association,
Victor Fleming, Attorney for General Properties, and Tim
Mackenzie, a resident of Turtle Creek. The staff stated
that they had received a revised site plan /proposal that
contained a three phase parking plan. Phase I was two large
lots (107 spaces) located on the southern portion of the
property. Phase II was a 68 space addition to the existing
parking lot located on the north portion of the property.
Phase III was 70 spaces located on three lots of Turtle
Creek Subdivision. The staff recommended approval of Phase
I, II and III subject to the inclusion of a 50' buffer and
landscaping as outlined in the Subdivision Committee meeting
of August 28, 1986. Mr. Kemp stated that they had no
problem with Phases I and II, but they opposed Phase III
primarily due to a preclusion in the Bill of Assurance which
prohibited anything other than a single family use.
Mr. Fleming stated that his client, General Properties, had
sold the lots in Turtle Creek to the church for use as
single family and had made an offer to buy them back from
the church. Mr. Mackenzie stated that a parking lot use
located at the entrance of the subdivision, would devalue
the homes in the existing Turtle Creek Subdivision. The
City Attorney stated that the Bill of Assurance issue was
between private owners and that the parking lot issue was
land use issue which could be dealt with by the Commission.
The Commission then voted 10 ayes, 1 no (Ketcher) to approve
Phase I and II of this proposal (a total of 175 new parking
spaces).
1
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
Bible Church of Little Rock
Conditional Use Permit
(Z- 4032 -A)
The Northwest Corner of
Breckenridge Drive and I -430
(10,618 Breckenridge Drive)
Bible Church of Little Rock/
Olin H. Wright, Architect
PROPOSAL: To construct a one -story addition (9,050 square
feet) (classrooms and nursery) for a school (K -5 years old
through 9th grade /260 students) and to remodel and enlarge
the existing sanctuary (from 425 to 605 capacity) on land
that is zoned "R- 2 " /C.U.P.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to an interstate (No. 430) and a collector
street (Breckenridge Drive).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The Church and the school are existing uses. The
proposed construction is generally oriented away from
the existing single family structures. If the existing
trees and shrubs (especially north and west) are
maintained the compatibility of the proposal would be
greatly enhanced. The proposed use is compatible with
the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
This site has two 24 -feet wide access drives on
Breckenridge Drive. The site also contains 108 paved
% parking spaces.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted. The applicant
plans to protect the wooded area located on the north
property line.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed use is compatible
with the surrounding area. The staff is concerned,
however, about landscaping and parking. The applicant
needs to ensure that the existing trees and vegetation
remain along the north and west property line in
addition to meeting landscape ordinance requirements.
The site is also deficient in parking as per ordinance
requirement. The proposal contains 108 parking spaces
while the ordinance requires 121 spaces. The City
Traffic Engineer has asked that 8 proposed or existing
spaces be deleted (located within the easternmost
drive). The applicant has provided a copy of an
agreement which allows the Church the use of
Breckenridge Village parking area on Sundays. The
staff feel that this is an adequate overflow parking
area as long as the church can ensure that their
members park on it.
6. City Engineering Comments
(1) The site does not show any landscaping; (2) the
entrance on the east side of the property should be a
minimum of 20 feet wide - delete parallel parking
spaces.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) leave
the existing vegetation on the north and west property
lines and meet City landscape requirements; (2) delete
8 parking spaces that lie within the easternmost access
drive; and (3) provide assurance that the Church
members use the overflow parking area in Breckenridge
Village.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. Commissioner Rector stated that
Breckenridge Village Shopping Center was about to be sold
and that a written guarantee of parking privileges would be
required from the new owners. The applicant agreed to
comply. The staff also stated that the Water Works required
on -site fire protection. The applicant agreed to comply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 12 -86)
The applicant was present as were six concerned neighbors.
The staff stated that they had received a revised site plan
as well as signoffs from the Water Works /Fire Department.
The applicant stated a parking guarantee from the potential
new owners of Breckenridge Village was not possible until
someone had actually purchased the property. Staff stated
that they had received two calls expressing concern about
the parking around the church property (Mr. Fox and
Mr. Snow). Staff also stated that they had received a
written commitment from the church which indicated methods
that the church would use to encourage members to park in
the Breckenridge parking lot. The staff expressed some
concern about the parking arrangement. Mr. Snow spoke about
parking problems on the street and on Sunday (Breckenridge
Drive). He asked that the parking be eliminated from
Breckenridge Drive on the single family side away from the
church. Another neighbor expressed concern about the size
of the school as well as the parking problems. The
Commission asked the staff about the proposed parking. The
staff stated that the revised site plan included 99 spaces
and that the ordinance required 121 spaces but that the
ordinance allows up to 25 percent of parking to be off -site.
Mr. Jack Larrison, representing the Walnut Valley Property
Owners Association, stated that they did not receive a
notice. The staff stated that the Homeowners Association
was on the abstract list but that no address was given. Mr.
Larrison requested that this item be deferred to allow them
more time to evaluate the proposal. The staff also
requested the applicant to consider what the maximum
enrollment of the school would be. The Commission then
voted 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent to defer this item until the
September 9, 1986, Planning Commission meeting.
3 September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8- 28 -86)
The applicant was present and stated that the church members
will not park on the south side of Breckenridge Drive
adjacent to the single family areas. The applicant also
submitted a revised site plan that illustrated parking for
121 cars and asked that his plan be phased with Phase I
construction consisting of the additional classroom building
and Phase II being the expansion of the sanctuary. The
applicant asked that the additional parking area be deferred
until Phase II construction begins. Finally, the applicant
stated that the maximum enrollment of the school would be
350 students and that they had met with the neighbors.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were two objectors
present. Mr. and Mrs. George Fox. Mr. Tom Miller spoke in
behalf of the church. The staff stated that they had
received a revised site plan. Staff also recommended that
the application be approved provided that the applicant
agree to construct the parking during the first phase of
construction. Mr. Fox stated that the neighbors had
concerns about the parking problem and that Breckenridge
Drive actually served as a heavy traffic route between
Rodney Parham and Shackleford Roads. The applicant agreed
to construct the additional on -site parking during Phase I,
to make every effort to keep church members from parking on
the south side of Breckenridge Drive on Sundays, and to
continue assisting (busing) church members that park on the
overflow area on Breckenridge Village Shopping Center. The
Commission then informed the applicant that one provision of
the approval of the conditional use would be that the church
continue to keep its members from parking on the south side
of Breckenridge Drive adjacent to the single family area.
