pc_01 13 1987subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 13, 1987
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 11 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were read and approved.
III. Members Present:
IV. City Attorney Present:
J. Schlereth
W. Ketcher
F. Perkins
R. Collins
W. Rector, Jr., Chairman
R. Massie
D. Jones
J. Nicholson
D. Arnett
B. Sipes
W. Ridd is k
Stephen Giles
Pat Benton
Deferred Items:
Little Rock Planning Commission
Summary of Subdivision Items
January 13, 1987
A.South Broadway-Conditional Use Permit (Z-4218-A)B.Bixler Commercial Replat, Lot 4C.Westpark Development, Block AR, Lots 5&6D.Rezoning Case -Autumn Road, North of Hermitage (Z-4165)"R-2" to "0-3 "
E.Master Street Plan -Proposed Amendment to Autumn Road andRock Creek Parkway Intersection
Preliminary Plats/Site Plan:
1.Orbit Subdivision Revised Tract F
Site Plan Review:
2.Capitol Hill Apartments
Planned Unit Development:
3.Little Rock Retirement Facility (Z-4786)
Conditional Use Permit:
4.South Batter Street Daycare -Conditional Use Permit (Z-4784)5.Henderson United Methodist Church -Conditiona Use Permit (Z-4785)
Building Line Waiver:
6.Rush -Building Line Waiver -3411 Hidden Valley Road
Other Matters:
7.Wesport & The Pointe -Private Access Revision8. Barrow Office -Preliminary Phasing and Name Change 9.Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance Amendment
Final Approval:
10.Rainwood Cove -Long Form Planned Residential Development11.Ridgehaven valley �states
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME:
South Broadway Conditional Use
Permit (Z- 4218 -A)
LOCATION: The Southeast corner of 23rd
Street and South Broadway
OWNER /APPLICANT: David Wilson /Ronnie D. Hall
PROPOSAL: To convert an 1,875 square feet commercial
building for an automobile repair facility with no outside
display on land that is zoned "C -3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (23rd Street) and a
principle arterial (South broadway).
2. Compatibilitv With Neiqhborhood
This site is abutted by a church use to
multifamily to the south, industrial to
Substation), and commercial /multifamily
the west. The proposed use, properly 1,
maintained, will be compatible with the
area.
3. On -Sites Drives and Parkin
the north,
the east (AP &L
located to
andscaped and
surrounding
This site has 13 existing parking spaces (excluding the
overnight parking area) and three access drives (two
drives located on Broadway and one drive on 23rd
Street).
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff does not feel that the proposed use will have
an adverse impact on the surrounding area. The
applicant does, however, need to submit a site plan
that includes the proposed landscaping.
6. City Engineering Comments
(1) Eliminate the two parking spaces parallel to
Broadway.
(2) Close the northernmost drive on Broadway by
constructing new curb and gutter.
(3) Construct a handicapped ramp on Broadway.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to submit a
revised site plan that includes landscaping and
incorporates City Engineering Comments numbered 1 -3.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. The applicant was asked to clarify what
was meant by an auto repair facility. The applicant stated
that he would perform work such as tune -ups, brake repair,
and minor mechanical repair. The Committee felt that no
body work, storage of junk cars, major auto overhauls, or
automobile painting should take place on this site. The
applicant agreed to comply.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16 -86)
The applicant was present and was represented by Russell
Berry of Garver and Garver Engineers, Inc. The staff stated
that they had received a revised site plan and that the
recommendation was for approval with the additional
restrictions of: (1) no outside work or testing of
engines; (2) no transmission, motor rebuilding, or other
major overhaul work; (3) no display or storage of body parts
outside; and (4) limiting the hours of operation from
7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The
applicant agreed to comply except that he preferred to
remain open until 6:30 p.m. Ms. Theresa Lynch spoke in
objection to the proposal. Ms. Lynch objected to the use
due to noise, lack of landscaping, and probable outside
storage. She also stated that she opposed a "C -4" rezoning
on the same site about one and one -half years earlier which
was denied. In addition, she stated that the structure was
too small to be suitable for the proposed use. Finally, she
stated that the primary reason for her opposition was the
use as an auto repair facility. Mr. Kenny Scott stated that
this property's usage was reported as a violation on
November 13, 1986. David and Virginia Wilson, the owners,
spoke of their belief that the property was zoned properly.
They stated that the realtor had assured them everything was
okay. The Commission and the City Attorney recommended that
the Wilsons consult an attorney about their dealings with
the sellers of the property. The Commission received a
letter from Ron Newman, Director of the Capitol Zoning
District Commission, stating opposition to the proposal.
The letter further stated that the Capitol Zoning District
Commission was encouraging multifamily and office uses along
South Broadway. Mr. Henk Koornstra, a resident, also stated
opposition to the proposed land use. The Commission then
voted 4 ayes, 4 noes, 1 abstention (Ketcher) and 2 absent on
the application. The item was automatically deferred until
the January 13, 1987, Planning Commission due to a lack of a
majority vote.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (12- 29 -86)
The applicant was not present. The item was not discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 13 -87)
The applicant was present and stated that he performed a
needed service and that he would be a good neighbor. The
staff reiterated its recommendation of approval and also
stated that it had received a letter of opposition from
Mr. Jim Conner and from Thomas McGowan of the Downtown
Neighborhood Association. The applicant also stated than an
attorney from Delta Finance, Ron Goodman, had wanted to be
present but was unable to attend due to a prior commitment.
Mr. Kenny Scott of the City's Code Enforcement Department
stated that Mr. Wilson had maintained a clean operation
since the last Planning Commission meeting. The City
Attorney stated that the purchase agreement was a private
matter between the buyer and the seller. Ms. Teresa Lynch
stated that she opposed the conditional use permit due to
the land use and would prefer a restaurant that is allowed
by right in a "C -3" zoning district. Ms. Charlotte Johnson
of the Quapaw Quarter Association opposed the conditional
use permit due to the proposed land use. Mr. Ted Holder
stated that sympathy was not the issue and that he opposed
the conditional use permit due to the adverse land use.
