pc_12 16 1986subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
December 16, 1986
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
The roll was called and 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: Commissioner J. Nicholson
Chairman W. Ketcher
Commissioner W. Rector
Commissioner I. Boles
Commissioner D. Arnett
Commissioner J. Schlereth
Commissioner B. Sipes
Commissioner W. Reddick
Commissioner F. Perkins
Commissioner R. Massie
Commissioner D. Jones
IV. City Attorney Present: Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
SUBDIV ISION AND ZONING AGENDA ITEMS
DECEMBER 16, 1986
Deferred Items:
A.Ridgehaven Valley Estates
Rezoning:
1.(Z-4773) -East 11th and Townsend � "R-3" to "I-2"
2.(Z-4774) -9624 West Markham -"R-2" to "C-1"
Preliminary Plats/ Replats:
3.Wood Creek
4.Sandpiper West
5.Rock Creek Square
6.Bixler Commercial Replat, Lot 4
7.Edmondson's Replat -Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Lot "A" andpart of Lot "B,11 Cherr y's Little Farms Subdivision,Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
8.Westpark Development -Block AR, Lots 5 and 6
9.Summit Ridge
10.Woodland Hills Replat -Lots 38R-43R
Planned Unit Development:
11. Barton Oaks, Phase II -"Short-Form PRD" (Z-4777)
Conditional Use Permits:
12. South Broadway (Z-4218-A)
Building Line Waiver:
13.Galusha Building Line Waiver (Lot 2, Hillsboroug hAddition)
14.Salazar Building Line Waiver (Lot 168, Kingwood Place)
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY -CONTINUED
DECEMBER 16, 1986
Right-of-way Closures:
15.Alley closure, Block 5, Centennial Addition
16.Allen closure, Block 2, Forbes Addition
17.Street abandonment -unnamed right-of-way
18.Street Name Change -Coquina Court
Other Matters:
19.Fletch er Meadows -Phasing Plan and Final PUD approval
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A�_
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Ridge Haven Valley
West of Ridge Haven Road,
North of St. Charles Blvd.
Darbe Development Corp. Manes, Castin, Massie &
Hinson Road McGetrick
Little Rock, AR 2501 North Willow
Telephone: 221 -0937 North Little Rock, AR
Telephone: 758 -1360
AREA: 59 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 120 FT. NEW STREET: 6,700
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request:
To plat 59 acres into 120 lots and 6,700 feet of new
street in three phases.
B. Existing Conditions:
Wooded; elevations from 475 feet to 550 feet, single
family area.
C. Issue / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design:
(1) Show building line - 25' on residential and 30' on
all collectors.
(2) If average depths of Lot 115 is more than 210',
request waiver and submit justifications.
(3) Show sidewalks.
(4) Indicate purpose of tracts adjacent to Lot 76.
(5) Give notice to abutting tracts in excess of 2.5
acres or greater.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
(6) Specify ownership and maintenance of parks, open
space, reserve tracts and unidentified lots with
landscaping. Please assign tract numbers and
address in the Bill of Assurance.
(7) Haven Glen needs a suffix and Ridge Haven Drive
should be changed to Ridge Haven Road, since it is
connecting to the existing Ridge Haven Road (see
David Hathcock, 371 - 4808).
(8) Show City limits line if it goes through this
property.
(9) Show Ridge Haven extending to the property line.
(10) Give name of current owner of land.
(11) Redesign pipe stem around Lots 102 and 103.
D. Engineering Comments:
(1) Develop Haven Brook and Ridge Haven as collectors
(36' - 60' right -of -way).
(2) Give name to southernmost cul -de -sac (clear with
David Hathcock, 371 - 4808).
E. Staff Recommendation:
Approval, subject to addressing the issues stated.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to revise the plat according to staff's
comments. Most of the discussion concerned Ridge Haven Road
and potential problems created by the access of 120 lots
through a street that is constructed to 27' and that has no
right -of -way dedication.
The applicant objected to making it a collector street.
Engineering felt that Ridge Haven would act like a collector
until collectors to the west were built. Some committee
members felt that even temporary use of Ridge Haven as a
collector would be disastrous.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
Water - Water main extension on -site fire protection
requirement. An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies.
Sewer - Sewer main extension required. Additional easement
required around new main.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Dr. Wepfer, an abutting property
owner, requested deferral because she felt that inadequate
notice was received. Staff and the City Attorney determined
that notice had been given according to Ordinance
requirements. Approximately 15 persons from the
neighborhood were present.
Staff recommended approval of the plan, subject to the
development of Ridge Haven as a collector street, and the
development of four lots only in Phase I, until further
access is provided to the west.
Mr. Jack Castin represented the Developer. He objected to
the construction of Ridge Haven as a collector street. He
stated that his client wouldn't prove Ridge Haven Road
(off -site) if the City could obtain the right -of -way. He
realized that some of the existing property owners along
Ridge Haven wanted it improved and some didn't.
Dr. Robert Walls expressed some concerns of the residents.
They were: (1) the development of Ridge Haven as a
collector, due to increased traffic; (2) safety of the
intersection with Napa Valley, due to limited view from the
north and south by two ridges; (3) development of street
would compromise value of existing neighborhood. He also
asked that they be given time to seek professional advice
about the proposed development.
