pc_06 30 1987subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
June 30, 1987
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as
mailed.
III. Members Present: Bill Rector
Rose Collins
William Ketcher
Walt Riddick, III
Dorothy Arnett
Betty Sipes
Richard Massie
John Schlereth
Fred Perkins
David Jones
Members Absent: Jerilyn Nicholson
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
June 30, 1987
Deferred Items:
A.Shackleford Pl ace "Long-Form" PCD (Z-4824)
B.Charleston Heights Subdivision
c.Street Name Change
D.Busan Funeral Home "Short-Form" PCD (Z-4843-A)
Preliminary Plat/Replats:
1.Twin City Motors
2.Echo Valley, Lots 121A and 121B
3.Corenda Heights
4.Roller Addition
5.Ford Addition
6.Morehart Subdivision
7.Geyerwood Subdivision
Site Plan Review:
8.National Pizza Company
9.Christ Lutheran Church
Planned Unit Development:
10.Metrailer Medical Clinic "Short-Form" PCD (Z-4850)
11.Kaylin's Antiques "Short-Form" PCD (Z-4851),,
12.St. John's Place "Long-Form" PRO (Z-4852)
13.Meadowpark "Long-Form" PRD (Z-4853)
13A. Rezoning -Baseline Road (Z -4842)
14.Au stin Development "Long-Form"_PCD (Z-4856)
15.Pyramid Place PCD (Z-4857)
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES CONTINUED
June 30, 1987
16.West Markham Auto Mall "Short-Form" PCD (Z-2245-C)
Conditional Use Permit:
17.West Markham CUP (Z-2245-B)
18.First Church of God CUP (Z-4854)
Right-of-Way Abandonment:
19.Acorn, Cameron, Preston, and Adkins Streets
Various Requests:
2 0. The Pointe -Private Street Request
21.Edgerstoune -PRD Extension Request
22.Pleasant Heights -Sidewalk Waiver Request
23.Amendment to the Master Parks Plan
24.Ford Motor Credit Company -Driving Request
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME Charleston Heights subdivision
LOCATION: South end of Wesley Drive
(Deer Park Subdivision)
DEVELOPER:
Rector Phillips Morse, Inc.
P.O. Box 7300
Little Rock, AR 72217
Telephone: 664 -7807
ENGINEER:
White - Daters and Associates, Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 374 -1666
AREA: 43.04 acres NO. OF LOTS: 107 FT. NEW STREET: 6,100
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES.: Single Family
A. Existinq Conditions
This site is located in a fringe area that is rapidly
developing as single family. It is south of Deer Park
Addition and abuts land owned by Deltic Farm and Timber
on the west and south.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 43.04 acres
into 107 lots and 6,100 feet of new street. The land
will be used for single family. Several variances are
requested: (1) five percent grade at two
intersections; (2) fifteen foot setback as shown on
steep lots only; (3) optional street across major
drainage core and, (4) 480 -foot right -of -way dedication
with 24 -foot asphalt pavement and 6 -foot paved
shoulders in -lieu of 49 -foot arterial pavement.
C. Engineering Comments
1. Stormwater detention calculations and location.
2. Sketch plan for grading for roadway and utilities.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
3. Ninety degree intersections on Wood Dale, Wesley,
optional road at both intersections.
D. Analysis
Staff_ has no problems with the use, but has several
suggestions for plat revision. They are: (1)
delineation of drainage easements for Creek on the
plat; (2) 35 -foot building lines on Chenal Valley
Drive, since it is an arterial street; (3) joint drives
between Lots 97, 98, and 94, 95; (4) 10 -foot
prohibition zone on lots facing Chenal Valley Drive,
and the public alley at the rear of Lots 62 -65 and
57 -60.
David Hathcock has indicated that Savannah Lane and
Wood Dale Court are duplicate street names and the
street between Wesley Drive and Chenal Valley Drive
needs a name.
A variance is needed on the pipe -stem to Lots 66 and
67. Staff finds no problem with the requested variances
numbered 2 and 3; provided the drainage structure is
designed for 100 -year flow (3). Engineering has no
problem with the fourth request in areas of major
terrain difficulties. Staff was not certain at time of
this writing whether this would apply throughout.
Engineering needs to discuss the limits of beginnings
of areas of 24 -foot pavement. Lot 67 appears to have a
creek and slope across the front to Chenal valley.
Sidewalks are required per ordinance.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant discussed staff comments with the Committee.