Mr. Ron Newman, Director of the Capitol District Commission,
stated that the proposed land use is incompatible with the
surrounding area. Mr. Ken Christie opposed the proposed
land use and stated that noise would also be a problem. The
Commission then voted 1 aye, 9 noes, 1 abstention (Ketcher)
to deny the conditional use permit and allowed Mr. Wilson 30
days to remove his business from the premises.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME:
T A/IT TT/111_
DEVELOPER•
West Markham Assoc. /Jim
Hathaway
1500 Worthen Bank
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 372 -1700
Bixler Commercial Subdivision
Replat, Lot 4
NE Corner of Markham and
I -430
ENGINEER:
Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson,
and Assoc.
201 South Izard
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 375 -5331
AREA: 8.65 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 9 FT. NEW STREET: 950
ZONING: "C- 319/ 190 -3"
PROPOSED USE: Office /Commercial
A. Proposal /Request:
1. To replat an existing preliminary of 8.6 acres
into nine lots and 950' of street for use as
commercial /office.
2. A variance is requested to permit a minor
commercial loop street of 950'.
3. Access is limited to three curb cuts along Natural
Resources Drive as approved in the original plat
for this property.
B. Existing Conditions:
1. Area is currently developed as commercial and
office.
C. Issue / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design:
1. Request for street variance.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
2. Give internal street name (see David Hathcoc k) -
371 -4808.
D. Engineerinq Comments:
1. HIGHLY RECOMMEND one stormwater detention facility
for entire plat.
2. Thirty-six-foot collector required on loop street.
3. Traffic access and driveway location must be
approved by Traffic Engineer:
a. Lot 12 should have one drive on Natural
Resources.
b. Lots 9 and 11 to have joint drive.
C. Lots 7 and 8 should have joint drives.
F. Staff Recommendation:
Approval, subject to comments. Staff is opposed to the
applicant's request to develop the street to
residential standards.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that the minor commercial street was
requested since there won't be sufficient traffic for a 36
foot street and there was a possibility that Shoney's would
not aqree to tearing up an existing parking lot. He agreed
to meet with Engineering regarding the requested waiver and
detention. He also agreed to submit a revised plan showing
a tighter curve in the street and to meet with Shoney's
regardinq their parking lot.
Water - Water Works has not been contacted in regard to the
water main relocation. It is recommended that the Developer
do so as soon as possible.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16 -86)
The applicant was present and two persons identified
themselves as objectors by turning in cards. The Planning
staff offered its recommendation plus clarification of the
minor commercial street issue. Mr. Jim Hathaway offered a
brief_ comment on his proposal and asked that Wes Lowder of
the Mehlburger Engineering firm identify the issues on the
street alignment and the width. Mr. Lowder then proceeded
to identify the problems with the location of a commercial
collector adjacent to the Shoney's Restaurant property. He
identified the narrow dimensions between certain physical
elements already in place. Mr. Hathaway then stated that he
had not received final agreements on dedicating the
right -of -way from the several abutting owners. He stated
that he understood he should have followed through on this
matter after the Subdivision Committee meeting. He further
stated that he would follow up on this item. A general
discussion of the Shoney's participation followed. It was
determined that the Shoney's parking lot curb was
approximately three feet from the new curb on the commercial
street. Mr. Hathaway then outlined the history of the
subdivision plat and the development proposals that have
been presented in the past. The chairman then asked the
objectors to make their presentation. Mr. Arnold Chilton,
an attorney for State Building Services Commission, offered
statements on the effects of this action on the state
property lying to the north. He then introduced Mr. Jerry
Sanders of the State Building Services Commission who
offered the State development history on the several sites
and uses now in place. He identified the agreements with
Mr. Hathaway and his group as well as the dedication of
Natural Resources Drive to the City of Little Rock. The
City was determined to be outside the agreement between the
several involved parties. The six points of the agreement
between State Building Services and Mr. Hathaway's group
were read by Mr. Sanders. He further offered that the State
Building Services Commission would like Mr. Hathaway to
present his case to them and answer their questions.
Mr. Hathaway responded to Mr. Sanders statement.
Commissioner Schlereth then stated that he thought that the
State should be a party to this plat's Bill of Assurance.
Commissioner Massie stated that he thought that the Planning
Commission has a responsibility to protect the State
interests in the same fashion as other property owners. He
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
made comments on the Bill of Assurance restrictions and
offered that the Bill of Assurance should have already been
dealt with by the staff with the initial filing. The Bill
of Assurance should have dealt with the State's concerns.
Commissioner Massie asked that Mr. Hathaway consider a
deferral to January 13 in order to resolve the issues.
Mr. Hathaway said he could accept a deferral and meet with
the State Building Services staff and the City Planning
staff. Commissioner Massie then offered a motion for
deferral of the plat with the Planning staff to set a
meeting of the interested parties. A report back to the
Commission would be presented as soon as possible before the
January 13 meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 13 -87)
The applicant was present. Staff recommended approval of
the revised site plan and Bill of Assurance as agreed upon
by the State Building Services and revision of the radius of
the through street to between 100 to 1101.
Mr. Sanders, representing the state, felt that an agreement
had been reached. He asked that the staff be aware of their
desire for a green -belt on the property to the east when a
proposal is presented on that site. A motion for approval
was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and
0 absent.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C
NAME: Lots 5 and 6, Block "AR,"
Westpark Development
LOCATION: West Side of 1300 Block of
Westpark Drive
Westpark II Partnership Summerlin Associates, Inc.
10121 Rodney Pahram 1609 Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72206
Phone: 221 -3224 Phone: 376 -1323
AREA: 2.79 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "I -2"
PROPOSED USE: Office /Warehouse
PLANNING DISTRICT: Boyle Park District
CENSUS TRACT: 21.02
A. Proposal /Request:
1. To replat 2.79 acres into two lots for
office /warehouse use.
B. Existing Conditions:
1. Industrial, office, and warehouse uses in the
area, floodway on property.
C. Issue/ Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design:
See Engineering Comments.
D. Enqineering Comments:
1. Dedicate floodway before final plat is signed.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
2. One hundred year flood info on plat is wrong -- 1'
should be 2'.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant expressed reluctance at showing the floodway
dedication on the plat, since the floodway is currently in
comdemnation. He preferred to show an easement. He
explained that he didn't want to indicate that he was giving
away land that the City has condemned and is supposed to pay
for. Staff was asked to research the status of the
condemnation suit and request a report from the City
Attorney.
