pc_07 08 1986subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING CO MMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTES
JULY 8, 1986
1:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being 8 in number.
II.Approval of Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved asmailed.
III.Members Present:
Members Absent:
City Attorney:
Ida Boles Richard Massie William Ketcher Jerilyn Nicholson John Schlereth Betty Sipes David Jones Fred Perkins
Bill Rector Dorothy Arnett
Mark Stodola Pat Benton
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
JULY 8, 1986
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Morris Moore "Long-Form PID" (Z-4596-A )
B.Taco Bell on Markham "Short-Form PCD" (Z-4654)
c.Leawood Cove
D.Tanphil Addition
E.Pine Shadows Addition Mobile Home Subdivision
E-1. (Z-4667) Geyer Springs Road, North of Little Rock Creek("R-2" to "R-7"/Mobile Home Park)
F.McClellan Optimist Subdivision
G.Caroline Row "Short-Form PRD"
H.West Markham Shopping Center "Short-Form PRD"(Z-4666)
I.Geyer Woods Addition "Short-Form PRD" (Z-4668)
J.Burnt Tree II -Sidewalk Waiver Request
K.First Assembly of God
L.(Z-4678) Kanis Road at Shackle ford Road from "R-2" to "C-3"
M.(Z-4681 ) West Markham at Timber Ridge from "0-3" and"R-2" to "C-3"
N.Areas 2, 3 and 4 of the Extraterritorial Land Use Plan
PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1.Arkla Industrial Addition Preliminary/Final
2.Clearwater Addition
3.Shadow Ridge -3rd Addition
4. Pleasant View Subd ivision
5.Gleneagles Addition -Revised Preliminary
•SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES -CONTINUEDJULY 8, 1986
6.River Ridge Pointe
7.Langston Acres
8.Hillsboro Subdivision, Phases 6, 7, 8
9.Hillsboro Subdivision Preliminary -Phase IX
10.Austin Subdivision
REPLATS:
11.McM inn Replat
12.Mears Replat No. 2
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
13.J. Roberts "Long-Form PRO"
14.Kanis Road Shopping Center "Long-Form PCD" (Z-46 63-A)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
15.Fitzgerald Hall CUP (Z-4265 -A)
16.Stagecoach Beauty Sh op CUP (Z-4634 -A)
17.Asher Avenue CUP (Z-4682)
18.Pilgrim Valley Baptist Church CUP (Z-4685)
19.St. John Baptist Church CUP (Z-4686)
STREET/ALLEY CLOSURES:
20.Mara Lynn Road Street Closure
OTHER MATTERS:
21.River Bend Revised Site Plan
22.1986 water Mains, Phase III -Job No. 9308
23.1986 Water Mains, Phase IV -Job No. 9309
24.Hunter's Cove PRO -Final Plan Approval
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES -CONTINUED •JULY 8, 1986
25.Hick's Subdivision Sewer Dist rict
26.Woodland Hills Addition, Lot 57RR, Block 3
27.Valley Estates Building Li ne Waiver
28.Resolu tion to Rescind Wright Holeman Estates "PRO"(Z-3769-A) to si ngle family
29.Subdivision Fee Report
30.By-Law Amendment Proposal on notice to propertyowners
31.Amendment to the Highway 10 District Plan
July 8, 198 6
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAM E:
LOCATION:
AGENT:
Lindy Culvert 12115 Hinson Road Little Rock, AR 72212
SURVEYOR:
Troy Laha Phone: 565-7384
Morris Moore "Long -Form" PID (Z-4596-A)
9620 Baseline
DEVELOPER:
Morris Moore 9620 Baseline Little Rock, AR 72209 Phone: 224-1234
AREA: 2.31 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST. : 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES : Automotive Sales and Repair
A.
B.
Site History
This item was recently co nsidered for rezoning. The PUD approach was suggested as a means to accommodate an existing sit uation.
Pl an Objectives
1.To allow for development and use of the entireproperty while protecting the neig hbors from themany varied uses allowed in "I-2" zoning.
2.To allow the uses es tablished over the pa st 20years.
3.To remove one existing building and add two ne wstructures.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
c.Pr oposal
1.The allowance of various industrial uses on atract that is 591.75' x 170.5'.
2.The use breakdown will consist of:
Sales Design Repair
30 percent 20 percent 50 percent
3.A building breakdown is as foll ows:
Building
ProposedExisting Proposed
Existing
Truck/aut omotive repair Hydraulic design, sales and repa ir Single family residence
Si ze
50 1 X 100 1
50' X 100' 50' X 100'
58.4' X 25.5'
D.Analysis
Staff is not happy wit h the pr oposal subm itt ed. It isfelt that it pr oposes more than what was env isioned atthe rezoning hearing. Furthermore, the plan is veryinsufficient in relation to the su bmittal requirements.Engin eering suggests that a SO-foot ri ght-of-way bededicated from the ce nterline and that only on edriveway be allowed.
OCP staff is requesting extensive revision of the planto incl ude: (1) the shifting of pa rking to the si de ofthe property adjacent to the State Highway Depa rtment;(2)limiting the comb ined building areas on the southhalf to 5,000 square fe et; (3) provide buffer anddrainage detail; and (4) design the tw o met al buildingsparallel to each ot her wit h pa rking in between.
E.Staff Recommendation
Denial as fi led.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant for a 1-month deferral to respond to staff's design suggestions.
SEWER -Available, extension required.
WATER -On-site fire protection required.
FIRE -On proposed structure, where automotive parts and tire sales and welding and fabrication shop, a potential fire hazard could be where they are in some building.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-13-86)
A motion for a deferral, as requested by the applicant, was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, O noes and O absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (5-29-86)
Since the applicant was not present, the item was not reviewed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-10-86)
Since staff had not heard from the applicant, a motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, O noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
The applicant was not present. This item was not discussed.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: {7-8-86)
The applicant failed to pursue this matter. The staff suggested withdrawal from further consideration. A motion was made to withdraw th is item from further consideration. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME: Taco Bell -Markham Street "Short-Form" PCD (Z-4654)
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
c/o Donna Mccurty Taco Bell Arthur Thomas Phone: 753-4463Taco Bell 817-51007606 Pebble Drive Ft. Worth, TX 76118 Phone: (405) 324-5444 c/o Jerry Hunt
AREA: NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USES: Commercial -Restaurant
A.Plan Obj ectives
1.To improve the use at this lo cation by developinga new restaurant that will blend in with the earthtone environment, instead of the existing unkempt,small rental homes and an institution known asPeck's, which is in dire need of repair.
B.Proposal
The construction of a tan stu cco Taco Bell Restauranton a 92' x 250' corner lot . The build ing will consistof 28' x 70' of space with 60 parking sp aces.Landscaping will consist of a 4-foot wide strip aroundthe property and a 6-foot fence on the east propertyline to buffer the existing ap artments. New curb andgutter will be installed on the entire si te. Theingress and egress on Markham is a co ntrolled singledriveway for improved tr affic control.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
It em No. B -Continued
C.Analysis
A proposed commercial use at this lo cation was rejectedpreviously due to its noncompliance with theHeights/Hillcrest Plan. Staff opp oses the projectbased on the proposed use and design.
The site is not adequate to place the required la nesand provide for stacking distance. The plan al soimpacts the residen tial area to the north and does notallow adequat e buffer areas on the ea st. Engineeringreports that the Traffic Engineer's review is a must,due to numerous design problems.
D.Staff Recommen dation
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The ap plicant was asked to work with the City and Traffic Engineers to resolve design issues before the public hearing. The basic problem was identified as use, since the proposal does not conform to the Heights-Hillcrest Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-13-86)
A motion for a deferral, as requested by the ap plicant, was made and passed by a vo te of 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was no t present, there was no re vie w of the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-10-86)
A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COM MITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
The applicant was present and offered a nu mber of revisions to the site plan. These were: (1) elimination of the fir st parking space off West Markham, (2) moving the menu board to allow additional stacking space for the driveway and adjustment of the handicap parking, (3) a gate to be added to the fence along the east property line to provide access to the adjacent apar tments as a co urtesy to those re sidents, (4)the addition of a ne w retaining wall and drainageimprovements along the east line and nor th portion of thesite. These items were identified by the applicant asgenerally being supported by Mr. Koornstra of the TrafficEngineer's Office.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant was present. There were no objec tors present. Several letters and phone objections were no ted for the record. The Planning staff restated its recommendation of denial based on the Heights/Hillcrest Land Use Plan, the entrusion into an established residential area and poor site design possibility. The applicant was present and offered an overview of the project and the latest revisions. He addressed the letter of opposition by
\ July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B -Continued
noting that the person has moved and is selling the residence. A general dis cussion then followed involving access, nonconformity and plan provisions for land use along West Markham Street. A motion was made to approve the application as fi led. The motion fa iled for lack of an affirmative vote, but re ceived the majority ca st. Therefore, the item is au tomatically de ferred to the August 12, 1986, meeting as require d by By-Laws. The vote on the motion 5 ayes, 2 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstaining (John Sc hlere th) and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVIS IONS
Item No. C
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPE R:
Properties West, Inc. 26 2 s. Shac kleford Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: 224-3055
Leawood Cove
West End of Shea Drive
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and Assoc. 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 3.78 acres NO. OF LOTS : 11 FEET NEW ST.:
ZONING: "R-2 "
PROPOSED USE: Single Family Homes
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
(1)24' pavement width (request withdrawn at the meeting)(2)15' setback on Lot 10 (request withdrawn at themeeting)
A.Existing Conditions
B.
This proposal is located in an area developed primarilyas single fa mily. The floodplain crosses the property.
Development Proposal
This is a request to plat 3.78 acres into 11 lo ts forsingle fa mily use. Tw o va riances ha ve been requested.They include: (1) 24 foot pavement width and (2) 15foot setback on Lot 10.
C.Analysis
The applicant is asked to justify his request for a 15foot setback on Lot 10. If allowed, it would be avariance, si nce staff's review in dicates that the
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C -Continued
He suggested storm sewers or ot her drainage imp rovements at the end of Shea Drive. Concern was expressed over the easement that extends southward to Rodney Parham and the potential for future through tr affic.
The applicant agreed to allevia te the problem by aband oning the easement and conveying title to the property owner to the south. Mr. White also explained that there would be no worsening of the existing problem with flooding and that some of the lots would be filled.
There was discussion on the applicant's failure to su bmit a Bill of Assurance, an issue that was raised by Mr. Ra iney. The City Attorney advised that this was a requirement for submission in the Ordinance and should be done during the preliminary process, even though as a practical matter, the Bill of Assurance is more closely reviewed during the final plat process. Due to the fact that the Bill of Assurance submission ha d been raised as an issue by a concerned neighbor, the Commission decided to defer the item for 30 days. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 ab sent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
Mr. Joe White of Edward G. Smit h Engineers was present and a general discussion was held involving the issue of lot sizes. He advised the Committee that he had filed the Bill of Assurance as required and sugg ested in re sp onse to their questions that the Committee's concerns over access co uld be handled by the Bill of Assurance. He suggested this instrument could be amended to provide for controlling access and limiting it to Lot 7 only from the Rodney Parham area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant was present. There were se veral objectors present re presented by Darrell St. Cl air and Shirley Gentry.
(
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C -Continued
The objectors identified concerns about Bill of Assurance contents, access from Rodney Parham Road to the site and lot compatability with the neighborhood.
The staff offered a rec ommendation of approval and provided information from its review of neighborhood average lot sizes. The several adjacent plats were noted as ranging from 12,662 square feet abutting this site on the east, to the Leaw ood Manor Subdivision Manor on the north at 15,385 square feet. Staff fur ther pointed out that although the adjacent blocks have rat her high averages, there are some scattered lots under 10,000 square feet. The subject plat, while having lots below 9,000 square feet, contains only tw o out of the eleven. The remaining lots are 13,000 square feet +. We do not feel this represents incompatability.
As to the issue of Bill of Assurance content, the sta ff reviews a Bill of Assuran ce for conformity to the Subdivision Ordinance re quirements and specific Planning Commission req uirements. We do not deal with floor area minimums or other matters outside the regulations. The issue of access to Rodney Parham Road was discussed as being an issue within the perview of the Commission and restrictions could be made upon the plan and the Bill of Assurance as to content.
Mr. Joe White of Edward G. Smith Engineers, representing the owner, made several comments in response to the.staff and Commissions statements. He offered to make a change in the Bill of Assurance to deal with access limit ation to Lot 7 and possibly deal with changing the ac cess easement agreement with the church on the south. He stated that the the two variances are no longer at issue as he is revising his req uest to delete these items. The setbacks will be per ordinance and the street to be to the same 24 foot st andard connecting on the east. During discussion of the issues, Mr. White agreed to provide a minimum floor area of 1500 square feet in the Bill of Assurance.
After a general discussi on of the plat, the Commission voted to approve a motion as follows: approval of the plat subject to the inclusion within the Bill of Assurance of two additional requirements (1 ) an access prohibition to all lots within the addition from Rodney Parham Road over the current easement except or Lot 7 and (2) the provision of a minimum 1500 square foot floor area for all residences on all lots. The motion pas sed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER/ENGINEER:
Orson Jewell 27 Vista Drive Little Rock, AR 72210 Phone: 225-8430
Tanphil Addition
South Side of Highway 10, East of Taylor Loop
AREA: 10.94 acres NO. OF LOTS: 30 FEET NEW ST.: 1,300
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Cul-De-Sac Length
A.Existing Conditions
B.
This proposal is located so uth of Highway 10. Thegeneral ar ea consists of mixed uses, with a pet shopand veterinary clinic abutting on the immediate north.Taylor Loop Creek runs through the middle of theproperty. It app ears that app roximately 90% of thesite is lo cated in the floodway.