Mr. Dick Toll requested time for the residents to meet with
the developers. He requested a 30 -day deferral for this
purpose.
Mr. Gordon Taylor felt that Ridge Haven was not suitable for
increased traffic. Mr. Alan Gold explained that his lot was
adjacent to the boulevard entrance planned by the Developer;
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
and if Ridge Haven was widened it would come very close to
his front door due to rock out - cropping. He felt that
approval of the plat should be delayed since he was not made
aware of the Project in what he considered to be an adequate
amount of time. Even though the Applicant was not required
to give him legal notice since he was not an abutting
property owner, he felt that he would be affected by the
widening of Ridge Haven.
A motion for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed so that
staff could research the collector issue, and get input from
the City Manager on their position on possible condemnation
of right -of -way for improvements. The vote was 7 ayes, 0
noes, 3 absent, and 1 abstention (Jones).
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff reported that a meeting was held to discuss this
proposal. It was decided that the City Administration was
agreeable to using the Power of Condemnation to widen the
street to 27 feet. The developer was willing to pay for
construction of the street, however, the City would pay for
additional right -of -way.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16 -86)
Mr. Jack Castin represented the developer. Approximately 16
persons from the neighborhood were present in opposition.
Mr. Jim Summerlin, engineer, represented the neighborhood
also. Attorney Clayton Blackstone also represented some
residents in the neighborhood. Staff recommended approval
of alternate B or the original submittal of the subdivision
subject to: (1) upgrading Ridge Haven to 27 feet - 40 foot
right -of -way; (2) the City would acquire additional
right -of -way; and (3) the first phase of final be limited to
40 lots until a second access road from the subdivision is
constructed.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
Concerns expressed by the neighborhood's representatives
included fears that Ridge Haven would function as a
collector, which would be dangerous since there is currently
a limited sight distance at its intersection with Napa
Valley. It was felt that alternate B would not solve the
problem. The residents were interested in the elimination
of the street connection to the north.
Ms. Eleanor Walls of 13611 Ridge Haven explained that they
had recently made a decision to double their investment and
moved into a new home on Ridge Haven based on past
commission actions. She felt that they had a legal right to
their property as it was purchased based on existing
conditions and the Planning Commission had the
responsibility for the protection of their property values.
She felt that this type of access would make the developer's
project more marketable at a cost to the homeowners; thus,
it may be legal but not moral. She charged that the
homeowners were being asked to subsidize a business
interest.
Mr. Plastiras of the Greek Orthodox Church at 1100 Napa
Valley Road talked about the dangerous intersection and
parking problems if the traffic through the area was
increased.
Mr. Castin felt that a minor percentage of the total traffic
would use Ridge Haven. He spoke of making Ridge Haven a
cul -de -sac to the west, but asked that plat approval not be
held up because of this. Mr. Moore, the developer, felt
that Ridge Haven needed to be left open, and explained that
he had not looked at providing a cul -de -sac as of yet, but
was willing to do so if it resolved the problems.
Attorney Blackstone complained that reasonable alternatives
to the plat had not been considered and a precedent was
being set by condemnation of right -of -way for the developer.
It was explained that the City would be the one to condemn
the property.
Mr. Gold of the neighborhood asked that any proposal on this
property be consistent with 3/4 acre lots in the area, have
a minimum of 60 -foot at the building line, withhold an
extension of Ridge Haven and discuss alternate plans with
the neighborhood.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
Commissioner Jones pushed for a 30 -day deferral. Initially,
the neighborhood explained that if a deferral was granted,
that they would not come back and argue their position
before the Commission; then afterwards they stated no
opposition to a deferral. The developer was not favorable
to a deferral call, but asked to amend the plat by
eliminating Lot 76 to 79 and the street in between them.
A motion was made to approve the amended plat, subject to
all lots being a minimum of 60 feet wide, City Board
approval of the condemnation proceedings (original
submittal) with lots the same as alternate B and also
including holding the extension of Ridge Haven, and stopping
the plan at Haven Glen until such time as the traffic impact
can be predicted. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes,
0 noes, 0 absent and 2 abstentions (Massie, Jones).
A resident of the neighborhood requested that the record
reflect that all their speakers did not get to talk and they
felt that they were not allowed a fair hearing.
December 16, 1986
Item No. B - 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.
December 16, 1986
Item No. B - 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 110 -3" as filed
with a 50 -foot "OS" strip along the north and east sides.
December 16, 1986
Item No. B - 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 "O -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.
December 16, 1986
Item No. B - 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).
December 16, 1986
Item No. C - Z -4769
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Various Owners
Joe Steck
8520 Distribution Drive
Rezone from "R -2" to "I -2"
Industrial
0.9 acres
Industrial
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "I -2"
South - Industrial, Zoned "I -2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "I -2"
West - Industrial, Zoned "I -2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone approximately one acre from "R -2"
to "I -2." The site is occupied by an industrial use, and it
is one of the few parcels still zoned "R -2" in the
Distribution /Production Drive area. The nonresidential
zoning in the immediate area includes "C -3" and "I -2" with a
similar land use pattern. There are no outstanding issues
and staff supports the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "I -2" zoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(November 25, 1986)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter
requesting a deferral. A motion was made to defer the
request to the December 16, 1986, meeting. The vote 9 ayes,
0 noes, and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16 -86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the "I -2" rezoning
as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0
noes, and 0 absent.