Water - On -site fire protection is required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16 -86)
The staff offered its recommendation. There were no
objectors in attendance. The owner was not present but was
represented by his engineer, Mr. Summerlin. The Commission
requested clarification from the staff of the staff's
recommendation on the floodway. Mr. Greeson stated that the
staff and City Attorney in their discussions revealed that
it would be inappropriate to require the dedication inasmuch
as the City is involved in pursuing a condemnation of the
floodway. Pat Benton of the City Attorney's Office stated
that the City Board had passed a resolution to condemn the
subject floodway, but that no ordinance had been passed
which is required before they can file the condemnation
proceedings. Mr. Summerlin described the plat as a two -lot
replat of what was Lot AR,to produce a second lot for sale.
He further stated that the existing plat did not dedicate
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
the floodway but that an easement was granted across the
westernmost lot. This action predates the current policy of
dedication established by the City Board of Directors. Pat
Benton stated that negotiations for purchase of this tract
began in 1983 and that offers and negotiations are underway.
Mr. Rector stated that if the plat is not approved without
the owners having dedicated the floodway, then the owner
might move on the negotiations. It was felt by several
Commissioners that this plat is a new plat and comes under
policy even it was not on the previous occasion. The
Chairman felt that this is a new issue just like a new plat.
A brief discussion of the condemnation issue followed.
Mr. Summerlin was asked how his client might react to
deferral in order to work out something. Mr. Summerlin
responded that there still were some remaining questions as
to what the Commission could do in light of the Board of
Directors' resolution on condemnation. Pat Benton stated
that a deferral of this matter could be valuable and afford
her office additional time to research the matter. The
general consensus of the Commission appeared to be that they
didn't feel they could set aside the current policy on
dedication and approve this plat. A motion was made to
defer the matter for 30 days or until January 13, 1987. The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Since
an agreement had been reached between City Engineering and
the developer, a motion for approval was made and passed by
a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
January 13, 1987
Item No. D - Z -4765
Owner: David Kennedy
Applicant: Same
Location: Autumn Road North of Hermitage Road
Request: Rezone from "R -2" to 110 -3"
Purpose: Office
Size:
9.3 acres
Existing Use: Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant and Church, Zoned "R -2" and "C -3"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone a 9.3 acre tract from "R -2" to
"0 -3" for an unspecified office development. The site
is located on Autumn Road north of Hermitage Road and
adjacent to the Birchwood Subdivision on two sides.
The land use is still primarily single family in the
intermediate area with the major nonresidential
development taking place to the east at Shackleford and
Financial Centre Parkway. The zoning is made up of
"R -2," 110 -2," "0 -3" and "C -3" with a high percentage of
the nonresidential tracts still undeveloped. Some of
the existing "C -3" at the intersection of Autumn and
Hermitage was established through the resolution of an
annexation suit. The property abuts "R -2" zoning on
four sides with the exception of the southwest corner
which is adjacent to "C -3." Based on development
trends in the area and future circulation patterns, it
appears that the property has some potential for
nonresidential use.
2. The site is primarily wooded with a single family
residence occupying the northwest corner.
3. Currently, the Master Street Plan identifies Autumn
Road as only a residential street. There has been some
discussion of changing this status because of a
proposal to create an at grade intersection with the
future extension of the Financial Centre Parkway /I -630.
January 13, 1987
Item No. D - Continued
If such an amendment is made to the Master Street Plan,
then it appears that some additional right -of -way
dedication will be required.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues associated with this request.
6. Relative to this particular rezoning request, the
immediate neighborhood has not expressed any position.
In the past, the Birchwood area has always been very
involved with any rezoning development proposals in the
area. There is no documented history on the site.
7. This area is experiencing many development pressures,
primarily because of the proposed extension of I -630 to
the west. There is a significant office development to
the east, and it is anticipated that once the extension
is completed, that type of a land use pattern will
follow the parkway to Bowman Road. The current I -430
District Plan shows the location in question for
continued single family use, and that was based on the
status of Autumn Road. Should the contemplated
intersection with Financial Centre Parkway become a
reality and the necessary Master Street Plan change is
accomplished, staff is of the opinion that a
well - coordinated office development is a reasonable use
of the land. Because of the single family involvement
in the area, staff feels that an "0 -2" reclassification
is more appropriate to ensure site plan review. Also,
to provide additional protection to the abutting single
family lots, staff suggests a 50 -foot "OS" strip along
the north and east sides of the property. And finally,
to the east of the site there is an existing
right -of -way, and it is recommended that it be
abandoned. This would allow the various landowners
abutting it to gain additional land area and lessen the
potential impact of the 50 -foot strip on the site under
consideration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "0 -2" and not "0 -3" as filed
with a 50 -foot "OS" strip along the north and east sides.
January 13, L987
Item No. D - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The owner was represented by Ed Willis. There were three
objectors in attendance. Mr. Willis said that the owner had
agreed to amending the rezoning to "0 -2" and placing 110 -3"
height restrictions on the property through the zoning
action. Mr. Willis then discussed the proposed street
closure to the east and said he had no problems with the
50 -foot "OS" buffer being measured from the street closure
line. There were several comments made about the height
issue, and the City Attorney indicated that a rezoning
action could have conditions attached restricting the height
45 feet. Mrs. Zadie Gamble then spoke and said she
supported the rezoning request. She also submitted for the
record a newsletter that was being distributed throughout
the neighborhood. Lee Cowan spoke against the rezoning and
said that nonresidential zoning keeps getting closer and
closer. She said the residential area was a good
neighborhood and expressed concern with the height and
traffic increases. There was a long discussion about the
street system and the proposed change to the Master Street
Plan for Autumn Road. Mr. Willis said that the City
Engineer wanted Autumn Road to be opened and reviewed the
design for the proposed parkway extension. Martha Fleming,
a resident at the corner of Birchwood and Autumn, said she
was opposed to the rezoning and that it would destroy the
neighborhood. She also indicated that the buffer would
provide no protection and had problems with the potential
widening of Autumn Road. Donna Ztchieson opposed the
rezoning and described the neighborhood as being affordable
and stable. She said that the neighborhood experienced
problems when West Markham was closed, and the same thing
would occur if Autumn was made into a collector. Autumn
Road and the proposed Master Street Plan amendment were
discussed at length. Mr. Willis said that Autumn Road
needed to remain open because it was the only accessible
point between Shackleford and Bowman Roads. There was some
discussion about the area to the west and Birchwood Drive.