Development Proposal
The ap plicant is proposing to plat 10.94 acres into 30lots for single family use and 1300 feet of newstreet. Ac cess from Highway 10 is proposed through a27 foot cul-de-sac, Tanphil Circle, that isapproximately 1200 feet in le ngth. A 50 foot dr ainageeasement is proposed along the western and so uthernboundaries.
July B, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D -Continued
C.Analysis
This proposal presents multiple problems. Foremost, isadvice from the City's Engineers that the plan cannotbe done as proposed. Before any of this is done, anapproved hydraulic study by Engineering and FEMA mustbe obtained showing revisions to the floodway.Secondly, the applicant can't rechannel the ditch asproposed, without an agreement from abuttingproperty-owners who will possibly be impacted.
Additionally, (1) the floodway and floodplain should beshown on the plat; (2) a cul-de-sac waiver is needed;(3)an access easement with participation on theabutting property-owners to the north should beindicated, since Tanphil crosses their property and itprovides the only access to this site; (4) in-lieucontributions are required for Highway 10; (5) TanphilCircle should be called Tanphil Co urt; (6) access toHighway 10 should be at a 90 ° angle to theright-of-way; and (7) the plat status should bereflected on the two lots on highway frontage.
D.Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
E.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant, Mr. Orson Jewell, requested a 30-day deferral so that he could address the comments made by staff.
Water Works Comments -Water main extension is required.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-10-86)
A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
The ap plicant filed a request with the staff for defer ral of this item 60 days prior to the Comm ittee meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant's request was placed before the Comm iss ion as a motion. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 ab sent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
First Consortium, Inc. Suite 41 2 Uni on Square Station Little Rock, AR 72 20 1 Phone: 378-7542
Pi ne Shadows Addition Mobile Home Subdivision
North of Lit tle Fourche Creek, East Sid e of Geyer Springs Road
ARCHI'rECT:
Eddie Branton 707 Wallace Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-493 0
AREA: 8.72 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FEET NEW ST.: 156
ZONING: "R-2," Lots 1-3 and "R-7," Lot 4
PROPOSED USE: Residential/Mobile Home Park
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A.
B.
Existing Conditions
The land involved is loca ted in an area that is currently undeveloped. It is shown as "R-2" Single Family.
Development Proposal
The ap plicant is requesting to su bdivide 8.72 acres into four lots. Lot 4 is to be used as a mo bile ho me park with "final determination of the use of Lots 1-3 to be decided after the City has comple ted the development of Geyer Springs Road and gross has indi cated the highest and best use of the pro perty."
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E -Continued
c.Project Data (33 Mobile Home Lots)
1.
Symb ol Size
1 14'X 45' 2 14'X 55' 3 14'X 60' 4 14' X 68' 5 14'X 68'
2.Parking:66 spaces ( 2 per unit).
Quan tity
1 4 10 15 3
3.Park/recreational area is 19,000 square feet(580/unit).
4 .Outside storage area is 1,250 square feet(38 square feet per unit).
D.An alysis
Lots 1 and 2 should ha ve a joint dri ve, and Lot 3should not ha ve an access drive to Geyer Spri ngs. A 90 -foot ri ght-of-way with boundary street improvementsis required. The de tention area should be shown in the recreation area and the floodway/f loodplain of Fourche Creek mu st be indicated on the plat.
The applica nt does not seem to provide the 500 feet of recreation space per mobile ho me, nor the 50 foot of storage space per unit required. The Geyer Springs Plan designates the area for single family us e.
E.Staff Recommendation
Approval, su bject to no end orsement of comm ercial onLots 1-3.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present, the item was not reviewed.
Water Works Comments -An 8" water main extension was required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-10-86)
A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMISSION ACTION: (6-26-86)
The applicant was present. A brief dis cussion of the proposal was held. The applicant indicated that he would redesign this project to incorporate the three Geyer Springs lots within the ov erall site plan for the mobile home subdivision. No additional issues of substance were determined.
PLANNING COMM ISISON ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant was present. There were se veral objectors present. Mr. Bernie Sherrill and Mr. Bradford addressed their concerns which were compatability with undeveloped area, tr affic and congestion. They ra ised questions about design and siting such as underpinning of the units. The applicant responded by stating that these kinds of site requirements are built into the project. The sta ff offered a recommendation of approval and added comm ents concerning design requirements of the Ordinance. After a bri ef discussion, a motion was made to approve the revised plan. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
Item No. E-1 -Z-4667
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Pu rpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
First Consortium, Inc.
Same
Geyer Springs Road, North of Little Fourche Creek
Rezone from "R-2 11 to "R-7"
Mobile Home Park
8.5 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Vacant, Zoned "R-2 11
-Vacant, Unclassif ied-Vacant, Unclassified-Vacant, Zoned "R-2 11
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone the site to "R-7 11 for a mobile ho me park. The plan proposes 33 spaces with a community area on the east side and a dr ive coming off Geyer Springs providing the ac cess. The pro perty is located in an area that is primarily still undeveloped and zoned "R-2. 11 (South of Little Fourc he Creek is ou tside the City limits.) Further to the south on Geyer Springs, there are a few single family resi dences on large lots an d a bu ilding that has several off ices in it.
The site is part of the Geyer Springs East District Plan whic h recommends single family residential use for the area. Staff feels that a mobile home park is a viable single family use and recommends approval of the "R-7 11 re zoning. The City needs reas onable locati ons for mobile home park develo pments that will not imp act other single family nei ghborhoods, an d it ap pears that the land under consideration is su ch a site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "R-7 11 request.
July 8, 1986
Item No. E-1 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-10-86)
The applicant, Clint Cavin, was present. Paul Fenley, rep resenting a church in the area, requested that the it em be deferred so the church could have more time to study the proposal. Mr. Fenley indicated that they were made aware of the rezoning only the day before the hearing. Mr. Cavin spoke briefly and made sev eral comments. A motion was made to defer the request for 30 days to the July 8, 1986, meeting. The motion was ap proved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant, Clint Cavin, was present. There were two object ors in attendance and they sp oke fir st. Coy Brad ford said that he was opp osed to the "R-7" re quest and that the rezoning would impact the single family subdivisions in the general area. He also in dicated that a mobile home park was incompatible wit h the existing developed neig hborhoods. Bernie Sherwood also spoke in opposition to the request and discussed the proposed south loop. He said that a mobile home park would not he lp the area and that it would affect property values. Bart Sparks asked several questions about the proposed mobile home park. Randy Frazier, representing the applicant, then addressed the Commission. He said that the park would have strict requirements that the te nants would have to adhere to. Clint Cavin then sp oke and described the proposal and the site. There were some additional comments made by various parties. A motion was then made to recommend app roval of the "R-7" re zoning. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
McClellan Optimist Club
McClellan Optimist Club Subdivision
South Side of I-30 Access Road, No rth of MOPAC Railroad -South of Dean Equipment Company
ENGINEER:
Garver and Garver P.O. Box C-50 Little Rock, AR 72203-0050 Phone: 376-3633
AREA: 13.16 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FEET NEW ST.: 0
ZONING:
PROPOSED USE: Clubhouse
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A.Existing Conditions
This property is located so uth of the I-30 FrontageRoad, behind Dean Equipment Company. The general areais composed mai nly of indust rial/commercial uses. Thefloodway an d floodplain cross the property.
B.· Development Proposal
The ap plicant is asking to plat 13.16 acres into fo ur tracts. Tract 1 will be sold to a business that ne eds a storage area for used railroad ties. A small office building will be associated with the business. Access to Tract 1 will be provided by a 50 foot ea sement across property by Coy Dean and ot her tracts of the Subdivision. The access road will be constructed and
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F -Continued
c.
maintained by the purchaser of Tract 1. Tract 2 is the site for the Optimist Club.
Analysis
Any buildings on Tract 1 must have a flood el evation of at least 2 feet above the 100 year flood. All railroad ties must be above the 100 year flood level. Southwestern Bell requests additional ea sements.
D.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to co mments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was disc ussed. The ap plicant explained that the purpose of this proposal was the platting of Tract 1 only; al so, that Tracts 3 and 4 are in the floodway, which will bededicated.
Water Works Comments -Water main extension required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-10-86)
The ap plicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commissioners expressed re luctance at ap proving the plat with the majority of the lots in the floodway and with private ac cess. It was felt that the fact that no Bill of Assurance was su bmitted was no t an issue. A motion for a 30-day deferral was made and passed by a vo te of 10 ayes, 0noes and 1 absent.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
The applicant was present. The Committee discussed the possibility of li miting the plat to the three lots and restricting Lot 1 to a building with le ss than 500 square feet of floor area. The applicant indicated that the access road to Lot 1 is to be constructed to the user standards and floodway areas are to be dedicated to the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant was present. There were no ob jectors present. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the plat as amended including the points raised in the Subdivision Committee Action of June 26, 1986. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUB DIVISIONS
Item No. G
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Chris Barri er/Original City Developers 1000 Savers Federal Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 376-3151
Caroline Row "S hort-Form PRD" (Z-4689)
215, 217, 219, 221 East 10th and 1002 Cumberland
ENGINEER:
Summerlin and Associates 1609 Broadway Little Rock, AR Phone: 376-1323
AREA: .135 acre
ZONING: HDR
NO. OF LOTS: 3 FEET NEW ST.: 0
PROPOSED USE: Residential
REQUEST:
To replat lot lines and increase two lots to three.
A.
B.
c.
Site History
This proposal was su bmitted last month for review as a replat. Since new lots did not meet the bulk and area requirements of the CLR Zoning Ordinance, sta ff suggested the PUD approach.
Developmental Concept
To retain present character as a small ap artment complex, including joint use and ma intenance of the parking area, exteriors, and landscaping.
Development Pr oposal
The applicant is requesting PUD approval to re plat two existing lots into three lots and reori ent the lot lines from north to south, in stead of from east to west, as is currently pl atted. A 35' access easement is proposed in the area designated as "asphalt pa rking
lot."
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G -Continued
The net density per acre is 11 and the building/land ratio is 28 percent. Parking is one space per unit. There will be two buildings with four units and one building with three units.
Since the application deals with existing construction and features and no new construction, the applicant requests permission for a combined preliminary/final. He does not feel that submission of the usual PUD material such as cross section, contours, and elevations are pertinent for this item.
D.Analysis
Southwestern Bell cautions that there is a buried telephone cable in the area. The applicant is asked to call 1-800-482-8998 before excavating. The Fire Department requests a 20' wide street entering the property.
Public Works requires: (1) handicapped ramps at the alley and intersection of 10th and Cumberland; (2) sidewalk across the drive, so handicapped ramps won't be needed; and (3) a 20' radius at the intersection.
E.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
The Committee discussed several points raised by the applicant. These were items 2 and 3 of the Public Works comment. It was pointed out that a 20-foot radius on the curb on the corner would do violence to what was being preserved. This would be evidenced by cutting back severely into the sidewalk intersection and reducing the amount of corner setback for the buildings. The 20-foot wide driveway requested by the Fire Department would damage an existing relationship and serve no useful purpose. The applicant stated that the sidewalk reconstruction at the driveway is unnecessary and felt that it should not be required. The Committee agreed that items 2 and 3 should be omitted from the requirements as well as the Fire Department request on widening of the driveway.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant was not pr esent. A letter was pr esented from the applicant re questing with drawal. A motion was made to withdraw the application from further consideration. The motion pa ssed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open po sition.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. H
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Will is Sm ith c/o Allison Moses Redden 225 E. Markham, Suite 40 Heritage East Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 375-0378
West Markham Shopping Center "Short-Form PRD" (Z-4 666)
On the North Side of Markh am Approximately 230' West of Santa Fe Trail -Directly Across fr om Markham St. Baptist
ARCHIT ECT:
Jim Moses
AR EA: 1. 2 acres
ZONING: 11 0-3 11
NO. OF LOTS: 1 FEET NEW ST . : 0
PROPOS ED USE: Office/Commercial
A.
B.
Development Objectives
(1)To pr ovide a combination of ne ighborhoodcommercial establishments and quiet office uses.
(2)Use of the PUD appro ach to help achieve a balancebetween low-scale quality buildings, adequateparking and landscaping on a sm all sit e.
Development Proposal
(1)To pro vide a cl uster of three one-stor y buildingssurrounded by exte nsive la ndscaping andapproximately 51 parking sp aces. A single curbcut on Markham is planned.
July 8, 1986
SUBDI VISIONS
Item No. H -Continued
(2)To provide a total sq uare footage of 13,568 squarefeet with 75 percent of the use devoted to retailand 25 percent to office.
(3)Development of the project in one phase.
c.Analysis
The site is greatly af fected by the location of a50-foot easement with an existing 39 inch water linethat diagonally bisects the site. Engineering rep orts that the plan can't be done as proposed due to a drainage structure problem. On-site detention is required. Dr ainage ditch constr uction plans must besubmitted and ap proved.
Staff has a problem with the proposed re tail use. It is fe ared that a retail use on this site would lead to strip commercial development and ad versely ef fect the residential area, es pecially to the east. There is currently a good transition between institutional/ office uses and commercial.
An adequate buffer of the residential area to the north is not provided. The applicant is remi nded that a 40-foot buffer and 6-foot fe nce is required.Also, a 3-lot plat is required with the participation ofabutting property owners, if this property was sold offin tracts of less than five acres after 1957. Staffunderstands that the entire piece was once owned by theChurch. Any division without a plat af ter the datementioned ab ove would constitute an illegalsubdivision.
D.Staff Recommendation
Denial as fi led.
SUBD IVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the ap plicant was not present, there was no review of the item.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. H -Continued
Water Works Comments -On-site fire protection may berequired.
