pc_08 11 1987subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 11, 1987
1 :00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 10 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as
mailed.
Members Present: Walter G. Riddick
Jerilyn Nicholson
Bill Rector
Richard Massie
John Schlereth
Betty Sipes
Fred Perkins
David Jones
Rose Collins
Members Absent: William Ketcher
City Attorney: Pat Benton
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
AUGUST 11, 1987
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Echo Valley Lot Split - Lots 121A -121B (623 -B)
B. Geyerwoods Preliminary Plat (680 -A)
C. Metrailer Medical Clinic - Planned Commercial District
(Z -4850)
D. Austin Development - Planned Commercial District
(Z -4856)
E. West Markham Auto Mall - Planned Commercial District
(Z- 2245 -C and 261)
PRELIMINARY PLATS
1. Executive Center Part II (280)
2. Longlea Manor, Lots 65 -72 and 89 -98 (128R)
3. Carrollton Addition (299)
4. Markham Commercial Subdivision (Lots 11A, 12, Tract A)
641 -D
5. Kanis Commercial Park Addition Revised (636 -C)
6. Woodlake Addition (286)
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
7. Eagle Point - Planned Residential District (Z- 4451 -D)
8. Heritage Park - Planned Industrial District (Z -4877)
9. Mitchell - Planned Commercial District (Z- 4066B)
10. Bon -Aire - Planned Residential District (Z -4861)
11. Circlewood - Planned Residential District (Z -4860)
12. Hunters Cove - Building Line Modification
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES - CONTINUED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
13. Tanglewood Montessori School (Z- 4027 -A)
14. Thomas Memorial Baptist Church (Z -4875)
15. Charity Commercial Church (Z -4876)
16. New Hope Church of the Nazarene (Z -4878)
17. Lighthouse Center Church (Z -4880)
OTHER MATTERS
18. Edgerstoune Planned Residential District Revocation
19. Secluded Hills - Revised Preliminary Plat
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME: Echo Valley, Lots 121A and 121B
LOCATION: Between Millbrook Road and
Breckenridge Drive
DEVELOPER:
Wayne Cotsell, ATF
2910 Millbrook
Little Rock, AR
ENGINEER:
White - Daters and Associates, Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone No. 374 -1666
AREA: .3693 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: "R -2"
A. Existing Conditions
Established single family area.
B. Proposal
To replat .3693 acres into two lots of single family
use.
C. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Notification to adjacent property owners.
(2) Amendment of the Bill of Assurance will be
required.
(3) Possible platted vehicle prohibition zone on
original plat.
(4) Fifteen (15) foot building line.
(5) See staff for technical plat requirements.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Reserved until further information is available.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Applicant agreed to provide notice to adjacent property
owners. The Traffic Engineer agreed to determine whether
there is a traffic problem associated with the driveway.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 30 -87)
The applicant, Mr. Joe White, was present. The staff
offered its comments and responded to questions concerning
compatibility with the area as to lot size, Bill of
Assurance, and other items. Mr. White addressed these
issues by responding that some he could not answer at this
occasion, but that the access prohibition and planning
easement along the upper street was of record. A
Mr. Michael Gareollio, an adjacent property owner, offered
concerns about traffic safety and Bill of Assurance
conformity. After a brief discussion, the Commission
determined that a deferral was in order to permit this owner
and neighbors sufficient time to review the Bill of
Assurance. A motion was made to defer the application to
August 11, the next scheduled Subdivision Hearing. The
motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7- 23 -87)
Mr. Joe White of White - Daters Engineers was present and
reported to the Committee that the Bill of Assurance on this
plat has expired. It was developed without benefit of an
automatic extension clause. Discussion was held by the
Committee relative to the Traffic Engineer's comments
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
wherein he objected to access on the uphill side of the
lots. There is currently a platted access prohibition along
this street. Mr. White indicated he would work with the
Bill of Assurance on the access easement with the hope that
it could be resolved by the meeting on August 11. At that
time, he would report on their progress. Mr. White also
indicated that it might be possible to gain involvement of
the additional three lots that lie in the same relationship
as this one. The potential of all four lots involved would
increase the possibility of doing a better access
relationship on the uphill side.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987)
Mr. Joe White was present and offered a response to the
questions posed at the Subdivision Committee meeting. He
said that he had met with Henk Koornstra of the Traffic
Engineer's Office on the site and had agreed to a driveway
design that was workable. A design was filed for record
indicating an eight percent grade within the street
right -of -way and 15 percent on the driveway. The design for
this drive includes a turnaround to provide head -in reentry
to the street. Henk Koornstra stated his agreement with the
report of Mr. White. Mr. White continued his report by
stating that the Bill of Assurance on this subdivision was
determined to be valid and that it does not have an access
prohibition from either end of the lot but does include a
10 -foot planting easement along one end. Mr. White also
stated that any architectural review committee provided for
within the Bill of Assurance is not now an issue as its
provisions have expired. In addition, he reported that an
adjacent lot has already made this split and a third
potential lot split exists.
A discussion of multiple lot access by an internal driveway
followed with Henk Koornstra stating that he preferred that
solution. Mr. White stated that his client cannot commit
the other lot owners with respect to a common access. After
a brief discussion of the issues presented, a motion was
made to approve the lot split with the driveway as agreed
upon by Henk Koornstra and the rescinding of the planting
easement. It was noted that an amendment of the Bill of
Assurance will probably be required. The motion passed by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME: Geyerwood Subdivision
LOCATION: Geyer Springs Road
Little Rock, AR
DEVELOPER:
Lloyd Stone
#3 Lexington Drive
Conway, AR 72032
Phone: 372 -4867
ENGINEER:
Eddie Branton
Wallace Building
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 372 -4930
AREA: 3.348 acres NO. OF LOTS: 14 FT. NEW STREET: 825
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: "R -2" Single Family Residential
A. Staff Report
The applicant has submitted a revised plan eliminating
the two rows of lots that prevented compliance with the
known depth requirement of the ordinance on a previous
submittal. He now shows one buildable lot in this
location.
B. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to removal of the island and redesign
to standard cul -de -sac.
C. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant agreed to comply with staff's
recommendation. He explained that the southern tract
is intended to be used when additional property is
purchased which will allow adherence to the City's lot
size requirements. He was asked to identify the tract
as such on the plat.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The applicant was present. There were objectors in
attendance. After a brief exchange between the parties, the
Planning Commission determined that a deferral until August
11 would be in order. The deferral would allow sufficient
time for the neighborhood to familiarize the involved
parties with the proposal. A motion to this effect passed
by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87)
There was a brief discussion of this proposal. No new
issues were developed. The petitioner indicated he had not
been in contact with the neighborhood. Staff reported it
was awaiting participation of the neighbors as far as
information. Staff indicated it would report on the status
of its contacts with the neighbors prior to the hearing on
the 11th.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-11-87)
There was no one present to represent the application.
There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief
discussion, the Commission approved a motion to defer this
plat until September 22, 1987. The motion passed by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C
NAME: Metrailer Medical Clinic
Short Form PCD - Z -4850
LOCATION: 1200 and 1204 N. Harrison
(NW Corner of Harrison and
Evergreen)
DEVELOPER:
James A. Metrailer
#3 Biscayne Court
Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone: 225 -4195
664 -1540
ARCHITECT:
Greg Peckham
Allison, Moses, Redden
225 Fast Markham - Suite 400
Heritage East
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 375 -0378
AREA: .32 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Medical Clinic
A. Developmental Concept
(1) To provide easy access to medical care and benefit
the neighborhood, since most of the applicant's
patients are elderly and live in the area.
(2) To provide design which will incorporate
traditionally residential forms and scales in an
effort to maintain compatibility with adjacent
single family structures.
B. Existing Conditions
Single family to north and west, apartments across
street to the east, and commercial to the northeast of
this site abutting the apartments.
C. Proposal
(1) To construct a doctor's office of 3,200 square
feet on a vacant parcel of .32 acres.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
(2) Provision of 18 parking spaces which amount to six
per physician.
(3) Use of the abutting alley on the west for
secondary access.
D. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Inappropriate land use.
(2) Noncompliance with land use plan.
E. Engineering Comments
(1) Alley improved to property line.
(2) Show handicapped parking.
F. Staff Recommendation
Denial.
Staff fears that proposed use will have deleterious
affect on single family area that may lead to
destabilization in the area. The land use plan
indicates single family for the site.
G. Subdivision Committee Review
The primary consideration was identified as the
appropriateness of the proposed use on this site in
what is generally a residential area. Staff stated a
preference for orientation of the building to the east,
if it is any use beside residentially approved. The
applicant was informed that a 60 -foot right -of -way
was needed on Evergreen, and this would interfere with
spacing for parking. He was asked to visit with his
neighbors regarding the plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The applicant was not present. The staff reported that a
letter requesting deferral until August 11 had been properly
filed. The Commission placed this item on the consent
agenda for deferral. The motion on the consent agenda
passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87)
There was no discussion of this matter inasmuch as no one
was present to represent the proposal. Staff reported that
there had been no contact with the applicant and no further
changes recommended.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-11-87)
The Planning staff restated its recommendation of denial and
added that the staff position was based upon the
Heights /Hillcrest Plan that did not support nonresidential
uses off Kavanaugh Boulevard. Plus, it was felt that this
could be the forerunner of other business activity or
intrusion along Harrison Street or Evergreen. The staff
felt this was especially so inasmuch as some owners in the
Harrison block have expressed an interest in commercial
zoning.