Several Commissioners then expressed concerns about impacts
from traffic and requested the staff to review possible
options for traffic control. There were a number of
comments made by the various individuals. A motion was made
to recommend approval of the amended request to "0 -2" with a
50 -foot "OS" strip on the north and east sides.
January 13, 1987
Item No. D - Continued
There was some discussion about a possible deferral, and
Mr. Willis said he had no objections to that. A second
motion was made to table the previous motion and defer
action to the December 16, 1986, meeting. The motion passed
by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, and 1 abstention
(Fred Perkins).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16 -86)
(NOTE: ITEM B AND ITEM NO. 20 WERE DISCUSSED TOGETHER).
The applicant, Ed Willis, was present. There were no
objectors in attendance. Jim Lawson of the City Planning
staff spoke first and discussed the proposed Master Street
Plan amendment for Autumn Road. Mr. Lawson said that an
agreement was being developed that would require a full
intersection to be constructed for Autumn Road with the
Parkway extension and that all details needed to be
finalized prior to the office rezoning issue being forwarded
to the Board of Directors. Mr. Lawson made several
additional comments about the Master Street Plan issue and
the zoning request. Bob Lane, Director of the Public Works
Department, then addressed the proposed change to the Master
Street Plan and presented some background information.
There were a number of comments made about the proposed road
and the improvement district. Mr. Lane spoke again and said
that all the street requirements needed to be tied down.
Joe White, engineer for the improvement district, addressed
the design of the proposed road and said the road would not
be built until 1989. Staff then reviewed several options
for the Master Street Plan amendment and recommended Option
One which proposes a full intersection for Autumn Road and
the Parkway extension. Ed Willis then discussed the
property under consideration and circulation in the area.
He also reviewed the proposed agreement which will specify
right -of -way requirements and location of curb cuts.
Commissioner Jones then stated for the record that if the
City agrees with the full intersection, then the improvement
district should pay for the intersection improvements.
There was a long discussion about the various issues. A
motion was made to defer both Items B and No. 20 to the
January 13, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a
vote of 9 ayes, 1 noe, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Fred
Perkins).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 13 -87)
(NOTE: ITEMS D AND E WERE DISCUSSED TOGETHER).
The applicant, Ed Willis, was represented by Wes Lowder.
January 13, 1987
Item No. D - Continued
There were no objectors present. Mr. Lowder spoke briefly
and discussed the plans for the Parkway extension.
Mr. Willis then addressed the Commission and responded to
several questions. He said that he did not foresee any
problems with working out the financing for the street
improvements and went on to say that the entire intersection
for Autumn Road and the Parkway extension needed to be
constructed at one time. Commissioner David Jones then
spoke and clarified remarks he made at the December 16, 1986,
meeting concerning the proposed intersection. He said that
the intent of his previous statement was that the cost be
shared by all the various parties and not just by the road
improvement district as reflected in the minute record for
the December 16th meeting. There was a long discussion
about the proposed road and the intersection. Mr. Willis
then said he was willing to work with the district and
dedicate any needed right -of -way at no cost to the district.
He also said that third parties would be responsible for any
improvements outside of the right -of -way. There were a
number of comments made about the various issues and
Mr. Willis said he was only interested in the office
rezoning if a full intersection with Autumn Road and the
Parkway extension is constructed. Don McChesney, City
Engineer, said that there was no final design at this time
but the issue was just a Master Street Plan change which the
City supported. He also said that the necessary improvements
would be done. Joe White, Engineer for the improvement
district, had no objections to the proposed Master Street
Plan amendment. Mark Lester, representing the Office Park
West Partnership, then discussed a proposed median cut east
of Autumn Road. Mr. McChesney said that the median cut
would not be affected one way or another by the pending
action. Jack Williams, attorney for the improvement
district, discussed the cost and said that the district had
no problems with the Master Street Plan change. The public
hearing was then declared closed. The Planning Commission
first voted to recommend approval of the Master Street Plan
amendment. The vote 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, and 2
abstentions (Rose Collins and Fred Perkins). The Commission
then voted on a motion to recommend approval of "0 -2" and
"O -S" for the north and east 50 feet. The motion passed by
a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 0 absent, and 2 abstentions (Rose
Collins and Fred Perkins).
January 13, 1987
Item No. E - Amendment to the Master Street Plan - Alignment
of the Rock Creek Parkwav
The staff has received a request to amend the Master Street
Plan as it relates to the Autumn Road and Rock Creek Parkway
area.
The Master Street Plan does not show an Autumn Road and Rock
Creek Parkway intersection. Autumn Road is shown on the
June 1981, parkway alignment as a cul -de -sac north of the
parkway.
The request is to continue Autumn Road south to create an
intersection with the Rock Creek Parkway.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of an amendment to the Master Street Plan to shown
an intersection of Autumn Road at the Rock Creek Parkway.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16 -86)
(NOTE: ITEM B AND ITEM NO. 20 WERE DISCUSSED TOGETHER.)
The applicant, Ed Willis, was present. There were no
objectors in attendance. Jim Lawson of the City Planning
staff spoke first and discussed the proposed Master Street
Plan amendment for Autumn Road. Mr. Lawson said that an
agreement was being developed that would require a full
intersection to be constructed for Autumn Road with the
Parkway extension and that all details needed to be
finalized prior to the office rezoning issue being forwarded
to the Board of Directors. Mr. Lawson made several
additional comments about the Master Street Plan issue and
the zoning request. Bob Lane, Director of the Public Works
Department, then addressed the proposed change to the Master
Street Plan and presented some background information.
There were a number of comments made about the proposed road
and the improvement district. Mr. Lane spoke again and said
that all the street requirements needed to be tied down.
Joe White, engineer for the improvement district, addressed
the design of the proposed road and said the road would not
be built until 1989. Staff then reviewed several options
for the Master Street Plan amendment and recommended Option
One which proposes a full intersection for Autumn Road and
the Parkway extension. Ed Willis then discussed the
property under consideration and circulation in the area.