Sewer Comments -Site plan is incomplete. No lo cation was given. Contact LRWW.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The ap plicant was present. Appro ximately 18 concerned residents were in attendance. A call in opposition was received from Mr. J.D. Shelby and a le tter from Mr. Mars hall Sharp. Mr. Raymond o. Wilson of 106 Santa Fe al so expressed concerns. Other persons that spoke were Ms. Anne Cherrs, #5 Lawrence; Mr. Charles Hadfield, #9 Lawrence Drive; Mr. Joe Shelby, #21 Meadowbrook Drive; Dr. George Gilliam, owner of an adjacent dentist office; and Mr. Leo Ale xander.
Staff recommended that the ap plicant should provide 50 percent offices and 50 percent comm ercial uses, with the offices located toward the residenti al area on the north and any food service to be located in the southwestern corner.
Mr. Jim Moses represented the develo per. He sta ted that the church had enough parking without this lot, and the developer preferred to have 75 percent retail/SO percent office split; and he could currently build a high-rise office building on this property. He also su ggested that it might be better to allocate uses am ong the buildings ins tead of by percentages.
Ms. Cherrs explained that the nei ghborhood was composed of two ca tegories of persons: (1) retired persons on fixed incomes; (2) young couples with their first ho mes and limited income. She presented a petition with ap pro ximately 100 names. The major concerns expressed by al l of the spokespersons included a de trimental impact on the neighborhood, fe ar of added tr affic prob lesm and drainage problems. Some ne ighbors were currently experiencing drainage prob lems from a recently expanded shopping center in the area. There was talk also of the present difficulties encountered in getting in and out of the Meadowbrook Su bdivision on to Markham, which is worse with the churc h cars parked along the street.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. H -Continued
Dr. George Gilliam, an adjacent property ow ner to the east, felt that this shopping center would be a duplicate of Green Mountain Shopping Center, which was also do ne by this applicant. He des cribed it as being "appalling" and presented photos which showed garbage barrels and ni ght lights in the back of the buildings. He felt that this proposal would da mage his property's value due to the location of the rear of the buildings and interfere with visibility to his office. He asked the Commission whether or not they would sup port rezoning his property to commerc ial, if they passed this application.
After being questioned by the Commission, members of the neighborhood stated a preference for a high-rise office building rather than retail uses. Henk Koornstra informed the Co mmission tha t the traffic count on Markham was 10,000 to 11,000 cars a day, and the capacity was for 15,000 to 18,000.
Finally, a motion for a 30-day de ferral was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, O noes and 2 ab sent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
The applicant requested withdrawal of this item prior to the Subdiv ision Committee meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant was not present. A request from the applicant for withdrawal was received. A motion was made to withdraw the application from further consideration. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDI VISIONS
Item No. I
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Geyer Woods Development Corp oration Suite 412, Union Sta. Sq. Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 378-7542
Geyer Woods Addition "Short-Form PRD" (Z-4668)
East Side of Geyer Springs Road, South of Palo Alto and North of Rinke Road
ARCHITECT:
Eddie Branton 707 Wallace Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-4730
AREA: 3.42 acres NO. OF LOTS: 24 FEET NEW ST.: 995
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Townhouses/Paired Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A.
B.
Development Objectives
(1)To develop a unique, narrowly-shaped and difficultpiece of property into a townhouse development.
Development Proposal
(1)The construction of 15 two story zero lot linebuildings, with two units per building on 30 lotsand 3.438 acres. Density equals nine units peracre. Two parking spaces per unit are provided.A typical unit will consist of 520 square feet ofground floor area with 240 square feet of ca rport.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. I -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of the item.
Water Works Comments -On-site fire protection may be required.
Sewer Comments -No plans submitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-10-86)
The applicant was present. A motion for a 30-day deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
The applicant was present and offered comments to the effect that he had addressed ma jor concerns of st aff as to density, street alignment and cul-de-sa c turnaround. He further stated that he had devised a siting scheme to avoid a linear housing alignment. That is to say that the building lines will be varied to encourage the structures to be offset.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant was present. There were several objectors in attendance and five addressed the issues. The staff offered a new rec ommend ation in support of the project and affordable housing. The objectors speaking were Mr. Hunter Douglas, Jim Irwin, Betty Ca rter, Charles Phillips and Danny Sullivan. Their comments concerned neighborhood comp osition, the current overb uilt apartment circumstance in the neighborhood, economic loss to current
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. I -Continued
owners and the absence of benefits. Mr. Phillips gave a brief hi story of the neighborhood. Bet ty Carter di scussed traffic congestion and the effect on pedestrians as well as automobiles. A lengthy di scussion followed resulting in a general understanding that more contact between the owner and the objectors was needed prior to resolution of this proposal. A motion was made to accept a request of the applicant for a deferral to August 12, 1986. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVIS IONS
Item No. J
NAME:
LO CATION :
APPLICANT:
Burnt Tree II -Pr eliminary Plat -Sidewalk Waiver Request
West of Windsor Drive
Mr. Bob Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone : 664-0003
REQUEST: Waiver of the sidewalk requirements in the subdivision.
A.Staff Repor t
The applicant, Mr. Bob Richardson, is requesting awaiver of sidewalks in this su bd ivision. He statesthat this phas e services only 19 lots and the totallength of the street is only 800 feet, which is only 50feet longer than the le ngth of the cul-de-sac without awaiver. He states that he "can see no reason toclassify this street all the way fr om Winborough andPhase I as a minor res idential street."
B.Staff Recommendation
Denial of the request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was informed that the item would be discussed at the Planning Commissiom meeti ng.
July 8, 1986
SUBDI VISIONS
Item No. J -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval of the request was made and failed by a vote of 3 ayes, 5 noes and 3 ab sent.
SUBDIVISION COMMISSION ACTION: (6-26-86)
The Committee briefly discussed whether the staff had researched the issue on the adjacent street sidewalk. The applicant was present and maintained that a waiver was granted. Staff was directed to continue its research and respond on the matter at the meeting on the 8th.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant was present. The staff reported that the record did not reflect a waiver having being granted on the sidewalk. The engineer maintained that a waiver was granted in the Burnt Tree Phase 1 plat to the east. Henk Ko ornstra of the Traffic Engineers Office requested that the record reflect that he strongly encouraged sidewalks wherever possible and required by or dinance. The Commission discussed the request jointly with Item 8 on this agenda. The Commission det ermined that a defe rral of both items was in order. A motion to defer this matter to August 12, 1986, was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 ab sent and 1 open position.
(
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. K
NAME: First Assembly of God Church Conditional Use Permit (Z-4652)
LOCATION: The north si de of Hermitage Road ju st ea st of Autum n Road (11500 Hermitage Road)
OWNER/APPLICANT: First Assembly of God Church/ Charles J. Carl sen
PROPOSAL:
To operate a day-care and school in the present and future facilities; to build a future Family Life Center of 28,000 square feet (two sto ry); to co nst ruct a ball fiel d and a park; and to provide additional futu re parki ng sp aces of 4.52 + acres of land that is zoned "R-2."
ORDI NANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Loc ation
2.
Adjacent to Hermitage Road (future Financial CentreParkway).
Compatibility with Neigh bor hood
This property is abutted by si ngle family uses on thesouth and ea st. Vacant property li es to the no rth andwest. The adjacent prope rties to the south and westare zoned "C-3" while property that is lo cated to theeast is zoned "O-3. 11 The only property that is zonedsingle family is adjacent to the northeast. FinancialCentre Parkway wi ll eventually be constructed adjacentto this p roperty to the sout h. The chu rch use iscompatible wi th the su rrounding area.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. K -Continued
3.
4.
5.
6.
On-Site Drives and Parking
The site currently conta ins 70 paved pa rking spaces and 1 paved engress and egress to Hermitage Road. The pro posal calls for an unspecified numb er of pa rking spaces (future) to be constr ucted on the so uth and east sides of the building.
Screening and Buffers
The property is situated in a heavy st and of woods, but no landscape plan has been submitted.
Analysis
The staff feels that the existing and the pro posed use is and will be co mpatible with the surro unding area. There are, however, clarifications and issues to beresolved. The applicant ne eds to submit a la ndscape plan and clarify their pro posal. The applicant also needs to be specific about: the kind of school; its proposed capacity; the number of future parking spaces; and the pro posed structu ral in volvement in the recreational area.
City Engineering Comments
The applicant ne eds to: (1) de dicate right-of-way on Hermitage Road; (2) make street improvements to Hermitage Road; (3) be adv ised the future access restrictions as their property re lates to the proposed Financial Centre Parkway exten sion; (4) co nsider closing the un named 30' street lo cated ad jacent to the east; and (5) met stormwater de tent ion requirements.
7.Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to : (1) submita revised site plan and include la ndscaping areas and the specifics of the parking and recreational area; (2) clarify the school proposal; and (3) comply with City Engineering Comments numbered 1 through 5.
(
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVIS IONS
Item No. K -Co ntinued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The app licant was present and did not feel adequatel y prepared to discuss the myriad of is sues ass ociated with this prop osal. He stated that he was thinking of amending his prop osal . The applicant was ad vised and, su bs equently, agreed to defer the ap plication to the June 10, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. The staff stated that the Sewer Department had commented that sewer service was not available to this property.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-13-86)
The app licant was not present. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent to de fer this ap plication (as per Subd ivision Committee re view) until the June 10, 1986, Planning Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (5-30-86)
The app licant was not present. The item was not discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-10-86)
The app licant was not present, but had submitted a letter requesting a 30-day deferral. The Comm ission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to ap prove the deferral of this item until the July 8, 1986, Planning Commission meeting.
July 8, 1986
Item No. L -Z-4678
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Hurley-Whitwell Realty, Inc.
Steven E. Whitwell
Kanis and Shackleford, SE Corner
Rezone fr om "O-3" to "C-3"
Commercial/Eating Place
0.5 acres
Existing Use: Vacant Building
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Office, Zoned "O-3"-Single Family, zoned "O-3"-Single Family, Zoned "O-3"-Vacant, zoned "C-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1.The request is to rezone the tract fr om "O-3" to "C-3"to allow a restaurant. The property is located at thesoutheast corner of the Kanis Road and Shackleford Roadintersection. The area is pa rt of the I-430 corridorthat has experienced substantial rezoning changes overthe last 5 to 7 years. Most of the imm ediate area hasbeen rezoned to ei ther an off ice or commercial districtwith some multifamily zoning on the east side of I-430.There is al so some "R-2" la nd along Kanis to the westof Shackleford. The la nd use is a mix of residentialand nonre sidential uses, primarily office, with a la rgepercentage of land still vac ant. The site un derconsideration is part of an area between I-430 andShackleford south of Kanis that is zoned either "O-2"or "O-3." Along Shackleford south of I-630/FinancialParkway, the com mercial zoning has been restricted to the west side of Shackleford Road and a majority ofthat land is either undeveloped or used for offices.There is some "C-3" land ea st of I-430 and it is pa rtof the Baptist Medical Center's ca mpus. The zoningpattern that has developed over the years is workingand provides for both commercial and office growth.
July 8, 1986
Item No. L -Continued
2.The site is approximately one-half acre in si ze andoccupied by a vacant commercial building.
3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing ag encies as of this writing.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.There is no documented neig hborhood position on theproperty. The site was annexed into the City with the structure in place.
7.The I-430 Pl an recommends office use for the southeastcorner of Kanis and Shackleford Roads and sta ff doesnot support the "C-3" request. The Plan id entifies thesouthwest corner for commercial development and theamount of "C-2" at that location was increased recentlyby a comprehensive rezoning for a larger tr act.Shackleford provides a reasonable line between theexisting zoning, office and commercial, and sta ff feelsthat it should be left undisturb ed. The zoning of theproperty in question could lead to additionalcommercial rezonings on the east side of Shacklefordand also further to the east on Kanis which wouldcreate an undesirable development pattern.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-24-86)
The applicant, St eve Whitwell, was present. There was one objector in attendance. Mr. Whitwell discussed the "C-3" proposal and described the general area. He said because of the existing devel opment and zoning patterns in the vicinity, the "C-3" would not have an imp act. Craig Burns representing the Farm Bureau then spoke. He said the Bure au was against the rezoning and pointed out that the Farm Bureau had just purc hased two acres immediately east of the site in question. Mr. Bu rns indicated that the Farm Bureau was concerned with litter, security, sewer and parking overflow onto their property. He also said that there was no need for additional restaurants in the area and the rezoning could lead to a strip effect. At that point, there was some discussion about rezoning to "O-2" and applying for a conditional use permit for the restaurant. Mr. Bu rns said
•July 8, 1986
Item No. L -Continued
that the Farm Bureau would be opposed to the "O-2" with a conditional use permit. Mr. Whitwell then spoke again. He discussed the issue at length and requested a vote on "C-3." There was a long discussion about "O-2" and "C-2." At that point, Mr. Whitwell amended the application to "C-2." A motion was made to recommend approval of the "C-2" request as amended. The vote: 5 ayes, 2 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. The motion failed and the item was deferred to the July 8, 1986, meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant, Steve Whitwell, was present. There was one objector in attend ance. Mr. Whitwell discussed the proposal and requested "C-3" for the site as originally filed. He went on to present some hi story of the site and described the area and the intersection which he said was an appropriate commer ical location. Mr. Whitwell then addressed the Farm Bureau's objections and sai d that the site had adequate access on three sides. Craig Burns, of the Farm Bureau, then spoke. He said that the rezoning would es tablish precedent for strip zoning on Kanis and that it violated the I-430 plan. Mr. Burns also made several comments about the Farm Bureau's written statement that had been submitted to the Commission. Mr. Whitwell then indicated he desired "C-3" and amended the request from "C-2" to "C-3." The Commission then voted on the "C-3" rezoning. The vote 2 ayes, 6 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position. The request was denied.