The applicant, Dr. Metrailer, was present and offered
comments on his history in the area, plus his patients
living nearby. He addressed the staff recommendation
relative to redesign to front the building on Harrison
Street. He offered that his current operation was a
10:30 a.m. to 4 or 5 p.m. activity with 10 to 15 patients
per day.
The staff then made record notice of some 11 cards in
support of the Planned Unit Development and three cards and
one letter opposed. A brief discussion followed wherein
strip zoning was assessed as to potential follow -up on this
action. The Commission position disagreed with staff on the
possibility. Henk Koornstra then stated that additional
right -of -way for Evergreen was a requirement of the Master
Street Plan as a collector. The right -of -way needed
approximately two and a half to five feet with at least 30
feet as measured from the centerline of the existing
right -of -way. A discussion of the office hours and the
number of doctors that would operate from this facility
resulted in commitments by Dr. Metrailer to three doctors
with 50 patients.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
The staff maintained its position of opposition citing the
potential deleterious impact on the neighborhood, the
conflict with the Heights- Hillcrest Plan and potential for
expansion of nonresidential use along both Evergreen and
North Harrison Street.
A lengthy discussion followed which resulted in a motion to
approve the Planned Commercial District with the following
conditions:
1. Access restricted to Harrison Street.
2. A limit of three doctors with 50 patients total per
day.
3. Hours of operation to be from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
4. Provision of 18 parking spaces, including two employee
spaces behind the building adjacent to the alley.
5. A six -foot opaque wood fence along the alley property
line.
6. No access to be taken from the alley.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent,
1 open position.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No D
NAME: Austin Development Company
Long -Form PCD (Z -4856)
LOCATION: 1200' South of I -430 and
Shackleford
DEVELOPER:
Austin Development Co.
2216 W. 43rd Street
Meridian, MS 39305
Phone: (601) 693 -2703
ENGINEER:
Leo Hansen, Architect
311 S.E. 16th Avenue
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(305) 527-5973
AREA: 32.4 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET:
ZONING: "O-2" to PCD
PROPOSED USE: PCD District
REQUEST:
To develop 32 acres into a mixed use development.
A. Proposal
1. Site Data
Site Area
1,413,430
Max. Building Area
565,372
Open Space
141,343
Proposed
274,900
2. Area Summary
Office
122,400
Cinema
32,000
Hotel /Convention
115,260
Retail
60,000
Major Retail
60,000
Bank
4,900
Restaurant
5,600
Total Building Area
400,160
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D - Continued
3. Ranking Summary
Office
489
Convention
126
Cinema
77
Lounge /Restaurant
168
Hotel
200
Bank
20
Restaurant
73
Total Spaces Required 1,633
Surface 1,474
Below Grade 160
Total Spaces 1,634
Handicapped Spaces 28
THE APPLICANT REQUESTED DEFERRAL OF THIS ITEM TO THE
AUGUST 11TH MEETING.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent
agenda for deferral. The motion on the consent agenda
passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87)
Staff reported a request from the developer by letter asking
for a second deferral of this item, the deferral to be until
September 22. It was pointed out that this will be the
second deferral request by the applicant which will require
some final action by the Commission in September.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(August 11, 1987)
There was no one present to represent the application.
There were no objectors in attendance. A letter was
received for the record requesting withdrawal without
prejudice as a bylaw exception. A motion was made to accept
the request for withdrawal. The motion passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E
NAME:
West Markham Auto Mall
Short Form PCD (Z- 2245 -C)
LOCATION: Lot 1, West Markham Land
Addition to the City of
Little Rock
DEVELOPER:
H. Bradley Walker
2228 Cottondale Lane
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 666 -4316
666 -4242
ARCHITECT:
Renshaw and Associates
Little Rock, AR
AREA: NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET:
ZONING: "C -3" to PCD
PROPOSED USE: Auto Parts and Supply Mall
A. Proposal
(1) To provide a speciality shopping center, which
provides in one location, several high quality
"quick service" automotive retailers which offer
various automobile maintenance products and
services.
(2) Two buildings with 10 to 13 units and a larger
building on 2.258 acres. Total square footage is
$25,000.
(3) 116 parking spaces.
B. Engineering Comments
(1) Show square footage of landscaped areas.
(2) Show floor elevations on buildings.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E - Continued
(3) Indicate erosion control design on south.
(4) Indicate an "exit only" sign on the western drive.
C. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Revised site plan to indicate vicinity map, legal
description, and full dimensions on drives and
parking.
(2) Specify use group for Buildings A and B.
(3) If service station is planned, needs to be
indicated on plan along with pump stations and
canopy.
(4) Applicant may be required to submit landscaping on
perimeter drive to City Beautiful Commission.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Applicant submitted a revised site plan that addressed
some traffic concerns and changed the building in a
northeast corner. He agreed to submit more information on
the use groups proposed. Staff's recommendations -
approval, subject to comments made, plus: (1) no vehicle
access drives on the south side of the building parallel to
the creek, in order to reduce noise, and (2) architectural
treatment of roof and rear of building parallel to the
creeks so as to make it attractive and compatible with the
residential area to the south.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The applicant was present. The staff offered its
recommendation. Mr. Jim Daly and Mr. Brad Walker were
present representing the proposal. They offered their
comment on the staff recommendation which was an objection
to losing access for double loaded type auto uses. Mr.
Walker offered to build a fence to screen the rear area of
the buldings in lieu of the doors. A general discussion
then followed.
The Chairman then asked for objectors. There were four in
attendance. Mr. George Bowman, of Ashwood Road, discussed
the excavation; the unsightly developments along Markham
rearing on his neighborhood. The loss of trees to the City
flood and drainage project. Mr. Jeff Hoyt addressed his
concerns as being sound from this type of use. He offered
additional history. Mrs. Agness Beale, an Ashwood
resident, offered her concerns and a history of this area.
Mr. Robert Brown and Mr. Charles Basham were present
representing the property owner to the west. This property
was proposed for development and Mr. Brown stated their
interest as being in need of cooperation on development of
the common access drive on the west boundary of this
proposal, plus building orientation and landscaping.
A lengthy general discussion followed revolving around
fences and height, number of rear garage doors, and use
mix. A motion was then made to approve the application
which motion included an 8 -foot fence along the south
property line limiting the uses to the by -right and
conditional use in "C-3" except for auto repair garage, the
hours of operation to be limited to 7 a.m. through 7 p.m.,
and the garage doors on the rear of the building be limited
to eight. The motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 4 noes,
and 3 absent. The failure of the motion automatically
defers this matter to the next scheduled meeting,
August 11, 1987.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87)
There was no one present representing the application.
There was no discussion of the proposal.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-11-87)
The staff offered its recommendation. Mr. Jim Dailey was
present representing the request as was Mr. Wythe Walker.
Mr. Dailey offered amendments to the application and an
agreement that was developed as the result of neighborhood
meetings and discussion with the developer and adjacent
property owner. These amendments are as follows:
1. The installation of an automatic three - minute timer on
the six doors to be placed in the south wall of the
large building.
2. Six overhead doors will be the maximum number of doors
on the south wall.
3. The developer has committed in writing that he will
erect an eight -foot fence the entire length of this
application site plus the full length of the entire
plat to the west within one year (copy of letter
offered for case file).
4. The hours of operation for the auto related will be
7 a.m. through 7 p.m.
5. The use mix to be limited to those by right in the
"C-3" zoning district and certain "C-4" auto related
uses except motor rebuilding, will be speciality auto
parts installation and such.
6. A new elevation plan to dress up the building and deal
with Mr. Basham's proposed project adjacent on the
west.
Mr. Wythe Walker then offered that the owners of that lot
and others that have been sold are agreeable to the fence
being erected along the rear lot line. He confirmed his
intent to build the fence. The Commission Chairman then
asked for objectors to address the issue. Mr. Jeff Hoyt, a
nearby resident, stated that the agreement reached was much
as Mr. Dailey stated. He said that he felt all of the fence
was committed for the entire length of the project on all of
the lots in the plat. Mr. Hoyt closed his remarks by saying
that he was concerned about enforcement of these provisions
especially the doors remaining open. He was instructed by
the Commission that the neighborhood had the right and some
responsibility to assist in enforcement by calling City
August 11 , 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E - Continued
Hall and reporting what was observed as a violation.
Mrs . Agness Beale and Mr. Bowman, residents of Birchwood,
then offered comments on the fence and perhaps some zoning
action that could commit the fence to the property.
A lengthy discussion then followed during which Mr. Basham
indicated he was reluctant to accept maintenance
responsibility for the fence . When asked, Mr. Walker could
not state who would have responsibility for permanent repair
or replacement of damaged fencing but that it could be
worked out. After further discussion of procedural matters
as to involving the sold sites and the commitments offered ,
a motion was made . The motion was to approve the amended
Planned Commercial District application with these
conditions:
1. That the south wall of the main building be
limited to six overhead doors .
2. The six doors to have automatic closer devices
with a maximum three minute open time.
3. That the south property line of the entire
subdivision be provided with an eight-foot opaque
wood fence and permanent maintenance . This
requirement to be resolved before submitting the
application to the Board of Directors .