He also reviewed the proposed agreement which will specify
right -of -way requirements and location of curb cuts.
January 13, 1987
Item No. E - Continued
Commissioner Jones then stated for the record that if the
City agrees with the full intersection, then the improvement
district should pay for the intersection improvements.
There was a long discussion about the various issues. A
motion was made to defer both Items B and No. 20 to the
January 13, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a
vote of 9 ayes, 1 noe, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Fred
Perkins).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 13 -87)
(NOTE: ITEMS D AND E WERE DISCUSSED TOGETHER).
The applicant, Ed Willis, was represented by Wes Lowder.
There were no objectors present. Mr. Lowder spoke briefly
and discussed the plans for the Parkway extension.
Mr. Willis then addressed the Commission and responded to
several questions. He said that he did not foresee any
problems with working out the financing for the street
improvements and went on to say that the entire intersection
for Autumn Road and the Parkway extension needed to be
constructed at one time. Commissioner David Jones then
spoke and clarified remarks he made at the December 16, 1986,
meeting concerning the proposed intersection. He said that
the intent of his previous statement was that the cost be
shared by all the various parties and not just by the road
improvement district as reflected in the minute record for
the December 16th meeting. There was a long discussion
about the proposed road and the intersection. Mr. Willis
then said he was willinq to work with the district and
dedicate any needed right -of -way at no cost to the district.
He also said that third parties would be responsible for any
improvements outside of the right -of -way. There were a
number of comments made about the various issues and
Mr. Willis said he was only interested in the office
rezoning if a full intersection with Autumn Road and the
Parkway extension is constructed. Don McChesney, City
Engineer, said that there was no final design at this time
but the issue was just a Master Street Plan change which the
City supported. He also said that the necessary improvements
would be done. Joe White, Engineer for the improvement
district, had no objections to the proposed Master Street
Plan Amendment. Mark Lester, representing the Office Park
West Partnership, then discussed a proposed median cut east
of Autumn Road. Mr. McChesney said that the median cut
would not be affected one way or another by the pending
action. Jack Williams, attorney for the improvement
district, discussed the cost and said that the district had
no problems with the Master Street Plan change. The public
January 13, 1987
Item No. E - Continued
hearing was then declared closed. The Planning Commission
first voted to recommend approval of the Master Street Plan
Amendment. The vote 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, and 2
abstentions (Rose Collins and Fred Perkins). The Commission
then voted on a motion to recommend approval of "0-2" and
"O -S" for the north and east 50 feet. The motion passed by
a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 0 absent, and 2 abstentions (Rose
Collins and Fred Perkins).
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - File No. 332 -A
NAME:
LOCATION•
it L��7 LET /1D LSD .
Payless Cashways, Inc.
#2 Pershing Square
Kansas City, MO
Orbit Subdivision - Revised
Preliminary Plat (Lots E and F)
NE Corner of I -30 Frontage Road
at Chicot Road
ENGINEER:
Mehlburger, Tanner, Renshaw
West Second at Ringo Street
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 375 -5331
VARIANCES: None requested.
AREA: 51.9 acres NO. OF LOTS: 6 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
REQUEST: To revise the approved
preliminary plat for purposes of
adding Tracts E and F. Tract E
for the apartment complex
recently completed and Tract F
for Payless Cashways.
A. Existing Conditions
The plat area is generally flat land with some natural
ground cover remaining. The apartment complex, Village
Green, is the only built -up tract.
B. Development Proposal
The Payless Cashways tract will be developed as a large
retail store for building material and will include an
accessory warehouse on the rear of the property
adjacent to the apartments.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
C. Engineering Comments
Street improvements along Chicot Road to collector
street standard.
D. Analysis
The proposal presents no issue of consequence. The
effect of the lot changes will be minimal inasmuch as
the neighborhood is now zoned "C -3" or multifamily
along Chicot Road. There exists commercial development
across Chicot to the west along the frontage road and
apartment development along Chicot Road running north
to the Mabelvale Pike intersection.
E. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the plat modification
subject to the street improvement requirement plus some
attention to buffer or screening treatment of the north
property line adjacent to the apartment complex.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: (12- 29-86)
The applicant outlined the proposal as a cleanup action on
the apartment project and continued marketing of the land.
The only unresolved issue was a concern by staff for some
type of buffer or screening of the apartment site to the
north. Staff suggested that the 40' standard in the
Subdivision Ordinance for office commercial plats be
utilized without the intrusion of off - street parking.
Mr. Chambers of the Mehlburger firm indicated that he would
talk to the purchaser and /or developer and report on a
treatment plan at the meeting on January 13.
Water: The Little Rock Water Works has requested an
easement of an existing 8" waterline within Tract E occupied
by the apartment complex and owned by the Water Works.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made and passed for approval, subject to a 40'
undisturbed open space and a 6' fence. The vote was 11
ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - File No. 742
NAME:
Capitol Hill Apartments
LOCATION: Lying on the north side of
West Markham Street and easterly
of its intersection with Battery
r% A77P. T f1DP. D . VMIT ThTVVn .
Capitol Hill Properties Eddie Branton, Architect
3226 JFK Boulevard 707 Wallace Building
No. Little Rock, AR 72116 Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 372 -4930
AREA: 4.55 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "MF -24" Multifamily
PROPOSED USE: Apartments /102 units in three -story buildings
at a density of 22.4 units per acre.
VARIANCES: None requested.
A. Site History
The subject site was rezoned from "I -3" Heavy
Industrial to "MF -24" Multifamily on November 18, 1986.
The property has experienced several development
proposals over the last several years.
B. Development Concept
To utilize the terrain to its best advantage and
protect the hillside while siting nine buildings, a
swimming pool and clubhouse facilities.
C. Proposal
To construct seven apartment structures with 102 units
at three - stories each with a mix of unit types. Access
is to be by way of West Markham Street and Battery
Street for the majority of the units with a secondary
access to Gill Street and Garland Street at the
northwest corner. There will be 153 parking spaces
for a 1.5 per unit count.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
D. Issues
There are several issues which were initially raised in
the rezoning hearing and will be likely introduced
again. These are: (1) poor access for this density
over a two -lane street system three blocks or more to
an arterial street, (2) street improvements, (3)
drainage improvement on and off -site, and (4) screening
and lighting on the site.
