pc_11 11 1986subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
NOVEMBER 11, 1986
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 9 in number.
II. Members Present: W. Reddick III
J. Schlereth
J. Nicholson
W. Rector
W. Ketcher
D. Arnett
D.J. Jones
I. Boles
F. Perkins
III. Members Absent: R. Massie
B. Sipes
IV. City Attorney Present: Stephen Giles
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
November 11, 1986
Deferred Items:
A.Request for Private Street Extension
B.Birch Creek Apartments "Short-Form PCD" (Z-4747)
C.Los Cuartas "Long-Form PCD" (Z-4746)
D.Word of Outreach Church CUP (Z-4708-A)
E.Central Church of the Nazarene (Z-4758)
F.Kanis Road CUP (Z-4745)
G.Tanphil Addition
Preliminary Plat:
1.Ridge Haven Valley
2.West Chester Subdivision, Phase IV
Replats:
3.River Subdivision
4.Kanis Commercial Revised Preliminary
Right-of-Way Dedication:
5.Shackleford West and Centreview
Site Plan Review:
6.Greenbriar Revised Rep lat/Site Plan Review
Planned Unit Development:
7.Rainwood Cove "Long-Form PRD" (Z-4760)
8.Arkansas Association of Kidney Patients"Short-Form PCD" (Z-4747)
9.11th and Madison "Short-Form PRD" (Z�4759)
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES -CONTINUED
November 11, 1986
Conditional Use Permit:
10.River of Life Assembly of God CUP (Z-4756)
11.Little Rock School District CUP (Z-4758)
Other Matters:
12.Hunters Ridge PRD -Extension Request
13.P & L Investment Company PCD -Extension Request
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Other Matters - Reconsideration Item
NAME:
Richardson Properties /Acreage
Tract
LOCATION: At the north end of Foxcroft
Road adjacent to Overlook
Subdivision and Robinwood
Subdivision
REQUEST: To be permitted to extend
Foxcroft Road northward as
a 40 -foot private street
which will terminate in a
cul-de-sac. The purpose of
which is to provide for
a public approved
easement /right -of -way for
frontage of acreage lots.
STAFF REPORT:
This issue comes to the Commission as the result of
discussions between Mr. Richardson and Planning staff
concerning access to this irregular tract of land. At the
present time, this ownership exceeding 25 acres total has a
street frontage of approximately 60 feet which is the
termination of Foxcroft Road.
Mr. Richardson proposes to place on record an instrument as
required by the Commission in form and substance that will
allow the use of this private roadway to access his
property. Two or more large lots would be sold and
developed. These lots would be in excess of five acres and
a plat would not be required.
The Engineering staff has reviewed the street proposal and
has indicated "no problems." The Master Street Plan does
not propose the extension of Foxcroft Road as a collector
street. It currently is constructed as a collector 36 feet
wide from Cantrell Road to this point.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff offers no comment at this time but will be
prepared to address the issue and answer questions at the
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9 -9 -86)
The applicant, Mr. Robert J. Richardson, presented his
request to the Commission and responded to several questions
as to the reason for the extension and the format of the
proposed land sale. The Planning staff offered a general
overview of the proposal and a recommendation of approval of
the extension of the street as proposed. The staff
indicated it understood that the street would be a 40'
private street approximately 150' to 200' in length
terminating in a turnaround, perhaps a hammerhead.
Several members of the Commission then raised issues
associated with the filing, including the need for more
information, uncertainty as to why a normal application for
a five lot plat was not being filed, and the relationship of
this filing to the current litigation.
The Chairman then offered to hear comments from two adjacent
property owners. These were Mrs. Schultz and Mrs. Puryear,
residents of the Robinwood Subdivision adjacent to the west
and south. Both of these interested parties indicated that
they felt this proposal was premature and that in fact it
might run cross purposes with the current litigation. They
felt that the item should be held in abeyance until the
court opinion is handed down and that it not be pursued
until it is determined whether Mr. Richardson will pursue an
appeal of the decision.
Commissioner Nicholson offered the thought that she
understood the City Attorney's direction to the Commission
was that in these kinds of circumstances that no further
action be taken by the Commission until current litigation
is resolved. The City Attorney's representative, Mr. Steven
Giles, responded by stating that he thought that action on
the application should be deferred until the written opinion
is issued by the Judge handling the litigation.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
Further lengthy discussion of the proposal followed. A
motion was made to defer this request until the issue is out
of litigation as suggested by the City Attorney's staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (10 -2 -86)
The staff reported to the Committee that Steve Giles of the
City Attorney's Office has discussed this case with the
applicant's attorney, Mr. David Henry, and has decided to
change his position on this matter. He has reported to
Planning staff that he does not now feel that the Planning
Commission should hold up review of Mr. Richardson's
request; therefore, the request has been placed on the
agenda, a cover letter has been submitted outlining the
issue and a generalized lot scheme has been filed. The only
recommendation that staff would offer at this time is that
more work could be done on the actual house site .location so
as to possibly eliminate the unusual configurations of these
lots. As before, staff will be prepared to address issues
as they develop at the hearing and respond to questions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 14 -86)
The applicant was present as was his attorney, Mr. David
Henry. There were objectors in attendance being Mr. Don
Hamilton and Mrs. Marilyn Schultz. The Planning staff
offered history and a recommendation on the proposal. The
staff suggested that the Commission approve the extension of
this private roadway as proposed by Mr. Richardson with a
restriction that the total number of lots be limited to
four, that the City street standards be applied to the
private street and that the lot lying across the access road
be redesigned. A brief discussion of the proposal then
followed during which time Mr. David Jones of the Planning
Commission requested of the staff information as to the
access provision to 40+ acres lying north and west of the
subject properties. He suggested that Mr. Richardson's
proposal may, in fact, preclude future development and
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
access to the site. The staff offered comments that access
to that area had been dealt with at such time as the Master
Street Plan was amended to eliminate Foxcroft Road extension
northward to the river. It was further pointed out by staff
that several access points by way of stub streets exist both
from the Robinwood Subdivision and from the River Ridge
Manor Subdivision area.
The Chairman then asked the applicant to present his
request. David Henry, attorney for Mr. Richardson,
addressed the several comments that had been made. He
stated that this was not a plat filing but was simply
presentation of an idea as to how the lots might be
configured in response to a request of the Planning
Commission. He further stated the only request at this time
by his client was for extension of a private street so as to
provide sufficient frontage to sell off 5+ acre lots as
permitted by the ordinance. He further stated that the
access to other lands north and west of this area he did not
consider to be an issue at this time.
The Chairman then asked for comments of the objectors.
Mr. Don Hamilton, a resident of Robinwood, offered comments
concerning the appropriateness of this hearing when
litigation is being pursued in the form of an appeal of the
previous subdivision matter involving Parcel 1 of this
ownership. He further voiced Robinwood owners' objections
to the development of lots as presented and the access
arrangement provided. He stated they were concerned that
actions of this nature should be held in abeyance pending
resolution of the court appeal especially in light of the
many unanswered questions and undocumented access to
additional properties in the area. He questioned the future
development impacts on this area by allowing this type of
development. The City Attorney representative, Pat Benton,
then responded to Mr. Hamilton's comments, and reported
that an appeal had been filed. A general discussion of the
matter then followed involving additional objectors.
Marilyn Schultz, a resident of Robinwood, spoke to the
issue. A motion was requested by the Chairman. The motion
was made that Mr. Richardson's request be approved as
presented. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 1 no, 5
absent. The failure of this motion falls within the
guidelines of the Planning Commission bylaws requiring
automatic deferral for 30 days inasmuch as six votes for
final action were not obtained.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11- 11 -86)
The staff made a presentation of the issue and again offered
its recommendation for approval subject to several
conditions. These conditions being:
(1) That the site being approximately 26 acres be limited
to five lots as permitted by ordinance as a maximum
number. All subsequent replatting or lots within the
area to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
(2 ) That all lots with' this ownership be single body
contiguous parts and not be divided or severed by
easements or streets.