The Commission then voted 11 ayes to approve the application
as recommended by the staff and agreed to by the applicant.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G
NAME:
Washington Street Day -Care
Conditional Use Permit
(z -4702)
LOCATION: The Northeast Corner of
Washington Street and
West 13th Street
(1221 South Washington)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Sherry Cobb
PROPOSAL: To convert an existing single family structure to
a day -care center (capacity 24 children) on land that is
zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The intersection of two residential streets (Washington
and West 13th Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is surrounded on three sides by single family
uses and by a duplex on the east. A commerical strip
lies just to the north on West 12th Street. The
proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
No access or parking area is shown on the site plan.
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G - Continued
5. Anaylsis
The staff supports the proposed use for this site. The
applicant does, however, need to submit a revised site
plan that includes 5 paved parking spaces and an
access drive. The applicant will also be required to
meet City landscape requirements.
6. City Engineering Comments
The site plan does not show an area for parking nor
does it show the drop -off area.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a revised site plan that includes 5 paved parking
spaces and an access drive; and (2) meets City
landscape requirements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to meet City landscape
requirements and to meet with the City Traffic Engineer to
resolve the access and parking issue.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 12 -86)
The applicant was present. The staff stated that the
applicant was unable to meet ordinary notification
requirements. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes to defer
this item until the September 9, 1986, Planning Commission
meeting.
September 9, 1986
} SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8- 28 -86)
The applicant was not present. The item was not discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 11 ayes to approve the application as
recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision
Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. H
NAME:
Unity Church
Conditional Use Permit
(Z -4706)
LOCATION: The West Side of Reservoir Road
Just South of Claremore Drive
(2610 Reservoir Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Unity Church of Little Rock/
Terry Burruss
PROPOSAL: To construct a 592 square feet
education /multipurpose addition and a future two -story 1,650
square feet addition to an existing facility on land that is
zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a minor arterial (Reservoir Road).
2. Compatibilitv with Neiqhborhood
This is an existing Church use that is abutted by a
single family use to the south, vacant land to the
north and west and a lake to the west. The use is
compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkin
One existing 23' wide access drive (from Reservoir)
serves this property. The site also currently contains
88 paved parking spaces (plus 10 overflow).
4. Screening and Buffers
The site has a 6' board fence on the west property line
and also for a portion of the south line adjacent to a
single family use.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. H - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff feels that a Church use is compatible with
the surrounding area. The staff does not have any
problems with this proposal but does need a revised
site plan which dimensions the proposed additions. The
applicant will also be required to meet City landscape
requirements.
6. Citv Engineering Comments
From the safety standpoint, the staff recommends the
redesigning of the access drive to Reservoir Road by
relocating it approximately 20' to the south.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant (1) submits a revised
site plan that includes the dimensions of the proposed
addition; (2) agrees to meet City landscape
requirements; and (3) subject to City Engineering
Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant stated that the drive was in place and that
realignment should probably take place in conjunction with
the future reconstruction of Reservoir Road." The City
Engineer agreed and withdrew his comment regarding the
realignment of the existing drive. The staff stated that
the Water Works had said that a water main extension would
be required. The applicant did not understand the comment
by the Water Works but stated that they would check with the
Water Works as well as submit a revised site plan that would
include the dimensions of the proposed additions and
landscaping as per City ordinance requirements.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. H - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 12 -86)
The staff stated that the applicant had requested a deferral
until the September 9, 1986, Planning Commission meeting.
The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes to defer this item
until the September 9, 1986, Planning Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present.
The item was not discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 11 ayes to approve the application as
recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision
Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. I
NAME:
---- -r
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER /ENGINEER:
Orson Jewell
#27 Vista Drive
Little Rock, AR 72210
Telephone: 225 -8430
Tanphil Addition
The East Side of Highway 10;
South of Taylor Loop
AREA: 10.94 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 30 FT. NEW STREET: 1,300
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Cul -de -sac length
A. Existinq Conditions
This proposal is located south of Highway 10. The
general area consists of mixed uses, which include a
Pet Shop and Veterinary Clinic abutting on the
immediate north. Taylor Loop Creek runs through the
middle of the property. It appears that approximately
90 percent of the site is located in the floodway.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing to plat 10.94 acres into 30
lots for single family use and 1,300' of new street.
Access from Highway 10 is proposed through a 27'
cul -de -sac, Tanphil Circle, that is approximately
1,200' in length. A 50' drainage easement is proposed
along the western and southern boundaries.
C. Analysis
This proposal presents multiple problems. Foremost, is
advice from the City's Engineers that the plan cannot
be done as proposed. Before any of this is done,
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. I - Continued
an approved hydraulic study by Engineering and FEMA
must be obtained showing revisions to the floodway.
Secondly, the applicant can't rechannel the ditch as
proposed, without an aqreement from abutting property
owners who will possibly be impacted. Additionally,
(1) the floodway and floodplain should be shown on the
plat; (2) a cul -de -sac waiver is needed; (3) an access
easement with participation on the abuttinq property
owners to the north should be indicated, since Tanphil
crosses their property and it provides the only access
to this site; (4) in -lieu contributions are required
for Highway 10; (5) Tanphil Circle should be called
Tanphil Court.
D. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant, Mr. Orson Jewell, requested a 60 -day deferral
so that he could address the comments made by staff.
WATER WORKS COMMENTS - Water main extension is required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made and passed to defer this item for 60 days.
The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8- 28 -86)
The staff reported that the applicant had requested a 60 day
deferral.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. I - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9- 12 -86)
A motion _for a 60- day.deferral as requested by the applicant
was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. J
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Darbe Development Co.