E. Staff Analysis
The staff view of this proposal is that the density is
high, but a limit of 102 units with little possibility
of future multifamily on this hill suggests that it is
appropriate. The access issue was addressed at the
time of rezoning when the owner agreed to provide
improvements to both Markham Street and Battery Street
off-site. This involved at least two blocks of
off -site improvements. A staff review indicates a
deficiency in quantitative data relative to the unit
mix in each building, number of units in each building,
and the design of the tennis courts. We also feel a
grading plan would be useful in determining the total
site effect of these buildings and parking areas.
Further, notice to neighbors should be given.
F. Engineering Comments
(1) Need detention plan.
(2 ) Close Markham Street east of the alley entrance or
improve the street.
(3) Meet with the Traffic Engineer to discuss access
design at the northwest corner.
(4) Street improvements on Markham and Battery as
previously agreed upon.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (12- 29 -86)
The architect was present and offered the plan. He
addressed the issues raised and stated that he could provide
the additional information and would notify the neighbors
utilizing the previous notice list as suggested by
Mr. Rector.
Water: Little Rock Water Works reports a need for an
on -site fire protection plan and a water main extension.
Sewer: Sewer is available but capacity contribution
analysis is required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Two interested persons were in
attendance.
Ms. Susan Hilman of 109 South Battery had questions
concerning current sight distance and substandard street
problems, and whether or not a traffic light will be
installed at the intersection with Markham Street. The
traffic engineer, Mr. Henk Koornstra, responded to her
concerns.
Mrs. Lucy Tobin of 110 South Schiller also spoke in favor of
a traffic light at the intersection of Summit and Markham.
She presented photos taken during rush hour. She asked for
more information on screening and lighting. She felt that
traffic going on to Third Street would aggravate an existing
bad situation. A motion for approval was made and passed by
a vote of 10 ayes, 1 no, and 0 absent.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Z- 4786/741
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Holiday Management
471 High, S.E.
Salem, Oregon 97308
Phone: 399 -1090
Little Rock Retirement Residence
"PRD"
Lying on the south of Cantrell
Road along the east side of
Andover Drive
VMnTMVVD .
Clifford Curry, Architect
471 High, S.E.
Salem, Oregon 97308
Phone: 399 -1080
REQUEST: To develop 110 apartment suites in a single
building on one lot.
AREA: 2.64 acres
NO. OF LOTS:
ZONING: "MF -18" and "PRD"
A.
Existing Conditions
1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
The lot has some moderate to steep grade which presents
an access problem for the driveway. The site is
covered with natural foliage.
B. Development Proposal
To construct 110 suites with a mix of 90 percent
one - bedroom and 10 percent two - bedroom. The building
will vary in height but will be one -story on the entry
face and three plus stories on the street side. The
residents are in an age range from the upper 70's to
the 80's with 80 percent of the rooms being one
occupant. It is expected that fewer than 25 percent of
the residents will own cars. Transportation will be
on -call on the site through utilization of vans.
Parking for 48 cars will be provided on site.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
There will be 15 to 18 staff persons with six or seven
on the site at any one time, including the resident
manager. There will be no on -site permanent medical
care or facility. Although a visiting nurse may on
occasion visit the site. In addition, there will be a
common dining room and kitchen facility. The
individual rooms will not have this convenience.
Ancillary activities are beauty shop, lounge, exercise
room, TV room, and crafts room.
C. Engineering Comments
(1) More dimensions are needed on the drives and
access.
(2) Need grade reflected on the access drive.
(3) Question absence of service entrance and dumpster
site.
D. Analysis
The staff view is that the design issues are simple to
deal with and the issue of concern will be the
perceived high density (41.6 per acre). The Watergate
Apartment complex to the east is approximately 24 units
per acre and the Andover Square Condominium project
somewhat beneath 12 per acre. We feel that the type of
use in this proposal offsets that density concern
because of the small unit size and limited number of
occupants. The reduction in ground coverage by
off - street parking also is a plus. The only concern we
feel that is valid is the conversion possibility if the
development fails after construction is complete. The
City could be presented with a truly higher density use
proposal with parking and other factors being
deficient.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "PRD" as filed subject to
resolving or furnishing the following: (1) location of the
trash pickup, (2) provision of a clear statement of employee
and /or occupant parking numbers, (3) design information on
the entrance, (4) elevations more clearly depicting the east
facade of the building facing Watergate Apartments, (5)
comply with Landscaping Ordinance, (6) comply with Sign Code
requirements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (12- 29 -86)
The applicant was present and responded to staff and
committee comments. He stated that he could address the
design issues and respond by January 13. He was questioned
about possibly holding a neighborhood meeting especially
with the occupants of Andover Square. He indicated that he
would pursue such a meeting and attempt to avert organized
objection by providing good information. The Engineering
staff requested more information on detention and grades on
the drives. A question was raised concerning the service
entrance and access to the building and lot for deliveries.
Water: Provide plan for means of on -site fire protection
through use of mains, hydrants, and /or sprinkler system.
Sewer: A sewer main extension is required. Also, a
capacity contribution analysis is required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff recommended approval, subject to the applicant
producing evidence that indicates sufficient parking for the
proposed density and employees. The applicant, Mr. Clifford
Curry, represented the proposal. He stated that they
managed elderly rental developments. He stated that it
would be unlike an apartment because all services, including
a van for transport are provided. He stated that the
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 -- Continued
average tenant is about 80 years old and is usually one that
has problems getting around. He pointed out that the
service or delivery would be adjacent to the main entry and
that there would be no complete kitchens in the units.
The Commission had a problem with the lack of parking
spaces. There was discussion on the revision of more
parking spaces. It was pointed out that the PUD allowed
flexibility; however, one Commissioner felt that other
elderly projects were required to provide the required
amount of parking, so this one should also. The applicant
felt that the required amount of parking was not needed due
to the age of the tenants, which was around 80, and the van
that would be used for transport.
Mr. Billy Herd, consulting engineer for the proposal, felt
that seven more spaces could be provided, but significant
work on the plan was still required to change the entrance
and provide the parking.