July 8, 1986
Item No. M -Z-4681
Owner:
App licant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Cat holic Diocese of Little Rock
Joe D. White
West Markham and Timber Ridge SE Corner
Re zone from "R-2" and "0-3" to "C-3"
Existing Use:
Commercial
7.1 ac res
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East west
-Vacant, Zoned "R-2" and "C-3"-Vacant, Zoned 11 0-3 11
-Vacant, Zoned "C-3"-Vacant, Zoned "0-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1.The request is to rezone the tract of la nd from "R-2"and "0-3" to "C-3" for an unsp ecif ied commercial use.The pr operty is situated in the Rock Creek Parkway areaat the southeast corner of West Markham and TimberRidge Drive. A majority of the la nd in the imm ediatearea is still va cant including the "C-3" on the northside of West Markham. The growth that has occurred inthe area is primarily residential, both single familyand multifamily. The most recent nonresidentialrezoning request in the area was west of Timber Ridge(Z-3292-A) and it was denied by the PlanningCommission. The nonresidential development is back tothe east al ong the Shacklef ord Road corridor. Inaddition to the residential unit s, there are tw oindustrial type uses found in the immediate vicinity.On the west side of Timber Ridge, there is a contractorstorage ya rd and to the ea st, on the south side ofWest Markham, there is an AP&L facility. Because ofthe development and zoning pa tterns in the area, itappears that the pr operty in que stion has somepotential for a commercial devel opment.
2.The site is vacant and wooded.
(
July 8, 1986
Item No. M -Continued
3.Engineering will need to provide the specifics for an yadditional rig ht-of-way dedication because of theproperty's lo cation, the intersection of Ti mber Ridge,West Markham and the fu ture I-630/Parkway co nnection.West Markham is classfied as a co llector andTimberridge is a residential street.
4.There have been on adver se co mments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.Staff has received several informational ca lls ab outthe request. The site was zoned to "O-3" as part ofthe overall Rock Creek Plan for the ar ea.
7.Staff's position is that a co mmercial rezon ing isreasonable for the site because of the lo cation and theproposed alignment of the I-630/Parkway conn ection.The new al ignment has been shifted to the northeast and is different than what the zoning sketch reflects.Because of the new lo cation of the roadway, so me of theexisting "C-3" will be situated to the so ut hwest of theintersection of west Markham and the I-630 extensionwith the property un der co nsideration abutting so me ofthe "C-3." Also wit h the new alignment, the net gainof commercial land will be le ss than fo ur ac res if therequest is granted. The rezoning, if ap proved, wouldleave an office area between the commercial propertyand the single family su bdivision to the so uth whic hshould reduce the potential for any imp acts. To provide additional protection for the single familyneighborhood, staff feels that a "C-2" commercialreclassification for the site wo uld be mo re ap propriatebecause it is a site plan review district. Andfinally, staff enco urages the owner of the "O-3" tr actto the south to pursue a rezoning to "O-2" to also havebenefit of site plan review prior to any de velopmenttaking place on the property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff does not su pport the "C-3" rezoning, but recommends approval of "C-2" for the property.
July 8, 1986
Item No. M -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-24-86)
The owner was represented by Dickson Flake. There were approximately 30 objectors present. Mr. Flake int roduced several other persons in attendance and said that the rezoning was initiated because of the ro ad improvement district for the I-630/Parkway Extension. He went on to sa y that there were only two property owners within 200 feet and that the existing "0-3" directly north of the Timber Ridge Subdivision would remain with some additional protection, such as requiring a site plan review. Mr. Flake then described the area and presented some photos. He al so sa id that because of the I-630 extension co mmercial land use was appropriate for the intersection and that's where it should be concentrated. Ann Kamps then spoke ag ainst the rezoning and indicated that the group present was representing a large area including the Timber Ridge and Point West Subdivisions. She also presented a petition with 200+ signatures and a letter. Elizabeth Shores said that there would be a negative impact from the rezo ning and said that no demand existed for retail or commercial space. She asked that the plan be maintained and not re zone the property. Dr. Joe Murphy voiced his opposition to the rezoning and discussed the Board of Directors' action on the Bowman Road rezoning case. Tracy Jones described the AP&L substation and said that the commercial zoning could cause too many problems. Tammy Holbert also spoke ag ainst the rezoning and said it was a threat to the livability of the neighborhood. Dr. Murphy discussed the parkway and the plan for the ar ea. Mary Ann Rauls addressed the Commission and discussed the rezoning at tempt for the "O-3" property to the west. Joe White, engineer for the road district, spoke and an swered questions. Chip Murphy then discussed the cost of the intersection and addr essed several other points. Additional comments were made by both Ms. Rauls and Dr. Murphy. At that point, there was a discussion about the quorum situation and the vote because of Commissioner Massie ha ving to abstain. The City Attorney indicated that Commissioner Massie had a potential conflict of interest because of his involvement wit h the plan for the ar ea in question. Dickson Flake then spoke again and requested a vote on the commercial rezoning and amended application to "C-2." He said that the rezoning would create a value for the ro ad and was not the same as the Bowman Road case. A motion was offered to recommend approval of "C-2" as amended. The vote 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent, 1 abstention (Richard Massie) and 1 open position. The motion failed and the item was def erred to the July 8, 1986, meeting.
July 8, 1986
Item No. M -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant, Dickson Flake, was present. There were approximately 20 objectors in at tendance. Gary Greeson of the Planning staff spoke and discussed a proposed restrictive covenant/agreement for the "O-3" tract to the south. Pat Benton, of the City Attorney's Of fice, then reviewed the agreement which she said was not a re strictive covenant but it would be enforceable. There was a long discussion about the proposed agreement. At that poin t, Dickson Flake asked to address the Commis sion after the opposition had presented their arguments. David Rawls spoke and reviewed the petition that had been submitted at the previous meeting. He went on to discuss his opposition to the rezoning and reviewed six areas of concern. Mr. Rawls also asked the Commission to reconsider their vote ta ken at the June 24, 1986, meeting. Buddy Johnson said that he was opposed to the rezoning and that "O-3" was more appropriate. He asked several questions about the agreement for the tract of land to the south. He said that the rezoning would establish undesirable precedent for the area and that there was no ju stification for a "C-2" or "C-3" reclassification. Bryan Kellar also spoke in opposition to the request and discussed the existing commercial zoning in the area. David Rawls spoke again and said that covenants are needed that run with the land. Dickson Flake then addressed the Commission. He first discussed the agreement and sa id that it would run with the land. He described the rezoning proposal and the new al ignment for the I-630 extension. Mr. Flake pointed out that there was no residential development within 400 feet of the property in question and he resubmitted photos of some of the nearby uses. Mr. Flake ended his presentation by saying that the intersection was an appropriate location and where the commercial zoning should be concentrated. Gary Greeson of the Planning Office discussed the staff's recommendation and said it was consistent with the ob jectives for the area. David Rawls spoke again and discussed several issues including the proposed I-630 extension. Several other residents spoke and voiced their opposition to the rezoning. Additional comments were made by the various parties. A motion was then offered to recommend approval of the "C-2" rezoning as amended. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, O noes, 3 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
Item No. N -Extraterritorial Plan -Areas 2, 3 and 4
The consultant and staff have completed Areas 2, 3 and 4 of the Extraterritorial Land Use Plan. Plans are the mor e detailed analysis of the general Extraterritorial Plan, previously adopted. St aff has worked with so me of the land owners in the past few weeks and has some modifications concerning the Area 2 plan. These modifications will be presented at the meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends adoption of the plan as modified.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Gary Greeson gave a brief review of Areas 2, 3 and 4 of the Extraterritorial Land Use Plan. He no ted that concerning Area 2 the staff had met with the Deltic and Shackleford property owners and had amended the plan to reflect some compromises. He noted that changes were made in the commerical, office and multifamily designations around the Rock Cr eek Parkway and the new Parkway extension. Winfield Martin, representative of the Shackleford property and Chip Murphy representative of Deltic Farm and Timber both stated that they had no objections with the plan as presented.
After further discussion, the Planning Commission voted 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstention, 2 absent with 1 vacancy to recommend approval of Areas 2, 3 and 4 of the Extraterritorial Land Use Plan.
July 8, 1986
SUB DIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Bob Hess P.O. Box 5583 Little Rock, AR 72115 Phone: 224-1124
Arkla Industrial Addition Preliminary/Final
Southeast Corner of Dugan and East Roosevelt
SURVEYOR:
D.Wilson3rd and VictoryLittle Rock, ARPhone: 375-7222
AREA: .1 72 Acre NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "I-2"
PROPOSED USES: Industrial
VARI ANCES REQUESTED: Replat of existing buildable area to zoning requirements of "I-2."
A.Staff Report
This site is located in an area that is composedprimarily of industrial uses. The applicant isrequested to change a platted buildable area of 40 feeton the north and west sides and 30 feet on the east andsouth sides. The new setbacks will consist of 50 feeton the front, 25 feet on the rear and 15 feet on bothsides. This is in conformance with "I-2" Ordinancerequirements.
B.Staff Analysis
Staff has no problems with the rep lat. Minimumindustrial street standard improvements are required onRoosevelt Road.
c.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
There were no issues for discussion. The application is forwarded wit hout co mment.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted on a motion to approve the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 no es, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
LR Municipal Water Works LR Wastewater Utility and Kelton R. Brown 221 East Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 376-2903
Clearwater Addition
West of Shackleford and 1/2 Mile South of Colonel Glenn
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and Associates 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1116
AREA: 35.4451 acres NO OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW ST.: 480
ZONING: "I-1"
PROPOSED USES: Industrial
A.Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area that consists primarilyof single family uses. There is, however, one lightindustrial use nearby.
B.Development Proposal
c.
D.
This is a proposal to subdivide 35.45 acres into 3 lotsand 480 feet of new street, for use as a combinedstorage facility for Water Works and sewer.
Analysis
The staff suggests that access be limited toShackleford Road. However, if a controlled access withno drive through can be ac complished, we would supportthat action. The purpose of this action would be tolimit access to Talley Road.
Staff Recom�endation
Approval, subject to comments made.
July 8, 1986
SUBDI VISIONS
Item No. 2 -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
The discussion on this plat ce ntered on pr ovision of access. The applicant offered a plan to resolve through tr affic and lessen the imp act upon Ta lley Road. The Talley Road point of entry to this pr operty was id entified as the northwestern corner whereby Talley Road passes within 100 feet making a turn to the west.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was pr esent. attendance. After a brief on a motion to approve the motion passed by a vote of open position.
(7-8-86)
There were no ob jectors in discussion the Commission voted application as revised. The 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 ab sent and 1
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Properties West, Inc. 262 South Shackleford Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: 224-3055
Shadow Ri dge 3rd Addition
Southwest Corner of Archer Lane and Farri Street
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smit h and Associat es 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 1.33 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: Si ngle Family
A.
B.
c.
Existing Conditions
This property is located in an area composed of mi xed residential uses. Elevations range from 410 feet to 530 feet. It is bounded on the north by Archer Lane; the ea st by Farris Street; the west by a 10 foot alley; and the south by residential.
Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 1.33 acres int o 2 lots. No variances ha ve been re quested for resi dential use.
Analysis
A waiver is ne eded for the 15 foot building li ne adjacent to Farris St reet. Th e ap plicant is as ked to provide justification. Also, he is asked to build reduced residential standards on Farris.
D.Staff Recommendation
Approval, su bject to comments made.
July 8, 1986
SUBDI VISIONS
Item No. 3 -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-28-86)
A general discussion was hel d involving the sta ndard of street improvements to be imposed. A sec ondary issue was the building line of 15 feet shown along Ferris Street. After th is discussion, the applicant requested instruction as to whether the existing four lots could be built upon as is and utilize the reduced street standard. He was advised what would be allowed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
Mr. Joe White representing the plat made a request for withdrawal of this item inasmuch as the owner has dec ided to build on the lots as currently platted. A motion for withdrawal from further consi deration was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open posit ion.
(
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Woodland, Inc. P.O. Box 2060 Little Rock, AR 72203 Phone: 372-7700
Pleasant View Subdivision
West End of Forrest Drive
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and Associates 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 74.75 acres NO. OF LOTS: 169 FT. NEW ST.: 9,930
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
--------------------------------
A.Existing Conditions
B.
The land involved is located in an area developed forsingle family.
Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 74.75 acres into 169 lotsand 9,930 feet of new street. Variances requestedinclude a 15 foot building setback line as shown on theplat.
C.Analysis
The preliminary plat involved was previously engineeredby another firm, and we are having some coorindationproblems but expect to work out these issues by thehearing date on July 8.
Staff would appreciate an explanation of the areasindicated as exceptions including those nowparticipating in the plat. Engineering reports that ahammerhead is needed on Silica Court and detentionareas are to be constructed in the green space by SugarMaple Lane, and Magnetite Drive should be changed toCircle.
(
July 8, 1986
SUBDI VISIONS
Item No. 4 -Continued
D.Staff Recommend ation
De ferral until further information is received.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recomm ends approval of the plat subject to cl earing minor plat submittal detals.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
A general discussion was held and ce ntered on the out parcel and means of termination of the str eet. It was determin ed that a hammerhead device at the end of the street wit hin this developer's property would be an appropriate solution. Mr. White agreed and suggested that it would be better for his cl ient to have this tu rnaround within their plat . The Wastewater utility noted a need for easements along all of the existing lines serving this area within the preliminary plat. Also, Water Works indicated a water main exten sion is required and several additional easements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. attendance. After a brief on a motion to approve the motion passed by a vote of open position.