12,015 Hinson Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
Phone: 376 -8142
AREA: 50.0 acres
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES:
Pleasant Heights Subdivision
West of Hillsborough
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374 -1666
NO. OF LOTS: 73
Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Existing Conditions
FT. NEW ST.: 7,200
This property is located to the west of areas that are
primarily developed and developing as single family.
The First Baptist property abuts on the north.,
Beckenham and Hillsborough connect on the west and
Marlowe Manor, 5th Addition borders on the southeast.
The land involved consists of a large amount of
unplatted property that is very steep. Elevations
range from 550' to 817.7'.
B. Development Proposal
This is a submittal to plat 50 acres into 73 lots and
7,200' for single family use. The applicant is asking
that all sidewalks be waived, except for those required
on collector streets. Reasons for requesting included:
(1) the steepness of the property; (2) problems with
side hill cuts, which will be compounded by sidewalks;
(3) lack of sidewalks in adjacent developments; and (4)
lots in Pleasant Heights are extremely, thus
eliminating density.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. J - Continued
C. Engineering Comments
(1) The engineer should work in conjunction with the
adjoining property owner's engineer in order for
Beckenham Drive to be properly aligned. As of
this date, there is another preliminary plat that
shows Beckenham Drive which does not match on the
Section 31 line.
(2) Intersection designs on two of the streets
connecting with the collector street on this plat
are not acceptable due to the street grades at the
intersections.
(3) Stormwater detention calculations and location of
facilities shall be shown on the preliminary plat.
D. Analysis
Staff views this submission as inadequate based on the
technical requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.,
There was not a sufficient attempt to dimension lots,
right -of -way width, building lines, etc. The applicant
is asked to explain his actual submittal, since only a
small portion of the property has been divided into
lots. Staff is reluctant to support a plat with this
much of open space. Access should be shown to any
landlocked parcels. Noticeis required. A 30' building
line is required on collectors.
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until further information provided.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW;
The issue was identified as the alignment of Beckenham from
the south, with this proposal. This applicants Engineer,
and Mr. Bob Richardson, Engineer for the Hillsborough
Subdivision that abuts on the south, had reached an impass
as to the location of this Street. Mr. Richardson stated
that Mr. White's alignment would cause him to lose 12 lots.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. J - Continued
Mr. White felt that Mr. Richardson's alignment makes it
financially impossible to build on both sides of the
street. The City Engineering Department was asked to
determine from a purely traffic and buildable design, which
alignment is better. Staff was requested to seek an opinion
from the City Attorney's Office as to what is to be used a
guide in reaching a decision.
Other issues identified included the sidewalk waiver
request and the inadequately detailed plan. The applicant
agreed to submit a revised plat and work out intersection
design.
Staff suggested that the Commission endorse only the eastern
portion of this plat. It was felt that there may be
collectors, or other issues to be dealt with on the larger
tract in the future, so there should not be an appearance of
endorsement. The applicant does not know how he wants to
plat the larger area at this time.
j WATER WORKS - Phase I - Water main extension required.
Maximum floor elevation is 695 feet, tank site on Lot 493
and 500. Twenty -five (25) foot easement along the north
line of Lots 501 -504. Map does not show Municipal Water
Works.
SEWER - Sewer main extension required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Staff stated concern with the
plat's lack of: (1) compliance with the technical
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, (2) nonindication
of relationship to future collectors to the west. The major
issue, the alignment of Beckenham, has been worked out with
Engineering prior to the meeting. Information had been
received from the City Attorney's Office stating that the
location of the collector should not be based on who gets
how many lots, but on the best location as related to
engineering design. One concern resident was present.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. J - Continued
Mr. Joe White represented the developer. He stated that no
waivers were requested, and there were two remaining issues:
(1) relation of property to future collectors, (2) lack of
street names shown on the plat. He stated that street names
weren't known at this time, but would be known before the
final plat. He requested that this issue not hold up
approval of the plat. Regarding the former issue, he
explained that there would be connection of this plan with
the area to the southwest, due to the extreme hillsides,
south of the water tank. The area shown as future
development will have access on Parkway Drive through
St. Charles. There will be a major arterial to the west of
the site, but future lot sizes of property in that area were
unknown. He modified his proposal to delete the request for
sidewalk waivers.
Mrs. Kathleen Olsen of #7 Chelsea, president of the
Hillsborough Property Owners Association, was present. The
residents were concerned with the lack of information and
forethought on property to the west. She requested that the
Commission and staff gather more information. She also
feared extension of the Water Works Road, increased traffic
through only one access point, Saddle Hill Drive and
Hillsborough. It was requested that a very detailed Bill of
Assurance be submitted and that the developer indicate how
this plan relates to individuals in Hillsoborough.
There was discussion as to what should be reflected on the
plat in the area identified for future use. Staff wanted to
see a Master Street Plan alignment, and received some basic
information on an estimated number of lots, how the roads
would connect, and phasing. One commissioner questioned
whether or not it was reasonable to tie 73 lots into a
27 -foot street.
Mr. Bob Richardson of the neighborhood requested assurance
that another stub street near Lots 58 and 59 would not be
extended through Hillsborough. Mr. White explained that it
would not, and that the Water Works Road would not be
extended.
A motion for a 30 -day deferral, so as to provide more basic
information on street alignments to the west, was made and
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. J - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8- 28 -86)
The applicant submitted a revised plan that indicated the
additional information requested by staff and the
Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9 -9 -86)
The applicant was present. Ms. Kathleen Olsen represented
the Hillsborough Property Owners Association. The issues
for discussion were identified as: (1) the amount of
traffic through the adjacent Hillsborough Subdivision, and
(2) phasing and timing of the improvements to Beckenham. The
City Traffic Engineer reported that Phases I and II would
add about 640 cars (10 household trips per), which would
place Saddle Hill Drive right at the limit of 2,800 cars;
and that there would be a traffic overload until Beckenham
is built.
Ms. Olsen presented a diagram indicating the effects of
traffic on Hillsborough. She suggested that Morrison Road
be extended as an alterative, but was informed that this was
required to be a cul -de -sac by previous Commission action.