(3 ) That a 50 -foot easement be provided off the end of the
proposed private street to serve as access to the large
body of undeveloped land lying to the north and west
with the understanding that this extension would be
simply to provide access to that land and would not
endorse further lot sales or development.
(4) That Lot 1 be committed to Tract B of Robinwood
Subdivision in such a fashion as to provide access over
Lot 1 to Tract B on the demand of that owner. This
access should be a minimum 20 feet in width by 100 feet
dimension from the nearest property line either east or
west boundary.
The Chairman then asked Mr. David Henry, the attorney for
the applicant, for his comments. Mr. Henry again offered
his applicant's proposal. He discussed the request and
clarified several points concerning the staff's access
proposal. He then responded to questions from the
Commission concerning access to Tract B, Robinwood and the
40+ acres to the north and west.
Mr. Jim Guy Tucker, a nearby neighbor in the Robinwood
Addition, offered comments reflecting his concern over the
history of this property. He stated that as a new resident
of the area he had no personal knowledge of the issues but
understood there was litigation being appealed and in light
of that appeal, questioned the appropriateness of the
Commission's review. Mr. Steven Giles addressed his
concerns and again stated that the Planning Commission was
not restrained from acting on the proposal before them. A
discussion then followed wherein the issue of which approval
is effective. The one which might be issued by the
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
Commission on this occasion or the one which might be the
result of the appeal of the former litigation. It was
determined in the course of discussion that Lot 1 overlays
most of the area involved in the litigation that being the
Forest Hills preliminary plat and that the court action
would probably be the controlling action.
The Chairman then asked if there were additional objectors.
Mary Scott, a resident of Robinwood, spoke to the
deficiencies in the request and stated that she felt the
Commission did not have sufficient information to properly
act on this matter. She added additional history from her
view of the circumstances. She requested that a plat be
submitted to the Commission in the proper fashion if that is
what the product of these meetings and the private street is
to be. She stated that the neighborhood will accept a plan
filed for review for a real project.
Mrs. Puryear, also a resident of Robinwood, offered comments
which indicated that the neighborhood felt that a covenant
on the sale of the land would be appropriate whereby
restrictions would be placed on future use and development.
A discussion then followed wherein the history of Foxcroft
Road was questioned as to its relationship to the Master
Street Plan and as to why the street was not constructed to
the terminal point of the right -of -way. Mr. Joe White of
Edward G. Smith Associates offered a history of the
construction of Foxcroft Road wherein he stated that a large
drainage structure would have been required in order to
extend the street to the end of the right -of -way. During
the course of discussion with the City Engineer's Office, it
was determined that the structure would not be required at
that time. The street was actually removed from the City's
Master Street Plan several years following the decision on
the drainage structure. At this time, it is not reflected
on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. Mr. Jim
Guy Tucker then offered additional comments wherein he
requested that the Commission defer the case in order that a
proper plan or plat be submitted. Commissioner Jones stated
that he felt that it was time for the owner to make a
commitment to a development and that the current situation
is unfair to both the Commission and to neighbors. A motion
was then made to defer this request until such time as the
litigation is resolved. The motion passed by a vote of 5
ayes, 3 noes, 3 absent.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME:
DEVELOPER:
Creative Landscape, Inc.
5908 Geyer Springs
Little Rock, AR 72209
Telephone: 562 -0862
ENGINEER:
Ed Campbell
c/o 5908 Geyer Springs
Little Rock, AR 72209
Telephone: 562 -0862
Birch Creek Apartments
"Short -Form PRD" (Z -4747)
5908 Geyer Springs (Lot to
north also included)
ARCHITECT:
James Culberson
AREA: 1.6 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 208.5
ZONING: "C -4" (Commercial) to PRD
PROPOSED USES: Apartments
A. Proposal /Request
1. Phase 1
(a) To construct 24 one - bedroom units with 500
square feet each in a two story building.
(b) Thirty -six (36) parking spaces.
(c) Access from Geyer Springs and street
improvements on Geyer Springs.
(d) Drainage improvements and enhancements of
drainage easement.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
2. Phase II
(a) To construct 24 one - bedroom units, 500 square
feet each in a two story building of frame
construction.
(b) Thirty -six (36) parking spaces.
(c) Access from Geyer Springs Road.
B. Existing Conditions
Commercial uses on all sides. They include a skating
rink, glass shop and auto dealership. Single family
homes are located across the street.
C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
Density related to livability and open space.
D. Engineering Comments
Provide minimum floor elevations for 100 year flood on
final plat.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to restricting density to 24 _units
per acre.
The applicant has explained that he does not feel that
the project is too dense, due to the fact that many of
the units will be one bedroom apartments. Staff would
like to, however, remain loyal to the established
policy of supporting such a high density only in
urbanized areas of the City.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff requested that the applicant redesign the plan to a
density of 24 units per acre and provide more open space.
The applicant explained that he is providing a plan with 30
units per acre and one bedroom, not efficiency units. He
felt that the area should not be described as "peripheral,"
since Geyer Springs is being widened to four lanes; and that
open 'space needs were being provided by the easement through
the middle of the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not in attendance. No one objected. A
motion for approval subject to Engineering's approval of the
landscaping and the drainage easement was made and passed by
a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C_�_
NAME: Los Cuartos Second Addition
LOCATION: Northwest corner of I -630 and
Barrow Road
AGENT:
ENGINEER:
Charley Baker (375 -9131) Smith, Roberts, Johnson, Inc.
Henderson Properties, Inc. 3140 West Britton Road, Suite 4C
3800 North May, Suite 500 Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Oklahoma City, OK 73112 Telephone: 405 755 -7094
Telephone: 405 949 -9100
AREA: 5.887 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R -2" to PCD
PROPOSED USES: Hotel /Commercial
A. Proposal /Request
1. PCD approval of the site, currently zoned "R -2"
for use as a motel and other "C- 2/C -3" uses.
2. Consideration on the basis of the following
development regulations and design requirements.
a. Tract 1
- Restriction to motel or hotel.
- Height restriction of two stories or 35
feet.
-Site proof screening along common boundary
between Pennbrook Addition and Tract 1.
- Landscaped open space buffer a minimum of
20' wide along the northern /westhern
boundaries of Tract 1 to include the
planting of Decidous and Evergreen trees at
25' minimum spacing with no parking, drives
or obstructions permitted.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
b. Tracts 2, 3, 4 and 5
- "C -2" Shopping Center District uses.
- Clinic, car wash, daycare, eating place with
or without drive -in, food store, health
studio or spa, hotel, office, service
station, theater.
- "C -3" Commercial uses.
-Bank or savings and loan, barber /beauty
shop, convenience store with pumps, florist
shop service station and vehicle repair.
- Building setback in "C -3"
or obstructions permitted.
-Site proof screening installed along the
Penbrook Addition boundary.
- Landscaped open space buffer a minimum of
20' wide along northern boundary.
- Building setback of Tract 2 where it abuts
Tract 1 to be a minimum of five feet from
the lot line.
- Building setback of Tract 5 as it abuts
Tract 4 should be a minimum of five feet
from lot line.
3. Approval of the following uses:
Tract 1 - Motel - 120 rooms.
Tract 2 - Convenience store -
Tract 3 - Fast food restaurant
feet.
Tract 4 - Quality restaurant -
Tract 5 - Fast food restaurant
feet.
4. Access:
30,000 square feet.
- 1,750 square
1,900 square feet.
- 1,800 square
Two access points along John Barrow.
5. Parking:
Tract 1 - 141 spaces.
Tracts 2 -5 - 91 spaces.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
B. Existing Conditions
1. Zoning is currently "R -2." The property is
bounded on the north and west by Pennbrook
Addition, a single family subdivision. Henderson
Jr. High is east across Barrow Road and the I -630
highway right -of -way is to the south.