(7-8-86)
There were no objectors in discussion, the Commission vo ted application as revised. The 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1
(
July 8, 1986
SUBDI VISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Wickard and Co., Inc. #2 Innwood Circle Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: 224-0330
Gleneagles Preliminary
Southwest' Corner -Hunter's Glen Boulevard and Napa Valley Road
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and Associates 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 8.4846 acres NO. OF LOTS: 36 FT. NEW ST.: 1,580
ZONING: "MF-12"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family Detached
A.Staff Report/Analysis
This is a request to revise an approved preliminary.It includes subdividing 8.5 acres into 36 lots and1,580 feet of new street. Variances requested include: (1)building setback lines as shown; (2) turnaroundfacilities as shown; and (3) 25 foot wide streets asshown.
The Planning staff requests submittal of a letter outlining the proposed changes between the original preliminary and the one proposed.
B.Staff Recommendatio n
Staff recommends approval subject to clearing severalminor details.
(
July 8, 1986
SUBDI VISIONS
Item No. 5 -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMM ITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
The plat was discussed briefly with Mr. White outlining the changes. It was determined that there were no outstanding issues of consequence. There was a request to look at a 18-foot private drive instead of the 12-foot.How ever, these drives are to be one-way.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant was present. There were no ob jectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, the Comm ission voted on a motion to approve the application as revised. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstention (David Jones) and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Ridge River Pointe Joint Venture 111 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ph one: 374-4242
River Ridge Pointe
North and West of River Ridge Road
ENGINEER:
Ed ward G. Smith and Associates 401 Victory St reet Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 64.3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 44 FT. NEW ST.: None 4,250' Private St.
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
VARIA NCES REQUESTED: Cul-de-Sac Length
A.
B.
Ex isting Conditions
The property involved is located north of a single family area (Riversedge's Subdivision) ov er the Arkansas River. The topography is very rugged. Access will be provided from River Ridge Road.
Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 64.3 acres into 44 lots. A private street syste m of 4,250' is planned.
c.Analysis
Staff has se veral concerns relating to this submission.Designs nec essary to ac commodate the se nsitivetopography is understood by staff; however, theapplicant should formally re quest a waiver of thecul-de-sac due to excessive length; and a waiver forthose lots that are three times as deep as their
(
July 8, 1986
SUBDI VISIONS
Item No. 6 -Continued
widths. Also, the applicant should identify the use of all tracts indicated by a le tter. If they are common open sp ace, their maintenance must be provided for in the Bill of Assurance along with the private street system. A landlocked parcel near the railroad, wit h no tract num ber, should be id entified. A tu rnaround or a cul-de-sac is needed around Lots 28 and 29. Notice should be given to ab utting owners with 2.5 acres or more and the applicant should identify ac cess to L.M. Le wis property. Sidewalks are required. The app licant should adhere to the hillside re quirements.
D.Staff Recommendation
App roval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
The issues discussed were: elimination of the tu rnaround at mid point of the street. This was determined to be inapprop riate on a private street system closed to the public; no cu rrent sewer available and method for se rvice; extending the lots on the north to ab sorb the tract along the railroad; easements to loop the water sy stem and notice to adjacent property owners; and wastewater ne eds for an easement along an existing 8-inch main. The applicant was generally re ceptive to staff design suggestions on the street as to drainage, curbing and street alignment. The waivers requested were determined to be nonissues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The ap plicant was present. There were several objectors in attendance. The staff offered its recommendation of approval. It was pointed out that the ap plicant had agreed to the several street design re commen dations and that he had decided to provide the mid-point tu rnaround on the private street. Sidewalks were pointed out as being nee ded. The applicant, Mr. Walker, then addressed the Commission and
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 -Continued
gave a general overview of the plat. He identified the several areas shown as Tracts and stated their us age. He agreed to make Tract A two homesites and to make the 50 foot strip running to Highway 10 a permanent open space or discuss deeding this strip to adjacent owners. He also offered to fund a traffic signal at Highway 10 intersection with River Ridge Road if the warrants are in place and the State Highway Department agrees to a need. All of this would be predicated on a study of the intersection. The objectors then offered their comments. Mr. Seth Ward discussed access to the entire area and stated that a prior Planning Commission had agreed to require an additional access from this isolated area before additional development occurs. He was not specific as to when the agreement was established or who may have initiated an agreement. Mr. Ward discussed current tr affic problems at the intersection with Highway 10 and narrow street cond itions in the subdivision. James Dunnaway discussed the nee d for a second access and current traffic problems. Bob Harr old discussed the notice pr ovided neighbors and sta ted that he felt it was deficient as to its timing. He had concerns about Tract A and its future usa ge. Elizabeth Murphy commented on the traffic problems. Henk Koornstra was then asked to respond to some of the is sues. He responded by stating that the best he could determine, the tra ffic condition on River Ridge Road at the current time was within the design capacity for this street. After fu rther lengthy discussion of the platting proposal, a request was made of Mr. Walker by the Commission to defer this item until July 22, 1986, in order to allow sufficent time for the staff to research their records on the second access agreement. Mr. Walker agreed to the deferral. A motion was made and passed to defer the item to July 22, 1986. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
(
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME:
LOCATION:
Langston Acres
North off Yarberry
ENGINEER: DEVELOPER:
GNP Enterprises 10018 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 225-7107
Robert J. Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: 664-0003
AREA: 20.3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 108 FT. NEW ST.: 3,000 LF
ZONING: "R-7A" being reviewed for "R-3" rezoning
PROPOSED USES: "R-3" Si ngle Family lot de velopment
A.Existing Condition s
This site is located in an area near the edge of theCity that is developed as single family.
B.Development Proposal
The applicant has stated that his submission involves108 lots on 20.22 acres. Linear feet of streetconsists of 3,000 feet. There is an average lot sizeof 6,000 square feet and a minimum lot size of 5,750square feet. No variances have been requested.
C.Analysis
This is a small subdivision that was originallyapproved as a mobile home subdivision zoned "R-7A" forlot sales.
The applicant failed to submit an outline of revisionsand continues to search for the prior preliminary plat.The primary purpose of this filing is to provide adifferent access to four lots approved previously withYarberry Lane access. These lots will now access fromGranger Loop within the interior of the subdivision.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 -Continued
The applicant is requested to provide width of surface on the private drive; down zone the property; reflect buildable areas on the plat because of small lots (15' building lines allowable on Lots 33-37); center hammerhead between Lots 36 and 37 since this is the end of private easement and would make better building sites; and provide sidewalks. David Hathcock of Public Works indicates that the stub of Granger Loop that runs off Warren Road was final platted as Langston Lane on the final plat of Phase I. He requests that a na me change of Langston Lane be made to el iminate confusion in the future.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
The Committee discussed this plat at len gth and determined that there were no issues of substance involved. The engineer for the project accepted staff's design changes for the private street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted on a motion to approve the ap plication as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME: Hillsboro Subdivision Phases VI, VII and VIII
LOCATION: North off Beckenham
ENGINEER: DEVELOPER:
Kelton Brown, Sr. 13700 Beckenham Robert J. Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: 664-0003Little Rock, AR 72212 Phone: 225-2111
AREA: 40 acres NO. OF LOTS: 75 FT. NEW ST.: 4,060 LF
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A.Site History
This plat was approved in 1984 with Phase VII beingfinal platted as Burnt Tree Phase I.
B.Staff Report
This is a request for revision of an approvedpreliminary plat. The purpose is to accommodate arealignment of Beckenham at its westernmost end,realign Brightstone intersection to Beckenham Cove, andto all for an access street (Brissle Pine), stub to thewest of Beckenham Cove, 160 feet north of Brightstone(Brissel Pine is part of the preliminary platsubmission for Hillsboro, Phase IX). Two more lotshave also been added due to the realignments of thestreet; and to effect a more desirable layout.
C.Staff Analysis
The applicant is asked to demonstrate how theadditional lots affect the hillside regulations.Redesign of Lot 60 to eliminate the angular pipe stemis suggested as this would provide a more radial lot tothe street centerline and eliminate the potential forproperty line dispute in the future. Sidewalks arerequired on all appropriate streets.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 -Continued
They are especially needed on Beckenham, which is a collector street.
D.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to minor design changes noted and sidewalks as required by or dinance.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
The plat was briefly discussed with several items in the staff write-up needing clari fication. Once resolved, the plat be fore the Committee had no significant is sues. Wastewater noted that easements should be clearly delineated and dimensioned on the plat. Water Works noted that Lots 29, 47 and 68 through 73 and all of Phase VIII cannot be served with water until a mai n installation requirement has been me t.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The application was represented by Mr. Bob Richardson. There was one ob jector present a Mr. Price repres enting Melvin Bell, the owner of a lar ge Tract lying ad jacent to the west. Mr. Price offered concerns ab out what he believed to be the realignment of a collector street which might cause problems or hinder the development of Mr. Bell's property. He stated Mr. Bell had limited ac cess at this time due to some of the previous stub streets provided by the developer of Hillsboro Subdivision. He fu rther stated that in one instance, one of the streets stops short of the dedicated right-of-way, thereby limiting ac cess to the physical improvements. The staff offered its recommendation of approval subject to the minor points rai sed ear lier, but asked that the Planning Commission clarify whether the sidewalk requirement is applicable. We believe the record which does not reflect a waiver having been gr anted. Mr. Richardson offered ad ditional comme nts in response to the several statements by Mr. Price and staff.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 -Continued
He indicated that the Beckenham alignment had moved very little or not at all from its previous preliminary plat approval. He questioned dea ling with the sidewalk issue on this plat inasmuch as it is a simple rec onstruction of a preliminary approved ea rlier. He resta ted his belief that a waiver was gra nted. He clarified for all concerned that his design changes from the existing preliminary are to accommodate an access to the 30 acres his client owns which will be Phase 9 of Hillsboro. This access is necessary because Beckenham Drive is interrupted at the Barrow property line and there is no ot her access at this ti me. After a lengthy discussion of the plat, the Commission determined that a deferral of this item was in order since there were questions to be resolved and the owner does not propose immediate development. A motion was made for deferral to the August 12, 1986, agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 ab sent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME: Hill sboro Subdivision Phases IX
LOCATION: West Side of Hill sboro Phase VI
DEVELOPER : ENGINEER:
Kel ton Brown, Sr. 13700 Beckenham Robert J. Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: 664-0003 Little Rock, AR 72212 Phone: 225-2111
AREA: 40.3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 62 FT. NEW ST.: 3,100
ZONING: Single Family
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
VA RIANCES REQUESTED: Delete Sidewalks
A.
B.
Existing Conditions
This site is located in a re sidential area. Elevations range from 450 feet to 600 feet.
Devel opment Proposal
The ap plicant is ask ing to plat 40.3 acres into 81 lots and 3100 linear feet for single family use. The average lot size will be 20,742 square feet and the minimum 14,400 square feet. A hill side analysis ind icates that the minimum size of the lots and area of slopes greater than 18% is 13,000 square feet.
A wai ver of sidewalk requirements is re quested due to the fact that sidewalks do not exist throug hout the subdivision, except in common area s. Further just ification offered ind icates the steep grades encountered in the subdivision.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 -Continued
c.Analysis
Staff rec ommends denial of the request for a waiver ofsidewalks. The main issue to be discussed involves an area of lots served by a private street. It should be decided whether or not this should be public or private. As a private street, this easement should be at least 45 feet in width with a 24-foot pavement. The private access easement makes Lots 8-12 double-frontage lots which are discouraged by ordinance. Staff recommends public street access to lots in the area of 61, 27 and 28.
D.Staff Recommendation
Approved, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
This applicant requested deferral of the plat until August 12 in order to address the design concerns raised by staff and his property owner.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The ap plicants request was accepted. A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Hal Austin 7th and Franklin Pine Bluff, AR Phone: 879-4000
Austin Subdivision
On the South Side of Dixon Road, Approximately 243' from U.S. Highway 65
ENGINEER:
Melvin Mobbs, P.A. 2400 McCain, #1031-6 North Little Rock, AR 72116 Phone: 753-9765
AREA: 5.78 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW ST.:
ZONING: Outside City limits
PROPOSED USES: Unknown
A.
B.
Existing Conditions
This site is located outside of the City, to the south of McGeorge Construction Company, rock-crushing facility. The site is boarded on the east by an on-ramp and State parking area, and on the south by single family, and a heavy equipment, rental, storage and repair use.
Development Proposal
This is a proposal to subdivide 5.78 acres into 2 lots for use as a convenience store and servic e station.
c.Analysis
The applicant is asked to explain the intended use ofthe property. Also, identify the relationship betweenthis property and the interchange. Right-of-waydedication may be needed and street improvements arerequired.
D.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 -Cont inued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26 -86)
A discussion of this item revealed that the east property line of this site is the highway right-of -way and that a ride share parking lot is adja cent. The right-of-way issue along Dixon Road may be resolved by acceptance of the current 80-foot right-o f-way as suff icient. This will be determined by the City Engineer. It was reported by Mr. Don Bailey, the applicant, that only Lot 1 would be filed for record at this time and improvements to that se ction would be provided. Wastewater reports that no se wer is available to this area. Water Works reports that a $150 per acre charge will apply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant was present. There were no objector s in attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted on a motion to approve the application subject to it ems in the Subdivision Committee Comments. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME:
LOCATION:
McMinn Replat
9900 I-30
ENGINEER: DEVELOPER:
Joe Groseclose 93185 I-30 Little Rock, AR Phone: 562-6570
Jack Wilks
SURVEYOR:
AREA:
Ben Kittler
NO. OF LOTS: 8 FT. NEW ST.:
ZONING: "C-4"
PROPOSED USES: Open Display -Warehouse -Retail
A.
B.
c.
Existing Conditions
This si te is lo cated in an area that is composed of ind ustrial, commerical and some mobile homes.
Development Proposal
The applic ant is requesting to subdivide 7.88 acres into 8 lots. Lot 2 is to be used for a freight sales/frontage/warehouse/office/retail sales development.