She stated concerns about drainage and expressed a fear that
this plan may be premauture since all of the trafifc feeds
to the east through one street. Other spokespersons from
the neighborhood were: Mr. Bob Richardson and a
Mrs. Reinhart.
Finally, a motion for approval was made and passed, subject
to: (1) Phases III and IV being developed only when
Beckenham is constructed, (2) platting of 38 acre parcel on
the north as one lot, and (3) approval of the cul -de -sac
variance because of the topography. The vote: 9 ayes, 1 no
and 1 absent. (No vote Commissioner Riddick.)
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME: Cedar Ridge Two
LOCATION: The north side of Kanis at
Parkway Place Drive
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Winrock Development Co. Edward G. Smith and Associates
P.O. Box 1260 401 Victory
N. Little Rock, AR 72115 Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 663 -5340 Telephone: 374 -1666
AREA: 20 .Acres NO. OF LOTS: 72 FT. NEW STREET: 3,250
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: Sinqle Familv
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Double frontage lots (17, 18 and 19,
Block 7)
A. Existing Conditions
The property involved is located in an area that is
developing as single family. Elevations range from 470
feet to 550 feet. There are no street improvements on
Kanis or Nix Road.
B. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to subdivide 30 acres into 72 lots
for single family development and four tracts for an
undetermined use. New streets will consist of 4,352
feet. A request has been made to allow double frontage
lots on 17, 18 and 19, Block 7.
C. Engineering Comments
(1) Stormwater detention required.
(2) One -half street residential standards and
riqht -of -way dedication required.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
D. Analysis
Staff is concerned about the lack of commitment to a
specific use on the southern 100 acres of this
proposal. The northern 20 acres is viewed as an
extension of a similar type of development that is
currently underway in the area. It is recommended that
a third phase be shown, if the bottom 10 acres will be
comprised of another land use. The applicant is asked
to specify intended uses.
Staff is favorable to the waiver request provided a 25'
platted building setback line is required from both
streets and a 10' platted vehicle prohibition zone from
Nix Road is provided.
Sidewalks should be constructed on Burkwood Drive. A
waiver is needed for excessive cul -de -sac length.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
It was decided that the southern 10 acres and the northern
20 acres should be considered separately. The applicant was
asked to revise the plan and submit it to staff. He also
agreed to comply with all other comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME:
LOCATION:
Haney Development Co.
Lot 12RR, Eagle Commercial
Subdivision No. 3
The west side of Geyer Springs,
200 Feet north of Nova Lane
Edward G. Smith and Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 374 -1666
AREA: .5 Acres NO. OF ii 0
ZONING: Commercial
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Front setback as shown on plat
S. 1 FT. NEW STREET.
A. Existing Conditions
This proposal is located on a major arterial, and in an
area that is developed as commercial. A Mexican
Restaurant is located on the site.
B. Development Proposal
This is a request to replat a 40' building line to 26'
to allow for additional dining room space.
C. Engineering Comments
None.
D. Analysis
The applicant is asked to submit a letter requesting
the waiver and giving justifications. Staff is not
opposed, however, to a reduction of the entire building
line to 25'; which is now the standard requirement in
°C -3° zoning districts.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until comments complied with.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to submit a letter of request for
consideration, and a schematic drawing showing the placement
of the building on the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME: Bristow Subdivision
LOCATION: The 1400 Block of Cooper Orbit
Road (north side)
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Harold and Jane Bristow Olan D. Wilson
14606 Cooper Orbit Rd. 212 Victory
Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 758 -6271 Telephone: 376 -7222
224 -2810
AREA: 9.4 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET:
ZONING: Outside City
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Boundary Street improvements
2. Mackey Court Order
right -of -way establishment
of 50 foot versus Master
Street Plan requirement of
60 feet
A. Existing Conditions
This proposal is located in an area that is developed
as rural, single family uses. Elevations ranqe from
450' to 5301. Two parcels have been sold from this
ownership. There is an existinq 25' inqress and eqress
easement shown, crossing one out - parcel as well as
lots two and three; which has been of record for some
time and provides access to parcels under ownership for
others.
On -site waste disposal and water supply systems
will serve the site.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
B. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 9.4 acres into five parcels
for single family use. The plat dedicates 30' for
right -of -way on Cooper Orbit Road. A waiver of
boundary street improvements is requested.
C. Engineering Comments
(1) Bad vertical and horizontal site distance on
Cooper Orbit. Anything other than "R -2" sinqle
family will not have access onto Cooper Orbit from
each lot.
(2) Stormwater detention required.
(3) Right -of- way /street improvements required.
(4) Dedication should be reflected from the centerline
of the right -of -way.
D. Analysis
Staff is not favorable to the requested waiver of
street improvements. The applicant has stated in his
letter that a right- of -wav of 50' has been established
by the Mackey Court Order as of June 17, 1970; even
though the Master Street Plan requests 60'.
Staff asked that the plat encompass the parcels that
have been sold and be numbered as lots. The interior
roadway should be increased to a 45' private access
easement, since it serves several lots and abuttinq
ownerships. They should be improved with some type of
all- weather two -lane surfacing with 22' to 24' of
pavement.
The applicant is cautioned that Lot 1, as designed,
does not provide for future divisions. Sidewalks
should be provided.
E. Staff Recommendation
(1) Denial of waiver request.
(2) Approval of plat subject to comments made.
I September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. He explained that it would not
be possible to do street improvements, since he was not
doing what he considered as a large subdivision. Of the two
lots sold illegally, one was sold approximately four months
ago and another and was done some six years previously.
They felt that in some instances, improvements would be a
problem because of the terrain. He stated that he was
unaware of nonconformity to the regulations when the
property was sold.
The Committee explained to the applicant that the law must
still be adhered to. There was some discussion about
talking with the County Circuit Clerk, since Arkansas state
law requires that deeds be accepted without a plat.
It was thought that some type of phasing plan could possibly
provide some type of alternative.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
applicant was requested to amend his proposal to combine
Lots 2 and 3 into one lot, provide right -of -way dedication
on the other two lots, and to file a 3 -lot final plat.
Staff was instructed to research legally and consult with
the Assessor's Office on how similar situations can be
prevented in the future and report back to the Commission.