2. Site has 450 feet of frontage on Barrow Road and
630 feet on I -630.
3. Site has 50 percent tree coverage and falls toward
the northwest to a drainage ditch which flows
north on the east sides of the Pennbrook
Subdivision.
C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
1. Consideration of site plans on Tracts 2 -5 on an
individual basis as they are sold.
2. Traffic.
3. Appropriateness of use proposed.
4. Drainage problems.
5. Visibility /buffer from neighborhood.
6. Proximity to school.
D. Engineering Comments
None at this time.
E. Analysis
Staff is supportive of the motel and one other
commercial activity only. The applicant is asked to
eliminate Lots 2, 4 and 5 and provide a 100 -foot strip
along the north and west, present a grading plan for
review by Planning and Public Works. Landscaping
should and proposals for preservation of existing trees
should be shown. Please add infill plantings for
screen in a 100 -foot area and some type of fast growing
plants. Staff is opposed to the location of a gas
station on the site.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Engineering reported that the traffic analyses submitted by
the developer would still be studied and that the northern
entrance be redesigned. The Committee felt that any
development to the property should not involve the hillside.
It was also felt that the site was overbuilt and the plan
proposed "major surgery" to the hillsides.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff recommended approval of the plan, subject to the
motel and only one other commercial activity on the site;
submission of a grading plan and a revised plan showing a
100 -foot buffer on the north and west sides. Approximately
35 persons were present in opposition.
Mr. Charles Baker of The Rose Law Firm represented the
applicant. He explained that the motel would be located
next to the residential areas and the commercial areas
toward the interstate. He felt that it was very obvious to
everyone of the suitability of the property for commercial
use, so the issue was really whether this particular
proposal was appropriate. He responded to objections raised
by the neighborhood:
1. Flooding - Any flooding problem would be addressed by
the ordinance and City Engineering.
2. Traffic - This development was located on what the
neighbors called a heavily traveled road. He felt that
this artery then was a good location for commercial
uses. A traffic study shows that no problem will be
created by this development.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
3. Buffer - Would maintain as many trees as possible for
aesthetic quality.
4. Density - Stated that the 100 foot buffer staff wanted
would comprise 37 percent of the property.
The Commission identified one of the major issues as being
disturbance of the hillside and the fact that the applicant
was informed to leave that area on the property undisturbed,
and submit a grading plan, but no grading plan was
submitted. The hillside /grading issue was considered as one
of the most sensitive issues in the City, and how any
applicant chose to work with the opposing neighborhood was
very important to getting the project completed.
Mr. Mike Thompson represented Mr. and Mrs. W.H. Lanthrop.
Their main concerns involved a density of commercial uses,
traffic, danger to school across the street, and drainage
toward the client's property which could worsen existing
flooding problem. His clients objected to any use other
than the motel. A petition with 200 signatures was filed.
Mr. George Irvin spoke. He protested the application based
on potential drainage problems, traffic, recent traffic
accident involving student, and recent five car collision.
He did not agree with the applicant's claim that the
proposal would not create a traffic problem. City
Engineering asked that the northernmost drive be eliminated.
The Commission felt that the item should be deferred so that
the applicants and representatives of the neighborhood could
meet.
Ms. Barbara Lucas felt that there was no need to meet with
the developers because she felt that any rezoning from
residential to commercial was not appropriate for the site.
Other speakers seemed to feel that some sort of commercial
should be built, but not at the magnitude proposed.
Mr. Baker requested a deferral.
The Traffic Engineer was asked to research the possibility
of signalization at the school and the impact of traffic on
the area.
A motion for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed by a vote
of 7 ayes, noes and 4 absent.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D -
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
Word of Outreach Conditional
Use Permit (Z- 708 -A)
The south terminious of Broadway
Word of Outreach /Joe D.
White
PROPOSAL: To construct a church in three phases. The
phases are: Phase I - a 20,000 square feet church /school
auditorium (capacity 400) and 95 paved parking spaces; Phase
II - a 14,000 square feet expansion of the existing
church /school auditorium, and an additional 48 parking
spaces plus 4 spaces for buses; and Phase III - a 16,000
square feet family life center addition. This development
will be on 3.01 acres of land that is zoned "R -4."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This property is located at the end of a collector
street (Broadway) and is adjacent to an arterial street
located to the west (Arch Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The proposed church is located on 3.1 acres of land
that is potentially compatible with the surrounding
single family area. This property is a rear yard
relationship for all the adjacent single family areas
except for two side yard relationships on Broadway and
two side yard relationships on Arch Street. Proper
screening and landscaping will enhance the
compatibility of this project.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D - Continued
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
Two access drives are proposed to this site. One
access is a 40 feet drive on Arch Street and the second
access will be taken from Broadway. Total parking will
be 147 spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
This site plan includes landscaping areas.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that a church use can be compatible
with the surrounding area. The staff does, however,
have some concerns. The single family use adjacent to
the access drive on Arch Street needs to be screened by
a fence at least to the rear lot lines of the adjacent
single family uses. The side yard relationships of the
two single family uses on Broadway are actually above
grade - landscaping should be provided adjacent to
these side yards. The applicant also needs to supply
further details about the proposed school and
dimensions of the building and setbacks. What kind of
school is proposed, and what is its proposed capacity.
Staff also questions the necessity of the proposed
steeple height being 60 feet. Finally, is the alley
being proposed as an additional access?
6. City Engineering Comments
No adverse comments.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a revised site plan that includes dimensions of the
buildings and their setbacks, screening fences, and
additional landscape areas; and (2) provide additional
information on the proposed school, height of the
steeple and the use of the alley located at the
southeast corner of the site.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. The applicant stated that the school was
kindergarten through eighth grade but did not know the
proposed maximum capacity. The applicant also stated that
they proposed to use the alley located at the southeast
corner of the property for access and that they would
improve and landscape it as necessary. The applicant
further agreed to reverse the angular parking on the Arch
Street drive and either redesign and /or post signage on the
circular access located adjacent to Broadway in order to
reduce possible confusion. The Wastewater Department stated
that sewer is available and that capacity contribution is
required. The Water Works stated that the proposed building
is larger than 15,000 square feet and that a sprinkler
system is recommended.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 14 -86)
The applicant was present. There were a number of objectors
present represented by Attorney Mr. Bennie O'Neil.
Mr. O'Neil read a statement opposing the conditional use
permit on the following grounds: (1) the type of use or
ministry of the church and the apparent instability
(financial and four different locations of the church in the
last three years); (2) increased noise and traffic in the
neighborhood; and (3) potential drainage problems (on -site
Springs). Mr. Joe White and Mr. Robert Smith (Pastor) spoke
in behalf of the project. They stated that the proposed
capacity of the private christian school would be 200.
Mr. Smith stated that the church begin May 5, 1981, and had
a current congregation of 125, and that their ministry would
not require any residential use of the proposed property and
that no formal alcohol or drug rehabilitation program would
exist on -site. The staff stated that they recommended
approval of the proposal and had received a revised site
plan. The staff also stated that they had received one
phone call against, two informational calls and one call
favoring the proposed conditional use permit. Mr. Smith
stated that the church owned the property and had bought it
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D - Continued
from the City of Little Rock. Mr. Smith further stated that
they had held two neighborhood meetings prior to the
purchase of the property and that the City had told them
that the property was zoned properly for a church use. The
Commission wanted to know about the sale of the property to
the church. The staff stated that they had no knowledge of
the sales arrangement. It was determined that the
Department of Human and General Services had handled the
transaction. The Commission requested that the staff obtain
information concerning the sale of the property and that the
neighbors and the church meet to determine if their
differences could be resolved. The staff also asked the
church and neighbors to determine whether or not access
should be allowed via the existing alley from Spring Street.