Analysi s
The proposal, as submitted, is deficient. The Engineer and owner is asked to set a meeting with Staff to discuss this proposal. The plat must be redesi gned to comply with the Subdivision Ordinance. Some basic preliminary information not submitted are the preliminary certificates, property li ne ra dius, contours and drain age in formation. Street im provements will be ne ed ed.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 -Continued
D.Staff Recommendation
Deferral until issues resolved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: {6-26-86)
The Committee agreed a deferral to August 12 is appropriate with a resubmittal of this subd ivision pl at in conformance with the ordinance. Water Works reports that there are line, fee and easement issues attached to this area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: {7-8-86)
The applicant was not present. The Planning Commission determined that a deferral was in order. A motion to defer until August 12, 1986, was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME: Mears Replat No. 2
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER :
West 2nd and Summit Streets
ENGINEER:
Roger C. Mears, 5711 S. Country Little Rock, AR Phone: 664-0352
Jr. Club 72207
Eddie Branton, Architect, 707 Wallace Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-4930
Inc.
AREA: 6.63 acres NO. OF' LOTS: 2 FT. NEW ST.: None
ZONING: "I-3"
PROPOSED USES: "MF-24" for Lot 1 and "0-3" for Lot 2 and Lot 7, Block 5, Union Depot Addition
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A.Staff Report/Analysis
This is a request to replat an approved plat to addwhat is shown as Lot 2 and Lot 7. Previously, the sitewas approved for mini-warehouses.
The applicant is advised needed for lots with two rezoning will be needed. check with Traffic.
B.Staff Recommendation
that a site plan will be or more buildings: also, Access may be a prob lem, so
Approval, subject to comments made.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6 -26-86)
The discus sion of this application revealed there were no issues of substance. It was poi nted out, however, that rezoning of the property is appropriate and that site plans will be forthcoming.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant was present. There were no objec tors in attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted on a motion to approve the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Joel Komer, President J.Roberts Co.5050 Qu orum DriveSuite 635Dallas, TX 75240 Phone: 214-458-1756
J.Roberts Co. "Long-Form PRD"(Z-4403-A)
I-430 and Kanis -West Sideof Aldersgate
ENGINEER:
Summerlin and Associates, Inc. 1609 Broadway Little Rock, AR Phone: 37 6-1323
AREA: 12 acres
ZONING: PRD
NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT . NEW ST . : 0
PROPOSED USES: Apartments
A.
B.
Developmental Concept
(1)To provide ho using facilities to se rve the ne edsof the increasing employment base being created byextensive co mmercial and re tail de velo pment in theimmediate vicinity; and to address the ap parentneed for upgrading the area.
(2)To help the City begin upgrading and re develo pingthis area by in troducing a new and af fordab lequality community.
Development Proposal
(1)The construction of 16 , three-story buildings (intwo phases) on 11.68 acres.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISION S
Item No.
( 2)
( 3)
13 -Continued
Quantitative Data
(a)Phase I
Unit Area Count
Al 489 square feet 48 A3 628 square feet 72 Bl 774 square feet 24 B2 918 square feet 48
Total -192 Units Parking -308
( b)Phase II
Unit Area Count
Al 489 square feet 24 A3 628 square feet 72 Bl 774 square feet 24 B2 918 square feet 60
Total -180 Units Parking -271 cars
Miscellaneous Data
(a)Recreation Building ••••.••• 3,200(b ) Net Land Area ••.••••••••••• 5,885 11.68 Acres Total Build ing Coverage •••• 90,512 17.79% Paving Covera ge ••••.•••••. 188,175 36.98% Outdoor Recreation Area ••• 54,350 10.685 Landscape Open Space 175,848 34.56%
(4)Developmental Time Frame
Construction should begin within six to ninemonths and be completed within 24 to 30 months.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 -Continued
c.Analysis
Staff feels that the major issue is density. The proposed density is 31.8 units per acre. The applicant has·used a higher density that usually gains our support infill and central city sites. The maximum density that staff will support is 18 to 24 units per acre in a well designed livable environment. It should be noted that sewer service to the site was an issue the last two applications and this user proposes to increase the impact.
It has been noted that all buildings along the interstate are too close to the property line and Building B-2 is located in what is the detention area agreed upon on the previous proposal that was approved on this site. Engineering requests that use of this as a detention area be retained, and that the area be increased for stormwater and erosion control. The entrances could be increased by one. Please submit building elevations, floor plans, and show the cut line for the cross section.
D.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to reduction in density commensurate with the approved land use plan and resolving drainage concerns.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
This application was discussed at length with primary consideration given to drainage and density. The proposal offered deals with detention in a fashion that Public Works does not view as meeting the silt and sedimentation control needs previously identified. The appropriate location for such control is the southwest corner of the site. The developer will look at alternative approaches and report on the 8th. He will review his position on density relative to the elimination of units and/or buildings and reduction from 31 plus units per acre to the neighborhood of 24 units per acre. Water Works reports that on-site fire protection systems should be shown on the plan. Also, that $150 per acre charge applies. Wastewater reports that a main extension is required to serve the site and a capacity contribution fee is required.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant advised sta ff prior to the meeting by letter that a deferral is needed in order to restructure the application due to the origin al de veloper dropping out of the issue. The owner of the land and a new developer will refile for the August 12, 1986, meeting. A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Investment Dev. Concepts 320 Executive Court Suite 301 Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 227-9490
Kanis Road Shopping Center "Long-F orm PCD" (Z-4663-A)
North Side of Kanis, 1500' West of Bowman Road
ARCHITECT:
Bozeman, Wooldr idge & Assoc. 320 Exec utive Ct., Su ite 301 Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 227-9490
AREA: 7.05 acres
ZONING:
NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.:
PROPOSED USES: Shopping Center
A.
B.
Developmental Concept
(1)To develop a site to pro tect the pr ivac y of theadjoining neighbors.
(2)To develop a nic ely designed center that will ha vea positive impact on the neighborhood, and pr ovidethe residents with needed shopping facilities.
Development Proposal
(1)The construction of a one-story front arcadecommercial shopping center.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 -Continued
(2)Quantitative Data
Lot Size Building Coverage -Leasable Arcade (covered walks) Paved Area Landscaped Area
Total Parking Spaces -242
C.Analysis
Sq. Ft.
307,098
63,657 5,744 134,752 102,945
Acreage
7.05
1.46 0.13 3.09 2.37
The applicant has been asked to renotify the neighborhood, submit a grading plan, provide stormwater detention volume calculations, and an 80' right-of-way on Kanis Road. Sidewalks are required. The entrance needs to be redesigned to 18' to 20' and the landscaping plan approved for year round quality of screening. There should be low level lighting directed toward the pavement. Please provide information on the percentage of food sales -grocery or restaurant. Finally, rear building or roofing treatment may be provided by use of a Mansard roof that hangs down 3" or 4" and hides air and heating equipment.
D.Staff Recommend ation
Approval, subject to resolving issues raised and modifying the site plan to add those solutions plus location of dumpster sites, provision of notice to neighborhood and location of on-site fire service system.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
The discussion on this item centered on those items raised by staff and Water Works. The applicant was instructed to review options on location of dumpsters, provide information on the hillside cut and the rear drive. This in formation should be prepared for presentation to the Commission on the 8th. Wastewater reports that a main extension is required.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The Planning Commission was advised by staff that the applicant had mailed notices with an error in the date of hearing. The Commission recommended that deferrral until August 12, 1986, is in order. A motion to defer was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIO NS
Item No. 15
NAME: Fitzgerald Hall -Conditional Use Permit (Z-4265-A)
LOCATION: At the Termination of North Tyler Street (2415 N. Tyler St.)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Catholic Diocese of Little Rock/ L.Dickson Flake
PROPOSAL: To renovate the first and second floors of an existing building (appro ximately 17,000 square feet) and to construct 14 parking spaces with a dr ive, whic h would all ow the building to be used for ed ucational, cultural and civic activities (o ffices, conference rooms and studio s) (Metropolitan Chapter of Al coholics Anonymous and Ballet Arkansas). Finally, expansion to the third flo or of the proposed uses outlined on the first two floors is requested at a future date with the un derstanding that additional parking will be required. This proposal is located on 1.2185 acres of lan d that is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
2.
The terminus of a re sidential (North Tyler) street.
Compatibility with Neighborhood
Fitzgerald Hall is situated on the southwest portion ofa 40+ acre site (instituti onal). Fitzgerald Hall issurrounded by other interior site institutional us eslocated on the north and east. Property lo catedimmediately ad jacent to the south and west is vacant.One single family use is located ap pro ximately 150'south of Fitzgerald Hall. The preponderance of theproposed activity will occur in the late af tern oon andearly evening within a la rge institutional are a. Thestaff feels that this activity will be compatible withthe surrounding area.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. K -Con tinued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (6-26-86)
The applicant was pre sent and submitted a re vised site plan and pr oposal which deleted the proposed new pa rking area and the fa mily life building. The Staff stated that the exis ting pa rking was ad equate and que s tioned the lighting of the proposed ball pa rk. There was some discus sion of the lighting and scree ning of the proposed ball pa rk and recreational area. The Cit y Engineer stated that in lig ht of the reduced proposal that City Engineering Comments numbered 1-5 were no longer applicab le.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-9-86)
The applicant was present. There were no ob jec tor s. The staff stated that a revised site plan had been re ceived. The applicant stated that a total of 8 light pole s would be installed. The staff stated that they had no problems wit h the proposal and asked that the applicant submit a revised site plan that inc luded al l dimensions of the pa rking area, building, ac ce ss, etc., the applicant stated that he would submit the ne ces sary re vised site plan. The Commis sion then voted 8 aye s, 0 noes and 3 ab se nt to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and ag reed to by the applicant.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 -Continued
3.
4.
5.
6.
On-Site Drives and Parking
The pro posal contains one 20' access dr ive and 14 parking spaces.
Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
Analysis
The staff do es not foresee any ad verse impact to the surrounding area due to this proposal. The applicant does, how ever, ne ed to be advised that they will be required to meet City landscape requirements. The staff's primary ar ea of conc ern is pa rking. Ordinance parking re quirements strictly in terpreted would be 42 spaces for this proposal. The ap plicant, ho wever, has stated that the proposed pa rking should be enough to accommodate the limited uses as proposed. The Alcoholics Anonymous Chapter is currently using Morris Hall within the existing facility. The move for the Alcoholics Anonymous Chapter is simply a relocation. The AA Chapter has no da ytime st af f and will occupy the site from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. si x days a week and from 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Sundays. Ballet Arkansas is proposing an office staff of three to four persons and up to three instructors. Instructors will ope rate on a stagg ered schedule whic h will begin at approximately 4:30 p.m. and end at ap proximately 9 p.m. The applicant has al so stated that public performances will not be held on-site (except for an annual audition). Upon consideration of the applicant's statement and the fact that 17 additional pa rking spaces exist across from Fitzgerald Hall (in front of the Administration Building), the staff supports the parking proposal. The staff do es, ho wever, feel that the proposed expansion into the third floor of this building should initiate or dinary pa rking requirements of 17 additional spaces. The applicant al so ne eds to meet City landscape requirements.
City Enginee ring Comments
None.
July 8, 1986
SUBDI VISIONS
Item No. 15 -Continued
7.Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the ap plicant agrees to: (1) meet City landscape requirements; and (2) construct 17 additional pa rking spaces upon the expansion of the proposed us es into the third floor of Fitzgerald Hall.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTE REVIEW:
The app licant was present and ag reed to comply with Sta ff recommendations. The ap plicant was requested to de fine the proposed uses of the building. The ap plicant stated that all us es, both presently proposed and future would be limited only to offices, studios and accessory uses for educational and nonprofit organizations and that no residential use would be allowed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were three objectors present. The staff stated that they had received one letter and one phone ca ll in su pport of this proposal. The staff also stated that they had received a revised si te plan and recommended app roval of the proposal as amended. Mr. Ben McMin n was concerned about the possible increase in traffic on North Tyler Street and a lack of a Master Plan for the en tire seminary grounds. Mr. John Gillihand expressed some concern over potential increase in tr affic. Ms. Jeffrey Hubner expressed concern about the pa rking and a lack of Master Plan. Ms. Melanie Doyle, Director of Ballet Arkansas, stated that Fitzgerald Hall would not be used for major productions and would require very little parking. Mr. Dickson Flake stated that all the buildings on the seminary ground would be in use once Fitzgerald Hall is renovated. He stated the plan was to use and mai ntain all the buildin gs as they now exist. He al so stated that the Alco holic Anonymous Chapter had been meeting on the grounds for ap proximately 10 years. The Commission then vo ted 8
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 -Continued
ayes, 0 noe s and 3 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
NAME: Stagecoach Beauty Shop Conditional Use Permit (Z-4634-A)
LOCATION: Southwest of the Intersection of Baseline Line and Stagecoach Roads (9202 Stagecoach Road)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Billy Jean Barkley/Walter Hyde
PROPO SAL: To allow the continuance of a conversion of 415.6 square feet of an exis ting single family re sidence to a beauty shop and to provide six gravel pa rking sp aces on 1.7 acres of land that is zoned "R-2" ("O-1" is pending).
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
2.
Adjacent (north) to a major arterial street (StagecoachRoad).
Compatibility with Neighborhood
Single family us es are located ad jacent to the southand the east while vacant la nd is located to the northand west. The proposed use is compatible with thesurrounding area.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
4.
The proposal contains a 15' gravel dr ive and six gravelparking sp aces.
Screening and Buffers
As per City la ndscape requirements.
July 8, 1986
SUBDI VISIONS
Item No. 16
5.Analysis
6.
The st aff does not foresee any adverse impact as aresult of this proposal. The ordinance parkingrequirement is two spaces. The applicant has re questeda variance which would allow the use of the parking anddrive areas as exist. Staff does not see any pressingneed to re quire a paved drive or parking area.