A motion for approval as amended was made and passed by a
vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME:
Mabelvale West Industrial Park
LOCATION: The south side of Mabelvale West
Road, immediately west of
Mabelvale Junior High School
T1Fx7L'T_nDWO . L'MnTMVV0 .
Bowen Road Property, L.P. Garver and Garver, P.A.
11300 Rodney Parham #260 Box C -50
Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72203 -0050
Telephone: 225 -0905 Telephone: 376 -3633
AREA: 55 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 28 FT. NEW STREET: 3,200
ZONING: "C- 3 " / "I -2"
PROPOSED USES:
Commercial, Light Industrial
A. Existing Conditions
This property is located in an area that is developing
as industrial and institutional uses. It is bordered
on the west by the Otter Creek Industrial Park, on the
south by the MO -PAC Railroad and on the east by
Mabelvale Junior High School. The Southwest hospital
site is located across Mabelvale West Road to the
north. An application has been made to rezone the 10
acres adjacent to Mabelvale West Road to "C -3"
commercial.
B. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 55 acres into 28 lots and
3,200' of new streets for industrial use. The
Subdivision will be developed in four phases. It is
requested that single lot final plats be allowed to
accommodate the market needs for lot sizes.
C. Engineering Comments
None at this time.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
D. Analysis
Staff usually does not prefer to allow applicants to
final plat on a lot -by -lot basis. However, the
applicants request is supported in this instance, as
long as the minimum lot requirement is met and length
of streets to be constructed are specified according to
the phasing plan submitted. Staff has no problems with
the plan for phasing.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
At a previous Public Hearing, the Commission voted to rezone
the front 10 acres to "C -3," and decided that the plat
should reflect a permanent, undisturbed area adjacent to the
School.
The applicant agreed to show a 50° building line, with 10°
use for utilities and identify it on the plat and Bill of
Assurance as a nonbuildable area with no paving.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant submitted a revised drawing showing a 40°
buffer plus 10° utility easement on the side of the buffer
where the building is. A motion for approval was made and
passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME: Pine Shadows Addition
LOCATION: East side of Geyer Sprinqs Road
immediately north of the Rock
Island Railroad
DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT:
First Consortium, Inc. Eddie Branton
3126 JFK Blvd. 707 Wallace Building
N. Little Rock, AR 72116 Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 375 -9010 Telephone: 372 -4930
AREA: 8.72 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 156
ZONING: "R -2" to PRD
PROPOSED USES: Residential /Mobile Home Park
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Proposal
1. The construction of 46 mobile home lots on two
phases on 8.72 acres.
2. Proiect Data
a. Phase I
SYMBOL SIZE QUANTITY
1 14'x45' 1
2 15'x55' 4
3 14'x60' 10
4 14'x68' 15
5 24'x68' 3
b. Phase 2
Data not provided.
September 9, 1986
J SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
c. Parking
60 spaces (two /unit)
3. Park and Recreation area - 30,00 square feet
(900 /unit)
4. Outside storaqe area - 1,650 square feet
(50 /unit)
B. Engineering Comments:
1. 20' maximum radius on private street.
2. Stormwater detention required.
3. Talk with Traffic Enqineer, Henk Koornstra, for
his comments.
C. Analysis
This is a request for PUD approval for a mobile home
park. It is located on property that the Commission
recently considered request for rezoninq and
subdivision of the land to provide for a mobile home
park. The applications were approved by the
Commisiion, but denied by the Board. Staff supported
them. Principle objectives with persons living outside
the City. In his submittal letter, the applicant
stated that this proposal reflects "a mobile home park
with clustered units in -lieu of the normally expected
parking lots for house trailers." He feels that this
concept for development provides the tenants with a
family home environment, addresses an urgent need in
the City, and addressed a situation that is forcing
some of the City's residents to live in the County
against their will.
The applicant is asked to identify differences between
this plan and the previous one; identify the "clustered
units" referred to; and indicate whether lot sales will
be involved. If they are, this proposal will need to
comply with "R -7" requirements.
Staff is concerned that resubmission of this plat
violates a Board policy against reconsiderinq
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
proposals previously considered. Staff feels that this
proposal would provide affordable housing and supports
this use in this area and other areas of the.City;
however, we ask that the Commission not accept this
applications based on Board policy.
D. Staff Recommendation
Staff supports the land use, but urges that the
application not be accepted.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The application was discussed. It was decided that further
guidance from the City Attorney was needed regarding the
Board's policy. Staff agreed to get an opinion before the
Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There was further discussion
regarding whether or not acceptance of the application was
in violation of Board policy. The City Attorney present
stated that he did not receive the request in time to
prepare a written opinion. A motion was made to defer the
item for 30 days to allow enough time for the City Attorney
to prepare a legal opinion and send a copy of the opinion to
Mr. Randy Frazier, the applicants attorney. The motion was
made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME:
Southwest City Mall Revised
Site Plan Review
LOCATION: I -30 and Geyer Springs
APPLICANT: Edward G. Smith and Assoc.
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 374 -1666
REQUEST: To expand an existing store and revise the parking
lot.
r�nnr�nc� r r _
(1) The revision of a commercial shopping center on 26.47
acres.
(2) Development Statistics:
(a) Parcel 1
Building area ................. 55,728 square feet
Landarea ........................ 6.0 acres
Building /land ................... .213
Parking .......................... 302 spaces
(B) Parcel 2
Building area .................179,891 square feet
Land area .......................20.47 acres
Building /land ................... .201
Parking.......................... 908 spaces
Total square footage.......... 235,619 square feet
(3) Engineering Comments
(a) Show driveway improvements for 200' east of Geyer
1 Springs (no cross -flow traffic - Parcel 1)
(b) Two -way traffic required.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
(c) Continous curb required.
4. Analysis
Staf -f has no problems with the request.
5. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to meet and work out Engineering
Comments with the Traffic Engineer before the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant reported that an agreement had been reached.