December 16, 1986
Item No. 1 - Z -4773
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Gladys I. Hobert
Dorcy Kyle Corbin
East 11th and Townsend SW Corner
Rezone from "R -3" to "I -2"
Parking and Industrial
0.64 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R -3"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R -3"
East - Industrial, Zoned "I -2"
West - Single Family and Vacant Commercial
Zoned "R -3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone four lots from "R -3" to "I -2"
for parking and in the future, some industrial
expansion for the existing use to the east. The
property is located in close proximity to the Little
Rock Airport and related facilities. The major
industrial uses in the area are primarily situated to
the south of East 12th and east of Harrington Street.
The zoning north of East 12th is "R -3" with several
"C -3" and "I -2" locations. The land use pattern is
very similar with some of the "C -3" tracts being either
vacant or occupied by single family residences. In
addition, there are possibly two nonconforming uses
located at the intersection of East 11th and Apperson
with several of the lots vacant. This area is part of
the East Little Rock neighborhood which over the years
has been improved and upgraded through various programs
in order to maintain the residential character and
livable environment. Part of that effort should also
include making reasonable land use decisions and
avoiding further nonresidential zoning encroachments
into the neighborhood.
2. The site is made up of four 50 -foot lots that are all
vacant. It appears that the property has been used for
parking at various times because of an existing gravel
surface.
December 16, 1986
Item No. 1 - Continued
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. A site plan with access points and parking must be
approved by the traffic engineer. Also, boundary
street improvements may be required.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented history on the site. Staff has
received several informational calls regarding this
request.
7. Staff's position is that the "I -2" rezoning is
inappropriate at this time, and does not support the
request. The "I -2" rezoning could have an adverse
impact on the neighborhood by allowing additional
industrial intrusion into the area, and there are a
number of uses that are incompatible with the existing
single family residences. Over the years, two
industrial encroachments beyond East 12th and
Harrington have occurred and it would be undesirable to
allow that pattern to continue by granting this
request. If parking is the only immediate use, then
review of that type of proposal can be accomplished
through Board of Adjustment action. The Board of
Adjustment has the authority to approve parking
requests on "R -3" property for nonresidential uses
without having to rezone the land. Staff is more
comfortable with the Board of Adjustment process
because it provides for a more detailed review and
restricts the use of the site to parking only. Through
this review, the residents of the area can be offered
better protection by ensuring adequate buffering and
screening.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "I -2" rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Dorcy Corbin, was present. There were no
objectors. Ms. Corbin indicated that she was the attorney
for the applicant and then presented some photos of the
neighborhood. She said the parking lot would improve the
property and in the future, there could possibly be some
industrial development. Dennis Davis, representing Arkansas
Modification Center, said that they needed the lots for
December 16, 1986
Item No. 1 - Continued
potential expansion and to have some flexibility. There was
a long discussion about possible options including another
reclassification and the Board of Adjustment process.
Ms. Corbin then spoke and said that the airport has had more
of an impact on the neighborhood than the "I -2" rezoning of
the property under consideration would. After several other
comments, staff indicated that they preferred the Board of
Adjustment option because it restricts the use and requires
a site plan. Mr. Davis asked about speeding up the process
because of the time factor. There was a long discussion and
then Ms. Corbin requested that the rezoning request be
withdrawn from consideration. A motion was made to withdraw
the "I -2" rezoning and to refund the application fee or
request the Board of Adjustment to waive the filing fee.
The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
December 16, 1986
Item No. 2 - Z -4774
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Avis Mitchell
J. Kay Holt
9624 West Markham
Rezone from "R -2" to "C -1"
Gift Shop /Art Studio with Retail
Sales
0.25 acres
Existing Use: Vacant Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R -2"
South
- Church,
Zoned
"R -2"
East
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R -2"
West
- Office,
Zoned
"0 -3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone a residential lot from "R -2"
to "C -1" with the proposed use being a gift shop /art
studio with retail sales. The site is situated along
the north side of West Markham Road, between I -430 and
Barrow Road. This portion of West Markham is somewhat
unique because of the zoning pattern that has developed
over the years. To the west of this property, the
zoning is primarily nonresidential and includes "0 -2,"
110 -3," "C -3" and "PCD" with very few "R -2" parcels
remaining. Between the property in question and Barrow
Road, all of the lots are zoned "R -2" except for the
southwest corner of Barrow Road and West Markham which
is zoned "C -3." The land use along West Markham to the
east is residential with nonresidential to the west
towards the I- 430 /Shackleford Road area. The site
abuts "0 -3" property on the west and "R -2" lots on the
north and east. The "0 -3" track has one office on it,
and a majority of it is owned by the church located
directly across West Markham which uses it primarily
for parking. Several months ago, a PCD application was
filed for a portion of that property to allow a small
scale shopping center. The request was finally
withdrawn from consideration. An effort has been made
over the years to establish an office corridor along
West Markham and to avoid an undesirable commercial
strip of which this rezoning proposal could be the
start of.
December 16, 1986
Item No. 2 - Continued
2. The site is occupied by one single family residence,
and because of the lot's somewhat unusual shape, it has
a fairly large rear yard area.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues.