A motion for deferral until February 24 was made and passed,
so that the applicant could pursue adding more land to the
project, providing seven more parking spaces, and revising
the entrance drive. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes, and
0 absent, and 1 abstention (Jones abstained).
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
South Battery Day -Care
Conditional Use Permit (Z -4784)
The Southwest Corner of
West 17th and South Battery St.
(1702 South Battery)
Nathaniel and Marion L. McGee
To convert an existing two -story single family structure to
a day -care center with a capacity of 35 children on two lots
that are zoned "R -4." There will be three employees and
only the 2,100 square feet downstairs portion of the
structure will be utilized for the day -care use.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to two residential streets (West 17th Street
on the north and South Battery Street on the east).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is surrounded on all sides by residential
uses. Two duplex uses are located across Battery
Street. The close proximity of the adjacent
residential structures makes this site a less than
desirable land use and would not be compatible with the
surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
No on -site drives or parking currently exist, and there
are none proposed.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
The site contains a six feet board screening fence that
surrounds the entire rear yard.
5. Analysis
The staff is not convinced that this site is an
appropriate location for a day -care use with 35
children capacity. In addition, the applicant has
failed to provide three paved parking spaces for
employees as well as a drop -off area for the children.
6. City Engineering Comments
The applicant needs to provide three paved parking
spaces as well as a drop -off area.
7. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The staff stated its
recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 13 -87)
The applicant, Marion McGee, was present as were five
objectors. The staff stated its recommendation of denial
and that the applicant had failed to meet the notice
requirements. The staff also stated that the applicant had
submitted a letter requesting deferral and that they had
received three phone calls in opposition. The City Attorney
stated that even though the applicant had failed to meet all
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
the notice requirements, the fact that objectors were
present indicated that notice had occurred and that the
Commission could suspend the rules and here the matter. The
Commission voted 8 ayes and 3 noes on a motion to suspend
the rules and here the item. The motion failed due to a
vote equal to less than 75 percent which the bylaws require.
The item was deferred until the February 24, 1987, Planning
Commission meeting.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME: Henderson United Methodist
Church - Conditional Use Permit
(Z -4785)
LOCATION: The north side of West Baseline
Road approximately 1,000 feet
west of Stagecoach Road
(13,000 Stagecoach Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Henderson United Methodist
Church /Don Johnson of Brooks
Jackson Architects
PROPOSAL:
To obtain a conditional use permit for an existing church
facility (194 capacity) and to construct a one -story 4,960
square feet classroom addition and 22 paved parking spaces
on 7.38 acres of land that is zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a principal arterial, (West Baseline Road).
2. Compatibility with Neiqhborhood
The property is abutted by vacant land on the north,
east, and west and by a single family use located to
the south. This area is shown on the Surburban
Development Plan as multifamily (18 -36 units per acre)
and single family attached (6 -12 units per acre). The
use is compatible with the surrounding area.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
One existing 30 feet access serves the property with no
additional accesses proposed. The site contains 63
paved parking spaces with an additional 22 proposed (85
total).
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed land use is
compatible with the surrounding area. The applicant
does, however, need to submit a revised site plan that
includes landscaped areas and all dimensions of drives
and buildings as well as their proposed uses.
6. City Engineer Comments
The applicant needs to dedicate and construct West
Baseline Road to arterial street standards.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a revised site plan that includes landscaped areas, all
dimensions and proposed uses; (2) dedicate and
construct West Baseline Road to arterial street
standards.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to submit a revised
site plan. There was some discussion about the possible
phasing of improvements on West Baseline Road. The
Committee advised the applicant to submit a Master Site Plan
for the entire 7.38 acre site with a proposed phasing plan.
The applicant agreed to comply. Finally, the Water Works
stated that on -site fire protection may be required.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
staff stated that they had received a revised Master Site
Plan as suggested by the Subdivision Committee, and that the
plan included a sanctuary (400 capacity), parking (214
total), classrooms, and an activity center. The staff
further stated that the plan contained five phases and that
the improvements to Baseline Road would be made for the
length of Phase I and that the remainder of the improvements
to Baseline Road would be made at the time of Phase III
construction. The applicant agreed to comply. The
Commission then voted 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to
approve the conditional use permit as recommended by the
staff and agreed to by the applicant.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - File No. G -29 -59
NAME:
Rush Building Line Waiver
LOCATION: 3411 Hidden Valley Drive
REQUEST: To vary the platted building line on the side
street so as to allow encroachment into the 25' setback line
approximately five feet.
A. Existing Conditions
A single platted lot over 100' wide by 155 +' deep lying
on a corner with platted 25' setback lines on each
frontage.
B. Development Proposal
The owner proposes to extend a new three-car garage
approximately 5' into the side street yard area and
convert the present garage into a bedroom.
C. Engineering Comments
The only concern expressed would be site distance.
None was observed as a problem on this site.
D. Analysis
The proposal has received endorsement by the Pleasant
Valley Property Owners Association. The staff finds no
fault with the proposed intrusion.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to filing a one -lot replat with an
amended Bill of Assurance for staff review and
recording at the County Courthouse.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (12- 29 -86)
The item was discussed briefly. No issues of consequence
were observed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Preliminary Plat Modification
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Kelton Brown
Big K Development Co.
Beckingham Drive
Little Rock, AR
Wes Port Addition and the
Pointe Subdivision
NW of Hillsborough Subdivision
and Beckingham Drive
T.`Mn TMVVD .
Robert J. Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664 -0003
REQUEST: To modify the approved preliminary plat for
introduction of a private access drive between the two
subdivisions serving eight lots four in each plat.
A. Existinq Conditions
Preliminary plat under development. There are certain
natural features such as rock outcroppings within these
plats preventing proper front yard drive access.
B. Development Proposal
To add a drive easement on each plat which when finaled
will be 15' on the Pointe Subdivision and 10' on the
Wes port plat. The Bill of Assurance on both plats
will provide for permanent maintenance on all of the
easement by all eight lots.