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME:
T nn T TT -
K -Mart Shopping Center Revised
Site Plan Review
Southwest Corner of Asher
and University
Flake and Company Finley Williams
425 West Capitol, Box 990 210 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR
Telephone: 376 -8005 Telephone: 376 -3505
AREA: NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C -3"
PROPOSED USES: Shopping Center
REQUEST:
Hut.
To expand a shopping center by addition of a Pizza
A. Proposal:
1. (a) The construction of a Pizza Hut Restaurant
(39' by 80', on a site 140' by 2601.
(b) Provision of 73 parking spaces.
B. Engineering Comments
(1) A traffic impact study is needed.
(2) Explain parking located in 30' drive.
C. Analysis
The applicant has pointed out that all parking for
Pizza Hut will be separate from the rest of the center,
as the subject parcel is now unpaved.
Staff is concerned about the lack of controlled access
in this shopping center. Interior curbing or other
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
lane devices are needed. Information should be
submitted on the existing square footage and number of
parking spaces.
D. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until further information is received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The issue was identified as one of traffic and public safety
within the shopping center; due to several areas of
cross -flow with not delineations of where to go. This was
considered hazardous because of the expanding amount of fast
food restaurants around the perimeter.
One Committee member mentioned that a previous
recommendation by staff for such controls within the
shopping center was not supported by the Commission due to
an understanding that there would probably not be any
further expansions.
The applicant was asked to
information regarding the
parking, and to meet with
Public Hearing.
provide staff with the
existing square footage and
the Traffic Engineer before the
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. He reported that a revised plan
was submitted to Engineering addressing staff concerns
regarding internal traffic circulation problems. He was
asked to furnish three copies for the Planning staff file.
A motion for approval was made and passed, subject to
Don McChesney's signature on the revised site plan. The
vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
South University Conditional
Use Permit (Z- 2658 -A)
The west side of South
University just north of
West 53rd Street
Ray B. Thomas /Jim Irwin
PROPOSAL: To allow the use of approximately 3,000 square
feet of an existing 9,700 square feet building as an auto
repair facility on land that is zoned "C -3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a principle arterial ( Univeristy Avenue).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is located within a commerical arterial
corridor. The site is surrounded by commercial
activity on three sides and by vacant land to the
west. The proposed use is compatible with the
surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkin
This site has one paved 45 feet access drive
(University Avenue) and 90 paved parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed use is compatible
with the surrounding area. The applicant, does,
however, need to be aware that they will be required to
meet landscape requirements.
6. City Engineering Comments
The applicant needs to: (1) submit a revised site plan
which includes the scale of the drawing and the
boundary of the paved area; and (2) coordinate the
access with the City Traffic Engineer.
7. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval provided the applicant agrees
to: (1) meet City landscape requirements; and (2)
comply with City Engineering comments numbered 1 and 2.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8- 28 -86)
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with City
Engineering Comments. The applicant then requested that all
landscape requirements be deferred and that the Conditional
Use Permit be granted for one year only. The applicant
stated that this site is part of a much larger tract and
that all of the property is for sale.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 11 ayes to approve the conditional use
permit for one year as requested by the applicant and agreed
to by the staff.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
St. Vincent Hospital Site
Plan Review (Z- 3001 -D)
The southeast corner of West
Markham Street and University
Avenue
St. Vincent Infirmary /Mark
Wellborn
PROPOSAL: To construct a one -story (plus basement) 31,200
feet education /annex addition; a one -story 5,000 square feet
landscape and ground storage facility; and a one -story 3,000
square feet greenhouse on 39.04 acres of land that is zoned
11 0 - 2 . 11
ANALYSIS:
This proposal is compatible with the surrounding area. This
application meets all "0 -2" Ordinance requirements with the
exception of the separation of detached buildings. The
Ordinance requires a separation of 20 feet between detached
buildings. The applicant needs to submit a revised site
plan that either allows a 20 feet building separation
between the proposed /lanscape storage building and the
greenhouse or shows the buildings as being attached.
CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
The applicant will be required to meet stormwater detention
requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a
revised site plan which allows a 20 feet separation between
all detached buildings; and (2) complies with stormwater
detention requirements.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. The Water Works stated that on -site fire
protection would be required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 11 ayes to approve the application as
recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision
Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
Baseline Square Site Plan
Review (Z- 4676 -A)
The southeast corner of Hilaro
Springs Road and Baseline Road
Professional Land /Bob Moore
PROPOSAL: To construct a total of 113,564 square feet
(three buildings) of commercial space and 446 parking spaces
on 9.35 acres of land that is zoned "C -2."
ANALYSIS:
The staff has reservations about the site plan for this
project. It is deficient in many ways. The site plan needs
to be revised to show a 40 feet front yard landscaped area
(no parking allowed /Hilaro Springs Road). In addition, the
site plan should indicate landscape and screening on the
south and east to protect the adjacent single family areas.
The applicant should construct a berm with intermittent cuts
for drainage, a 6 feet opaque screening fence, and plant
trees on 40 feet centers adjacent to the single family areas
located on the south and the east. Finally, a number of
additional site plan revisions will be required in
accordance with the City Engineering Comments as listed
below.
CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
(1) Too many driveways - post signage on one entrance on
each street indicating service vehicles only; (2) dedicate a
right -of -way which totals 45 feet from the centerline on
both Baseline Road and Hilaro Springs Road and construct
improvements to both roads; (3) stormwater detention
required; (4) redesign all driveways to be at 90°
intersections and get the approval of the City Traffic
Engineer; (5) relocate or redesign the southeast corner of
the building L.L. 2 so that truck traffic can make the
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
turn; (6) stacking space and pick -up window location needed;
and (7) extend the curb return from Baseline Road to the
south building wall of Building R2.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff reserves its recommendation until the applicant has
submitted a revised site plan as outlined in its analysis
and City Engineering Comments numbered 1 -7.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The Committee felt that this
application should be deferred 30 days due to the
deficiencies in the site plan. The applicant was given
until September 2, at 5 p.m., to submit a revised site plan
that met staff recommendations and Ordinance requirements or
be deferred until the October 14, 1986, Planning Commission
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
staff stated that the applicant had submitted a revised site
plan which corrected its earlier deficiencies except for a
40' landscape buffer (no parking allowed) on Hilaro Springs
Road that was not shown. The staff stated that their
interpretation of the Ordinance wa that a 40' landscape
buffer was required on both Hilaro Springs and Baseline
Road. The staff also dropped its request for a berm on the
south and east property lines. Finally, the staff stated
that they supported the site plan if 40' landscape buffers
were shown on both Hilaro Springs and Baseline Roads and
explained that the applicant could file with the Board of
Adjustment for a hardship on the Hilaro Springs Road
buffer. The Commission voted 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent to
approve the application as recommended by the staff.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME:
Bell Building Line Waiver
LOCATION: 80 Robinwood (lot 108)
APPLICANT: Jim Bell
80 Robinwood
Little Rock, AR 72207
Telephone: 227 -5741
225 -3677
REQUEST: To encroach into a platted building line with a
deck that extends 5 feet and a two car garage that extends
4'.
A. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area that is composed of
single family uses.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting to encroach 4' for the
construction of a garage and 5' for construction of a
deck, into an area established by a 25' setback.
He is currently remodeling his home and needs the
extension for the garage so that he will be able to
park two cars.
C. Analysis
Staff has no problems with the request. The applicant
is asked, however, to explain access to the garage.
An amended Bill of Assurance and final plat is
required.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The application was reviewed by the Committee and passed to
the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Street Right -of -Way Abandonment
NAME /LOCATION: An unnamed right -of -way which
would be the eastern extension
of Baker Street east of Kanis
Road running to Kirby Road.
OWNER /APPLICANT: Various
By: Ron McConnell
Winrock Development Co.
REQUEST: To abandon this section of
unopened and unused right -of -way
and join with the abutting
property for redevelopment.
(40' x 1300')
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
None inasmuch as the subject right -of -way has not been
in use as a public street. If developed, it probably
would not be acceptable since it would double front
lots on the north side. There may be some grade or
site distance problems associated on the eastern
portion.
2, Master Street Plan
There are no requirements attached.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
The petitioners should indicate the amount of frontage
on Kirby Road. There may be a dedication requirement
for that tract of up to 10 feet. This requirement for
dedication is City Board policy in those instances
where an owner is requesting abandonment of
right -of -way.
4. Characteristics of Right- of -Wav Terrain
Generally hilly area with some natural tree and foliage
cover.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
5. Development Potential
None except as a part of the redevelopment of adjacent
lands.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The area is generally large lots or vacant to the south
and west. There is a new single family subdivision
adjacent on the north and running to the east. No
adverse effects are expected.
7. Neighborhood Position
All of the abutting owners are participants. No
negative comment has been received at this writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
All five basic utilities are on record as releasing the
right -of -way without reservation.
9. Reversionary Rights
The right -of -way will be equally divided between the
several abutting owners.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
The abandonment of this unopened
right -of -way will return to the
area that will be productive for
base and eliminate the potential
double frontage lots and traffic
single family development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
and unused segment of
private sector a land
the real estate tax
adverse effects of
flow to the rear of a
The staff recommends approval of this abandonment proposal
as filed.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9 -9 -86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion of the proposal, the
Commission voted to approve the abandonment and recommend
the petition to the City Board of Directors. The motion
passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Other Matters
NAME: Richardson Properties /Acreage
Tract
LOCATION: At the north end of Foxcroft
Road adjacent to Overlook
Subdivision and Robinwood
Subdivision
REQUEST: To be permitted to extend
Foxcroft Road northward as
a 40 -foot private street
which will terminate in a
cul -de -sac. The purpose of
which is to provide for
a public approved
easement /right -of -way for
frontage of acreage lots.
STAFF REPORT:
This issue comes to the Commission as the result of
discussions between Mr. Richardson and Planning staff
concerning access to this irregular tract of land. At the
present time, this ownership exceeding 25 acres total has a
street frontage of approximately 60 feet which is the
termination of Foxcroft Road.
Mr. Richardson proposes to place on record an instrument as
required by the Commission in form and substance that will
allow the use of this private roadway to access his
property. Two or more large lots would be sold and
developed. These lots would be in excess of five acres and
a plat would not be required.
The Engineering staff has reviewed the street proposal and
has indicated "no problems." The Master Street Plan does
not propose the extension of Foxcroft Road as a collector
street. It currently is constructed as a collector 36 feet
wide from Cantrell Road to this point.
I
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff offers no comment at this time but will be
prepared to address the issue and answer questions at the
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9 -9 -86)
The applicant, Mr. Robert J. Richardson, presented his
request to the Commission and responded to several questions
as to the reason for the extension and the format of the
proposed land sale. The Planning staff offered a general
overview of the proposal and a recommendation of approval of
the extension of the street as proposed. The staff
indicated it understood that the street would be a 40'
private street approximately 150' to 200' in length
terminating in a turnaround, perhaps a hammerhead.
Several members of the Commission then raised issues
associated with the filing, including the need for more
information, uncertainty as to why a normal application for
a five lot plat was not being filed, and the relationship of
this filing to the current litigation.
The Chairman then offered to hear comments from two adjacent
property owners. These were Mrs. Schultz and Mrs. Puryear,
residents of the Robinwood Subdivision adjacent to the west
and south. Both of these interested parties indicated that
they felt this proposal was premature and that in fact it
might run cross purposes with the current litigation. They
felt that the item should be held in abeyance until the
court opinion is handed down and that it not be pursued
until it is determined whether Mr. Richardson will pursue an
appeal of the decision.
Commissioner Nicholson offered the thought that she
understood the City Attorney's direction to the Commission
was that in these kinds of circumstances that no further
action be taken by the Commission until current litigation
is resolved. The City Attorney's representative, Mr. Steven
Giles, responded by stating that he thought that action on
the application should be deferred until the written opinion
is issued by the Judge handling the litigation.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
Further lengthy discussion of the proposal followed. A
motion was made to defer this request until the issue is out
of litigation as suggested by the City Attorney's staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME:
Little Rock Industrial Park,
Tract M (Area 201)
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Fourche
Dam Pike and Lindsey Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
R.O. Company Garver and Garver
P.O. Box C -50
Little Rock, AR 72203 -0050
Telephone: 376 -3633
AREA: 1.14 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET:
PROPOSED USES: Service Station /Convenience Store
A. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an industrial area.