4. A detailed site plan must be submitted in order to
determine the access points and parking layout for the
site. It appears from the drawing of the lot that
access as well as parking will be a major problem.
5. There are no legal issues associated with this request.
6. There is no neighborhood position or documented history
on the site.
7. Staff feels that the request is inappropriate for the
location and does not support the "C -1" rezoning. This
position is consistent with attempts to rezone other
locations in the immediate area for commercial
purposes. Most recently, a "C -3" application was filed
for 9923 West Markham just west of Oak Lane. Staff
recommended denial of "C -3," and during the public
hearing, the owner amended the request to "0-3" which
was approved by the Planning Commission. Other cases
have either been withdrawn or denied. The existing
"C -3" center on the south side of West Markham was
approved many years ago and a recent attempt to expand
it was rejected by the City. The current request could
establish unwanted precedent and lead to a commercial
strip along this section of West Markham. The I -430
Plan recommends that the commercial zoning be
concentrated at major intersections, such as
West Markham and Shackleford, and not allow a random
commercial zoning pattern to develop. The request is
in conflict with the I -430 Plan which shows the
property for continued single family use. One final
item is the Bill of Assurance for the Santa Fe Heights
Subdivision. The Bill of Assurance states that "no lot
shall be used except for residential purposes." The
covenants were recorded in 1959 to run for a period of
25 years with automatic extensions of 10 year periods
unless changed by a majority of the property owners
through the necessary instrument. It appears that no
changes have been made to this point.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C -1" request as filed.
December 16, 1986
Item No. 2 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was represented by Neal Cook. There were four
objectors in attendance. Mr. Cook said that the necessary
parking could be provided and that the use would improve the
property. He also pointed out that the site was the only
lot in the Santa Fe Heights Addition that fronted West
Markham. George Gillian, property owner directly to the
west, then addressed the Commission. He said that the
neighborhood was opposed to the request, and if the zoning
was approved, it could create some problems. Mr. Gillian
also expressed concerns with parking and possible signs.
Ms. Ann Cheairs opposed the rezoning and asked that the
residential character of the neighborhood be maintained.
Randy Kersten requested that the "C -1" rezoning be denied.
Mr. Cook then made several additional comments. A motion
was made to recommend approval of the "C -1" request as
filed. The vote: 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. The
rezoning was denied.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3__�__r -�__.
NAME: Wood Creek
LOCATION: South side of West Markham
Parkway, West of Pride Valley
Road, West end of Huckleberry
Drive
T1RX7FT.r)D FA . VMr_ TMV VD .
Winrock Development White - Daters and Associates,
Company, Inc. Inc.
P.O. Box 8080 401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 663 -5340 Telephone: 374 -1666
AREA: 33.27 acres NO. OF LOTS: 96 FT. NEW STREET: 4900
ZONING: "R -2" /Outside City
PROPOSED USE: Residential
A. Proposal /Request:
1. To preliminary plat 33.27 acres into 96 lots and
4900 feet of new street for single family use.
B. Existing Conditions:
Single family area located at urban fringe, floodway on
property.
C. Issues /Discussions /Le gal /Technical /Design:
1. Indicate sidewalks.
2. Show boundaries of City /State intentions for
annexation.
3. Give notice according to Ordinance if required.
4. Indicate abutting property owners and plats as
required per Ordinance.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
5. Lots abutting Pride Valley and West Markham should
have building lines that exceed 25 feet.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Show calculation and detention facilities.
2. Show minimum flood elevation on Lot 1, Block 1,
and Lot 1, Block 5.
3. Make Wood Creek Drive perpendicular to West
Markham Parkway.
4. Dedicate floodway.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed. The applicant agreed to comply with
staff's comments.
1. Water - Water main extension plus on -site fire
protection required. An acreage charge of $300 per
acre will apply.
2. Additional easements shall be required around the
closed sewer mains.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff reported at the agenda meeting that during Subdivision
Committee, the applicant had requested to go back to the
plan originally submitted with minor modifications, but
which would serve to address any objection by the abutting
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
church. Parkway Church was concerned about the revision on
the revised plan that removed Huckleberry from its original
position as a perimeter street and left them with what they
considered to be inadequate excess.
There was no objection to the applicant's request. A motion
for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. _4�._�
NAME: Sandpiper West
LOCATION: Bowman Road, 1 mile south of
Kanis
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Winrock Development Co. White - Daters and Associates
Inc. 401 Victory Street
P.O. Box 8080 Little Rock, AR 72201
Little Rock, AR 72203 Telephone: 374 -1666
Telephone: 663 -5340
AREA: 65.36 Acres NO. OF LOTS:
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Residential
143 FT. NEW STREET: 6300
A. Proposal /Request:
1. To preliminary plat 65.36 acres into 143 lots and
6300 feet of street for single family use.
2. Variances Requested:
A. 15 foot building lines as shown on
preliminary.
B. Double frontage on Bowman Road.
C. In -lieu fee contribution on Bowman as per
Bowman Road study.
D. Length of five percent tangent at
intersection of Shady Creek Drive /Woodridge
Drive.
B. Existing Conditions:
Single family area on fringes of City, floodway on
property.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
C. Issues / Discussions /Legal /Technical /Design:
1.