C. Engineering Comments
None.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
D Analysis
The proposal presents no problems and possibly will
eliminate several.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
The applicant presented his request. There were no issues
of consequence developed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Other Matters - Preliminary Plat Modification
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Kelton Brown
Beckingham Drive
Little Rock, AR
Barrow Plaza Addition (change
to Barrow Office Addition)
On the west side of Barrow Road
approximately 1/4 mile south of
Kanis Road
L+MnTI. VW0 .
Robert J. Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664 -0003
REQUEST: To change the plat name to Barrow Office Addition
and add a phasing plan.
A. Existinq Conditions
Undeveloped vacant 10 acre tract partially cleared.
B. Enqineerinq Comments
None except that the improvement agreement should
reflect an amount equal to the work required on Labette
Drive.
C. Analysis
The staff's view of this request is supportive of the
phasing and name change but encourages construction of
full width on Labette Drive for the depth of Phase I
plus the dedication. However, we will work with half
street improvements if the Planning Commission is
comfortable with such a proposal.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends approval of both requests.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (12- 29 -86)
The Committee developed the street improvement issue and
encouraged Mr. Brown to include both dedication and
improvements full depth of Phase I. Mr. Richardson
representing Mr. Brown offered comments that he believed the
owner will build the entirety of Labette Drive to his west
property line and that building full street improvements
adjacent to Phase I should not present a particular problem.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Other Matters /Ordinance Amendment Chaoter 43.,
Article III, Section 3- 101(a)2.
PROPOSAL: To amend the Zoning Ordinance
for purposes of providing
continuity of service for Board
of Adjustment members.
HISTORY: The Board of Adjustment has
experienced difficulty over the
past several years with
maintaining a quorum for
meetings. This has been in part
due to the members' terms
expiring without an ordinance
for continuance of service until
reappointed or replaced. Each
February, there are three
appointments terminated leaving
only six members with a quorum
requirement of five. This has
on several occasions caused a
meeting to be held over for a
special meeting and delayed many
applicants.
The amendment as proposed by the Planning staff and approved
by the City Attorney's staff reads as follows:
2. Vacancies
Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired term
of the member whose place has become vacant by the
City Manager subject to the approval of the City
Board of Directors. Anv member whose term exoires
shall continue to serve until his/her successor is
appointed and qualified. The appointing authority
shall have the power to remove any member of the
Board for cause and after public hearing
provided, however, any member of the Board who
shall be absent from three or more consecutive
regular meetings shall be removed from office
without hearing upon certification of such fact by
the Secretary of the Board to the City Manager.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1 -13 -87
The Planning staff offered the amendment to the ordinance
and explained its purpose. There were no objectors present.
A brief discussion of the proposal was held. A motion was
then made to recommend approval of the ordinance change.
The recommendation of approval passed by a vote of 11 ayes,
0 noes.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME: Rainwood Cove "Long -form PRD" (Z -4760)
LOCATION: North side of Rainwood Road, immediately east of Pleasantwood
Condominiums
DEVELOPER: B. G. Coney ENGINEER: Edward G. Smith & Assoc.
10,500 W. Markham, Suite 111
Little Rock, AR
AREA: 10.01 Acres No. of Lots: 50
ZONING: "PRD"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
The applicant is requesting approval of the final plan. The Subdivision
Committee had no problems with the request.
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Ridgehaven Vallev Subdivision
The Commission was provided copies of a letter from
John A. Castin on behalf of the Darbe Development
Corporation requesting consideration of a revised
preliminary plat for the Ridgehaven Valley properties in
west Little Rock. The revised plat (Scheme D) was the
result of a series of meetings between the developer and
property owners along Ridgehaven Road. Staff recommended
approval of the revised plat which included additional
provisions to discourage and slow down traffic on Ridgehaven
Road. Staff noted that the only change from staff's
previous recommendation was that the approval of the City
Board would not have to be obtained for condemnation of the
right -of -way along Ridgehaven Road, because the property
owners had agreed to provide the right -of -way at the
appraised cost if Scheme D was approved by the Commission.
The previously approved conditions would still be in effect,
i.e., that the developer would upgrade Ridgehaven Drive to a
paving width of 27 feet and minimum right -of -way of 40 feet.
The additional right -of -way needed for this purpose would
have to be acquired. The detailed street plans must be
approved by the developer and approved by the City.
Upgrading of Ridgehaven Drive would occur early in the
development process at the direction of the City. In
addition, final plats in the subdivision would be limited to
40 lots until such time as a second access road from the
subdivision is constructed.
Henk Koornstra, Traffic Engineer, indicated that he could
not recommend approval of Scheme D due to potential traffic
problems in the plat. He suggested that the Commission
consider Scheme A.
After discussion, the Commission voted 8 ayes, 1 noe, and
2 abstentions to approve Scheme D as recommended by staff.
. � DATE 0°"!'Uo6:l 13, L987
PLANNING ·c OM MISSION
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
-ZONING SUBDIVISION
MEMBER A e, L; D E l 2.. 3 4 5 (o '7 Q 9
W.Riddick, III •✓ ,/ • v ✓ • ./ ✓✓ / ✓ / ✓
J.Schlereth ✓✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ / / ✓ � ✓✓
R.Massie • ,/ ,./ v ✓✓ ,/ ✓ V ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓
B.Sipes •✓ ✓ / ✓ ✓ ✓✓ / ✓/ / ✓✓
J.Nicholson •✓✓ ,/ ✓ ✓ ,/ I/ ✓ ✓ ✓/' / /
w.Rector •✓✓ y ✓✓ ✓ ,/ ,/ ✓ / / / /
W.Ketcher Ip, ,/ ✓ v v ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ,4· ✓ v / ✓
D.Arnett • ✓ ✓ ✓ ,/ ✓ / ✓ ./ v / / ✓ /
D.J. Jones •✓✓ ✓v / ✓ � / ✓✓ / ✓ ✓
R.Collins •✓ / � I.th ✓ ✓ :/ ✓✓ / / ✓ ✓
F.Perkins •✓ v I� •4'. ,/ ✓ ✓ v ../ v ✓✓ ✓
✓AYE � NAYE A ADSENT ':e_ABSTAIN
J{) I l l I
✓
✓ /
/ ��
✓.,
✓-✓
✓ /
✓ ✓
✓✓-
✓�
✓-/v /
January 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m
Chairman Secretary
Date