City Engineering Comments
None.
7.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to the ap proval of the pendingrezoning of this property to "0-1."
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The item was not discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. The Commission voted 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent to approve the application as rec ommended by the staff, agreed to by the applicant and reviewed by the Subdivision Committee.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 7
NAME: Asher Avenue -Conditional Use Permit (Z-4682)
LOCATION: The Southeast Corner of Manor Road and Asher Avenue (8421 Asher Avenue)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Rayburn Burris/Marcus Miles
PROPOSAL: To obtain a conditional use permit which would allow the continuance of a 1400 square feet au to rep air garage and an adjacent used car sales lot on la nd that is zoned "C-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
2.
Adjacent to an arterial street (north, Asher Avenue).
Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is abutted by commercial uses on thenorth, west and east. A single family use is locatedto the sout h (the ho uses as well as both commercialuses are owned by the same person). The proposalcontains nothing that does not al ready exist. Thestaff does not foresee any ad verse impact to thesurrounding area.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
The entire area in front of the au to re pair garage ispaved. The pa vement extends into Asher Avenue. Theused car lot is al so paved and has a pa ved ac cess on to Asher Avenue.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 -Continued
4.
5.
6.
Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been su bmitted.
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 res ult of this proposal. The applicant will, ho wever, be required to meet City landscape re quirements.
City Engineering Comments
The applicant will be required to dedicate the necessary right-of-way to a to tal of 50' on their side of Asher Avenue.
7.Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1)meetCity landscape requirements; and (2) dedicate thenecessary right-of-w ay on Asher Avenue.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to make an effort to comply with staff recommendations. The applicant st ated 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.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
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.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18
NAME: Pilgrim Valley Bap tist Church Conditional Use Permit (Z-4685)
LOCATION: The East Side of Wolfe Street Just South of West 18t h Street (1821 Wolfe Street)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Pilgrim Valley Baptist Church/ Reverend William Fields
PROPOSAL: To co nstruct a 910 square feet Sunday School classroom addition to an existing church (100 ca pacity) and to pave the access dr ive and 16 parking spa ces (request 15-month de lay on pavement) on land that is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
2.
3.
Adjacent to a residential street (Wolfe Street).
Compatibility with Neighborhood
This pro perty is surrounded by re sidential uses on allfour sides with a dup lex located on the south. Thechurch is an existing fa cility, and the pro posedexpansion will be screened by the existing he avyvegetation. This proposal is co mpatible with thesurrounding area.
On-Site Drives and Parking
A 20' access dr ive and un paved parking (rear of ch urch)curr ently se rve this site. The applicant is pro posingto pave the access dr ive and 16 parking spaces.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 -Continued
4.Screening and Buffers
The applicant is pro posing to use the existing fenceand vegetation as scr eening.
5.Analysis
6.
The staff does not foresee any adverse impact to thesurrounding area due to this proposal. The applicant has stated a desire to defer driveway and parking improvements for 15 months. The ord inance also requires 20 paved par king spaces. The variance request, therefore, is for a 15-month delay in improvements and a reduction of four parking spaces. The staff does not have any problem with the applicant's variance request on parking. The fact that the church is making a com mitment to meet City standards (paving 15-month delay) is not out of line with past Board of Directors' actions. The request of the reduction of spaces (four) is acceptable. The four additional required spaces could be built but only in the church's front yard. The staff feels that the pavement of the front yard would not en hance the existing facility.
City Engineering Requirements
None.
7.Staff Recommend ation
Staff recommends approval subject to the Commission'sapproval of the applicant's variance requ est forparking.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The Committee discussed the variance is sue at length. No conclusion was reac hed with regard to the church's parking variance requ est.
(
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The Commission voted 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent to approv e the application as recomm ended by the st aff, including the proposed pa rking variance.
(
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19
NAME: St. John Baptist Chu rch Conditional Use Permit (Z-4686)
LOCATION: The Southeast and Southwest Corners of Roosevel t Road and Main Street (2504 s. Main)
OWNER/APPLICANT: St. Missionary Baptist Church/ Raymond Branton
PROPOSAL: To rebuild an existing educa tion fell owship building (21,600 square feet total), and to expand the educational area (12,160 square feet) and the worship area (27,500 square feet -850 capacity). The proposal al so calls for the construction of 109 parking spaces cu rrently, with an additional 132 spaces to be constructed on land that is zoned "C-3" and "R-4."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Locati on
2.
Adjacent to a principal arterial (north, RooseveltRoad), a collector (s outh, Main Street), andresidential (west and south, 26th and 27th Streets).
Co mpatibility with the Neighborhood
This property lies in a mixed use area. The st ructuralproposal is abutted by commercial uses on the north andwest, wit h office/multi family to the east, andresidential and recreational uses located to the south.The structu re that cu rrently occupies the site hasburned. The reconstruction of the existing facilityand the construct ion of additional facilities has thepotential to be compatible only if all sc reening,landscaping and design techniques are appropriatelyapplied.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 -Continued
3.
4.
5.
On-Site Drives and Parking
The proposal contains 17 on-site parking spaces. A total of 109 parking spaces is currently planned bringing the proposed to tal to 126 spaces. The app licant is also proposing to use 132 parking spaces of existing adjacent ins titutional uses. Finally, the applicant is proposing an additional 132 parking spaces in the future. A 14' access dr ive is al so proposed from Roosevel t Road. Various access points are proposed for the parking areas.
Screening and Buffers
The applicant has shown the proposed la ndscape area s as well as noti ng on the site plan that landsca ping will be as City ordinance re quires.
Analysis
The staff is ge nerally supportive of this proposal but does have some res ervations. The sta ff wants assurances of written parking agreements fr om al l off-site parking lot owners whose property is being used. In addition, the sta ff wants as surances that all residential lo ts will be screened fr om the pa rking areas. There is some qu estion about the proposed access dr ive (14') on the ea st side of the building. The staff wants Fire Department approval for this access. The applicant needs to submit a revised site plan that shows the dim ensions of the pro posed ca nopies (if canopies are de sired). Finally, the sta ff has so me question about the proposed hei ght of the st ructures. Our understanding is that the existing church is 83' in height (and had a 7' steeple) and that the new auditorium will be 90' in hei ght with a pro posed 70' steeple. The staff re quests a site se ction which shows the heights of buildings bot h existing and proposed (ordinance allows 35' in hei ght). The applicant is also apparently ask ing for a fr ont and rear set back variance (25' is required).
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 -Continued
6.City Engineering Comments
(1)Eliminate one access drive to Louisiana from theproposed parking area; and (2) place si gnage thatindicates access drive to be one-way (south offRoosevelt Road).
7.St aff Recommendation
Staff recommends app roval provided that the ap plicant:(1)receives Fire Depart ment approval of the proposedRoosevelt access drive and that he agrees to make itone way (south) and erect a si gn to that effect;(2)provides si gned parking lot agreem ents wit hadjacent institutional property owners; (3) agrees toscreen residential uses from proposed parking areas;(4)agrees to elimin ate one access drive from LouisianaStreet to the proposed parking area; (5) agrees toprovide a sit e section; and (6) receives approval fromthe Commission on front yard, rear yard and hei ghtvariance requests.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The app licant was present and agreed to comp ly with all staff recomm endations. The applicant did, however, question whether or not any variance for front and re ar yard setbacks were requir ed. A lengthy di scussion ensued over whether the front yard for the church was Roosevelt or South Main. It was fi nally agreed that the front yard for the chu rch could be Roosevelt Road and that no variance would be required for the front or rear yards. The applicant pres ented a sit e section which illustrated the height of the existing structure, the proposed structure and the steeple. The applicant explained that the church property lay in a sort of valley and that the imp act would not be negative.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The staff stated that they had received a revised site plan and assurance that of f-site parking was being addressed. The staff recommended approval of this item subject to the Co mmission approving the proposed height variance. The Commission then vo ted 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent to approve the application as reco mmended by the staff in cluding the proposed height variance.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 -Street Right-of-Way Abandonment
NAME: Mara Lynn Road
LOCATION: Ly ing west of Napa Valley and Bowman Road and Bowman Road connection
OWNER/APPLICANT: The Prewitt Company by Michael K.Uyeda
REQUEST: To abandon the ea st west leg of a former street alignment and join with adjacent property for apartment development
STAFF REVIEW:
l.Public Need for this Right-of -Way
This segement of street right-of-way was bypassed bythe Bowma n/Napa Valley re alignment. The right-of-waywas determined to be surplus and not a functionalpublic street. The improvements remaining are notuseful to the developer of the apartment project lyingalong the south property line.
2.Master Street Plan
3.
4.
There are no requirements at tac hed to this abandonment,however, the apartment project will be required tocontribute ce rtain dedication and improvements to MaraLynn Road eastward of this location.
Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
There are no dedication requirements attached to thisproposal on other neighborhood streets.
Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
The right-of-way parallels the edge of a steep slopefalling to the south toward Rock Creek. The existingpavement is roughly two lanes with a surface treat ment.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 -Continued
s.Development Potential
None, except as needed for the adjacent apartmentproposal.
6.Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
7.
The abutting lands on the south and west aremultifamily with apartments under construction on thewest. To the north across Mara Lynn Road are tw oapartment complexes and on the east lie undevelopedcommercial lots.
Ne ighborhood Position
None reported at this writing. None expected.
8.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
9.
None, inasmuch as subdivision pl ats are pr ovidingrequired easements.
Reversi onary Rights
This petitioner will share the ri ght of way equallywith the owner on the north unless other arrangementsare provided.
10.Public Welfare and Safety Issues
a.The abandonment of this unopened and unusedsegment of Mara Lynn Road will ret urn to theprivate sector a land area that will supportadditional unit density within the adjacentproject and be supportive for the real estate taxbase.
b.The abandonment will eliminate a potentialintersection hazard on a busy arterial street in acurve.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 -Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends approval of this abandonment proposal subject to the retention of utility and dr ainage easement rights within the Abandonment Ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The Commission briefly discussed the proposal. There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was present. A motion was made to recommend approval of this request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstention (David Jones) and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVIS IONS
Item No. 21
NAME: ,_
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Bailey Corporation ·c/o 401 VictoryLittle Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666
Riverdale Addition, "Tract D-2A" Replat/Revised Site Plan
North End of Cedar Hill Road
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith & Assoc.
AREA: 9.5 acres
ZONING: "MF-18"
NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
PROPOSED AND EXISTING USES: Condos
A.Staff Report
This is a request to revise an approved site plan byadding new units. The applicant states that the sitewill consist of 36 units with 139 parking spaces. More detail is needed on the plan, such as dimensions, typicals, separation between buildings and information regarding the new units.
B.Staff Recommendation
Reserved until further information is received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
This application was briefly discussed with no issues of significance developed. The engineer was directed to submit a more comp lete site plan with additional dimensions and quantitative data.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted on a motion to approve the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22 -Other Matters -1986 Water Mains, Phase III -Job No. 9308
APPLICANT/AGENT:
REASON:
Little Rock Water Works/ Howard A. Lenz
Water main extensions la rger than 12 inches in diameter require Little Rock Planning Commission ap proval (Act 186 of 1957).
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The Staff stated that the reason that this it em was before the Commission was due to the proposed in stallation of: 1430 feet of 20 inch water main from Woodrow and Roosevelt: 690 feet of 20 inch water main at Rice and Roosevelt Road: and 630 feet of 16 inch water main at Howard and Roosevelt Road. The Water Works st ated that the work was being per formed to reinforce flows to the areas and for fire protection. The Committee had no problem with this proposal. The Committee felt that this it em should be placed on the consent agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The Commission voted 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent to approve the application.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 23 -Other Matters-1986 Water Mains, Phase IV -Job No. 9309
APPLICANT/AGENT:
REASON:
Little Rock Water Works/ William Graham, Jr., Consulting Engineer
Water main extensions la rger than 12 inches in diameter require Little Rock Planning Commission approval (Act 186 of 1957).
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was pr esent. The Staff stated that the re ason that this item was before the Commission was due to the proposed installation of: 2000 feet of 16 inch water main on David O'Dodd Road; and approximately 200 feet of 16 inch water main on I-30 at Chicot Road. The applicant state d that the im provments were necessary to: (1) improve and enhance the fi re flow s in the areas; (2) eliminate several dead end segments of the system and im prove water service to the customers; and (3 ) to pr ovide some ar eas with water service (primarily the David O'Dodd are a). The Committee and the staff had no pr oblem with this proposal. The Committee felt that this item should be placed on the consent agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was pre sent. The Commission voted 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent to ap prove this ap plication.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24 -Final Plan/Plat Confirmation
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER/ENGINEER:
EXISTING ZONING:
Final Plan Confirmation Hunter's Cove Long-Form Planned Residential District (Z-4633)
West End of Hunter's Glen Blvd.
Properties West, Inc. By: Edward G. Smith & Associates
Planned Residential District
REQUEST: Planning Commission approval of final pl an/plat
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The st aff recommends approval of the plan pr esented inasmuch as it appears in conformance as required.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
This item was discussed briefly and approved for placement on the Commission's agenda for approval recording.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
No motion for action was taken or required. This it em is entered into the record for recording purposes only.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 25 -Other Matters -Sewer Improvement District Formation
NAME: Hicks Inter-Urban Subdivision Improvement District
LOCATION: Lying south of Kanis Road between Junior Deputy Road and Aldersgate Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Public Need
Various owners by Mark Spradley, Attorney
Formation of a local district for pu rposes of installation of sewer li nes and allied facilities
This neig hborhood was annexed to the Cit y ofLittle Rock in 1982 and received all urban servicesexcept sewer. This 145 acres is receiving developmentpressure which cannot be accomm odated by the currentseptic tank system.