B. Development Proposal
This is a request to remove a platted, builable area of
70' and 75' from the property line and replace it with
a 25' building line as requested in "C -3" zoning
districts. A request for a 10' enroachment into the
newly created 25' building setback is also requested.
C. Enqineerinq Comments
(1) Reflect driveways - only two allowed.
(2) Show relation to levee.
D. Analysis
Staff is unalterably opposed to allow any encroachment
into the newly established building line. This site is
very visible and there appears to be adequate room in
which to redesign the canopy. The reduction of
the building line to 25' is not opposed.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
E. Staff Recommendation
(1) Approval of the replat to 25'.
(2) Denial of any further encroachments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The encroachment within the newly established 25' building
line was discussed. The applicant felt that this was needed
due to the fact that the location of the pump island and the
canopy were dictated by the driveway. He felt that the
building couldn't be moved because of a need for parking in
the rear of the structure for a small office use.
He was requested to: (1) indicate his justification (stated
above) for the waiver on a revised plan; (2) comply with
Engineering Comments; (3) come up with an alternate plan
showing no encroachment into the 25' setback area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant submitted a revised plan that eliminated the
encroachment into the 25' setback area. A motion for
approval as revised was made and passed by a vote of:
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15
BYLAW AMENDMENT
In Article IV. (MEETINGS), amend Section 4 (NOTICE),
Subsection B. (To Affected Parties) to read as follows:
B. To Affected Parties
Notice to affected parties shall be provided as
specified in paragraph (1) through (5) below. Relative
to paragraphs (2) through (5), requiring supplemental
notice to neighboring property owners, the mailing of
notices to the names and addresses that an applicant
has obtained from an abstract company shall be
considered adequate notice. If an applicant fails to
provide the supplemental notice requirement herein, the
Planning Commission shall defer action on such
application until supplemental notice has been
adequately provided.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Other Matters - Subdivision Variance
This item is on the agenda for purposes of bringing to the
Commission the request of Mr. Dennis Smith, a resident of
4005 Montgomery Road in the Taylor Loop Community.
Mr. Smith desires to request of the Commission that it
extend to him a total variance of the requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance as concerns the three lots in which he
has interest. Mr. Smith's lots lie at the south end of
Montgomery Road approximately 1/4 mile south of Taylor Loop
Road. These lots are somewhat less than six acres in area
total with existing residences in place. This matter was
brought to the attention of the staff when reviewing a
request of the Water Works to extend a water main eastward
off Montgomery Road to serve the rearmost lots. The
Planning staff rejected the water main extension and advised
the Water Works and the owner that a subdivision plat was
required. Staff held meetings with Mr. Smith, the City
Manager and other involved persons in an attempt to resolve
this item without public hearing. We were unable to achieve
a middle ground which could produce a proper platting
action; therefore, Mr. Smith was instructed to bring his
case to the Commission and present his arguments/
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff view of this issue is that some platting
action should occur on the subject property so as to provide
permanent access for both vehicles and utilities to the
rearmost lots. We believe there is a solution to this
problem without the creation of additional streets or
excessive financial burden on the several owners. Our
recommendation is a denial of the request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION:
At its meeting on August 28, 1986, the Subdivision Committee
discussed this issue at length with Mr. Smith. There were
several offerings made as to resolution of the problem. The
Committee instructed Mr. Smith to review the possibility of
obtaining the services of a civil engineer for purposes of a
reviewing a potential three -lot plat. He was further
advised that if he so desired, he could come to the meeting
on September 9 and present his argument to the full
Commission.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9 -9 -86)
The applicant was not in attendance. There were no
objectors present. After a brief discussion of the
circumstances of this request, the Commission voted on a
motion to defer the matter for a period of 30 days in order
to allow the applicant to determine his course of action.
The vote on the motion was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
September 9, 1986
Subdivision
Resolution Concerning Additional Staff in the Office of
,Comprehensive Planning
The Planning Commission had been discussing ways to make
smoother the process of handling zoning and subdivision
applications. The discussion included the provision of
additional time to process the applications and more staff
in the Office of Comprehensive Planning as an alternative to
providing more time. At its meeting on August 26, 1986 the
Commission requested that a resolution be prepared calling
for additional staff members and that information be
provided on what skills were needed.
PLANNING COMMISSION (9 -9 -86):
Several Commission members requested more detailed
information about the number and type of positions needed.
Mr. Greeson explained that it was not appropriate for the
Commission to get involved in the details and that specific
staff proposals would be considered as part of the normal
budget process. After discussion, a motion was made and
seconded to approve the resolution with the understanding
that no specific program was being endorsed. The motion
passed unanimously.
ZONING
MEMBER
W. Riddick, III---
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Sipes
J.Nicholson
W.Rector
w.Ketcher
D.Arnett
O. J. Jones
I.Boles
F.Perkins
✓AYE � NAYE
PLANNING ·c OM MISSION
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
SUBDIVISION
A ADSENT �ABSTAIN
DATSJ:. 9,{q8b __
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
ZONING SUBDIVISION
MEMBER
W.Riddick, III
--· ---
J .. Schlereth
Ro Massie
Be Sipes
J.Nicholson
W.Rector
W.Ketcher
D.Arnett
D.J. Jones
I • Bo1 es
F.Perkins
/3 14
t-1" v ✓
(/) ✓--
,4 ✓
✓ ✓--
✓ ✓
i/ ✓/ v v✓ ✓
\;/ I"
IJ /
✓v/·
16 11.c 17
✓✓--/
/ ✓/
✓/ ;1 ✓
✓ ,,, /
/ ✓ _/
✓I ✓
/ ( //
,,/ v / /
i;/
./ ✓-✓
/ �
/ ,/ �/ ✓
✓AYE @ NAYE A AOSEN'11 . /�ABSTAIN
---
}
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p .. m ...
I l re) ( l l--\/ ' --b \J)
Date