4. The uses to be limited to the "C-3" District use
group plus those uses characterized as auto
speciality shops from the "C-4" use group. These
include such as auto glass and muffler but exclude
engine rebuilding, paint, or body shops .
5. Normal business hours for the auto related are to
be 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
6. Designate the area along the west property line
used as common drive as a "No Parking" zone and so
marked on-site .
7. Limit to four the number of overhead doors on the
west building face adjacent to Mr. Basham' s
development and the facade redesign.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E - Continued
8. Revise the site plan to include all of the
conditions.
9. Engineering Division requirements.
The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent,
1 open position.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - File No. 280
NAME: Koger Executive Center - Part II
LOCATION:
West of Centerview Drive at
Executive Center Drive in
Koger Executive Center
DEVELOPER:
Koger Properties
3986 Boulevard Center Dr.
Jacksonville, FL 32207
(800) 874 -5270
ENGINEER:
Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson and
Associates
201 South Izard - P.O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72203
375 -5331
AREA: 24.3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: ±700
ZONING: "O-3" PROPOSED USE: Office Park
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 24.01
VARIANCE REQUESTED: None
A. Proposal
The applicant has recently purchased this parcel for
future expansion of the office park now being developed
between this site and Shackleford Road. The Primary
reason for this preliminary plat is to set the basic
development direction as to streets. There may be
further lot replatting in the future as needed.
B. Engineering Comments
1. Detention required if the drainage is away from
the existing lake.
2. Excavation plan to be submitted before any grading
or clearing occurs.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
C. Utility Comment
The utility reports received at this writing from Arkla
and AP &L approve the plat as submitted.
D. Analysis
The subject plan is a continuation of the Koger
development and will proceed as the market demands with
lot sales, size, and orientation scaled to the user
needs. This approach has created a desirable and
functional office development that enhances the
immediate neighborhood. It is understood that this
plat is the forerunner of smaller platting actions to
define the individual lots. The primary plat purpose
is to provide for the street system. The streets in
this plat will be constructed as a single construction
item prior to final platting of lots.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the plat.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87)
No issues were developed on this application other than the
write -up. It appears to be a very clean proposal. The
applicant's engineer will follow through on Engineering
comments. The Little Rock Water Works reported that fire
hydrants for internal fire protection system would be
required. The Wastewater Utility reported no comment on the
proposal.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, this item was placed
on the consent agenda for approval items. A motion was made
for approval. The motion includes conditions or statements
set forth in the staff report. The motion passed by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - File No. 128-R
NAME: Longlea Manor - Revised
Preliminary - Lots 65 -72 and
89 -98
LOCATION: Longtree Drive north of Hinson
Road
DEVELOPER:
Land Projects Partnership
11125 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
225 -1127
ENGINEER:
Marlar Engineering Co.
5318 JFK Boulevard
North Little Rock, AR 72116
753 -1987
AREA: 4 acres NO. OF LOTS: 18 FT. NEW STREET: None
ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1
CENSUS TRACT: 42.03
VARIANCE REQUESTED: 1,000 foot cul -de -sac length
A. Proposal
The developers of this acreage have been working with
the developer and the engineer of Secluded Hills on the
north in order to improve desiqn and lot usage. The
design change will allow the easternmost street to be
relocated to a point 125 feet from the east property
line. This is the point where it enters the Secluded
Hills Addition. The cul -de -sac immediately west of
that street will extend northward approximately 200
feet and remain a cul -de -sac. The number of lots will
decrease by three due to the elimination of several
large deep lots.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
B. Engineering Comments
Engineering offers no comments at this writing.
C. Utility Comment
At this writing Bell Telephone is the only response;
they request additional easements.
D. Analysis
The staff view of this plat is that if better lots and
better circulation can be gained then we support the
modification. This plat has been on preliminary
approval for seven or more years and only since early
1985 or so has final platting been active. Extension
of the preliminary plat was authorized by the Planning
Commission. The Planning staff has contacted the
developer on the north and is coordinating the plan
changes so as to provide for a smooth transition of
streets from one plat to the other. Pat McGetrick, the
Project Engineer on Secluded Hill, has redesigned that
plat to make it compatible with this design. A revised
preliminary of Secluded Hills will be submitted to the
Commission shortly.
E. Staff Recommenation
Approval of the revisions subject to coordination of
changes with Secluded Hills developer and some minor
plat additions.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7- 23 -87)
A brief discussion of this proposal indicated that there
were no issues of significance. The only purpose in this
plat was to realign with the plat on the north and provide a
better lot layout and to move away from a design which was
originally geared to the inadequate sewer service in the
area. The Committee also discussed adding to this agenda
the Secluded Hills plat for preliminary plat revision.
Mr. Bill Hastings represented that development. That
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
item will be included at the Committee's direction as
Item 19 on this agenda. The Little Rock Water Works
reported that a main extension for this area will be
required at a somewhat larger size than had previously been
required. The Little Rock Wastewater Utility has no
requests.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(August 11, 1987)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, this item was placed
on the consent agenda for approval items. A motion was made
for approval. The motion includes conditions or statements
set forth in the staff report. The motion passed by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - File No. 299
NAME: Carrollton Addition
LOCATION: SE Corner of Napa Valley at
Rainwood Road
DEVELOPER:
Norman Holcomb
5518 "A" Street
Little Rock, AR
664 -1582
ENGINEER:
Samuel L. Davis
5301 West 8th Street
Little Rock, AR
AREA: 6.9 acres NO. OF LOTS: 30 FT. NEW STREET: 860
ZONING: "R -2" Single Family PROPOSED USE: Single Family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2
CENSUS TRACT: 23.05
WAIVERS: Cul -de -sac length - 811 feet requested
750 foot max
A. Proposal
To preliminary plat 30 single family lots on an
elongated tract bounded by an arterial street on the
west and a collector street on the north. A single
point of access is proposed off Napa Valley. The lot
sizes will be 60 feet wide by 120 feet in depth. They
will be somewhat deeper in the second phase of the
plat. The cul -de -sac proposed is in excess of the
ordinance maximum at 811 feet. Napa Valley and
Rainwood are proposed for widening per Master Street
Plan.
B. Engineering Comments
1. An access easement should be provided along the
west line of Lot 21 in order to access the
detention area to the south of Lots 21 and 23.
This access should be called out in the Bill of
Assurance so that no fences, structures, or other
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
impediments to the movement of traffic or
equipment be placed in the easement. This is to
ensure proper access for maintenance of the
detention facilities.
2. The Engineering Department requires that access
for individual lots for driveways off Rainwood be
designed as joint driveways on every other
property corner. This is to produce less conflict
with traffic movement.
C. Analysis
This tract represents one of the few remaining
undeveloped parcels in the area. It presents some
problems for design as well as significant street
improvements. Planning and the Engineering staffs feel
that an access off Rainwood with a cul-de-sac backing
lots to Napa Valley will avoid a potentially bad access
situation. We would recommend that a design be pursued
that would simply turn the street from its present
cul-de-sac location northward into Rainwood. The
length of the cul-de-sac would be generally the same
and the design circumstances with respect to sidewalk
and street construction should be very similar.
D. Utility Comments
The receiving agencies at this time report the plat is
approved as submitted. These were AP &L and Arkla.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to:
(1) Sidewalks on the internal street and resolution of
the sidewalk issue along Rainwood which currently
calls for sidewalks on the north side of the
street.
(2) Street improvements of 36 feet in 60 foot of
right-of-way on Rainwood Road.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
(3) Forty -eight (48) foot street improvement in an 80
foot right -of -way on Napa Valley Road.
(4) Minor plat omissions.
(5) A uniform plan presented to control access to the
lots between the new street and Rainwood. Access
should be provided to these lots from one side or
the other but not both.
(6) Explain the dimension relationships on the unique
cul -de -sac building line.
(7) Engineering comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87)
At the meeting, the Engineering Division reported that it
had changed its position relative to access onto Napa
Valley. Mike Batie reported that due to site distance
problems at the current Rainwood intersection that a safer
access could be had onto Napa Valley. A brief discussion
was held concerning whether sidewalks should be assessed on
Rainwood on this plat rather than the subdivision along the
north side. It was determined that sidewalks along Rainwood
were not an issue for this plat. The engineer and owner
agreed to resubmit a revised plat before the meeting on the
11th with an attempt to resolve design of the street
relative to a cul -de -sac on the east end and resolution of
acquisition of the easternmost part of this proposal. The
owner indicated if he cannot acquire the eastern parcel of
this plat proposal, he will build a hammerhead rather than a
cul -de -sac at the east end of the street. The reduction of
the street to a hammerhead and a shortened length will
eliminate the requirement for internal sidewalks.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-11-87)
The staff offered its recommendation of approval and added
comments on design and the deletion of the eastern 10 lots
from the plat now owned by the applicant. Mr. Norman
Holcomb and Sam Davis, the project engineer, were present
representing this plat. Mr. Holcomb addressed the staff
comments and agreed to omit the unowned parcel after being
directed by the chairman, Mr. Rector.
A lengthy discussion followed wherein design details were
worked out on the street termination, rear drive access, and
Rainwood driveway entries. The reduction of the plat area
and shortening of the street eliminated the requirement for
sidewalks. The street standard for the subdivision is
reduced by its length to a minor street thereby permitting a
45 -foot right-of-way and a 24 -foot pavement. At the
conclusion of this lengthy discussion, a motion was made to
approve the plat either as a cul -de -sac or loop street out
to Rainwood on the north with a maximum of 18 lots. The
drainage along the east line of the plat is to be open swale
with Public Works Department approval of the drainage
design. The private drive along the south lot lines are to
provide a stub-out to Carrollton Circle. This rear drive is
not to connect with Napa Valley. However, it may be
extended to the east line of Lot No. 19. The driveway
access points off Rainwood Drive to serve the lots are to be
common access at every other property line. Internal
turnaround provisions are to be made on the lots so as to
permit cars to enter Rainwood head-in. Included in the
motion are comments of the staff relative to design. These
are items 2 and 3 dealing with boundary streets. The motion
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open
position.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - File No. 641 -D
NAME: Markham Commercial Subdivision
Phase II
LOCATION: Markham Park Drive at Bowman
Road - NE Corner
DEVELOPER:
Markham Real Properties
Limited Partnership
212 Center St., Suite 400
Little Rock, AR 72201
374-2231
ENGINEER:
Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson,
and Associates
201 South Izard - P.O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72201
375-5331
AREA: 5.72 acres + NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C-3" PROPOSED USE: Commercial
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Proposal
This developer proposes to restructure the lots in this
corner of a large commercial plat now partially
developed. The phasing plan is one lot final plats.
Tract A will be provided with a stubout to Bowman Road
to provide access. Also, the Lots 11A and 12 will have
building lines located to control visual aspects with
respect to buildings on Tract A. Along the south
boundary of Tract A, an internal access drive will tie
these proposed lots to existing lots fronting on
Markham Street as well as a large parcel lying to the
east outside this ownership.
B. Engineering Comments
(1) Access problems at points along Bowman with
conflicts between existing approved curb cuts and
the access stub to the larger parcel Tract A.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
(2) Access problems with the drive behind McDonald's
associated with stacking and turning movement.
(3) Access problems between McDonald's and Hot Shots
as to the number and spacing.
(4) See the Traffic Engineer on items 1, 2, and 3
above prior to the August 11, 1987, meeting so as
to provide resolution of these issues.
C . Utility Comments
At this writing Arkla and AP &L respond easements are
okay as submitted.
D. Analysis
The Planning staff feels that the plat needs more
thought qiven to overall traffic circulation with more
thought given to placement of drives, parking, and
buildings on Tract A. The Wisenhunt Tract to the east
is especially important to circulation given the
relationship of the private roadway extending to the
east. The Planning staff feels that this area is
becoming impacted by each developer dealing with a lot
as a separate entity. A commercial subdivision such as
this deserves a better future than that offered by
unplanned access. The parking and circulation if
developed individually and without thought to the
general area over a number of years will jeoparidize
the desirability of these business locations.
E. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends aproval subject to:
(1) Engineering comments.
(2) Minor plat omissions.
(3) A broader view of the access issue.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87)
Mike Batie of the Public Works Department discussed the
driveway and access issues developed by Henk Koornstra of
the Traffic Engineering Office. The concerns primarily
centered on the potential for multiple points of entry in a
short distance with overlapping turning movement. Don
Chambers representing the plat responded to these comments
by stating that a site plan will be forthcoming which will
clarify some of these issues and perhaps eliminate some of
the driveways which cause concern. There was additional
discussion of the access drive behind MacDonald's.
Mr. Chambers said this will be worked out on the site and
that they will work further with the Engineering Department.
Little Rock Water Works says in its report that an on-site
fire protection system may be required. Wastewater Utility
has no request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, this item was placed
on the consent agenda for deferral items. A motion was made
to defer the application until the September 22 meeting.
The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent,
1 open position.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - File No. 636 -C
NAME: Kanis Commercial Park Revision
LOCATION: Kanis and Barrow Road
DEVELOPER:
Baptist Medical System
9601 Interstate 630
Little Rock, AR 72205
227 -1982
ENGINEER:
Michael Watson - Mehlburger Firm
P.O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR
375 -5331
AREA: 2.1 acres ± NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 2,000
ZONING: "C-3" PROPOSED USE: Commercial Lots
PLANNING DISTRICT: 10
CENSUS TRACT: 24.01
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
(1) Platting the buildable area of the lots to allow a
common wall at a property line.
(2) Deletion of Lot No. 13 as a lot number to avoid
renumbering all of Lots 17-24.
(3) Phasing plan to allow one lot final plats.
(4) Road dedication and construction on Clarendon Drive and
construction when Lots 17-19 are final platted.
A. Proposal
To replat two parcels in such a fashion that the
existing building and an addition will share a common
wall at a property line. Certain design features such
as parking and drives will be shared. The action
proposed apparently stems from a mortgage requirement
and a desire to have one building expanded rather than
two separate structures. The proposal includes four
requests for ordinance variance.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
B. Engineering Comments
(1) Excavation ordinance requirements be met.
(2) Stormwater detention.
(3) Right-of-way and improvements on Manor Drive off,
Barrow to west line of Lot 15 including sidewalk.
C. Utility Comment
Utility responses at this point from Southwestern Bell
and Arkla indicate easements approved as submitted.
D. Analysis
The Planning staff feels that the plat issue at hand is
not a significant issue, but feels that given the
revisisons to this plat already in the west portion
that we must move carefully. We feel that with one lot
final plats we can create a bookkeeping problem for all
persons involved if we continually amend this
preliminary and allow multiple final plats to go to
record. Should this occur, it will cause confusion and
disorder with respect to street improvements and other
aspects of the development. The common wall platting
matter is not a problem of the owners unless and except
the Bill of Assurance fails to properly address the
subject. In these kinds of plats, the Bill of
Assurance and the plat are very important in defining
such elements as common parking and common access.
E. Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends approval subject to:
(1) Engineering comments.
(2) Modifying the phasing plan to plat lots in pairs
where a right-of-way lies between.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87)
In a general discussion of the plat format and the final
plat phasing procedures, it was determined that the building
line on these two lots will be reflected as the outline of
the existing structure with the proposed addition.
Conventional building lines will not be indicated. A
discussion of street improvements along the south side of
Lot 15 resulted in a suggestion that street improvements
from Barrow Road westward be required with the final
platting of either Lot 17, 18, 19, or 20, and that street
improvements be extended to the west line of that lot as
filed. There were no other issues attendant to this
request. The Wastewater Utility requested that existing
sewer line easements be reflected on the plat. The Water
Works indicated that a main extension will be required plus
on -site fire protection system may be required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, this item was placed
on the consent agenda for approval items. A motion was made
for approval. The motion includes conditions or statements
set forth in the staff report. The motion passed by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - File No. 286
NAME: Woodlake Addition
LOCATION: SE of Leawood Mountain Addition
along the west shore of
Foreman Lake
DEVELOPER:
Norman Holcomb, Agent
5518 "A" Street
Little Rock, AR
664 -1582
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Assoc., Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR
374 -1666
AREA: 4.25 acres NO. OF LOTS: 12 FT. NEW STREET: 540
ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 3
CENSUS TRACT: 22.03
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
(1) Grades at end of the cul-de-sac.
(2) Length of the cul-de-sac 1,070 feet (750 feet max).
(3) Sidewalks (homes on one side only, very steep).
A. Proposal
To construct a 12 lot subdivision on steep slopes
adjacent to a lake and other ownership. The lots
involved propose to take access from a private easement
lying on an adjacent ownership.
B. Engineering Comments
(1) Right-of-way dedication and street improvements.
(2) Excavation Ordinance compliance prior to beginning
grading or cutting of timber.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
C. Utility Comments
At this time Southwestern Bell notes a need for
additional easements.
D. Enqineerinq Comments
There is no dedicated access to this site and the
easement shown does not reflect the public record
granting the easement if such exists. Given the
contours on this site, the engineer of record should
provide a hillside analysis to justify lot sizes and
the street location. The basic plan layout appears to
be appropriate to the site unless some engineering
factor in the analysis will not support the design.
The Planning staff's primary concern in dealing with
this subdivision is one of assuring that the acreage
property lying between this subdivision and its
neighbors on the north provides the conventional kinds
of extension of utility and access required for lot
sales. In the absence of resolution of the access
roadway, this plat we feel should not be approved in
any form.
E. Staff Recommendation
Deferral of the plat until such time as it can be shown
that the public street proposed ties to another public
street through proper title instrument or that this
easement is legitimate and that this owner and
developer will build a proper roadway over the
easement.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87)
Mr. Joe White of White - Daters Engineers was present as was
Mr. Norman Holcomb, the developer. A discussion was held
concerning the access road to serve this plat. Mr. White
and Mr. Holcomb assured the Committee and staff that there
is an easement of record on the access road and will provide
a copy of that instrument for the file. Mr. Holcomb
indicated that three owners along the lake had established
this easement a number of years ago and that the easement
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No . 6 - Continued
runs with the land and conveys to this development.
Mr. Holcomb further stated that he was attempting to buy the
parcel between his subdivision and the existing dedicated
right-of-way. He indicated that he hopes to work out the
purchase of this by August 11 and resolve the question of
construction of the street. Joe White was requested to
review the hillside regulations relative to the steep slopes
on this property. Mr . White indicated that he felt that the
waivers requested in this proposal were supported by the
grades on this site . A closing comment by Mr. White was
that the engineer of record on this plat will be changed,
and it should now be reflected as Samuel Davis. The Little
Rock Water Works reported that a main extension plus on-site
fire protection will be required . The Wastewater Utility
indicated they had no requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ( 8-11-87 )
The staff presented its recommendation of approval with
conditions on hillside regulations and access street
improvements . The plat was represented by Mr. Joe White and
Mr . Norman Holcomb. Mr . White offered comments concerning
the points made in the staff write-up. The Planning staff
reported that the street tie to Foreman Drive has been
cleared as to legal access by a communication from an
abstract company. The easement was established to run with
the land and the title of the various lots . The easement is
45 feet in width. Mr. White then stated that the developer
will build a 21-foot asphalt street over a proper base
within this easement but provide no curb and gutter. The
drainage proposed within the easement and the subdivision
may be open ditches . Mr . White also stated that his
analysis indicated that there is not a problem with respect
to the lot sizes.
A general discussion followed wherein it was determined that
a review of the drainage and hillside regulations should be
accomplished by the staff . A motion was then made to
approve the plat and waivers subject to Public Works
approval of the drainage plan and determining the
requirements both within the plat and the access drive.
Further , the staff is to verify the hillside regulation
application to this plat and the access road is to be
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
constructed to a minimum of 21-foot pavement over a proper
base. The design is to meet Public Works approval. The
motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 open
position.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - File No. 4451 -A
NAME: Eagle Point - Planned
Residential District
LOCATION: NW Corner of Napa Valley Drive
at Ridge Haven Road
DEVELOPER:
B.G. Coney
10500 West Markham
Little Rock, AR
224 -0362
ENGINEER:
White - Daters and Assoc., Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR
374 -1666
AREA: 8.68 acres NO. OF LOTS: 40 FT. NEW STREET: 1,560
ZONING: "MF-6" and "OS" Open Space
PROPOSED USE: Single Family UNITS PER ACRE: 4.6
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2
CENSUS TRACT: 42.03
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None.
A. Proposal
To construct a small lot subdivision with lots as small
as 6000 square feet on a tract with definite design and
use limitations. The 40 lots would be accessed from
Ridgehaven Road at two points through what is shown on
the zoning map as a 50 foot permanent "OS" buffer zone.
The development density proposed is 4.6 units per acre
utilizing all of the 8.68 acres within the site. The
houses would be of two typicals, one scaled for a 40
foot plan, the other for a 50 foot. The minimum floor
area will be 1800 square feet. The streets are to be
public with a high level of landscaping.
B. Engineering Comments
(1) Plans should be engineer stamped.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
(2) Stormwater detention amounts and location.
(3) Sidewalks on Ridgehaven and handicap ramps.
(4) Excavation permit prior to grading or tree
cutting.
(5) Follow -up on discussion to widen Ridgehaven to
three lanes at Napa Valley as previously proposed.
C. Utility Comment
Approval as submitted. Southwestern Bell is the only
reporting utility.
D. Analysis
This plat and plan presents two issues which may be
solveable at the coming meeting on August 11. These
are (1) to reconcile the "OS" and 50 foot buffer strip
with a single family plat, and (2) access to Ridgehven
Road that the Traffic Engineer wants to review as a
better access; he recommends possibly at the northeast
corner of the property onto Napa Valley Road. It has
been suggested by at least two adjoining owners that
the plan violates what was assured to the neighborhood
at the time of rezoning that the density access and
screening would not change. The proposed density of
4.6 units per gross acre is less than the "MF-6"
Multifamily in place; however, it does encroach more
than such an "MF" project. This being a Planned Unit
Development, it would be appropriate to specify the
setbacks on side and rear of each lot especially since
the lots vary in width.
E. Staff Recommendation
Deferral in order to provide sufficient time to
research and develop the buffer and access issue.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the developer.
Mr. White offered brief comments on the proposal and
addressed the issue of the adjacent property owner. He
indicated that the developer will extend the current brick
wall along Napa Valley along the entire frontage to Ridge
Haven. Further, that he would look at the Napa Valley
access as suggested by the Traffic Engineer. This would be
a one point access. However, there may be site distance
problems that will require further analysis. Mike Batie of
the Engineering Department raises issues of the Ridgehaven
improvements as proposed on the occasion of the approval of
Mr. Melvin Bell's preliminary plat at the west end of
Ridgehaven. Mr. White indicated that an improvement
district was selling bonds and was underway today
establishing the right -of -way and improvements on Ridgehaven
as originally agreed. Mr. White further indicated that
there would be no rear driveways on these lots as provided
in the plat on the north. These driveways had caused
concern for adjacent owners; therefore, front lot access
from the internal street would be the method used.
Mr. White also reported that he was entered into discussions
with Laura Gold, the resident immediately to the west. The
discussion centered upon a 50 -foot buffer along that
600 -foot property line with 25 feet of undisturbed land on
either side. Mr. White indicated if he could not work out
the details of this plat prior to the meeting on the 11th,
he will make a request for deferral. The staff agreed with
Mr. White that in this proposal the side yard requirements
would be per Zoning Ordinance, and the only established
platted building line would be the front yard on each lot.
The Little Rock Water Works then reported that a main
extension plus on -site fire protection would be required
plus an acreage and front change may apply. The Wastewater
Utility reported that a main extension will be required.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-11-87)
The staff presented its recommendation of approval with
conditions on access and buffering. There were several
objectors present and one letter presented from Mrs. Laura
Gold. Mr. Joe White was present as agent for the owner. He
made comments on the history of this site and the adjacent
small lot developments to the north. He reported that he
had met with Henk Koornstra on -site and discussed access to
Ridge Haven Road. He and Henk commented that the access
shown on the revised plan at one point could help
circulation within the plat. Mr. White further commented on
discussions with Mrs. Gold, the adjacent property owner on
the west, about the buffers. Mr. White stated that he is
offering a 40-foot buffer undisturbed as a change from the
25 feet now shown on the plan. He further stated that the
rearing upon the buffer will require a waiver of rear yard
setback to accommodate the buffer. This waiver will also
allow the lots to be buildable. He answered a comment of
the Commission by saying that he could pull the stub streets
back from the north property line approximately 15 feet or
more if possible.
Mr. Chris Barrier, an attorney for Mrs. Gold, then presented
objections to the application. Mr. Barrier stated that
"MF-6" zoning and density was a better development. He said
that a less dramatic stepdown in use is needed. The
perimeter treatment is very important. He also requested a
deferral in order to get together on a consensus on design
and density.
The objectors present included two additional persons who
addressed the Commission. The first of which was Dr. Robert
Walls, a neighbor on the west of Dr. Gold. Dr. Walls
addressed the plat by commenting on the meetings of
neighbors and their concerns about this project. He stated
that they were not opposed to the project but would like to
have more time to work out the issues. He felt the density
was too high for the area and would like a deferral.
Dr. Cheers offered comments on traffic and the density
issue. He felt that it would help if Napa Valley Road were
the only access. He further stated that a wall should be
constructed on both the south property line adjacent to
Ridge Haven and the west property line along Dr. Gold's
property.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
Mr. White then answered questions on deferral and access.
He also commented on the 40 -foot buffer and the proposed
six -foot wall along Napa Valley now in the plan. He said he
could omit the Ridge Haven access but that Henk Koornstra
wanted to retain it for circulation. He said that he
preferred a wood fence along the south frontage over brick
construction because of the cost. He added that maybe a
wall could be placed along the south boundary of Lot 1
adjacent to Mrs. Gold's property along Ridge Haven.
Mrs. Johnson, a neighbor, then added comments on traffic and
a potential conflict with the Golds' gate at the property
corner. A general discussion then followed. At the end of
this lengthy discussion a motion was made to approve the
amended application subject to:
1. Pull the stub streets back from the property
lines.
2. Increase the buffer to 40 feet undisturbed with a
property owners association to provide ownership
and assurance of protection.
3. Rear yard waived on the west tier of lots to allow
the houses zero foot setback against the 40-foot
buffer.
4. A six-foot brick wall the full length of Ridge
Haven except within the blind corner area at Napa
Valley.
5. Narrow the interior corner lots to adjust for the
40 -foot buffer.
6. Sidewalks on both street frontages.
7. No access onto Ridgehaven Road.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent,
1 abstention (David Jones), and 1 open position.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - File No. 4877
NAME: Heritage Park - Long -Form P.I.D.
LOCATION: On the west side of Allied Way
off West 65th Street in the
6900 block
DEVELOPER:
I -30 Industrial Park Dev.
P.O. Box 470
No. Little Rock, AR 72115
374-0470
ENGINEER:
Eddie Branton, Architect
7820 West 5th St. #405
Little Rock, AR 72209
221-3259
AREA: 7 acres NO. OF LOTS: 16 FT. NEW STREET: 1,000
ZONING: "I-2" PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use, Commerical, and
Light Industrial
PLANNING DISTRICT: 13
CENSUS TRACT: 40.01
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None: However, the site is in a
Priority Two Open Space on the Parks
Plan, and the Planning Commission can
release this plan site without Board
review upon recommendation of staff
and the Parks Director. The Parks
Director, Mr. Breckling, indicates
that inasmuch as this is a Priority
Two Open Space and not an actual park
site, he supports its removal subject
to our obtaining the floodway deed to
protect the green finger concept.
A. Proposal
To develop a mom and pop commercial and light
industrial park. The buildings are to vary from 3,000
to 6,000 square feet for small wholesalers and light
industrial users such as cabinet shops and
subcontractors. All buildings are to be standard metal
structures. All lots are to be landscaped per City
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
Ordinance or higher possibly with berms throughout with
shrubs. The mixed use concept is the reason for the
PUD filing.
B. Engineering Comments
(1) Contact City Engineer for floodplain information
and floor elevation.
(2) Contact Traffic Engineer for design of street and
drives. The interior street shall be public with
36 feet of paving and a 60 foot right-of-way.
(3) Allied Way should be constructed to industrial
standards with paved shoulders.
(4) Excavation permit required prior to grading or
tree removal.
C. Utility Comment
Bell Telephone reports the plat is okay as submitted.
D. Analysis
This Planned Unit Development application contains
deficiencies that require withdrawal and refiling .
These deficiencies are but not limited to:
(1) No plat filed for subdivision type issue.
(2) Drainage and floodway information totally
absent.
(3) No survey attached.
(4) No Bill of Assurance.
(5) No structural information on buildings
proposed.
(6) No elevations or sections through site.
(7) Apparently no prefiling conference to direct
this applicant.
E. Staff Recommendation
Deferral until such time as a resubmittal can cure the
deficiencies.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87)
The staff and applicant discussed the content of the staff
recommendation with the Committee. It was agreed that the
applicant will work with the staff during the course of the
next eight or ten days but not later than Friday, the 31st
to remedy the issues outlined. The staff reported hhat if
it can receive the appropriate information by that time that
the case will be continued, and we would have no cause to
request deferral. Additional staff report will follow this
agenda. The Little Rock Water Works indicated that a main
extension will be required for this project plus an on-site
fire protection system. They also indicated that private
agreements on fire hydrants maintenance will be required if
the Commission approves a private internal street. The
Sewer Department reported that a main extension will be
required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, this item was placed
on the consent agenda for deferral items. A motion was made
to defer the application until the September 22 meeting.
The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent,
1 open position.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - File No. 4066 -B
NAME: M. Mitchell - Short Form
Planned Commercial District
LOCATION: SE corner of West Markham
Street at Alamo Street
(11,601 West Markham St.)
DEVELOPER:
Maury Mitchell
212 Center St. #400
Little Rock, AR
374 -2231
ENGINEER:
Ross McCain
300 Spring Bldg., Suite 1015
Little Rock, AR
AREA: .473 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C-1" PROPOSED USE:
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None.
A. Proposal
Retail Sales per "C-1"
Listing /Laundry and
Dry Cleaning
The existing building constructed in "C-1" Commercial
will be permitted a dry cleaning establishment that is
now prohibited in the "C-1." This use is the only
purpose for filing a PUD.
B. Engineering Comments
There are traffic circulation problems especially with
respect to drive through on the rear of this structure.
The Traffic Engineer and Planning staff agree that a
drive through dropoff is inappropriate given the
design.
C. Utility Comment
Arkla, AP &L, and Bell Telephone report the issue okay
for easements as submitted.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
D. Analysis
This is a very simple issue requiring little comment
except to say that the use proposed apparently will not
offend the neighbors. It is our understanding that the
chemicals used in dry cleaning will not be offensive.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the Planned Commercial District as
requested except for the possiblity of a drive through.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87)
A brief discussion of this proposal centered upon whether or
not it was appropriate to introduce a drive-thru window for
customers on the rear of this building. The Traffic
Engineer's Office indicated that it opposed such a proposal
with the design constraints now in place. Mr. Koornstra of
the Traffic Engineering Office will look at the
modifications which may be needed if the Planning Commission
determines a drive -thru is appropriate. There were no other
issues of consequence attached to this proposal. The Water
Works indicated they had no comment on the application.
Wastewater indicated they did not have comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(August 11, 1987)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, this item was placed
on the consent agenda for approval items. A motion was made
for approval. The motion includes conditions or statements
set forth in the staff report. The motion passed by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-11-87)
The staff offered its recommendation of approval subject to
Fire Department requirements on exterior doors and stair
repair. The applicant, Mr. Gibson, was present. Mr. Gibson
offered brief comments on his proposal and answered
questions of the Commission. He said he could respond to
the Fire Department once he knew the exact requirements.
Mr. Hargraves, a neighbor on the south, had questions about
the type of rental occupancy and financing as to whether
they would be subsidized. Mr. Gibson's reply was that he
was looking to a higher type market to maintain what he had.
A general discussion then followed. A motion was then made
to approve the Planned Residential District as filed with a
condition that the owner comply with Fire Department
comments. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes,
2 absent, 1 open position.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - File No. Z -4861
NAME: Bon -Aire Apts. Planned
Residential District
LOCATION: 3405 -9 West Markham Street
DEVELOPER:
Lee Gibson
6829 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72207
664 -5500
ENGINEER:
Brooks and Curry
P.O. Box 897
North Little Rock, AR 72115
372 -2131
AREA: 12,878 sq. ft. NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: Planned Residential District from
Current "R-4" District
PROPOSED USE: Multifamily
PLANNING DISTRICT: 9
CENSUS TRACT: 14
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None except that parking lot size and
landscaping will be deficient.
A. Proposal
To make a nonconforming apartment house conforming.
The current ten units are zoned "R-3" Single Family.
No additions are requested at this time. The 13
parking spaces although deficient in design have served
for a considerable period. The project dates from 1927
and is a mix of two and three story with one bedroom
apartments throughout.
B. Enqineerinq Comments
Contact Traffic Engineer to discuss the parking drives
and alleyway for possible improvement.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
C. Utility Comments
Arkla and AP &L report easements okay as filed.
D. Analysis
The staff view of this project is that it has existed
for a long period on an arterial street and if limited
by this PUD application to ten units then no harm will
attend the zoning change. There is little or nothing
that can be done with the parking, however, the Traffic
Engineer should review the layout with the applicant.
This location is all that supports the application
aside from the age of the nonconformity.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to ordinance providing for a single
multifamily use with ten maximum apartments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION:
There was a brief discussion of the proposal. The owner was
in attendance. He indicated that he had discussed with Henk
Koornstra of the Traffic Engineer's Office the existing
design problems in the parking area indicating there was
little action that could be taken to resolve the current
problem. The owner indicated that financing is the primary
issue for the filing of this PUD request. There would be no
changes in the building except as necessary to maintain or
remodel the existing facilities. There were no other issues
attendant to this request. The Little Rock Water Works
indicated no comment. The Wastewater Utility indicated no
comment.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - File No. Z -4860
NAME:
Circlewood Apts. - Planned
Residential District
LOCATION: 2517 Grove Circle
DEVELOPER:
Lee Gibson
6829 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72207
664 -5500
ENGINEER:
Don Brooks
P.O. Box 897
North Little Rock, AR 72115
372 -2131
AREA: 8,305 sq. ft. NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: Planned Residential District from "R-4"
PROPOSED USE: Multifamily
PLANNING DISTRICT: 9
CENSUS TRACT: 14
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None except that parking lot size and
landscaped area may be deficient.
A. Proposal
To make a nonconforming apartment house conforming.
The current nine units are zoned "R-3" Single Family.
No additions are requested at this time. The parking
is three stalls in the rear and on- street. The project
consists of one bedroom units in a two story building.
The project dates from 1926.
B. Engineering Comments
Improvement of the parking in the alley and the
addition of two parking spaces should be pursued.
C. Utility Comments
Arkla and AP &L report plan okay as submitted.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
D. Analysis
The staff's view of this project is that it has existed
for many years within a nice single family environment.
There are perhaps a couple of duplexes nearby. The
isolation of this project from multifamily zoned areas
and arterial streets presents the dilemma. We feel
that introduction of "MF" zoning, even though in the
form of a PRD, is a spot zone. The size of nearby
homes indicates that this area might be significantly
impacted if conversion of some of these homes might be
the result of introduction of this zoning activity.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial of the application.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87)
There was a general discussion of the proposal. This action
was filed for the same basic reasons as Item 10 on this
agenda that being to obtain financing. Parking was
discussed as a particular concern for this site inasmuch as
there are currently three proper spaces designed and placed
on the lot with potential for perhaps three additional. The
owner said that he could improve the parking, but it would
probably not be used by the tenants due to the stairs and
access from that side of the building. Most people park on
the street. This issue was deemed to be reduced to a land
use question for the full Commission's discussion.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-11-87)
The staff presented its recommendation of denial based upon
the neighborhood plan, spot zoning expansion, and possible
encouragement of conversion of present large homes in the
area, plus the site is not on a collector or arterial
street. Mr. Gibson, the applicant was present. There were
four letters of objection and one petition of objection with
ten signatures submitted. Mr. Gibson presented his case.
He responded to questions of the Commission concerning
traffic, parking, and the reasons for the application. A
lengthy general discussion was held with comments on
increasing the parking on -site, limiting the building to
individually rented units with no group occupancies such as
halfway houses. Compliance with the Fire Department's
request on exterior doors was also discussed. Mr. Gibson
offered for the record that he would agree to comply with
these requirements.
Commissioner Riddick then offered for the record that the
Commission should make use of the Planned Unit Development
Ordinance in these kinds of cases and especially when
existing buildings are involved that are already developed
as apartments. He felt that conversions of existing
buildings should be discouraged. The Commission accepted
this thought, and discussion revealed that the Commission
would not be supportive of additional multifamily zoning
activities in this area. In light of the applicant's
willingness to commit to additional restriction and the
comments offered by the Commission, the staff changes its
position to approval of the "PRD."
A motion was then made to approve this application with the
following conditions:
1. Provide additional parking on -site to the extent
possible. This includes possible removal of any
additional accessory structure in the rear yard
and provision of at least six stalls.
2. Comply with the Fire Department's request
concerning exterior doors and access.
3. Occupancy restrictions as agreed to above.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent,
1 open position.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - File No. 650 -D
NAME: Hunters Cove - Revised
Building Line
LOCATION: West End of Hunters Glen Blvd.
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
AREA: 10 acres ± NO. OF LOTS: 41 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: Planned Residential District
PROPOSED USE: Remain single family with reduced front
setback to accommodate open porches
A. Proposal
To replat the current front building line relationship
to allow a separate building line for covered open
porches. The current building setback line for the
principle structure would remain the same.
B. Analysis
The proposal offers no significant use, structural, or
setback issues. The open porch or deck intrusion will
not effect an increase in building bulk. The effective
setback will remain 20 feet.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the request with the Bill of Assurance and
the subdivision plat including notations that these
porches may not be enclosed or have screens or
ornamental structures /additions such as lattice work.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87)
The engineer for this proposal was not present. There was
no discussion of the matter.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, this item was placed
on the consent agenda for approval items. A motion was made
for approval. The motion includes conditions or statements
set forth in the staff report. The motion passed by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Z- 4027 -A
NAME: Tanglewood Montessori
Conditional Use Permit
(Z- 4027 -A)
LOCATION: The south side of Ohio Street
at its eastern terminous
(7217 Ohio Street)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Gerda Ginzel /Darcia M. Norwood
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 203 square feet addition (expansion of a
classroom and an addition of a bathroom) to an existing
2,002 square feet day-care and elementary school (hours of
operation 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday /capacity 54 students) on land that is zoned "R-5."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a substandardly constructed residential
street (Ohio Street).
2. Compatibility With Neighborhood
This site is abutted by single family to the north,
vacant land and single family to the South, duplex to
the west, and vacant land and multifamily to the east.
This proposal will not increase the .school capacity but
will provide much needed off - street parking. The staff
feels that even though the school is not sited in an
ideal location, the increased off-street parking will
improve the situation.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
The site contains one paved dropoff drive and the
applicant is proposing ten paved parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
The site plan contains a proposed landscape plan.
5. Analysis
This property has been denied a Conditional Use Permit
in the past primarily due to the fact that no
off-street parking was provided. The applicant has
proposed ten paved parking spaces while not proposing
an increase in the existing school capacity. The staff
feels that the net effect of the proposal will be
positive.
6. City Engineer Comments
Redesign the entry drive (meet with the Traffic
Engineer).
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant meets with the City
Traffic Engineer to redesign the entry drive and submit
said revised site plan to staff.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. The Water Works stated that an easement
was needed 7.5 feet either side of an existing line in Ohio
Street. The applicant agreed to work out the issue with the
Water Works.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
staff stated that they had received two letters (Mr. Thurman
Harris and Dale and Thelma Allen) which stated they would
not oppose the proposal only if they could be guaranteed
that the current enrollment capacity and associated traffic
would not increase. The staff stated that they had received
a revised site plan that met staff requirements and
recommended that the school capacity be limited to the
current enrollment capacity of 54 students. The applicant
agreed to comply. The Commission then voted 8 ayes,
2 absent, and 1 open position to approve the application as
recommended by the staff and agreed to by the applicant.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Z-4875
NAME: Thomas Memorial Baptist Church
Conditional Use Permit
(Z -4875)
LOCATION: The northwest corner of Brown
and 14th Streets (1316 Brown
Street)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Board of Trustees Thomas
Memorial Baptist Church /John B.
Sewall
PROPOSAL:
To expand an existing church facility in two phases which
are: (1) to construct a 20 feet two story addition (west),
add a second floor on the west 42 feet (35 feet in height)
of the existing building plus a one level corridor on both
sides of the building, and add a 17 space off -site parking
lot; and in Phase II to add a second floor to the remaining
area (auditorium) increasing the capacity from 90 to 150
persons (the church hopes to purchase Lot 6 and construct an
additional 16 parking spaces) on land that zoned "R-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to two residential streets (14th Street and
Brown Street).
2. Compatibility With Neighborhood
This property lies within the Stephens School
Neighborhood Plan. The land use plan calls for single
family in the entire area. The existing facility is
compatible with the surrounding area even though it
does not have any off - street parking. The proposed
second story addition (35 feet) would have a tendency
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
to overshadow adjacent single family uses especially
considering that two setback variances would be
required (14th Street and on the alley). The staff
feels that this proposal would constitute an
overbuilding of the site and would be incompatible with
the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The existing site has no parking. The proposal
contains one access (dropoff) off Brown Street and a
paved 17 space parking lot. The applicant is also
proposing a future 16 space parking lot (once acquired)
at the time of Phase II construction.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant has proposed landscaping on the parking
areas.
5. Analysis
The staff does not feel that this proposal would be
compatible with the surrounding area (see note number
2). The staff feels that the proposed addition (35
feet in height) would infringe on the single family
located adjacent to the north and the east. The
overbuilding would result in two setback variances (25
feet rear /alley and 25 feet corner lot /14th Street).
Finally, the staff cannot recommend approval of a
parking lot on land that is not owned by the
applicant.
6. City Engineer Comments
Pave the alley to a width of 20 feet (from 14th Street
to the proposed parking lot) and use for two-way
traffic.
7. Staff Recommendation
Denial of the proposed church expansion.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The agent for the applicant was present and stated that the
height of the proposed second story would probably be closer
to 22 feet. The City Engineer also stated that half of the
proposed drop-off /drive would be located in the right-of-way
and that a franchise from the Board of Directors would be
required. A lengthy discussion ensued about the amount of
the proposed construction upon the site. The Committee
advised the applicant to consider scaling down the proposal.
The Water Works stated that a water main extension for
fire protection would be required because the nearest fire
hydrant is 600 feet away.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. There was one objector
present. The staff stated that they had received a letter
requesting deferral until the September 22, 1987, Planning
Commission meeting. The Commission then voted 9 ayes,
1 absent, and 1 open position to defer this item until the
September 22, 1987, Planning Commission meeting.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Z-4876
NAME:
Charity Community Church
Conditional Use Permit (Z-4876)
LOCATION: The east side of Geyer Springs
Road approximately 1/4 of a mile
south of Mabelvale Cutoff (11111
Geyer Springs Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Charity Community Church /Roy
Dale Clark
PROPOSAL:
To expand an existing church facility in phases that would
include a sanctuary (1,200 capacity), a day-care and
elementary school (grades K-8), a 1,200 square feet
bookstore, a playground, six 2,000 square feet single family
dwelling units (temporary housing three months to nine
months as well as foster families), a 30,000 square feet
gymnasium, and a storage facility and maintenance shop on
12.72 acres of land that is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a principle arterial (Geyer Springs Road).
2. Compatibility With Neighborhood
This property is surrounded by vacant land and borders
on a principle arterial. A church use is compatible
with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The proposal contains two access drives and 194 parking
spaces.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
4. Screeninq and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted or is shown on
the proposed site plan.
5. Analysis
The staff is supportive of a church use at this site.
The staff does, however, have a number of reservations
about the proposed uses and the site plan. The
applicant needs to meet with the staff and then submit
a revised site plan that contains: a phasing legend;
all the necessary dimensions; landscape areas; the
building dimensions for the single family homes rather
than sites; phasing for parking, and more parking areas
to alleviate the deficiency in the proposed parking
(240 spaces required). The staff also has some
concerns about uses that possibly do not fall within
the perimeters of the Conditional Use Permit on land
that is zoned "R-2." The uses in question are: the
maintenance shop, the bookstore, and possibly the
housing.
6. City Engineer Comments
(1) Dedicate the right-of-way necessary for arterial
standards on Geyer Springs Road; and (2) construct
Geyer Springs Road to arterial standards for the
length of the church property frontage during Phase II
construction.
7. Staff Recommendation
The staff supports a church use at this site but
reserves its recommendation until such time as the
land uses in question and site plan issues are
resolved.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and was assisted by Bob
Richardson. The applicant stated that the housing would be
six single family structures, and that the
maintenance /storage facility was illustrated as a buildable
area and would be used for an outreach program of storage,
food, and clothing, and that the maintenance shop would be
for lawn mowers, tractors, etc., for the church use only.
The bookstore would sell books for the school, parishioners,
and to the public. The Committee felt that the bookstore
use should be more specifically defined and reviewed by the
Commission. The staff stated that the dedication of the
right -of -way on Geyer Springs Road would be required now
with the actual construction tied to Phase II of the
project. The applicant agreed to comply with the dedication
request as well as meet with the staff and revise the site
plan accordingly. The Water Works stated that on-site fire
protection may be required and that the nearest water main
is approximately 2,000 feet from the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
staff stated that they had received a revised site plan that
deleted the proposed bookstore and met all previous staff
and Commission requirements with the exception of parking.
The Phase 1 construction would be two temporary classroom
buildings and would contain 30 parking spaces instead of the
required 65. The staff further stated that the additional
35 spaces plus the construction of Geyer Springs Road would
occur during Phase II. The staff then recommended approval
of the site plan as revised and agreed to by the applicant.
The Commission then voted 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, and 1
open position to approve the application as recommended by
the staff and agreed to by the applicant.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Z-4878
NAME: New Hope Church of the Nazarene
Conditional Use Permit (Z-4878)
LOCATION: 150 feet west of the southwest
corner of Hillsboro and Chicot
Roads (7709 Hillsboro Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Kimberly Sue Venable and Elmer
Yarberry/ Loretta Dixon
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 6,000 square feet church sanctuary (200
capacity), a recreational area, and 24 parking spaces on
land that is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (Hillsboro).
2. Compatibility With Neighborhood
This property is abutted by vacant land to the north,
vacant and single family to the south, single family to
the east, and single family to the west. A church use
limited to the proposed scale of this project, is
compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The proposal contains one access drive on Hillsboro and
24 parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed use will be
compatible with the surrounding area. The staff does,
however, have a number of reservations with regard to
the site plan. The site plan should be revisd to
include: 40 paved parking spaces; notations stating
that the sanctuary will be one story in height and
limiting access to Hillsboro road; landscape areas; and
the proposed recreation area. Staff also feels that
the Commission should consider collector street
standards for Hillsboro Road. The Master Street plan
has been amended to delete what was the old alignment
of the proposed South Loop. The staff feels that a
collector is warranted to move traffic east and west
between Heinke and Chicot Roads.
6. City Engineer Comments
(1) Meet with City Traffic Engineer to revise parking
and access areas; and (2) dedicate /construct Hillsboro
Road to City standards by filing a one lot final plat.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval providing: (1) The applicant agrees to submit
a revised site plan that includes the revisions as
stated in the analysis section; (2) resolution of the
street standards by the Commission; and (3) the
applicant agrees to comply with City Engineer Comments
numbered 1 and 2.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The Water Works stated that
on-site fire protection would be required and that a main
extension would also be required. The item was not
discussed further.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors.
The staff stated that the applicant had failed to meet
numerous requirements and then recommended withdrawal of the
item without prejudice. The Commission then voted 9 ayes,
0 noes, 1 absent, and 1 open position to withdraw the item
without prejudice.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Z -4880
NAME: Lighthouse Center Church
Conditional Use Permit (Z -4880)
LOCATION: The east side of south Maple
approximately 200 feet south of
18th Street (1813 South Maple)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Imran Bohra /Clarence Harville
PROPOSAL:
To convert a condemned single family structure (1,020 square
feet) to a church (30 capacity) on land that is zoned
"R-3. "
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (Maple Street).
2. Compatibility With Neighborhood
This property lies within the Stephens Neighborhood
Plan. The plan shows this area as single family.
This particular structure has been condemned and is
abutted by a vacant lot with single family and Stephens
School located to the north, single family to the
south, single family to the east (separated by an
alley), and single family located to the west (side
yard relationship). A neighborhood church on a small
scale, in addition to the upgrading of a condemned
structure would be compatible with the surrounding
area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The applicant is proposing to construct six gravel
parking spaces which will take access from an existing
paved alley (east).
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted. The applicant
needs to be advised that the parking area will require
landscaping and /or fencing.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the rehabilitation of a condemned
structure would enhance this area. The staff also
feels that the proposed use is compatible with the
surrounding area. The staff does, however, feel that
the proposed parking area should be paved in accordance
with City standards.
6. Citv Engineer Comments
None.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) pave
the parking area; and (2) meet City Landscape
Ordinance requirements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present as were three objectors. The
staff stated that the applicant had agreed to meet all
agreements and recommended approval of the application.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
Ms. Farmer, Ms. Paulett Bassett, and Ms. Future May Watts
all spoke in opposition to the proposed church primarily due
to what they felt would be an increase in noise and traffic
in the neighborhood. The City Attorney stated that an
affidavit should be on record with the Public Works
Department regarding the condemned status of the property.
The applicant stated that he thought that it had been taken
care of. A lengthy discussion ensued over the proposed use
of the property. The Commission then voted 4 ayes, 3 noes,
3 absent, and 1 open position to approve the application as
filed. The motion failed due to a lack of six votes
affirming or denying the proposal. The item was then
automatically deferred to the next scheduled Planning
Commission meeting (August 25, 1987).
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Other Matters
NAME: Revocation Hearing for
Edgerstoune Planned Residential
District
LOCATION: Northeast corner of North Martin
Street and "I" Street
APPLICANT: David McCreery
Flake and Company
P.O. Box 990
Little Rock, AR 72203
Telephone No. 376-8005
STAFF REPORT:
This issue is brought before the Commission as the result of
a request by Mr. McCreery which was placed before the
Planning Commission on June 30, 1987. The Commission in its
discussion of the requested extension determined that such a
extension was inappropriate and that the proper hearing
should be scheduled for revocation. There were objectors in
attendance at that meeting, however, they did not identify
themselves for the record. The Commission determined that
it would be appropriate to follow the revocation process as
set forth in the Ordinance and as instructed by the City
Attorney. Mr. McCreery was directed to respond as the staff
instructed and appear at the appropriate time and place
prepared to offer justification for continuance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff will not offer a recommendation at this
time but will respond as required at the public hearing.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87)
The Committee did not discuss this matter inasmuch as it is
an issue for resolution by the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-11-87)
There was no one present to represent this Planned Unit
Development revocation. The staff reported that a letter
was received from Mr. David McCreery stating that he would
not attend the meeting and was willing to allow the Planned
Unit Development to expire. The Commission received the
staff comment, discussed the procedure for revocation, and
determined that this hearing required that they follow
through on recommending the revocation action. A motion was
made to recommend to the City Board of Directors that the
Edgerstoune Planned Residential District approval be revoked
and that Ordinance No. 15,008 be vacated, thus restoring the
prior "R-5" zoning district to the land. The motion passed
by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Walter
Riddick), 1 open position.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Other Matters
NAME: Secluded Hills Preliminary Plat
Revised
LOCATION: East of Taylor Loop Road off
Shepherd Drive South of
State Highway 10
REQUEST: To approve a revision in the
approved preliminary plat so
as to properly conform to
changes in the Longlea Manor
preliminary plat on the south.
The changes consist of street
alignment and lot line
movement only. All other
features such as stub streets
to the east will not change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATOIN:
Approval of the plat revision as filed as being appropriate
action to assure proper continuity of development. There
are no issues attendant to the proposal.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Committee briefly discussed the revision in concert with
the plat revision on Longlea Manor. It was the feeling of
both staff and the Committee that this action should be
added to the August 11 agenda and approved at the same
occasion as Longlea Manor.
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Other Matters
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, this item was placed
on the consent agenda for approval items. A motion was made
for approval. The motion includes conditions or statements
set forth in the staff report. The motion passed by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position.
DATE�-/� l'1J'7
ZONING
MEMBER
W.Riddick, III
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Sipes
J.Nicholson
W.Rector
w.!<etcher
O. J. Jones
R.Collins
F.Perkins
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S 1 0 N
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
SUBDIVISION If tB 6 _iJ -b I � 3 c./ s (p ? r 9
v" v 0 V V J/ I,, V ---� V """ I,.,
V v' V V v V' I/ v t/ v--I,/ '-"' "" I/
J,/ V ✓V V v V V v' V I/"' � l/' V
V I,/ V V v V V V V' V V v V {/
L/ V V V V V V V l/ v-'--' V" V V
V V I/V ,_ """ i..-v L,, I, ,,,.. L,/' V"" V v V
A .. If I
v V y" ✓ v ""' V V V J/ A-If V v
V J/ V V v V" � v' V V I,,,-"'1,/ I/' I,' . v v v v v I,,'I/ V V // V I,,,"" ,_,,..,, V
I/' ✓ V ,/ ✓ V v' Y' ly V V 1/ V' �
✓A YE NAYE ABSENT ABSTAIN
/1} /1 1r:2. l13 IC/ 1511,1 17
y" V' v /;,,,"' V' '-' '-"'
� L,,r' y V V t--v L/
£, 1,/" V" V v y-V 0
(,,./ J/ � � J.--� z-
v-.v--V t..,,," �v V 6
I,,," '--' � '-' (_,.,,,' ,_,,, t..-,1 L--
Tl
It f+. V A--/} A J,,/' ,4
z.---1.,.,,-" J.,---" l---' '-' A z..,, A
J,': � '-"" J,.,.,,-" � I,,-"' J--�
t,,/ ,,_,.--V' J,,,' � � V: t,,,-
DATE/½.11, 11✓1
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
ZONING SUBDIVISION
MEMBER 1/f tr
W.Riddick, III ,,� ✓
J.Schlereth V" v
R.Massie I,/ v'
B.Sipes V V
J.Nicholson k I/
w.Rector � V
W.!<etcher 111 IA
O. J. Jones iA ✓
R.Collins ,4 v'
F.Perkins t,.,,,' vv
✓AYE NAYE ABSENT ABSTAIN
August 11, 1987
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
Date
Secretary
Chairman