The Commission then voted 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent to
defer this item until the November 11, 1986, Planning
Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The item was not discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11- 11 -86)
The applicant, Bob Smith, was present and represented 15
people who favored the church use. Mr. Bennie O'Neil
represented 13 objectors. Mr. Jack McCrae, Vice - President
with the Bailey Corporation, spoke in behalf of the
applicants and stated that the neighborhood church
representatives had met on October 23, 1986, as requested by
the Planning Commission. The meeting failed to produce an
agreement. A lengthy discussion ensued. The disagreement
centered around the possible uses of the church property
other than traditional church services. The neighborhood
apparently had little problem with the proposed physical
structures. The Commission asked the neighbors and the
church representatives to meet once again and try to obtain
an agreement by having the church write down the proposed
programs and uses. The Commission then voted 8 ayes,
0 noes, 3 absent to defer the item until the November 25,
1986, Planninq Commission meeting.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
Central Church of the Nazarene
Conditional Use Permit
(Z -4738)
The south side of Baseline Road
just east of Loetscher Lane
(5121 Baseline Road)
Central Church of the Nazarene/
Dallas Hudspeth
PROPOSAL: To construct six buildings (temporary /portable? -
3,372 square feet) for use as a christian school (K -12th /150
capacity) within an existing church facility (250 capacity)
on land that is zoned "R -2."
1. Site Location
Adjacent to an arterial street (Baseline Road).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The church is an existing use. It is surrounded by
single family uses on three sides with an office use
located to the north. The existing facility is
compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The property contains an ingress and two egresses to
Baseline Road. The property also contains 60 paved
parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff feels that a church use on this property is
compatible with the surrounding area. The staff does,
however, have serious reservations about the proposal.
The staff cannot support the location of the six
proposed classrooms. The lack of setback (eight feet
side yard and 25 feet rear yard as required in "R -2 ")
and the proximity of the other building creates a
potential safety problem. The applicant needs to
investigate the possibility of relocating the
classrooms on the west side of the property and
providing the appropriate screening and landscaping on
the south property line.
6. City Engineering Comments
(1) There are a series of landscape and layout
problems as shown.
(2) Right -of -way dedication of 45 feet from the
centerline of Baseline Road is required.
(3) Stormwater detention is required - show
preliminary volume calculation.
(4) Redesign the driveway as shown by the Traffic
Engineer.
(5) Only one driveway is allowed - this can be
accomplished by redesign.
(6) Forty -five degree parking is required on the east
side of the property in order to back a car out
properly - wheel stops are required on the new
parking area between the family life center and
the church.
6. Staff Recommendtion
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a revised site plan that includes relocation of the six
proposed classrooms, the appropriate screening and
landscaping, and the City Engineering concerns; and (2)
comply with City Engineering comments numbered 1
through 6 as listed above.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The issue was not discussed.
Additional comments are: (1) The Fire Department states
that the proposed structures cannot be occupied as is; and
(2) the Water Works states that on -site fire service is
recommended.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 14 -86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
staff reiterated its recommendation of approval provided the
applicant agreed to meet staff recommendations. The
Commission noted that the applicant had not attended the
Subdivision Committee meeting and that no revised proposal
had been submitted. The Commission instructed the applicant
to contact the Fire Department immediately because of the
expressed safety concerns. The applicant agreed to comply.
The Commission then voted 6 ayes, 0 noes and 5 absent to
defer the application until the November 11, 1986, Planning
Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and submitted a revised site plan
that reversed the location of the temporary buildings from
the southeast corner to the southwest corner of the
property. The applicant stated that the new proposal was
approved by the Fire Department and the City Traffic
Engineer. The staff stated that the proposed 3' side yard
and 5' rear yard were inadequate in that "R -2" zoning
requires an 8' side yard and a 25' rear yard. There was
some discussion about the temporary nature of the buildings.
The applicant stated that they would only need the buildings
for three years. The Committee stated that the applicant
should try to relocate the proposed temporary structures to
allow for a more side yard and rear yard setback, and that
if the applicant agreed to a 3 -year time limit, the
Commission would consider the mitigating circumstances. The
applicant agreed to comply.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11- 11 -86)
The applicant was present and submitted a revised site plan
that met ordinance setback requirements. The Commission
voted 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent to approve the application as
recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision
Committee, and agreed to by the applicant.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F
NAME:
Kanis Road Conditional Use
Permit (Z -4745)
LOCATION: The southeast corner of Kanis
and Shackleford Road
(10721 Kanis Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Hurley /Whitwell Realty Company,
Inc., /Stephen E. Whitwell
PROPOSAL: To down zone the property from "0 -3" to "0 -2" and
to obtain a conditional use permit which would allow the
conversion of an approximate 2,000 square feet building to a
restaurant on .55 acres.
1. Site Location
The site is at the intersection of two major streets,
in an area where office and commercial development is
anticipated. A sit -down restaurant such as this, with
no drive - through service, is appropriate for the area.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
To the north is an office building. Vacant tracts to
the west and northwest are zoned commercial. Existing
single family residential uses to the south and east
are on land zoned for office use.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
Engineering has indicated that the layout as shown is
not acceptable. A revised plan is being prepared.
Sufficient parking spaces have been indicated, based on
the ordinance requirements.
4. Screeninq and Buffers
The revised plan is to provide the required 25 feet
landscaped strip adjacent to Kanis and Shackleford
Roads. Also, a 12 feet landscaped area and a six feet
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F - Continued
opaque fence will buffer the adjacent residences
located to the south. The trash receptacle will be at
the rear of the building, screened from view on four
sides.
5. Analysis
The approach being used will permit a specific
commercial use without rezoning to commercial.
Rezoning could lead to strip commercial development to
the east and south. Although the I -430 Plan calls for
this site to be "major offices," a restaurant use is
permitted by conditional use permit in the "0-2"
District. Since the proposed use is appropriate and
appears compatible with the office and commercial
zoning nearby, adverse impacts should not be a problem.
Adequate provisions for parking and trash will be made,
assuming that the technical requirements of the Traffic
Engineer are met. While it is understood that there
will be no dance floor, live entertainment or
drive - through window, it would be helpful to spell this
out in the conditions of the approval, so that in the
future there will be no administrative doubt or adverse
impact relating to such activities.
6. City Enqineerinq Comments
The layout as shown is not acceptable. Please contact
the Traffic Engineer as soon as possible in order to
get proper layout for the site.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to the revised plan meeting the
approval of the Traffic Engineer and no drive - through,
dance floor, or live entertainment being allowed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The staff said that a
revised site plan had been received that met most
requirements, but did not reflect the following City Traffic
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F - Continued
Engineer requests. The Traffic Engineering comments are:
(1) The driveways to be used by the project need to be
rebuilt to conform and line up with the internal drives; (2)
the west driveway along Kanis Road should be closed for
traffic safety reasons. In addition, the spacing of
driveways along an arterial street ( Kanis) should be 300
feet minimum. In order to facilitate internal flow, it may
be better to allow a connector road on the north side of the
building; and (3) request reducing the 12 feet buffer to 8
feet along the south property line to obtain a wider
driveway.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 14 -86)
The applicant was present. Mr. Craig Burns represented the
Farm Bureau and opposed the proposed use. The applicant
stated that he would submit a revised site plan that would
meet the City Traffic Engineer's requirements. The
Commission then voted 5 ayes, 1 no (Jones) and 5 absent to
approve the application. The item was then automatically
deferred until the November 11, 1986, Planning Commission
meeting due to the fact that 6 affirmative votes are
necessary for approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The staff stated that the Board
of Directors had sent the proposed "0 -2" rezoning back to
the Commission so that action could be taken simultaneously
on the rezoning and the conditional use permit request. The
staff reminded the applicant that a revised site plan was
needed. The applicant agreed to comply.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11- 11 -86)
The applicant was present. The staff stated that the
applicant had submitted a revised site plan that met all
City Traffic Engineering requirements. The Commission then
voted 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent to approve the application as
recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision
Committee, and agreed to by the applicant.
November 11, 1986
Item No. F -1 - Z -4678
Owner: Hurley - Whitwell Realty, Inc.
Applicant: Steven E. Whitwell
Location: Kanis and Shackleford, SE Corner
Request: Rezone from "0 -3" to "C -3"
Purpose: Commercial /Eating Place
Size: 0.5 acres
Existing Use: Vacant Building
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
- Office,
Zoned
"0 -3"
South
- Single
Family,
Zoned "0 -3"
East
- Single
Family,
Zoned "0 -3"
West
- Vacant,
Zoned
"C -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone the tract from "0 -3" to "C -3"
to allow a restaurant. The property is located at the
southeast corner of the Kanis Road and Shackleford Road
intersection. The area is part of the I -430 corridor
that has experienced substantial rezoning changes over
the last five to seven years. Most of the immediate
area has been rezoned to either an office or commercial
district with some multifamily zoning on the east side
of I -430. There is also some "R -2" land along Kanis to
the west of Shackleford. The land use is a mix of
residential and nonresidential uses, primarily office,
with a large percentage of land still vacant. The site
under consideration is part of an area between I -430
and Shackleford south of Kanis that is zoned either
110 -2" or "0 -3." Along Shackleford south of
I- 630 /Financial Parkway, the commercial zoning has been
restricted to the west side of Shackleford Road and a
majority of that land is either undeveloped or used for
offices. There is some "C -3" land east of I -430 and it
is part of the Baptist Medical Center's campus. The
zoning pattern that has developed over the years is
working and provides for both commercial and office
growth.
November 11, 1986
Item No. F -1 - Continued
2. The site is approximately one -half acre in size and
occupied by a vacant commercial building.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the
property. The site was annexed into the City with the
structure in place.
7. The I -430 Plan recommends office use for the southeast
corner of Kanis and Shackleford Roads and staff does
not support the "C -3" request. The Plan identifies the
southwest corner for commercial development and the
amount of "C -2" at that location was increased recently
by a comprehensive rezoning for a larger tract.
Shackleford provides a reasonable line between the
existing zoning, office and commercial, and staff feels
that it should be left undisturbed. The zoning of the
property in question could lead to additional
commercial rezonings on the east side of Shackleford
and also further to the east on Kanis which would
create an undesirable development pattern.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 24 -86)
The applicant, Steve Whitwell, was present. There was one
objector in attendance. Mr. Whitwell discussed the "C -3"
proposal and described the general area. He said because of
the existing development and zoning patterns in the
vicinity, the "C -3" would not have an impact. Craig Burns
representing the Farm Bureau then spoke. He said the Bureau
was against the rezoning and pointed out that the Farm
Bureau had just purchased two acres immediately east of the
site in question. Mr. Burns indicated that the Farm Bureau
was concerned with litter, security, sewer, and parking
overflow on to their property. He also said that there was
no need for additional restaurants in the area and the
rezoning could lead to a strip effect. At that point, there
was some discussion about rezoning to "0 -2" and applying for
a conditional use permit for the restaurant. Mr. Burns said
November 11, 1986
Item No. F -1 - Continued
that the Farm Bureau would be opposed to the "0 -2" with a
conditional use permit. Mr. Whitwell then spoke again. He
discussed the issue at length and requested a vote on "C -3."
There was a long discussion about "0 -2" and "C -2." At that
point, Mr. Whitwell amended the application to "C -2." A
motion was made to recommend approval of the "C -2" request
as amended. The vote: 5 ayes, 2 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open
position. The motion failed and the item was deferred to
the July 8, 1986, meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7 -8 -86)
The applicant, Steve Whitwell, was present. There was one
objector in attendance. Mr. Whitwell discussed the proposal
and requested "C -3" for the site as originally filed. He
went on to present some history of the site and described
the area and the intersection which he said was an
appropriate commercial location. Mr. Whitwell then
addressed the Farm Bureau's objections and said that the
site had adequate access on three sides. Craig Burn of the
Farm Bureau then spoke. He said that the rezoning would
establish precedent for strip zoning on Kanis and that it
violated the I -430 plan. Mr. Burns also made several
comments about the Farm Bureau's written statement that had
been submitted to the Commission. Mr. Whitwell then
indicated he desired "C -3" and amended the request from
"C -2" to "C -3." The Commission then voted on the "C -3"
rezoning. The vote 2 ayes, 6 noes, 2 absent, and 1 open
position. The request was denied.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11- 11 -86)
(The rezoning issue was referred back to the Planning
Commission by the City Board of Directors.) The applicant,
Steve Whitwell, was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. Staff reported that Mr. Whitwell had submitted
a letter amending the rezoning request to "0 -2" and then
indicated support for the "0 -2" reclassification and the
conditional use permit for the eating place. Mr. Whitwell
discussed the proposed site plan and access to the property.
He also agreed to the staff's conditions for the conditional
use permit. A motion was then made to recommend approval of
the "0 -2" request as amended and the conditional use permit.
The Commission voted on two issues simultaneously. The
vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. Both the rezoning to
"0 -2" and the conditional use permit were approved.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER /ENGINEER:
Orson Jewell
#27 Vista Drive
Little Rock, AR 72210
Telephone: 225 -8430
Tanphil Addition
The East Side of Highway 10;
South of Taylor Loop
AREA: 10.94 Acres NO. OF LOTS:
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES:
Single Family
30 FT. NEW STREET: 1,300
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Cul -de -sac length
A. Existing Conditions
This proposal is located south of Highway 10. The
general area consists of mixed uses, which include a
Pet Shop and Veterinary Clinic abutting on the
immediate north. Taylor Loop Creek runs through the
middle of the property. It appears that approximately
90 percent of the site is located in the floodway.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing to plat 10.94 acres into 30
lots for single family use and 1,300' of new street.
Access from Highway 10 is proposed through a 27'
cul -de -sac, Tanphil Circle, that is approximately
1,200' in length. A 50' drainage easement is proposed
along the western and southern boundaries.
C. Analysis
This proposal presents multiple problems. Foremost, is
advice from the City's Engineers that the plan cannot
be done as proposed. Before any of this is done,
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G - Continued
an approved hydraulic study by Engineering and FEMA
must be obtained showing revisions to the floodway.
Secondly, the applicant can't rechannel the ditch as
proposed, without an agreement from abutting property
owners who will possibly be impacted. Additionally,
(1) the floodway and floodplain should be shown on the
plat; (2) a cul -de -sac waiver is needed; (3) an access
easement with participation on the abutting property
owners to the north should be indicated, since Tanphil
crosses their property and it provides the only access
to this site; (4) in -lieu contributions are required
for Highway 10; (5) Tanphil Circle should be called
Tanphil Court.
D. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant, Mr. Orson Jewell, requested a 60 -day deferral
so that he could address the comments made by staff.
WATER WORKS COMMENTS - Water main extension is required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made and passed to defer this item for 60 days.
The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8- 28 -86)
The staff reported that the applicant had requested a 60 day
deferral.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9- 12 -86)
A motion for a 60 -day deferral as requested by the applicant
was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of 8
ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME:
T nnA TTr%M.
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:
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.
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - 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.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - 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;
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - 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).
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME:
Westchester Subdivision
Phase IV
LOCATION: West of Taylor Loop and South
of Highway No. 10
T'tPN7PT.l1DPO- PMr-TMPPD.
Ridgelea Development Corp. Robert C. Lowe & Associates
10510 "I -30" #5 New Benton Highway
Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR
AREA: 16 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 23 FT. NEW STREET: 1,600
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request:
To plat 16 acres into 23 lots and 1,600 feet of new
street for single family use.
B. Existing Conditions:
Single family area, elevations from 290 feet to 300
feet, Taylor Loop Creek and area proposed for City park
located on southwest side. All property is within the
100 -year floodplain.
C. Issues /Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design:
(1) Notify abutting owners of tracts with 2.5 acres or
more.
(2) No sidewalks built in other phases. Show
sidewalks on this plat.
(3) Clarify notation on plat regarding the trading of
City parks property for proposed City park.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
(4) Specify tract numbers on reserve tracts and
"unbuildable." Specify use and Bill of Assurance.
(5) Forty -five foot reserve parcel inadequate -
identify as tract number and note as
" unbuildable," since it is inadequate for lots.
Specify use and Bill of Assurance.
D. Engineering Comments:
(1) Creek design for 100 year ultimate development,
plus oversizing for detention requirement.
(2) Fifty foot right -of -way, 27' street improvements.
(3) Provide sidewalks the length of Westchester Court.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Approval, subject to addressing the issues stated.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that he was working out a land swap
with the City, due to the Parks Department's desire for
continuous access to another tract in their ownership. The
applicant agreed to comply with staff's comments. It was
agreed that any approval of this item would be contingent on
the City Board's approval of the land swap and that the
reserved tracts would be numbered. If these tracts are
bought, then they would be replatted.
Water - Water main extension on -site fire protection
required.
Sewer - Sewer main extension required. Additional easements
required new mains.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Due to untimely notice, a motion was made and passed to
defer the item for two - weeks. The vote 8 ayes, 0 noes, and
3 absent.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME: River Subdivision Replat
LOCATION: NW Corner of Fourche Dam Pike
and I -440
TTr1TT /'1 T1 T\Tl _ T1T /T TINTTTt _
Helen & James Pate Steve Atherton
10510 "I -30" #5 McClelland Consulting Engineers
Little Rock, AR 72209 900 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 371 -0272
AREA: 8.726 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING:
PROPOSED USES: Industrial
A. Proposal /Request:
To revise an approved preliminary by: (a) reducing
Tract A to acreage, and (b) eliminating street
dedication on west end of Fluid Drive.
B. Existing Conditions:
Flat, industrial area.
C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design:
1. Noncompliance with instructions from the City
Attorney and the Planning Staff.
D. Engineering Comments:
1. Intersection is not correct.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Reserved, subject to further direction from the City
Attorney.
This plat was filed as a result of an option offered
the developer due to noncollection by the City on a
performance bondf.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff was asked to prepare a history of the events leading
to the submission. The Committee felt that it was very
important that the adjacent property owners be satisfied
with whatever action is taken.
Sewer - Add sanitary sewer easement required across lot
R Contact L.R.W.W.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
As requested by the applicant, a motion for withdrawal was
made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME: Kanis Commercial Park Revised
LOCATION: One block west of intersection
of Kanis and Barrow on the
south side
r'Accrurnnun. cMfr TM cn.
McKay Properties Marlar Engineering Company
5800 Forrest Place 5318 JFK Blvd.
Little Rock, AR North Little Rock, AR 72116
Phone: 664 -0010
AREA: 15.78 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 25 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C -3"
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
A. Proposal /Request:
To revise an approved preliminary by adding Lot 25 and
increasing the size of Lot 9.
B. Existing Conditions:
Area consist of multifamily, commercial and office.
C. Issue / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design:
1. Specify phasing plan.
D. Engineering Comments:
1. Street improvements for Kanis should be built in
Phase I.
2. Complete intersection of Kanis and Labette with
first phase regardless of amount of lots involved.
3. Show stormwater detention (volumes and location).
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
E. Staff Recommendation:
Approval, subject to submission of phasing plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that the purpose of the plat was to
utilize the existing fire station and add 25' to Lot 25. He
agreed to redesign Lots 8 and 9 and to work out an agreement
with Engineering on improvements. Engineering modified its
position on comments 1 and 2.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant submitted a phasing plan. A motion for
approval was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes,
and 3 absent.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 T
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
West L.R. Parnership
717 North Harwood
Suite 2730
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 969 -5313
Right -of -Way Dedication of
Shackleford West and Centreview
Street
SW corner of Shackleford and
Kanis
Don Chambers /Melhburger, Tanner,
Robinson & Associates
201 South Izard
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 375 -5331
AREA: 4.227 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 0 FT. NEW STREET: 3,000
ZONING: "C- 2 '/ 110 -3"
PROPOSED USES: Right -of -Way
A.
Staff Report:
This is a request to dedicate 60' of right -of -way on
Centreview and Shackleford West Blvd. Centreview is on
the Master Street Plan, but Shackleford West is not.
B. Staff Recommendation:
Approval, subject to no endorsement of the future
creation of lots without platting.
Staff reserves the right to deal with curb cuts,
setbacks and standard relationships between lots and
streets. Lots cannot be sold by acreage at a later
date. Control is needed over any development of the
two collectors.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that he wanted to plat a
right -of -way through a 40 -acre tract in order to sell land
zoned for commercial ( "C -2 ") in five acre tracts. He felt
that the Commission would still have control over the
location of drives and buildings since this zoning district
required site plan review. He also stated his intention to
severe the Shackleford west right -of -way from this plat and
provide a two phased plat of these streets.
It was requested that some assurance from the developer be
obtained that agreed to a preliminary plat of the total
property at the time of the first sell.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made for approval, subject to preliminary plat
approval'of lots on Shackleford West at the time of the
first sale. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes,
and 3 absent.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME:
Greenbriar Revised Site Plan
Review
LOCATION: Stagecoach Road
r1F.VF.T.r)PF.R • RWnTNF.F.R
Greenbriar on Stagecoach, Robert D. Holloway, Inc.
Inc. #200 Casey Drive
1900 Worthen Bank Bldg. Maumelle, AR 72118
Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 851 -3366
Phone: 376 -9241
AREA: 3.665 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: 110 -2"
PROPOSED USES: Personal Care or Residential Care
PLANNING DISTRICT: 12
CENSUS TRACT: 2402
A. Proposal /Request:
To revise an approved site plan by adding: (a) 5,200
existing square feet to an existing 8,800 square foot
structure, (b) 6 parking spaces and (c) 12 rooms to the
existing 20 rooms.
B. Existing Conditions:
Rural, single family area.
C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design:
1. Insufficient filing - the applicant is asked to
provide more information regarding the types of
units involved, number of people to be served and
parking.
2. Final replat required to add .46 acres to
accommodate the building expansion.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments:
1. Design opening for 100 year flood.
2. Specific design on drainage structure under
building.
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved, until further information is received.
Staff was a little confused due to the lack of
information submitted. Some explanation is needed
regarding the number of new units in relation to the
existing and proposed parking.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was asked to provide staff with additional
information regarding the use of the property. The
applicant explained that no medical facility was involved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 8
ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME:
Rainwood Cove "Long -Form PRD"
(Z -4760)
LOCATION: North side of Rainwood Road,
immediately east of Pleasantwood
Condominiums
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
B.G. Coney Edward G. Smith & Associates
10500 W. Markham, Ste. 111
Little Rock, AR
AREA: 10.01 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 50 FT. NEW STREET:
ZONING: "PRD"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request:
(1) To modify an existing "PRD" zoning approved for
use as multifamily /elderly care to allow
construction of a single family PRD.
(2) To develop one and two level single family homes
with lot sizes varying from 5,500 square feet to
8,000 square feet. Minimum dwelling size will be
1,500 square feet with double garages. All
streets will be public.
(3) Landscaping will exceed those required.
B. Existing Conditions:
Area of consist of various residential uses.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design:
(1) Specify on plat what side setbacks will be.
D. Enqineerinq Comments:
None.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Approval, showing two side yard setbacks.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was asked to show the buildable area of the
lot on the plan.
Water - Water main extension and on -site fire protection
required.
Sewer - Sewer main extension required. Capacity
contribution analysis required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 8
ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME: The Arkansas Association of
Kidney Patients
LOCATION: 5109 Woodlawn Street
AGENT: Rebecca H. Terrien
DEVELOPER: SURVEYOR:
The Arkansas Association Brooks and Curry
of Kidney Patients P.O. Box 897
6323 Asher Ave., Ste. 105 North Little Rock, AR 72115
Little Rock, AR 72204 Phone: 372 -2131
Phone: 562 - 3331/851 -4340
AREA: 50'x 140' NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING:
PROPOSED USES: Residential
A. Proposal /Request:
1. To obtain PCD approval of a site currently zoned
for residential.
2. To use the site as a low cost, short -term shelter
for out -of -town kidney patients and family members
during outpatient, medical or training treatments
at local hospitals or dialysis units.
3. To serve a maximum number of eight persons with
two additional staff persons. The average would
be 3 to 4.
4. Guests will come and go during "normal working
hours" with little or no after hours activity.
5. Patients would travel in groups so cars will be
less than patients. Approximately 6 to 8 parking
spaces will be available.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
B. Existing Conditions:
Single family area, one story brick /frame structure
with basement.
C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design:
1. Parking survey shows three additional parking
spaces in the rear. Show remainder of spaces.
Will access be taken from alley in the rear.
2. Indicate square footage of building.
3. Use.
D. Engineering Comments:
None.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Denial.
Staff opposes this application due to its use. It is
felt that the location is inappropriate in the middle
of what are now strictly single family uses. The
Heights /Hillcrest Plan indicates the area to be used
for single family.
The applicant needs to clarify the amount of parking to
be provided and whether access will be taken from the
alley.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicants explained that this site was chosen due to
its close proximity to the hospitals, and inadequate space
at the current location. They felt that this was not a true
single family area, due to the location of an apartment in
the rear of this structure and other multifamily uses in the
area; and that no traffic problem would be created.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
The issue was identified as that of use, and that the
applicant was asked to demonstrate on the plan how the
parking requirements were to be accommodated. He was asked
to discuss the parking layout with Engineering.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were approximately 20
residents present in opposition. Staff recommends denial of
this application based on the proposed use which departs
from the land use plan. Staff felt that the area should
remain residential. The revised plan was submitted.
Mr. Gerald Vaughn and Ms. Becky Terran represented the
application.
Ms. Terran presented the project. She explained that the
project would have a resident manager on the premises, and
she had spoken with one person in the neighborhood who was
supportive. She explained that the mood of the rest of the
neighborhood was reflected by a phone call received at
11:45 p.m. the night before threatening her if she didn't
withdraw the petition. The voice also said that the
neighborhood was white, and she was not going to bring a
bunch of sick, welfare minorities into the area.
Ms. Terran felt that the area was not totally residential,
due to the nonconforming uses which are not reflected in
the Heights /Hillcrest Plan. She also had a letter in favor
of this location from Pulaski Methodist Church and the
National Kidney Association.
The neighborhood residents were represented by an attorney
who was also a resident. He submitted a petition in
opposition with 128 signatures. He stated that the Kidney
House was not the issue, but the fact that the proposed use
"another crack in the dam," or an "island" intrusion in a
revitalizing single family neighborhood. He said they were
not opposed to just this use, but any other than
residential.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
Ms. Lisa Ferguson apologized for the phone call made. She
stated that one resident had lived there for 61 years, and
he had recently come over welcomed them to the neighborhood.
She stated the desire of the neighborhood as wanting to keep
it as a place where you can "borrow a cup of sugar" from
your neighbor and prevent transient type uses. She had a
letter from Ms. Imogene Morgan stating opposition and
surprise that the applicant would use her name.
Ms. Ferguson stated that they were not against a kidney
house. Mr. Dwight Bratton of 5116 Woodlawn reiterated that
no one was against the kidney house, per se, but the zoning.
He also apologized for the racist remark. Ms. Terran
explained that they picked this because of proximity to the
hospital and bus lines, not because of its location and this
neighborhood.
The Commission felt that both sides could have done a better
job of discussing things and been more rational, not so
emotional.
A motion for approval was made, but failed to pass. The
vote was: 0 ayes, 8 noes and 3 absent. The reason for
denial was the land use proposed.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME:
11th and Madison "Short -Form
PRD" (Z -4759)
LOCATION: NW corner of 11th and Madison
AGENT: Sandy Sanders
914 Kings Mountain Drive
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: 227 -6353
T1F.VF.T.()AF.R • RWnTNF.F.R
James Brainard Laha Engineers, Inc.
1120 South Madison P.O. Box 9251
Little Rock, AR 72204 Little Rock, AR 72219
AREA: 140' x 50' NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R -3"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family Residential /Garage Apt.
A. Proposal /Request:
1. To legalize an existing situation; and to allow
use of the garage apartment to be used as rental
unit.
2. To improve the property by remodeling both the
existing single family structure and the garage
apartment. The east unit is owner /occupied and
will be improved by provision of new window
casings, new insulated windows, remodeled bath and
kitchen area. The west unit is for rental use
only. The owner has replaced an existing sewer
line and is in the process of making some
electrical improvements of existing wiring.
Proposed improvements include a 24' x 25.8'
parking pad with access directly from the alley.
Pad will provide more than adequate off - street
parking and does not compromise the neighbor
appearance. Guttering will be placed on the east
and west sides of the rental property to assist in
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
good drainage. A small walkway will be placed
from the parking pad to the entrance of the
proposed rental property. Shrubs will also be
added.
B. Existing Conditions:
Small lot single family area with some multifamily in
the vicinity.
C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design:
1. Close curb cut on 11th Street.
D. Engineering Comments:
None.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Approval, subject to limitation of two units on the
site and no future subdivision of the lot.
This application was filed as PUD, since to allow two
detached structures on the site. "R -4" requires that
the structures be attached before they can be
considered be duplexes.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to close the curb cut on 11th Street.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff recommended approval, subject to no further
subdivision of the lot.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Sandy Sanders. Several
residents from the neighborhood were present. Mr. Charles
Wilson of 1016 Madison, an 11 year resident of the
neighborhood, requested that the site be owner - occupied and
restricted to the one rental unit proposed. He also
mentioned a drainage problem.
Mr. Bobby Langford, a resident of the neighborhood since
1948, opposed the proposed garage apartment since he felt
that it was currently built as a garage and workshop, and
the applicant would be creating a new apartment.
A motion for approval was made, but failed to pass. The
vote was: 0 ayes, 8 noes and 3 absent. The reason given by
the Commission for denial was due to the possibility of
setting a precedent in an area where there was potential for
similar proposals.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME:
River of Life Assembly of God
Church Conditional Use Permit
(Z -4756)
LOCATION: The SW Corner of Sibley Hole
Road and Nash Lane
(9800 Nash Lane)
OWNER /APPLICANT: River of Life Assembly of God
Church /Thomas 0. France
PROPOSAL:
To construct a church facility in two phases on 12.0 acres
of land that is zoned "R -2." The proposed construction is
as follows: Phase I - to construct an 11,250 square feet
church (400 capacity) with 84 temporary parking spaces and
one access on Sibley Hole Road (will dedicate floodway and
right -of -way on Sibley Hole Road and Nash Lane with this
phase); Phase II - construction of an approximate 30,000
square feet sanctuary (maximum capacity 1,200) and
additional parking (a total 285 spaces) (construction of
Sibley Hole Road and Nash Lane to occur at this time).
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1. Site Location
Adjacent to two residential streets (Sibley Hole Road
and Nash Lane).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is located in a mixed use area. The
Suburban Development Plan calls for light industrial
and warehouse use. This property is abutted by vacant
property to the north and south, single family with
small commercial uses located to the east, and an
industrial use located to the west. This proposal is
compatible with the surrounding area.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
3.
4.
5.
6.
On -Site Drives and Parking
The proposal contains one access (Sibley Hole Road) and
84 temporary parking spaces in Phase I. Phase II
contains two additional drives located on Nash Lane and
a total net parking of 285 spaces.
Screening and Buffers
The applicant has submitted a site plan that includes
landscaped areas and has agreed to comply with City
Landscape Ordinance requirements.
Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed use is compatible
with the surrounding area. The entirety of this
property lies within the 100 year floodplain. The
highest point on this property is two feet below the
100 year floodplain. The applicant has agreed to
dedicate the floodway and the necessary right -of -way on
Nash Lane and Sibley Hole Road, but has requested that
they not be required to construct Sibley Hole Road and
Nash Lane (as well as relocate utilities) until they
ask for a building permit for their Phase II
construction. The applicant has also requested that
Phase I parking be of a temporary nature due to the
fact that they will be filling the remainder of the
site for future permanent parking, and that the Phase
II building will be constructed on top of the proposed
temporary parking site. Finally, the Little Rock Fire
Department recommends a fire hydrant to be located at
the southwest corner of the property, and Southwestern
Bell wants an easement.
Citv Engineering Comments
None.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to: (1) the applicant clarifying the
construction of the temporary parking area, and the
City Engineer agreeing to it; (2) the City Engineer
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
agreeing to allow the construction of the street
improvements to be tied to Phase II construction; and
(3) the applicant meeting with the Fire Department
about the requested additional fire hydrant.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The Committee informed the
applicant that he needed additional dimensions and
information on his site plan, especially the future parking
area. The applicant reiterated his church's need to
construct a temporary parking lot (chip seal), and defer all
street improvements until the second phase. The Committee
informed the applicant that they felt the first parking area
should be constructed to City standards and that
improvements should be constructed on Sibley Hole Road, with
the Nash Lane improvements being tied to the Phase II
construction. The applicant stated that the church's
finances were such that it made it extremely difficult if
not impossible to accomplish everything as requested on the
first phase.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
staff stated that the applicant had submitted a revised site
plan that eliminated the proposed temporary parking lot
located to the north and showed 84 permanent parking spaces
located adjacent to the proposed Phase I building. The
applicant also agreed to construct Nash Lane in conjunction
with Phase I and Sibley Hole Road in conjunction with Phase
II of construction. The staff recommended approval as
revised. The Commission then voted 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent
to approve the application as recommended by the staff.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11� -_
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Little Rock School District
Conditional Use Permit (Z -4758)
The SE Corner of Interstate 30
and Scott Hamilton Drive
(7701 Scott Hamilton Drive)
Little Rock School District/
Dave Kennedy
To expand an existing Vo -Tech school (in phases) and to
construct a district student transportation facility on land
that is zoned "R -2." Proposed construction for the
transportation facility includes: (1) a 15,500 square feet
shop and administration building (eight work bays - future
building expansion 2,500 square feet); (2) parking for 200
buses (212 buses and 20 vans), 120 auto spaces for personnel
(66 percent of need - additional employee parking to be
located on the school site); (3) two gas pump islands, two
12,000 or three 10,000 gallon underground fuel tanks, a
40' x 50' 2 -bus wash area, and an outside storage area
(600 -800 square feet covered). Proposed construction for
the Vo -Tech school includes: (1) one two -story building
(24,000 square feet), one one -story building (12,000 square
feet), and additions to the existing buildings (17,000
square feet); (2) existing 12' x 60' and 12' x 15' portable
buildings to be relocated on -site; (3) future parking 468
spaces less a loss of 106 plus an addition of 46 future
spaces for a net total of 408 parking spaces to accommodate
a maximum student enrollment of 875.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property is surrounded by
Interstate 30 frontage road is
Fourche Road is located to the
Drive is located to the west.
existing streets.
located to the north,
east, and Scott Hamilton
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The Geyer Springs East District Plan shows this area as
industrial. The site is abutted by Interstate 30 to
the north, multifamily to the south, vacant land and
industrial uses to the east, and commercial and
industrial located to the west. This proposal is
compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The site contains two existing drives (one on Fourche
Road and one on Scott Hamilton Drive). The proposal
calls for three additional drives to be located on
Fourche Road. There are 468 parking spaces (school).
Future construction will reduce parking to 362, then
increase it by 46 spaces to a total of 408 spaces.
Transportation parking will be 212 bus spaces, 20 van
spaces and 128 auto spaces.
4. Screeninq and Buffers
The site plan contains landscaped areas, and the
applicant has agreed to meet all City Landscape
Ordinance requirements.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed land use is
compatible with the surrounding area. The staff does,
however, have some concern about parking. The school
facility would require 522 spaces when built out to
completion. The transportation use will require an
estimated 188 employees. A total of 128 spaces have
been proposed. The applicant needs to explain how the
proposed parking will be adequate.
6. City Engineering Comments
(1) Stormwater detention is required; and (2) dedicate
right -of -way on Scott Hamilton Drive and Fourche
Road and construct improvements to City standards.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant: (1) agrees to comply
with City Engineering comments Nos. 1 and 2; and
(2) demonstrate that the proposed parking is adequate.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW
The applicant was present. There was a brief discussion.
The staff had received assurance of compliance to stormwater
detention requirements. City Engineering comment No. 2 was
intended only if the right -of -way had not been dedicated and
constructed. The staff indicated that the parking issue
needed to be clarified. The staff also stated that a
proposed building site is located over an existing sewer
main, and that either the building or the sewer must be
relocated. The applicant understood the issue.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
lengthy discussion ensued over the adequacy of the proposed
parking. The Commission generally agreed that the school
could be classified as a high school and also a trade school
and that a high school parking requirement (210 spaces
required) was adequate. The Commission then voted 6 ayes,
0 noes, 2 abstentions (Nicholson - due to the fact that she
represents the Little Rock School District and Perkins - due
to the fact that his architectural firm is acting as agent
for the Little Rock School District) , and 3 absent to
approve the application as recommended by the staff,
reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and agreed to by the
applicant.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME:
rNWITLIT nT30n .
Winrock Development Co.
2101 Brookwood Dr., Ste. 100
P.O. Box 8080
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 663 -5340
STAFF REPORT:
Hunters Ridge Long -Form PRD
Extension Request (Z -4523)
The applicant is asking that he be granted an extension of a
PUD passed by the Board by Ordinance No. 5,004 approximately
one year ago. Staff has no problems with the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 8
ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME:
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
P & L Investment Company PCD
Extension Request
(Z- 4016 -C)
A motion was approved and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0
noes, and 3 absent.
PLANNING ·c OM MISSION
DATE ( � y , ' I •• , . t ,�
ZONING SUBDIVISION
MEMBER A (;;. C D
W.Riddick, III � V ✓✓
� v· V ✓ J.Schlereth �
� A -R.Massie I ) A j B.Sipes -
J.Nicholson � V v ✓
V V ✓ w.Rector ""
\ ' // v/1 W.Ketcher \
D.Arnett tY) lA I
D.J. Jones ✓v' ,/
I.Boles t/ t/ v
F.Perkins I/ V v .
I=---
✓
✓
✓
J/
V
-✓
✓
t/
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
;-:,-.-} i"' 1 z 3 .a. ,---'.J t-v y .v j/ ✓ v/ V
y ✓ t;I // 1/ V V---
,/ ✓ y' y ✓ V V
y p1" V V ✓ .y v·
I/ I// y v J/.· V y -
// r.,/ V Ae ;/' y v·
v' v ,/ y // ✓ y v
f,/ V V V � /, ,,J/
✓AYE • NAYE A ADSENT ':e_ABSTAIN
.__
,r-,," -� -
V V
t/ V
-. -
' V v-
// t,,"'
// V
v· ///
V V
J,/ //
7 ,? G
v G\ v f>
-----
V"' .;) .. �
t,' ,. 1-
� -'
z...-/ ...,. ,
t/ """'
q I ,.'1,. . t, -' v v·
--
Q ;/
� \, r
� v•
�. //
V.
J/
.. ,...,, , ..... / ;--'5 ✓V y
✓V V / 1 � i· '· -(\t\, ;/ V I v j/ ✓v ;,,,/ ✓ '
� I / ,._;�
j I,, V V
v'" y ✓J
t..� -v y (
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Chairman Secretary
Date