State use of tracts.
2.
Give justifications /request variance or lots
exceeding lot to depth ratio.
3.
15 foot building line variance.
4.
Give justification for all requested variances.
5.
Show sidewalks.
6.
Give notice if required.
7.
Indicate abutting ownerships according to
Ordinance requirements.
8.
Building line in excess of 25 feet required on
lots abutting Bowman Road.
D. Engineering Comments:
1.
No problem with variance.
2.
Provide justification for D.
3.
All access on double frontage lots should be off
Ridgewood.
4.
Show sidewalks on internal streets.
5.
Show floodplain and 100 year flood elevations.
6.
Explain use of Tracts B and C.
E. Staff
Recommendation:
Approval, subject to comments made.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that Tract A was reserved and Tracts
B, C, and D would be open space. He requested waivers of
the lot to depth requirement and agreed to provide street
improvements and sidewalks as required by Ordinance, and to
get with Enginering regarding the waiver requested (D).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval subject to sidewalks, Shady Creek and
Forest Brook Drives was made and passed by a vote of:
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. _5 w
NAME:
LOCATION:
T1F.VP.T.(1PF.P
Rock Creek Square
Southwest corner of Markham
and Bowman
Pinkerton Architects and Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson
Construction Managers and Associates, Inc.
12702 Hillcrest Road P.O. Box 3837
Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72203 -3837
Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: 375 -5331
Telephone: (214) 991 -7881
AREA: 13.181 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C -3"
PROPOSED USE: Commercial Center
A. Pr02Osal /Request:
1. To preliminary plat 13.181 acres into 2 lots for
commercial development.
2. To plat a buildable area on Lot 2, which will
allow placement of the building at the rear lot
line.
3. 15 foot right -of -way dedication along Bowman and
1/2 street improvements for 60 foot five lane
section of street along the property boundary.
4. Request that OCP propose an Ordinance to correct
or update the existing one to clarify requirement
of architectural design review of proposed
developments on this property (as recorded in
restrictive covenant No. 78- 3304A). This is due
to the fact that the review committee for this
purpose was never active and is now disbanded.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
B. Existinq Conditions:
Area developing as commercial, elevations range from
410 feet to 450 feet.
C. Issues / Discussions /Legal /Technical /Design:
1. Identify ownership of out - parcel.
2. Discuss applicants request.
D. Engineering_Comments:
1. Reserve parcel - dentify ownership.
2. Five lanes on West Markham Street.
3. One new lane to be built.
4. Bowman Road - five lane section and turning bay
tapered to four lane section on south end.
5. All entrances should be a minimum of 36 foot in
width.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Approval, subject to comments made. Staff is
concerned about the responsibility for street
improvements abutting the out - parcel. If this is not
in the applicants ownership, then perhaps the
participation of the abutting owner could be solved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant stated that the out - parcel was within his
ownership and he would get with Engineering to work out the
required improvements. Staff agreed to pursue the
elimination of the restrictive covenants since the area had
been developed without adhering to it.
Water - On -site fire protection required.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff recommended approval, subject to an agreement with
Engineering regarding improvements, and working with the
staff on eliminating the restrictive covenants. A motion to
this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME:
Bixler Commercial Subdivision
Replat, Lot 4
LOCATION: NE Corner of Markham and
I -430
r)VXTVT_l1DL'D . VMn TMV VD .
West Markham Assoc. /Jim Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson,
Hathaway and Assoc.
1500 Worthen Bank 201 South Izard
Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 372 -1700 Phone: 375 -5331
AREA: 865 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 9 FT. NEW STREET: 950
ZONING: "C- 3"/ "0 -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 9501.
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.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
2. Give internal street name (see David Hathcock) -
371 -4808.
D. Engineering 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.
E. 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 agree 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
regarding 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.
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - 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
SUBDIVISIONS
.item N,o.�6 ,ntinued
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.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7�
NAME: Lots 1, 2, and 3, Edmondson's
Replat
LOC_ATI.O_N: Fourche Dam Pike and Cooper
Road
Earl T. Edmondson Robert C. Lowe, Jr., and
5701 Kellett Road Associates
Little Rock, AR 10510 I -30, Suite 5
Little Rock, AR 72209
Telephone: 562 -7215
AREA: 1.5 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request:
1. To plat 1.5 acres into 3 lots.
2. Variances Requested:
A. Boundary street improvements - cost will be
in excess of value of the land.
B. Application be considered as a staff matter
due to the limited amount of time and
pressure from Airport Commission.
B. Existing Conditions:
One existing single family residence on property, no
curbs, gutters, drainage facilities, or sanitary sewer
service available. Both Fourche Dam Pike and Cooper
Road is asphalt paved 17 feet wide with side road
ditches.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
C. Issues / Discussions /Legal /Technical /Design:
1. Waiver of boundary street improvements.
D. Engineering Comments:
Comments reserved until meeting.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Reserved until meeting.
The applicant is being forced to move from his present
location due to the expansion of the Little Rock
Airport, he also asked that the Commission consider
that he is not a developer by choice, but out of
necessity; and he is being pressed to vacate the
premises by the Airport Commission. Also, he has
recently been in the hospital for the amputation of one
of his feet.
He was unaware that replatting was required until he
purchased the property. The Pulaski County Health Unit
has stated that they will approve septic tanks if
percolation tests and lot sizes are sufficient.
The applicant doesn't feel that granting the requested
waiver constitutes favortism, but rather the City
helping one of its citizens solve what is for him a
very serious problem.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee felt that more facts were needed to make an
adequate decision on whether or not to apply the City's
policy of a 15 percent contribution from the applicant for
the cost of the improvements. Staff was asked to contact
the Airport Commission on their procedure for moving
persons and the amount of federal money paid to this owner.
Since this is a new subdivision, one Committee member felt
that it differed from the usual application of the 15
percent policy.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Bob Lowe represented the developer. Staff recommended
approval, subject to: (1) street improvements on Fourche
Dam Pike as specified by City engineers, (2) drainage
improvements be paved over with no curb and gutter, and
(3) a waiver of street improvements on Cooper Road. Staff
talked with the Airport Commission and felt that there would
be adequate relocation expenses to pay for some
improvements. A motion for approval was made and passed by
a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, and 1 abstention
(Massie).
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME: Lots 5 and 6, Block "AR,"
Westpark Development
LOCATION: West Side of 1300 Block of
Westpark Drive
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
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. Engineering Comments:
1. Dedicate floodway before final plat is signed.
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
2. One hundred year flood info on plat is wrong - 1'
should be 21.
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 Uto produce a second lot for sale.
He further stated that th.i existing plat did not dedicate
SUBDIVISIONS
Item iNo 8" 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.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 �-
NAME:
r ^nr mTe%%? _
DEVELOPER:
Winrock Development Co.,
Inc.
P.O. Box 8080
Little Rock, AR 72203
Telephone: 663 -5340
Summit Ridge
West off Kirby Road, .3 miles
North of Kanis
ENGINEER:
White - Daters and Associates,
Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 374 -1666
AREA: 25.63 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 86 FT. NEW STREET: 3500
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Residential
A. Proposal /Request:
1. To plat 25.63 acres into 86 lots and 3500 feet of
street for sinqle family use.
2. Variances Requested:
A. 15 feet building line on specified lots.
B. Waiver of sidewalks along Summit Ridge Drive
due to the fact that Summit Ridge Drive ties
into a short stub street and Parkway Place #3
which has no sidewalks and since all traffic
will be internalized and no through traffic
will be experienced. Summit Ridge Drive will
function as a minor residential street.
3. Improvements to include the west half of Kirby
Road to collector standards and construction of a
sidewalk.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
B. Existinq Conditions:
Single family area, elevations range from 470 feet to
530 feet.
C. Issues / Discussions /Legal /Technical /Design:
1. Identify use and maintenance of tracts.
2. 15 foot building line requested - indicate lots.
3. Show sidewalks on plat.
4. Lots on Kirby to have building lines in excess of
25 feet.
5. Give notice if required.
6. Show abutting ownership as required.
D. Engineering Comments:
1. Show calculations and location of stormwater
detention facilities.
2. Right -of -way dedication and improvements on Kanis
Road.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was asked to provide sidewalks on Kanis,
Kirby, Summit Ridge, Wind Ridge, and Stone Gate. The
applicant requested a 25 foot building line on Lot 16, 22,
and 8 through 10.
Water - Water main extension, plus on -site fire protection
is required.
Sewer - Additional easements shall be required around
proposed sewer mains.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval according to comments made was passed
by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Danny Thomas and Assoc.
A. Proposal /Request:
Woodland Hills Replat,
Phase II, Lots 38R -43R
North Side of Forest Lane,
approximately 32' east of
Aspen Drive
Daters, White, and Associates
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
1. To replat nine lots into six for single family
use.
2. The new lots will be 60' at the building line and
meet requirements for "R -2" zoning.
B. Existinq Conditions:
Single family area.
C. Issue / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design:
None at this time.
D. Engineering Comments:
None at this time.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Approval.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME:
Barton Oaks,
Phase II
"Short -Form
PRD" (Z -4777)
LOCATION:
Southwest corner
of 2nd and
Park
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
Robert Rees
Brooks and Curry
1709 Covey Road
P.O. Box 897
Jonesboro, AR 72401
North Little
Rock, AR 72115
Telephone: 935 -2607
Telephone:
372 -2131
AREA: 10,500 Square Feet
NO. OF LOTS:
1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R -4"
PROPOSED USE: Apartments
A. Proposal /Request:
1. To rezone property for PUD for use as 14 one (1)
bedroom apartments on 10,500 square feet.
2. Provision of 21 parking spaces.
B. Existing Conditions:
One -story frame structure in disrepair existing on the
property. Boundary uses include an improved alley on
the west, fourplex to the west of the alley, and
apartments located to the north. The block to the
south is composed mainly of rental units.
C. Issues / Discussions /Legal /Technical /Design:
1. Density - staff recommends reduction of density.
2. Inadequate parking.
3. Show landscaping.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
4. Clarify Lot 2 - 1/2 lot shown (replat required of
currently divided - present evidence of when
divided).
D. Engineering Comments:
1. Inadequate amount of parking spaces shown.
2. Show handicapped parking.
3. Redesign parking lot - see Traffic Engineer.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Reserved until further information is received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was asked to reduce his density to 8 units,
show a 15 foot setback on both streets and a 7 foot side
yard, show landscaping and parking as required, and to
relocate the dumpster from the front yard and from in the
driveway.
Sewer - Existing 8 inch sewer line is located under proposed
b liu ding. Sewer line or proposed building must be
relocated.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. A motion for withdrawal was
made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. - 12___�
NAME:
T_nr AmTnAI.
OWNER /APPLICANT:
South Broadway Conditional Use
Permit (Z- 4218 -A)
The Southeast corner of 23rd
Street and South Broadway
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. Compatibility With Neighborhood
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 Parking
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.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - 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. Citv Engineerinq 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.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - 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.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME:
Galusha Building Line Waiver
LOCATION: 2015 Hillsborough Lane
APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Harry Galusha
2015 Hillsborough Lane
Little Rock, AR
A. Proposal /Request:
1. To encroach approximately 14.5' into an area
established by a 25' building line for the
construction of a 14' x 20' garden- storage
building.
B. Existing Conditions:
1. Single family area.
2. Lot drops off in rear to form a 20' cliff down to
Hinson Road.
C. Issue / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design:
1. Filing of a one lot final replat.
D. Engineering_Comments:
None.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Approval, subject to comments made. The applicants
explained that their building was almost completed when
it was discovered that they were violating the building
line. They feel that it would not adversely affect the
area since it will not be seen from inside the
subdivision and only partially from Hinson Road. They
stated that they've been limited in finding alternate
locations for the building, due to the drastic drop in
the terrain on the east side of their property.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
A petition signed by owners in Phase I of Hillsborough
Subdivision and letters from abutting property owners
have been submitted.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to plant pine trees between the fence
and the top of the cut. No other problems were found. A
one lot final replat will be required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME:
Salazar Building Line Waiver
(Lot 168, Kingwood Place)
LOCATION: Circlewood Road at Hillwood
Road
APPLICANT: Kevin Shook for Chris Salazar
3023 Circlewood
Little Rock, AR
A. Proposal /Request:
1. To encroach 16' into an area established by
a 20' building line for construction of a garage.
B. Existing Conditions:
Single family area.
C. Issue / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design:
1. Notification to neighbors.
D. Engineering Comments:
1. Have maximum 20' opening for drive - install curb
and gutter.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Denial, subject to Engineering's comments and one lot
final replat.
The applicant is requesting the variance to allow
enough room for the construction of a one -car garage
with storage room. The house was recently bought and
does not currently have a garage. The storage area
will allow removal of the metal building.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff felt that this proposal overbuilt the lot and
destracted from the aesthetic value of the neighborhood, due
to its being the only intrusion in the area, and its close
proximity to the street.
Staff was asked to inform the Applicant, who was not
present, to hand carry notice to neighboring property owners
within at least 7 days before the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff recommended denial due to the potential for adverse
effects to the neighborhood and adequate room in the rear of
the structure for an addition.
A motion for approval was made, but failed to pass. The
vote was: 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 -_Alley Right -of -Way Abandonmenty - - -,
NAME:
The alley in Block 5,
Centennial Addition
LOCATION: The north 138.5 feet of the
alley between Battery Street
and Wolfe Street running south
off West 12th Street
OWNER /APPLICANT: Jim Irwin for Various Owners
REQUEST: To abandon the right -of -way and
join with the abutting lots for
redevelopment of the corner as
a restaurant
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
None evidenced by our review and contacts made.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no requirements associated with this request.
3. Need for Riqht -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
None evidenced by our review and contacts.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
Generally flat ground with fences and structures lying
in close proximity.
5. Development Potential
None, except as a part of redevelopment of the adjacent
parcels at the corner of West 12th and Battery
Streets. That corner is to be developed as a fast food
restaurant with portions of this right -of -way being
included for parking and drive.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The land use mix is generally nonresidential within
this block and blocks lying north, east, and west with
the uses being medical or commercial. Residential
properties lie in blocks to the south.
7. Neighborhood Position
No opposition at this writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
No adverse effect reported except that the right -of -way
should be retained as a utility easement.
9. Reversionary Rights
Each abutting owner will receive 1/2 of the
right -of -way after abandonment.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
The abandonment of this unneeded right -of -way will
return to private use a usable tract of land and
provide a tract productive for the tax base.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the request subject to retention of the
right -of -way as a utility and /or drainage easement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16-86)
The staff presented its recommendation of approval.
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion of the proposal,
the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the
petition. The vote 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 -_Alley Right -of -Way Abandonment
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
The alley and Block 2,
Forbes Addition
Running south off Longfellow
Lane one half block east of
Beverly Place
Allen Whisenhunt for Various
Owners
To abandon the right -of -way and
join with the adjacent
residential lots for their use
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
None inasmuch as the alley has not been in use as a
conventional alley and is not now open through the
block.
2. MASTER Street Plan
There are no requirements attached to this request.
3. Need for Right- of -Wav on Adjacent Streets
None observed in our review.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
The right -of -way appears to be built up with
encroachment of walls, fences, and plantings.
5. Development Potential
None, except as part of yard use area of the abuttinq
lots.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
No adverse effect. Each abutting owner is
participating in the closure and there are no others
with use potential.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
7. Neighborhood Position
No opposition reported at this writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
None reported except Arkansas Power and Light with a
request for retention as a utility easement.
9. Reversionary Rights
Each of the several owners abutting will receive 1/2 of
the right -of -way.
10. Public Welfare and Safetv Issues
The abandonment of this right -of -way will return to
the tax base a tract of land that can be owner usable
and productive for the tax base.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval as filed subject to the retention of the
right -of -way as a utility easement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16 -86)
The staff presented its recommendation in which it noted
that Mr. Whiesenhunt had left the meeting earlier.
Mr. Whiesenhunt had offered to the staff a written response
to a staff concern relative to Fire Department access to
this block. The Fire Marshall's Office had pointed out that
adandonment of the alley would forever eliminate the
potential for opening a fire service access to the middle of
this block. In place of the alley, the Fire Marshall had
suggested that a parallel driveway from Longfellow Lane be
provided. The parallel easement would overlay an existing
driveway servicing a house in the southern half of this
block. The Fire Department sees this access as necessary
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
to assure accessibility to several large homes within this
block. Mr. Whiesenhunt's communication from the owners of
the involved lots reflects their desire to cooperate with
the Fire Department. Mr. Whiesenhunt has offered to provide
for the record an easement deed prior to the Board's
Ordinance passage in January. .There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion of the proposal, the
Commission voted unanimously to approve the petition subject
to the provision of the access easement. The vote on the
motion 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No_. 18_.- Other Matters - Street Name Change _
NAME: Coquina Court
LOCATION: Lying north off Pleasant
Ridge Road less that 1/4
mile east of Hinson Road
PETITIONER: Dr. William T. Henry, Agent
for the abutting owners
REQUEST: To chanqe the name to Cherry
Creek Court
ABUTTING USES AND OWNERSHIP:
All of the abutting lots are residential with six new homes
under construction with the remaining lots being vacant and
for sale.
NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECT:
Little or none inasmuch as none of the homes are occupied at
this time.
NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION:
At this writing, there are no objectors.
EFFECT,ON PUBLIC SERVICES
None expected. All utilities, Fire, Police, and post office
are aware of the action. At this writing, no adverse
comment has been received.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the request with a condition that the street
name have the appropriate suffix for a cul -de -sac street;
in this instance the word court.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16 -86)
The Planning staff offered its recommendation. The
application was represented by Dr. Henry. There were no
objectors in attendance. Dr. Henry offered for the record a
request of the owners that the street name be changed to
Cherry Creek Cove as opposed to Cherry Creek Court now
represented in the application. The staff indicated that
there would be no problem in making such a modification
inasmuch as Cove and Court both serve to identify a dead end
street with a cul -de -sac. After a brief discussion of the
proposal, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend the name change. The vote on the motion to
approve 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19
NAME:
Fletcher Meadows - Phasing
Plan and Final PUD Approval
APPLICANT: City of Little Rock
Department of Human and
General Resources
ENGINEERS: White, Daters, and Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374 -1666
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request to approve a phasing plan for this
development and to receive Commission review for the final
plan /plat of an approved long -form "PRD."
QrPAPP 1?Vr0MM1iRnArPTr)N1
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
December 16, 1986
Item No. 20 - Amendment to the Master Street Plan -
Alignment of the Rock Creek Parkway
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.
December 16, 1986
Item No. 20 - 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).
DATE J)w. 1"21 1980
·ZONING
MEMBER
W.Riddick, III
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Sipes
J.Nicholson
W.Rector
W.Ketcher
D.Arnett
O. J. Jones
I.Boles
F.Perkins
PLANNING ·c OM MISSION
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
SUBDIVISION
/) 8 � I 2 3 +-5 b 7 I?, q /D II
v' ✓✓ / • ✓ / / / ✓ /✓ / ✓
✓ ✓✓ ✓ • ✓ / / / / / / / ✓
l1J ✓✓ / • / / / ./ Ah / / / ✓
v ✓ ✓ ✓#✓,/ / / ,/ / ✓ ./ ✓'
✓✓ ✓ /J A I). ✓ ,4 A rt A-/ / ,4
✓✓ ✓✓ " ✓ ./ / / / / ✓✓ ✓
v ✓ / ✓ � ✓✓ / / /· / / ,✓ ✓
✓/ ✓✓ I ✓ / / / / ./ / / v
� •y / ;; 11-✓ ,/ Ill A A,/ ,/ #
/ ✓ / ✓• ✓ / / / / ✓✓ / ✓
✓ lid ✓ / 'v / / / /✓ / ✓ �
✓AYE • NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
/..z, /<3 JjZ1 JS"" ✓•✓
✓ v • ✓
•✓, ✓
, ✓ " ✓
A . JI A-/
, / -/
1/13 -✓ •· ✓
✓ ✓• /
A-/f A /
✓/•✓'·
/ ✓•✓
/t
/
✓
/
/
A-
✓
/
✓
,,4
/
✓
11 l1a
✓/
✓/
/ ✓
/ /
/
/ ✓
/ /
✓· /
✓/
/ /
/ ✓
/9
/
/
-✓
1/
v/
1-/
✓
/
/ /
December 16, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business, the meeting wa$ adjourned at 6 p.m.
Chairman Secretary
Date