2.Master Plan Effect
The adopted plan reflects single family on the south 80acres and mu ltifamily on the north 40 acres +.Redevelopment for other usage is not proposed at thistime.
3.Characteristics of District Terrain
The land contains mostly rolling te rrain wit h severalridges running east to west. There are severaldrainage courses of significance ru nning through thisarea draining toward the Aldersgate Camp area alongI-40 except in the area of the north 40 + acres. Thereare various structures used as res idential, church andsome business activit y. The streets are rural st andardwith no curbing or underground drainage.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 25 -Continued
4.Neighbor hood Effect
s.
This proposal should offer only positive effects forthe current residents and future develo pment of thisarea. Our review of the proposal indicates no adverse effects to be experienced.
Neighborhood Position
At this writing, none has been reported to the Staff. However, this is the utility improvement district and all of the owners with property within the district boundary may not be aware of the proposal.
6.Effect on Public Services or Ot her Utilities
At this writing, no adverse effect has been reportedfrom any agency or co ntact made by this department.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the formation of this district inasmuch as positive results will be produced by the introduction of this public service.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The Commission brie fly discussed this item. There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was present. A motion was made to recommend approval of fo rmation of this district. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 26
NAME:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT/DEVELOPER:
Claude Brasseale The Danny Thomas Co. 400 Center Place 212 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-2231
Woodland Hills Addition Lot 57RR (being a replat of Lot 57R)
North End of Aspen Drive
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith & Assoc. 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666
REQUEST: A reduction of a 20' platted building line to 15'.
A.Staff Report
The applicant is requesting permission to replat thewest building setback line to allow for encroachment ofa covered porch that encroaches approximately 2.4 feetinto a plat ted building line area. The structure wasinadvertently mislocated by the builder when placingthe foundation.
B. Staff Recommendation
Ap proval, subject to filing a 1-lot final plat andsubmissfon of an amended Bill of Assurance.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
This application was discussed briefly with the result that no new inf ormation or conditions developed. The item is passed to the full Commission witho ut specific co mment.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 26 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted on a motion to approve the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 27
NAME: Valley Estates -Building Line Waiver
LOCATION: 13000 Hinson Road
OWNE R/APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
A.Staff Report
Hilman and Donna Johnson #1 Valley Estates Little Rock, AR 72212
To encroach 22' into a 40' platted buil ding line for a garage addition.
This site is located in the single family area. Theapplicant is requesting to encroach 22' into an areaestablished by a 40' platted building line for a garageaddition.
Justification offered is inadequate room. Theapplicant need s this extra garage due to the fact thata son and daughter have moved back into the house againand everyone has cars. A hardship is created due tothe fact that occupants of the house have to move theirvarious cars when one wants to get out. They also havea Suburban and a 4-wheeler setting in the parking areaat the same time.
Staff supports the waiver.
B.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to submission of an amended plat andBill of As surance. The building line change should bemade in the area of the street.
July B, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 27 -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
This item was discussed briefly. It was noted that at least one recent variance was granted to an adjacent house along Hinson Road. No new information was developed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted on a motion to approve the application as fi led. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 28 -Resolution to Rescind Wright-Holman Estates "PRD" (Z-3769-A to Single Family)
This Resolution is before the Commission at the request of the current property owner. The Planned Unit De velopment of record was established to provide the ad dit ion of seven new residential units on this estate sized lot . Since that approval, the ownership has ch anged and the current owner/occupant desires to co ntinue single family us age. The rescinding action proposed will allow the owner to make cert ain imp rovements on the sit e and enhance it s live abilit y. The improvements ar e not permitted by the Planned Unit Development as now recorded. This resolution, if approved, will be forwarded to the Board of Direc tors with the appropriat e Ordinance amendment for review and action to reclassify this lot to "R-2" single family district.
STAFF RECOMME NDATION:
The staff recomends the approval of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The Planning Commission briefly dis cussed the proposal. A motion was ma de to recommend approval as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 29 -Other Matters -Subdivision Fees -A Report and Update
SUBJ ECT :
SIGN TYPE:
Street sign fee inc rease proposal
New street name markers at one per intersection. Present cost equals $66 material and labor. Proposed cost equals $85 material and labor.
This fee increase is the result of a review by the Traffic Engineers Office and represents the City's cost to erect eac h street name marker. The effective date of charging this fee is June 10, 1986. This review and upgrade on cost is an annual event, how ever, the la st several years there has been no increase in cost, therefore, a significant change is proposed at this time.
SIGN TYPE: Temporary Dead End Signs at one per stub-street plus two end of road signs. Present cost to developer $0 inasmuch as signs are erected as needed or appropriate by City of Little Rock. Proposed cost of new signage as directed by the 1985 Subd ivision Ordinance Amendment is $165.
As you will recall, the 1985 amendment package to the Little Rock Subdivision Regulations inc luded an additional requirement that developers provide at their cost a termination sign for temporary use at the end of all stub streets; wherein future properties were to be developed and take access.
SIGN TYPE: Permanent "Dead End Road" Signs. Presently no cost to developer as signs are er ected as needed or appropriate by the City. Proposed cost of new signage suggested by Traffic Engineer is $60 per sign installation.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 29 -Continued
The Traffic Engineering Staff has re quested that the Planning Commission discuss this matter and determine the appropriateness of making this charge. In many instances, a design favorbale to a developer on a cul-d e-sac creates an information problem for drivers. This is especially true where ve rtical and horizontal street alignment or lengthy cul-de-sacs offer no information on te rmination of the street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The Commission discussed this issue bri efly then deferred the matter until st aff and City Attorney can review the ne ed for an Ordinance prior to in itiating this requirement.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 31 Amendment to the Highway 10 District Land use Plan
The Planning Commission has been asked by the Board of Directors to give an advisory review of a proposed amendment to the Highway 10 District Plan.
The amendment, entitled, the Urban Village, is a plan proposal for the Woodland Heights/Fairview Road area. The plan encompasses commercial, office and residential uses. The feature point of the plan is the commercial promenade, an old fashioned main street type mixed use area including residential units.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment subject to:
1.The guidelines prepared by staff, as modified below;
2.Allowing office uses as in other transition zones alongHighway 10;
3.Curb cuts on Highway 10 being permitted at a rate ofone for each 300 feet of frontage;
4.Approval by the City Traffic Engineer;
5.Approval by the City Attorney; and
6.In lieu contributions toward traffic signals atRodney Parham/Woodland Heights Road and Highway 10/Pleasant Ridge Road.
HIGHWAY 10 PLAN URBAN VILLAGE AREA GUIDELINES
AREA 1 -37 acres bounded by Woodland Heights , Fairv iew, and Highway 10
AREA 2 -10 acres bounded by Woodland Heights /Pleasant Ridge Road
1.Land Use:
2.Density:
AREA 1
-Single-Family/Multi-Family-Mixed Use (Comercial/Residential)-Office
The Single-Family/Multi-Family Areanorth of the n promenade a and south ofHighway 10 can be Single-Family Attachedand Detached or Multi-Family. Maximumdensity can not exceed 10 units/ac re.
-The Central Shopping Area would be ina two or three story configurationinvolving a mixture of housing units.
The "Meadows n Office Area would be anOffice Park with the taller structures·1ocated nearer the commercial core tolessen the impact on the single-familyresidential community to the south.
3.Circu lation: -In orde r to provide proper access to this
0 in ternal a development area, streets willneed to be widened and extended. Woodland Heights and Fairview Road should become collectors and Woodland Heights should be extended to a sign alized in tersection with Rodn ey Parham.*
4.Curb Cuts:-No cu rb cuts are allowed on Highway 10.All traffic is oriented to the •internal a
development.
*The staff suggests that once the Urban Village concept isadopted, the Master Stre et Plan should be amended toreflect the changes in the collector streets. Theamendment of the Master Street Plan for the extension ofWoodland Heights Road to Rodney Parham was proposed by thestaff some years prior, but was not approved.
5.Buffers:
6.SubmissionRequirementsfor Rezoning
& Development:
1.Land Uses:
2.Density:
3.
4.
Buffer:
Submission for Rezoning and Development :
A 40 ft. landscaped buffer is proposed on the north side of the project along Highway 10.
PUD Submission 10 acre minimum -Any rezoning would need to indicateits complementary relationship tothe remainder of the Village propertyA 125 ft. building setback from theHighway 10 centerline.-Grading Plan, extensive hillside cutsto be discouraged.Maintenance of existing tree cover tobe encouraged.
AREA 2
Office
The eastward site zoned 0-3 would follow those requirements of the 0-3 District. No rezoning to PUD would be required.
The density of the west 5 acres would be regulated by a POD process. Buildings of less than 3 stories in height would be encouraged.
-A 40 ft. landscaped buffer would berequired for the POD project locatedon the west 5 acres. The bufferwould be located on the west andsouth property lines.
-A PUD application would be requiredon the west 5 acres to insurecompatibility with the adjacentsingle-family areas.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 30 -By-La w Amendment
In Article IV, (MEETING), add in Section 4 of the notice requirements the following new paragraph imm edia tely after the title to subsection b:
b.To affected properties
Notice to affected properties shall be provided asspecified in Paragraphs (1-5) below. InParagraphs (2-5) requiring supplemental notice toneighboring property owners, the mailing ofnotices to the names and addresses of propertyowners obtained fr om a licensed ab stractor shallbe considered adequate notice. If an ap plicantfails to provide supplemental notice as re quiredherein, the Commission may defer action on anapplication until supplemental notice ha s beenproperly provided. However, the fa il ure toprovide supplemental notice shall not defeat ordilute an action of the Commission sho uld theCommission decide to act on an application wherethe technical requirements of supplemental noticehave not been perfectly met.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is before the Commission at the Chairman's request. The amendment will buttress the By-Law requirement now in place and cl arify the Commission's position. The Planning staff recommends the adoption of the amendment.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The Commission discussed this it em briefly then voted on a motion to amend the By-Laws as presented. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 31 -Amendment to the Highway 10 District Plan
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Jim Lawson gave a brief review of the Highway 10 plan amendment. He advised the Commissi on that the Board of Directors wanted the sta ff and Planning Commissi on to review the prop osed amendment and to forward their comments to the City Board of Directors.
The Planning Commission id entified concerns wi th the Mid-Rise Office buildings located next to the Pleasant Ridge Subdivision and the residential designation located between Highway 10 commerc ial and to the south. They fe lt that a better plan would be to locate commercial next to Highway 10 rather than the mu ltifamily.
After fur ther discussion, the Planning Commission decided that the Highway 10 Plan as or iginally proposed to the Board of Directors was the principal land use plan.
DAT�,1-/f�tfi
PLANNING ·c OM MISSION
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
·ZONING £ SUBDIVISION
MEMBER
-,� ---,,,.a::,1n·n. 'I
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Sipes
J.Nicholson
w.Rector
W.!<etcher
D.Arnett
0.J. Jones
I.Boles
ll /3
,/ A;
,/ •
✓•
t/ /
,, ✓ ✓
:rr
,/ ✓ / /
e 7J £ E-J
./✓ / ✓
✓ !,/ / ./
,/ ,/ ••
✓t/ ✓✓
,/ ✓ / /
✓ / ✓ ./
i/ / ./, ,/
r.: G fl r -·� L M. 1
/ / i/ / ✓ / • ✓
✓ / ,/ ,/ ./ / , II
,/ ✓ / ,/ ./ / ' ✓
✓ ,/ / /✓ ✓ / • /
,/ ./ / ✓ / ✓ -✓
,/ ✓ / ✓ / ✓ # ✓
/ / / ✓ ,/ ✓ ✓ ✓/
I � 3 I 4 ,? t, l�l;q
.//v ✓/ / ✓ /
/ ✓ ✓ ✓ / ,/ ✓ /
,/ ✓ ,/ ✓ ,/ v ✓ /
./-/ / / ,/ ✓✓
n ✓✓ ✓✓ ./✓ v
II n ✓✓ ✓ ✓ Ir ,/✓ ✓
✓/ ✓ / / ✓ / V _
F.Perkins I ✓ ✓ I / // ✓ I: 7 7 7 v I ✓ / / ✓ ✓ ✓/ /
✓AYE @ NAYE A ABSENT ":e_ABSTAIN
DAT�£�
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
, ,. ... .. I
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Sipes
J.Nicholson
w.Rector
W.Ketcher
D.Arnett
D.J. Jones
I.Boles
F.Perkins
o/
/
/
,/
,/
✓I
TT ✓
✓
VtJ /I
,/ /
,/ ./ ✓,/
,/ ./
✓ ✓
/ ✓
✓ / ✓/
1/2-i/3 ll# LS V6
/ I/ ✓ ✓ I✓ / / ✓ / ✓
/ / ✓ / ./
/ / ,/ / /
,/ v ,/ / ,/
/ 1/ / ✓✓
✓./1 ,/ ✓✓ ✓,I / ✓ ,I
✓AYE � NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
!/? /� /� ;U Lt/ 14�
/ � ✓/ / / " / ,/ � /
✓/ ./ / ,/ /
/ ./ / / / /
/ ✓ ,// ,/ / /
,/ / / � / /
✓/ / / / /✓/ I ✓ / �✓
k.23 o2� ·�-1" l,.;2/2 �? b?-R d9 �ZJ
✓,/ ✓ / / / / ✓
/ ✓ ✓ / J// / •/
/ / // / / ✓ I/
/ .✓ ,// / ✓ ✓ A
/ ✓ ✓ / / / /' /
n
,/ i� ✓ / / / / /
✓✓ ✓✓-/ ✓ ✓ v v / / ✓ ,/ / / /
July 8, 1986
Subdivision
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was
adjourned at 7:00 P.M.
Chairman: Secretary:
Date: Date: