pc_04 07 1987subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
ZONING AND MINUTE RECORD
APRIL 7, 1987
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum of 11 was present.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were read and approved.
III. Members Present: Bill Rector, Jr., Chairman
Betty Sipes
Walter Riddick, Jr.
Jerilyn Nicholson
John Schlereth
Richard Massie
Fred Perkins
Dorothy Arnett
David Jones
William Ketcher
Rose Collins
IV. City Attorney Present: Steven Giles
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION AGENDA
APRIL 7, 1987
Deferred Items:
None.
Preliminary Plats /Replats:
1. Jernigan Addition
2. Geyerwood Addition
3. Orbit Subdivision - Replat
4. West Markham Land Addition - Replat
5. Kings Pointe Addition
6. Castle Valley South Addition
7. Parkway II Commercial Subdivision - Repalt
8. Shady Grove Estates
9. Executive Office Park
Planned Unit Development:
10. Berkley, Planned Residential District
11. Ivy, Planned Industrial District
12. Davidson Properties, Planned Residential District
Conditional Use Permits:
13. Best Tire Company
14. Brookside Circle Day -Care Center
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 1 - File No. 752
NAME: Jernigans Addition
LOCATION: Located on the east side of
Broadview Drive at Broadview
Terrace south off Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Jane W. Swope
Star Route 1, Box 122
Ferndale, AR 72208
Telephone: 821 -2500
ENGINEER:
Robert D. Holloway, Inc.
200 Casey Drive
Maumelle, AR 72118
Telephone: 851 -3366
AREA: 2.212 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R-2" Single Family
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
PLANNING DISTRICT: West Little Rock No. 3
CENSUS TRACT: 22.03
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. To utilize existing physical improvements for access.
A. Existing Conditions
One large home on an estate size lot with double
frontage.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 1 - Continued
B. Development Proposal
To replat the current two acres into three lots
utilizing a private easement now in place which serves
the lots adjacent on the south. This access is 8' to
12' variable width gravel surface within a 16'
easement. This easement is totally upon the adjacent
three owners. The easement would serve only Lot 3 of
this proposal which cannot be reasonably accessed from
Pine Manor Drive on the east.
C. Engineering Comments
The 16' access easement from Broadview Drive to Lot 3
might be discussed. Access easement of 20' might be
needed instead of the 16'.
D. Analysis
Our view of this plat is that there is an alternate
access mechanism to serve the one lot and avoid the
legal access question. The configuration of the lots
and their size will allow a 20' by 200' pipe stem to
Lot 3 off Broadview Drive. This would require Lots 1
and 2 to be 30' less in dimension east to west. The
stem could be on either side of Lot 2.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the replat subject to a redesign for pipe
stem access and comments of the Engineering Division of
Public Works.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 1 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Use of the abutting easement for access was discussed.
Staff explained its recommendation against use of the
easement, which was partly due to it currently being
unimproved and constructed of gravel only. The applicant
decided he would not use the easement for access and would
remove it from the plan.
He agreed to discuss improvements and right-of-way
dedication with Engineering. Staff indicated a willingness
to support no improvements on Pine Manor if adequate
right-of-way is dedicated.
Utilities - Water Works intends to run a water line down
Pine Manor Drive within the next 14 months. Water service
to Lot 3 would be off this main.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed, subject to: (1)
removing the access easement from the plat; (2) providing
right-of-way dedication on Pine Manor and curb /gutter on
Broadview Drive; (3) improvement tro be tied to plat and
Bill of Assurance so that construction is required on Lot 1
if issued a building permit. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes,
and 0 absent.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 2 - File No. 680-A
NAME: Geyerwood Addition
Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Geyer Springs Road at Santa
Monica Drive
DEVELOPER:
Lloyd Stone
#3 Lexington Drive
Conway, AR 72032
Telephone: 327-4867
ENGINEER:
Eddie Branton Architect, Inc.
Wallace Building
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 372-4930
AREA: 3.348 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 14 FT. NEW STREET: 825
ZONING: "R-2" Single Family
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 14
CENSUS TRACT: 41.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Lot depth to less than 100'.
A. Existing Conditions
A vacant irregular shaped lot which is too narrow north
and south to permit lots on both sides of a central
street and maintain minimum standards.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 2 - Continued
B. Development Proposal
To preliminary plat 14 lots of minimum width but less
than the minimum depth along a 50' wide right -of -way
with a 24' pavement. The subdivision is intended for
small single family detached residences.
C. Engineering Comments
Previous comments apply.
D. Analysis
This tract was the subject of a Planned Unit
Development application for small lots in 1986. The
plat attached to that filing had many problems. There
was much neighborhood opposition and the proposal
failed at all review levels. The applicant has filed a
single family plat at this time attempting to do small
lot development. The staff review has determined 21
omissions from the filing of the plan and plat. The
more serious being the lot depth which the Planning
Commission cannot waive. Secondary to that, two of the
lots within this design leave barely 18' of buildable
depth.
E. Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends that the plat be withdrawn at the
Committee level and that the owner be directed to look
at a layout for a maximum of eight lots in a single
row.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to withdraw the item and file a revised
plan next month. No fee will be required.
Utilities - Water main extension plus on -site fire
protection required. The 4" sewer shown on -site must be
replaced with a 6" line and all off -site sewer shall be a
minimum of 8" in diameter.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 2 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 3 - File No. 721 -B
NAME: Orbit Subdivision
Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: East of North Chicot Road and
Interstate 30 Frontage Road
DEVELOPER:
Hathaway Group Agent
1500 Worthen Bank Bldg.
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 372-1700
ENGINEER:
Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson
and Associates Inc.
201 South Izard
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 375-5331
AREA: 51.9 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 7 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C-4"
PROPOSED USE: Highway Commercial
PLANNING DISTRICT: 15
CENSUS TRACT: 20.01
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Existing Conditions
A developing commercial corridor on the north side of
Interstate 30, the land has been partially cleared and
no grade or drainage issues exist.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 3 - Continued
B. Development Proposal
To create one commercial lot out of the current
Tract C and to title this Lot G consisting of 168' of
frontage and a variable depth up to 500'. This plat
was approved initially as a mixed use preliminary.
Several lots have been sold. A commercial use is being
constructed at the corner of Chicot Road and an
apartment complex was recently completed lying to the
north.
C. Engineering Comments
Boundary street improvements are required on North
Chicot Road and Mabelvale Pike. Stormwater detention
required on -site also.
D. Analysis
The Planning staff view of this proposal is that it is
entirely appropriate. The owner has committed to the
extension of the 40' buffer across Tracts C and G in
the fashion required for Tract F on the corner. We
believe this will provide for a more livable
environment for the apartment dwellers on the north lot
being Tract E.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the plat as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed by the Committee. Staff explained
that the previous agreement made regarding improvement
should be reflected on this plat.
Utilities - Additional sewer easement required along the
west sides of Tracts A, D, and E around existing sewer main.
On-site fire protection required. An acreage water charge
of $150 per acre will apply.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 3 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A clarification was made regarding the required buffer
across the lots. Staff explained that it would be as
required by ordinance. A motion for approval, subject to
engineering comments was made and passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 4 - File No. 710-A
NAME: West Markham Land Addition
LOCATION: South side of West Markham
Street in the frontage lying
east of the Rock Creek bridge
(11700 block West Markham)
DEVELOPER:
Brad Walker
2228 Cottondale Lane
Little Rock, AR 72202
Telephone: 664-4242
White - Daters and Associates
401 South Victory street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 374-1666
AREA: 5.68 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 8 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C-3"
PROPOSED USE: Retail Sales
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 24.01
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Existing Conditions
This plat area was created by the recent improvement of
the Rock Creek alignment and subsequent filling of land
along the creek.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 4 - Continued
B. Development Proposal
This plat is a replat of action on October 1986, where
five lots were preliminary platted. This action if
approved will expand the total lots to eight and at the
same time, maintain the minimum depth, width, and area.
The plat was authorized five curb cuts previously, and
that number will be maintained in this plan. The
access will also be maintained on a shared basis.
C. Engineering Comments
The plat proposed shows five driveway locations as
approximate locations. These locations should be shown
on the plat as joint driveways between individual lots.
D. Analysis
This plat is in proper form except for minor details of
the plat content such as adjacent owners. There are no
issues of substance.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the plat as filed.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The item was reviewed by the Committee. Staff
explained that the previous approval limited curb cuts
to a maximum of five. The applicant was asked to
contact a neighboring property owner who expressed
concern as to the use of the property.
Utilities - Additional sewer easement required along
the front property line. Minimum width shall be 16'
centered around existing sewer main.
Water main extension plus on -site fire protection
required. Service off 20" main not allowed. Would
need to extend 8" stub across Markham.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 4 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made and passed for approval by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 5 - File No. 754
NAME: Kings Pointe Addition
LOCATION: Lying on the east side of Kirby
Road south of Markham Place
Circle
DEVELOPER:
Marion K. Birmingham and
Vernon K. Brown
13500 Rock Creek Parkway
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: 225-5946
ENGINEER:
Robert D. Holloway, Inc.
200 Casey Drive
Maumelle, AR 72118
Telephone: 851-3366
AREA: 2.5 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 9 FT. NEW STREET: 224
ZONING: "R-2" Single Family
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 17
CENSUS TRACT: 42.03
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Existing Conditions
A heavily wooded site served by a two-lane, narrow,
county standard roadway.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 5 - Continued
B. Development Proposal
To plat nine lots on 2.5 acres taking access by way of
a short cul -de -sac off Kerby Road. The lots are to be
utilized as detached single family residences.
C. Engineering Comments
(1) Existing downstream drainage does not exist
through Parkway Place Subdivision. Therefore, the
developer is required to provide some means to
detain the water and spread the water instead of
concentrating when it drains back to the
northeast.
(2) Boundary street improvements are required on Kirby
Road. Due to the topography in the south end of
Kirby Road (steep hill), the Engineering staff
would like to discuss with the developer the
possible reconstruction of the hill in lieu of
other improvements on Kirby Road. Please the
Engineering staff for further details.
D. Analysis
The plat as filed is in good shape except for three
areas of concern: (1) sidewalks along Kerby Road,
(2) 30' building line on Kerby Road, and (3) site
distance on Kerby south of the entrance.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed with compliance requirement on
sidewalks and building line. We defer to the City
Engineer on the site distance question.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
Engineering explained that the hill to the south needed
to be lowered since it created a very dangerous
situation. The applicant's engineer had not yet
informed his client of this requirement. He was asked
to work with Engineering regarding the extent of his
involvement in this matter.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 5 - Continued
The Committee felt that no sidewalk improvements would
be required due to the cost involved if the applicant
participates in the reconstruction of the hill.
Utilities - Water main extension plus on-site fire
protection required. Acreage charge of $300 per acre
may apply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff
reported that Winrock Development Company was concerned that
Kings Pointe Cove did not line up with Summit Ridge Drive,
which is their plat to the west. Kings Pointe Cove is
located 20' to 25' south of Summit Ridge. Both engineers
were present and worked out an agreement regarding the
off-set.
Engineering recommended that the final plat be conditioned
upon City participation in the improvement of the site
distance on Kirby Road and the cutting down of the hill.
The owner understood that without City approval and funding,
his development costs would be an additional $10,000.
A motion was made for approval, subject to working out an
alignment of the intersection with Engineering. The vote
was 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 6 - File No. 751
NAME:Castle Valley South
LOCATION: Along the south side of Castle
Valley Drive west off Chicot
Road
DEVELOPER:
Mrs. Mary F. Damour
1022 Hickory Hill Court
Apartment A9
Clinton, IA 52732-3602
Telephone:
ENGINEER:
Marla Engineering Company, Inc.
5318 J.F.K. Blvd.
North Little Rock, AR
Telephone: 753-1987
AREA: 4.47 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R-2" Single Family
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 15
CENSUS TRACT: 41.05
REQUESTS: Approved with 4 phases of development.
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None, except that clarification of sidewalk location is
requested (north or south side of this collector).
A. Existing Conditions
A single row of 100' parcels vacant and partially
covered by brush and trees. A roadway serves this
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 6 - Continued
site running west off Chicot Road and providing the
primary residential and business access to the golf
course.
B. Development Proposal
The owner is responding to a subdivision violation
notice to her realtor. She desires to create 10 single
family lots along the current street and provide
improvements to collector standard.
C. Engineering Comments
Street improvements are required on Castle Valley Road.
Contact Engineering Department for roadway
requirements. Stormwater detention required on -site.
Show on the drawing where the detention facilities will
be located and also the calculations for these
facilities.
D. Analysis
This plat is in good technical compliance with the
ordinance. There are only two issues of substance.
(1) The out parcels causing breaks in the plat boundary
where illegal transfers have occurred but are in third
party hands. owners of these out parcels will not
receive building permits until plat action is taken.
(2) Sidewalks along Castle Valley Road were not
specifically located by the City when the several
previous plats were reviewed encompassing all of the
original golf course lands. This applicant has
requested a determination as to whether they will be
assessed against the north side or his client on the
south side. A specific waiver was not granted on the
previous preliminary plat.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to resolving the sidewalk issue. We
feel the development on the north side should provide
sidewalks inasmuch as that owner has the larger body of
development. As to the out parcels, staff feels they
will be corrected and plats submitted as permits are
requested.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 6 - Continued
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The item was reviewed by the Commission. Staff
explained its recommendation requiring the sidewalks on
the north side of Castle Valley Road, which would free
this developer from improvements on the south side of
the road.
Utilties - Additional easements required between Lots 3
and 4 and along the south side of Lots 14 and 15.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Ed Turbin represented Dillon Construction Company, the
Developer of Whispering Pines Subdivision, and owner of land
abutting the golf course. The three concerns he expressed
were: (1) that the area should not be subdivided, (2) there
should be a buffer between this proposed residential area
and the golf course which he owns, and (3) since the golf
course is possibly in the route of the proposed South Loop
Expressway, the plat should be deferred until more specific
details are available on the actual alignment. Mr. Turbin
felt that this was important since three or four holes of
the golf course would be affected. If the plat were to be
approved, he felt that liability and access questions
regarding lots in this Subdivision, which is next to his
golf course, needed to be worked out.
Engineering explained that there would probably be only a
minor variation in the alignment in this area that would
probably shift it only 1,600' to 1,700' to the south at the
most; so there would be no great impact.
The Commission felt that the real issue was a private one;
and it was not their duty at this point to assess the
implications of the South Loop.
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 10
ayes, 0 noes, and 1 abstention.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 7 - File No. 753
NAME: Parkway II Commercial Subdivision
LOCATION: South side of Rock Creek Parkway
at Parkway Place Drive
DEVELOPER:
The Danny Thomas Company
212 Center Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 374-2231
ENGINEER:
Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson,
and Associates, Inc.
201 South Izard
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 375-5331
AREA: 20.2 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 16 FT. NEW STREET: 700
ZONING: "C-3" and "O-3"
PROPOSED USE: Commercial Subdivision
PLANNING DISTRICT: 17
CENSUS TRACT: 42.03
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Reduce the minimum centerline radius on proposed
commercial street to reduce traffic speed.
A. Existing Conditions
Undeveloped parcels that are sparsely covered by brush
and trees. The lots lying east of Parkway Place Drive
and west of Oak Meadow are zoned "O-3." The main body
of the plat is classified "C-3."
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 7 - Continued
B. Development Proposal
To develop a commercial small lot plat with 16 building
sites. Some of the "0 -3" lots will be involved in an
application for rezoning in the immediate future. It
is suggested the requested zone will be "C-3"
classification. The project engineer has requested a
tighter turning radius on the new commercial street,
Hillvale Drive, in order to increase safety.
C. Fngineerinq Comments
Further information as to possible use of Tracts A and
D as well as Tract B needs to be provided in order to
meet Engineering comments. Comments such as access
easements, access curb cuts, stormwater detention,
etc., are pretty normal. Please furnish further
information.
D. Analysis
Aside from the several minor plat content items, there
are only three issues that we introduce for resolution.
These are: (1) sidewalks on all streets, internal and
external to the project, (2) the centerline waiver,
(3) prohibition of access to the parkway from any lot
and an access plan for curb cuts and circulation.
E. Staff Recommendation
The staff, recommends approval of the plat and the
waiver request subject to: all sidewalks being
constructed, the Public Works Department approval of an
access and curb cut plan and acceptance of the
centerline variance.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
Since the applicant was not present, the item was not
discussed in detail; however, it was mentioned to the
Committee that enough information was not submitted and
an access plan was needed and that sidewalks were
required. Also, staff felt that endorsement of this
plat would not include approval of any future
rezonings.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 7 - Continued
Utilities - Contact LRWU for sewer main location.
Water extension, plus extension on-site fire protection
required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made and passed for approval, subject to
agreement with Traffic Engineering, and sidewalks as
required per Ordinance. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0
absent.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 8 - File No. 756
NAME: Shady Grove Estates
LOCATION: The 18000 block of Kanis Road
lying on the south side of
Kanis west of Stewart Road
DEVELOPER:
Fletcher Clement
Route 3, Box 286A
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: 225-1319
ENGINEER:
Summerlin Associates, Inc.
1609 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72206
Telephone: 376-1323
AREA: 92.3 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 15 FT. NEW STREET: 2450
ZONING: Outside City
PROPOSED USE: Single Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 17
CENSUS TRACT: 42.04
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Reduction of scale of drawing to one inch equals 200'.
2. Waiver to allow cul-de-sac street length up to 2450
linear feet.
3. Waiver to allow a 24' pavement width with side ditches
rather than curb and gutter.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 8 - Continued
A. Existing Conditions
A large tree covered rural tract in a setting of mixed
uses such as auto garage and personal services with a
scattering of large homes and horse farms.
A. Development Proposal
To divide this 92.31 acres into 15 rural residential
lots exceeding five acres each. The proposal includes
the construction of a single public residential street
to large lot standard without curb and gutter or
underground drainage. There is no street stub-out to
adjoining properties inasmuch as the ownership and
development pattern does not suggest a need. These
large lots are so arranged as to provide one good
building site on a knoll, ridge, or other prominence.
Additional dedication of right-of-way is proposed for
Kanis Road to minor arterial standard.
C. Engineering Comments
Boundary street improvements required on Kanis Road.
Also, additional right -of -way is required on Kanis
Road. A total 100' right-of-way is required;
therefore, 50' from centerline is needed. Therefore,
an additional 20' of dedication is required.
D. Analysis
The staff review has resulted in eight or nine
deficiencies in the plat. However, there are only four
that are of significance. These are: (1) The name of
both the plat and street may need to be changed due to
conflict with a Chicot Road plat. (2) The street
standard to be applied. (3) The need for sidewalks on
a rural standard roadway. (4) Sewer service and County
Health Department signoff for septic system.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the plat subject to resolution of staff and
engineering comments.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 8 - Continued
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The item was discussed. The applicant agreed to a 35'
building line on Kanis, to change the plat and street
name from Shady Grove as approved by David Hathcock,
and to provide a rural street standard. He also
amended his application to request two waivers of
sidewalks on Kanis and the internal street. The
applicant agreed to provide a restriction in the Bill
of Assurance stating no resubdivision of the lot.
Utilities - Sewer not available. Water main extension,
plus on-site fire protection required. Water main is
approximately 13,000' from this property. Acreage
charge of $300 per acre applies.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
This plat name was changed to Iron Horse Estates and the
interior street is Iron Horse Road. A motion for approval
of the plat and sidewalks waiver on Iron Horse Road only,
was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0
absent.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 9 - File No. 755
NAME: Executive Office Park
LOCATION: The intersection of Napa Valley
and Hinson Road
DEVELOPER: Roger Thurman
1 Financial Centre
Little Rock, AR
Telephone: 227-8888
ENGINEER:
Manes, Castin, Massie and McGetrick
2501 Willow
North Little Rock, AR
Telephone: 758-1360
AREA: 6.33 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 7 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "O-2"
PROPOSED USE: Office Park
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Private street system.
A. Existing Conditions
An undeveloped acreage tract on rolling terrain with
frontage on two arterial streets.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 9 - Continued
B. Development Proposal
To develop seven office lots and two tracts on 6.33
acres. The lots are sized from .5 acres to .8 acres.
Tract A is defined as a water retention tract and
unbuildable. Tract' B is not clearly described as to
its usage. The plat is accessed by a variable width
private street ranging from 40' to 80' in right-of-way
with 20' of pavement. The project engineer referenced
in his cover letter a site plat for the buildings to be
submitted at a later date. Staff has not reviewed such
a plan. This information is not in the file at this
time. It is understood that later review by the
Planning Commission is authorized by the ordinance.
C. Engineering Comments
The Traffic Engineer needs to approve all access points
and roadway configuration beside the platted area.
Please contact the Traffic Engineer to get approval of
the hammerhead area between Lots 4 and 5.
Boundary street improvements and right-of-way
dedication are required on Napa Valley and Hinson
Roads. Both Hinson and Napa Valley require a 100'
right-of-way. Therefore, 50' from centerline of
right-of-way dedication is required. Hinson is a
five-lane cross section. Napa Valley is a four-lane
cross section.
D. Analysis
The Planning staff review of this plat reveals some 20
deficiencies. The one significant failure is to "O-2"
District minimum lot size of two acres. This is not
negotiable by the Planning Commission. Waivers of
minimum lot size cannot be granted per Section 37-10 of
the Subdivision Ordinance. The remaining items in our
review while not nearly as serious indicate a need for
deferral of the plat for further design. Some of these
issues are access on Napa Valley at a safe site
distance, width of the pavement at 20' when 36' is
typically required, and parking designed into a private
street system.
F. Staff Recommendation
Withdrawal of the plat at the Committee level with a
recommendation for redesign and for complete filing.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item -9 - Continued
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant decided to withdraw the item as requested
by the staff and resubmit as a long-form PUD.
Utilities - Additional easements required for 16"
existing sewer for main along the north side of Lot 7
in Tract A.
Water main extension, plus on-site fire protection
required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 10 - File No. Z -4804
NAME: John R. Berkley Planned
Residential District
( Short Form)
LOCATION: 100 Rosetta Street
DEVELOPER:
John R. Berkley
319 Belmont
N. .Little Rock, AR 72116
Telephone: 758-5526
ENGINEER:
William W. Hope
P.O. Box 223
Benton, AR
Telephone: 778-0786
AREA: 7000 Sq. Ft. + NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R-3" Single Family
PROPOSED USE: Triplex
PLANNING DISTRICT: 9
CENSUS TRACT: 14
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Parking for one car less than ordinance requirement.
A. Existing Conditions
A single family dwelling with two stories on a single
residential lot of 50' in width. The lot is served for
parking access off the alley to the rear.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 10 - Continued
B. Development Proposal
To make modifications that will allow occupancy as a
triplex with four parking spaces. No structural
expansion is proposed at this time. A variance of one
parking space is requested.
C. Engineering Comments
None.
D. Staff Analysis
The review of this proposal reveals that the subject
site has less than adequate access for multifamily
usage. The alley could be a safety problem for turns
on to and off Markham Street. The angle parking as
proposed will require tenants to enter this long block
at 3rd Street on the south and drive a poor alley two
blocks to this parking. The neighborhood is
predominately single family with a liberal scattering
of duplexes. There are a few multifamily uses in the
immediate area; however, these are located in and about
the intersections of Kavanaugh and Markham and Markham
and Johnson. There have been several new duplexes
constructed within a two-block radius which seem to set
a tone for a mix of single and duplex occupancy.
E. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the PRD and suggests that
the application be converted to a conditional use
permit for duplex or possibly rezoning to "R-4." This
does not rule out the possibility of continuing a PUD
for a duplex; however, we do not feel that is an
appropriate use of the ordinance.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 10 --Continued
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant submitted a revised plan providing deeper
head -in parking spaces. He felt that the 1,700 square
feet of space was too much for just two rental units.
Staff expressed its reluctance to support a rezoning to
triplex due to the amount of large houses in the
neighborhood which could produce potential requests for
variances from the Woodruff Plan. It was felt that the
redesign of the parking area also created a dangerous
situation. The main issues were identified as density
and parking.
Utilities - Sewer available.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Several interested persons were
in attendance. Staff reported that Southwestern Bell had
expressed concerns about the location of the concrete
parking lot and that several letters and phone calls were
received. Only one person had expressed definite objections
based on an increase in density, inadequate parking, and
difficult access to Markham because of traffic. A letter
from Mr. Brian C. Davis expressed some concerns and
apprehension, but no specific objections. Staff's
recommendation was stated as denial of the PRD request for a
trI-plex, with a suggestion that the application be
converted to a conditional use for duplex, or a rezoning to
"R-4."
The Applicant, Mr. Berkley, felt that less cars would be
provided with the tri -plex than a duplex, since he had plans
to rent out the duplex to families with two or three cars
each versus renting to three singles with the tri-plex use.
He also felt that there was not a very bad problem with
vision on Markham, since you could see a distance of 300' to
the east and 600' to the west. He agreed to widen the alley
20'.
Several issues were raised by the Commissioners and
concerned residents about converting this single family use
to a tri-plex. Ms. Susanne Neal was concerned about parking
April 7, 1967
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 10 - Continued
on Rosetta, and possible parking in the front yard. She
also stated that there were several extremely large houses,
similar to this one in the area. Some Commissioners felt
that this was speculation, an inappropriate use of the PUD
process, and that the area should remain single family.
Some were not opposed to increasing the density to duplex,
but there seemed to be some general agreement that a
tri -plex was too much of an increase.
Ms. Lucy Abraham of the Janet Jones Company explained that
the structure of 2600 square feet was currently in
disrepair, and had been on the market for one year at
$45,500. Her opinion was that it would never sell as a
single family unit due to its location at the corner of
Markham and Rosetta. She asked that the Commission look at
each site's individual contribution to the overall upgrading
of the entire neighborhood. She felt that this was a good
attempt to improve the neighborhood through the upgrading of
the unit. The Commission, however, still expressed
apprehension at setting a precedent in the area.
The applicant was asked whether or not he would like to
amend his plan to provide for a duplex use on the property,
he agreed to do so.
A motion was made for approval of a modified PUD request for
a duplex use, subject to working out parking with the
Traffic Engineer. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0
noes, and 0 absent.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 11 - File No. Z- 3708 -A
NAME: Ivy, Planned Industrial District
(Long Form)
LOCATION: 9811 Interstate 30 Frontage Road
DEVELOPER:
Carmey Ivy
9811 I -30
Little Rock, AR 72116
Telephone:
ENGINEER /CONTRACTOR
Gordon General Contractors
17200 Kanis Road
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: 821-4011
AREA: 1.15 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C-3" General Commercial
PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use Commercial with "C-3" and
"C-4" activities
PLANNING DISTRICT: 15
CENSUS TRACT: 41.03
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Existing Conditions
The site is occupied by two buildings. One building
contains general retail use and is the larger of the
two at 12,650 square feet. This building requires 42
parking spaces. The second building being the one at
issue contains 3,840 square feet, including the
addition proposed and requires 6.4 spaces. The total
requirement is 48 parking spaces. The existing lot
contains 49. This site abuts the Munsey Products
Company on two sides and a large travel trailer dealer
on the east.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 11 - Continued
B. Development Proposal
To expand the smaller of the two buildings to add more
shop space to the tool and die business. A 100 percent
increase in building floor area is proposed. No
expansion of the large building is involved in this
application. The use mix is to be that permitted by
right in "C-3," "C-4," and "I-2."
C. Engineering Comments
Stormwater detention required on-site.
D. Analysis
The staff review identifies no problems with the
proposal as to the use. The parking and neighborhood
relationships are also good. The reason for this PUD
approach is that the property contains uses that
collectively will not fit any single district, nor will
the conditional use permit process allow the
development of the several activities on a single site.
The setbacks on this property existing and proposed are
at odds with ordinance. However, no problem exists
with adjacent buildings or uses in the area of the east
side yard. Adjacent buildings lie to the south or west
and were placed on those sites under previous site plan
review or prior ordinance provisions. The side yard
which proposes less than a standard industrial side
yard abuts a large lot or open field which contains a
large number of recreational vehicles. The building on
that site is well over 100' from this property line.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the proposal as submitted subject to
placing the project quantitative data on the site plan.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 11 - Continued
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant was not present. Staff explained its
recommendation to the Committee. The applicant would
be required to indicate quantitative data on the site
plan.
Utilities - Sewer main extension required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 12 - File No. Z -4806
NAME: Davidson Properties Planned
Residential District
(Short Form)
LOCATION: At the west end of McGovern
Drive and Breckenridge Addition
DEVELOPER:
Davidson Properties
P.O. Box 7347
Little Rock, AR 72217
Telephone: 227-5357
ENGINEER:
Manes, Castin, Massie and McGetrick
2501 Willow Street
North Little Rock, AR
Telephone: 758-1360
AREA: 3 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R-2" Single Family
PROPOSED USE: Residential in a Planned Unit Development
format for zero lot line
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Existing Conditions
The property consists of a wooded knoll .lying at the
end of a residential street. The property rises
approximately 50' in elevation out of the Grassy Flat
Creek. The project site has over 500' of Interstate
430 frontage and an apartment complex on the north.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 12 - Continued
The Natural Resources Complex, including the Game and
Fish Commission lies to the south.
B. Development Proposal
To construct eight or nine units on a zero lot line lot
format. The proposal utilizes a private access
easement system to serve each of the several units.
The homes appear to be in the 1400 to 1600 square foot
range, including a garage attached. A significant
portion of the tract (Lot 10) will be dedicated as
floodway. Lot 9 does not propose a specific building
site but that it be built upon if and when a design
suitable to the terrain is developed. The lot sizes
are a minimum of 4,730 square feet with a pro rata
share of the common space and drives bringing the
average to ±12,000 square feet. This figure does not
include Lot 10 in the computation.
C. Engineering Comments
All driveway widths and locations shall be approved by
the Traffic Engineer. It is preferred to have a 20'
driveway if two-lane traffic is allowed behind the
buildings. Stormwater detention shall be shown
on-site. Attach calculations to the drawings.
D. Analysis
The staff review has developed only minor issues for
discussion, except that the plat and plan need more
quantitative data. The area of Lot 10 will be
dedicated per City Board policy for floodway. The
staff reaction to Lot 9 is that free form siting of a
house without specifying on this plan is appropriate so
long as one building site is the limit. The Fire
Department has requested a minimum drive width of 20'
throughout, and as a follow-up to that a requirement
for a termination device on McGovern Drive. This is
especially important if this developer plans a gate or
controlled entry to the project. The only other points
for discussion are compatibility with adjacent
conventional lots at 7,000 square feet plus screening
along the south boundary line, resolving parks plan
requirement for Priority Two open space and an on-site
fire line and hydrant plan.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 12 - Continued
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the Planned Unit Development subject to:
(1) completing the plat and plan content requirements,
(2) dedicate the floodway, (3) provide a turnaround for
McGovern, (4) minimum 20' drives, (5) water and fire
plan on -site, (6) Public Works approval.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant agreed to adhere to staff's comments with
the exception of the turnaround. He felt also that a
20' service drive to the back of the lot was not
necessary since it won't be used by fire, garbage, etc.
He requested a 16' or 18' pavement width. He felt that
the area in the rear could be serviced by a fire hose.
Utilities - Additional sewer easements required across
Lot 10. Contact LRWU.
Water main extension plus on -site protection required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Applicant was present. There were several concerned
residents from the neighborhood in attendance. Some of
those present expressed concerns about the proposed
development. Mr. Steve Young, an adjacent property owner,
objected to density and traffic. Ms. Rita Hart expressed
similar objections, in addition to concerns about the
access /utility easement which would abut her property.
Mr. Dean Roberts of 17 Warwick felt that the project would
negatively impact their property values, due to a loss of
the buffer between Breckenridge and the Interstate. He was
especially concerned about: (1) the paved eastment on the
east side of the proposed development, (he asked that it be
kept green), (2) maintenance of the privacy fence, and (3)
minimization of tree removal.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 12 - Continued
Mr. Randy Davidson, the Applicant, explained that there
would be a 6' opaque wooden fence around the perimeter of
the property with an exception of the south side; and there
would be a property- owners association for maintenance, and
that the houses would be 1,700 to 1,900 square feet and sell
for $105,000. He had no current plans to build on Lot 9
which has difficult terrain. The residents were assured
that any development other than single family on this lot
would mean renotification of property-owners. Finally, a
motion for approval of the amended application was made and
passed, subject to: (1) a minimum of 1,700 square feet
house size, (2) the construction of the fence when the
streets are built, (S) a drive ending at the northwest
corner of Lot 8, (4) Fire Department approval. The vote 10
ayes, 0 noes, and 1 abstention (Massie).
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 13
NAME: Best Tire Company Conditional
Use Permit (Z-1662-B)
LOCATION: The south side of Markham Park
Drive just north of West Markham
(104 Markham Park Drive)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Best Car Care, Inc./
Gordon Duckworth
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 6,600 square feet vehicle maintenance and
service facility (six service bays) and 32 parking spaces
(counting six service bays) in Phase I and a 3,000 square
feet retail addition and 10 parking spaces in Phase II on
.755 acres of land that is zoned "C-3" /Conditional Use
Permit. *Note: The original conditional use permit was for
the same use. The proposal is basically a revised site
plan.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a collector street (Markham Park Drive).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is located in a commercial subdivision
that is just under construction. A commercial use is
located to the west while the remainder of the adjacent
property is vacant. The proposed use is compatible
with the surrounding area.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 13 - Continued
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
One 30 feet access drive to Markham Park Drive will
service this site. A total of 42 parking spaces are
proposed (inclusive of six service bays).
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant has proposed screening and landscaping as
per City ordinance requirements.
5. Analysis
The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding
area and meets ordinance requirements with the
exception of the rear yard setback. Ordinance
requirements are for a 25 feet rear yard setback. The
applicant needs to reduce the proposed Phase II
building in order to meet setback requirements.
6. City Engineer Comments
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to any City Engineering comments and
to the applicant agreeing to submit a revised site plan
which allows a 25 feet rear yard setback from the
property line to the building.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. Staff stated that in addition to
the 25' rear setback line there is a 25' setback restriction
from the floodway (total 25' setback from property line).
The staff also stated that the dumpster needed to be
relocated out of the 25' rear setback area and an existing
wastewater easement. The City Engineer also stated that the
applicant should contact them to determine the minimum floor
elevation for the proposed building. The applicant stated
that he submit a revised site plan. The applicant also
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 13 - Continued
stated that the proposal was for tire sales and minor
repair, and that no major auto repair or body work would be
performed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4-7-87)
The Planning staff offered its recommendation of approval of
this application. The applicant was present. There was a
brief discussion of the proposal. A motion was made for
approval as filed, including the City Engineer's comments
and the revised site plan. The motion passed by a vote of
11 ayes and 0 noes.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 14
NAME: Brookside Circle Day -Care Center
(Z-4803)
LOCATION: The south side of Brookside
Circle just west of Brookside
Drive ( #5 Brookside Circle)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Edd G. and Beverly A. Taylor
PROPOSAL:
To convert an existing 1,800 square feet single family
structure to a home care /day-care center with a capacity of
14 children on a lot that is zoned "R -2." The hours of
operation would be from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site is located on a residential street (Brookside
Circle).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
Brookside Circle is a cul-de-sac that is residential in
character. The site is abutted on all four sides by
single family uses. The single family located to the
north is above the grade of this structure. This
property is not well suited for a full day-care center
use. The property does not have an on-site drop off
area and Brookside Circle empties into a very busy
collector street (Brookside Drive). A full day-care
center is not compatible with the surrounding area.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 14 - Continued
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The site contains one access drive approximately
9'x 35' on Brookside Circle. No on-site drop off or
parking area has been proposed.
4. Screeninq and Buffers
The applicant has proposed using the existing fences
and foliage to meet Landscape Ordinance requirements.
5. Analysis
The staff does not feel that a full day-care center use
would be compatible with the surrounding area (see note
#2). The location of this property on a dead-end
street (cul-de-sac) would exacerbate the negative
impact on the adjacent single family uses. The staff
feels that 14 children is too many, but would consider
supporting up to 10 children allowed by a special use
permit.
6. City Engineer Comments
7. Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends withdrawal and /or denial of the
conditional use permit and recommends approval of a
special use permit allowing up to 10 children if the
applicant so desires.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and stated that he had talked with
all his neighbors and that no one had any problem with his
proposal. A brief discussion ensued. The applicant
indicated he still hoped to pursue a conditional use permit
which would allow 14 children capacity.
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item 14 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (4-7-87)
The Planning staff offered its recommendation and in the
process outlined the reasons for our support of a special
use permit on the site with a limit of 10 children. The
applicant, Mr. and Mrs. Taylor, were present. Both offered
arguments in support of their proposal. They each added
additional information to the application. In the course of
their discussion, it was determined that the application was
generated by contact with both the State of Arkansas Social
Services agency and the City of Little Rock Zoning
Enforcement Office. A lengthy discussion of the proposal
followed. The principle points of discussion centered on
access and parking, the total numbers of children, the
potential for other caregivers on the site, and neighborhood
support for the application. At the end of this discussion,
it was determined that the land use issue was the primary
concern, and the discussion indicated that the Commission
felt the use appropriate to the site with certain
limitations. A motion was made to approve the conditional
use permit subject to several conditions. These conditions
being:
1. The operators of this day -care center must occupy this
residence as their principle residence.
2. The use will be limited to 14 children.
3. This conditional use permit is to run with the Taylor's
ownership and occupancy of the premises and will
terminate if the property is sold or they move from the
premises.
4. The hours of operation are to be 7:30 a.m. to
5:30 p.m., five days per week.
5. There are to be no other employees on the premises.
This motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 2 noes and
1 abstention (Dorothy Arnett).
oATE Ae12.1k 1, 19d7
ZONING
MEMBER
W.Riddick, III-.. --
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Sipes
J.Nicholson
w.Rector
W.Ketcher
D.Arnett
O. J. Jones
R.Collins
F.Perkins
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
SUBDIVISION , 2.3 4 5 " 7 8 , 10 \( l'L Ii 14
V V V � ,/ ✓ V ,.,V v V ✓ V •
V V I/ II' JI' ✓ ""' ,,,,,, � V ,,,. ✓ II"V
V y II' V ,/ IAe ,,,,,, ,r ,,,,,. ,/II' Aa JI" II'
V V y ,,,,,,, ,, y' ,, ✓ ,/ ,/'fl" V y f/,,,, V V y' y' ,,, ,/ ,,,,, y ,/ // ' ,,, ii'
y ,,,,,. V ,,,,,. II' ,,, V ,,,,,. V'y ,,,,, ,,. ,/ ,,,
y V "' � ,, I' y ,,,,,,, V" ,/-,,,,. I/ y ,/
v ,/ V ,,,, y � V ,,,,, V y ,,, y y A-e.
II' V ,,,,,, ,/ y',,, y � y y ,,,,, V'II' V
J,, ,,,,,, ,;, V II' ,, ,r V .,,,,, V ,,,, II' ,/ •
V V ,,,,, V J/ J/ y :v v v y J/ ,,,,, ,,,
✓AYE � NAYE A ADSENT �ABSTI\IN
\ I I I
r. '
�
"-�
r"\ I
\
��
\...
-
April 7, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Date Secretary
Chairman