He was asked to submit a preliminary sketch so that the
street pattern of the area could be determined and a grading
plan. Staff felt that a waiver should be requested on the
length of Mobile Court and that sidewalks should be provided
since Wesley Drive, which intersected with this street was
not a through street. The applicant felt that the
cul -de-sac should be measured from Wesley, instead of Forest
Dale, so a waiver and sidewalks were not needed. He agreed
with staff's request for sidewalks on the other streets as
required by Ordinance.
Another point of disagreement involved the joint drives and
rear public access recommended by the staff. Staff
explained that the ordinance discouraged lots fronting on
arterials. The developer agreed to work out an acceptable
means of limiting drive on to Chenal Valley.
The applicant explained that he desired approval of the
optional street in case Chenal Valley does not go through.
If it goes through in two years, then this street wouldn't
be needed.
Wastewater - Additional easements required for water main
extensions.
Water - Water extension plus on-site fire protection
required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. In its recommendation, staff
expressed reservations about supporting the development of
Chenal Valley as a 36' street due to the amount of
development taking place in the area. A revised plan was
submitted in response to staff's previous comments. Most of
the discussion was on the sidewalk issue and a previous
agreement with the Commission on the improvement of Chenal
Valley Road to a lesser standard that arterial. The
developer agreed to provide sidewalks on Wesley Drive, but
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
felt that there would not be a need for Chenal Valley to be
built to arterial standards which are 10 or 15 years in the
future. He also felt that it placed an undue burden on a
residential development, and that a 48' street wouldn't be
needed until property to the south is built.
The Commissioners were concerned that the City would be
responsible for the improvements at a later date, and that a
later widening could create problems with residents since
such actions are common reasons for complaints and
opposition.
Staff was asked to research the record and report back to
the Commission regarding the specifics of the actual
agreement made on the development of Chenal Valley Road. A
motion for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed by a vote
of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Applicant agreed to provide a 48-foot pavement on Chenal
Valley but provide sidewalks as shown on the plan. Staff
nor the Committee raised objections.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The applicant was present. The staff reported that there
were no remaining issues. The Planning Commission included
this item in the motion to approve the consent agenda. The
motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME: Shackleford Place "Long- Form"
PRD (Z -4824)
LOCATION: Southwest quadrant of
Shackleford and I -430
AGENT:
J.B. Vanhook Realty, Inc.
1100 North Hughes Street
Little Rock, AR 72207
Telephone: 664 -7554
DEVELOPER:
C. & A. Investors, Ltd.
1275 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30367
Telephone: (404) 888-3000
Contact: James W. Bealle
ENGINEER:
Charles Kober Associates
4514 Travis Street, Suite 350 LB7
Dallas, TX 75205 -4127
Telephone: (214) 520 -3500
AREA: 30 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "O-2"
PROPOSED USES: Mixed Use Shopping Center
A. Development Proposal
1. To construct 30 acres as a mixed use development
containing commercial, retail, office, and hotel
uses.
B. Quantitative Data
(1) Major A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,600 sq. ft.
(2) Major B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28,000 sq. ft.
(3) Retail C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67,695 sq. ft.
(4) Cinema (D) 1,900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,600 sq. ft.
(5) Office E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105,500 sq. ft.
(6) Hotel F (250 rooms) . . . . . . . . . . . . 108,000 sq. ft.
(7) Bank G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,000 sq. ft.
(8) Restaurant H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,000 sq. ft.
Total 432,390 sq. ft.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
(9) Parking . . . . . . . . . . 1,922 spaces
- handicapped parking will be provided per Code.
C. Developmental Time -Frame
Site work will commence in the spring of 1988 with
development of the entire project taking five years.
D. Engineering Comments
(1) Pay for signals at off ramp and the proposed one
into shopping center.
(2) Shackleford will be five -lane section, plus extra
decel lane at each of two intersections. Traffic
study did not indicate this.
(3) Dual lefts at intersection onto Shackleford.
100 -foot right -of -way on Shackleford required.
Additional right turn lane on I -430 on -ramp.
(4) Problem with interior lay -out. Traffic Engineer
needs to approve internal parking lay -out at
entrances.
(5) Show how interior collector ties into property to
the south.
(6) Provide public collector for frontage access road
instead of interior type collector.
(7) It appears that traffic study does not address
Master Street Plan requirements; however, its a
good starting point.
(8) Grading plan is deficient (contact Mike Batie at
Engineering). Deficiencies include:
(A) No provision for undisturbed buffer strip
adjacent to I -430 and Shackleford adjacent to
Aldersgate.
(B) Cut and fill shown will totally strip all
existing tree cover. Plan should provide for
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
terracing which retains existing tree cover
within.
(C) Not shown on plan - cut and fill by hatching,
stages of grading, top and toes of cut and
fill, erosion and sediment control, seal of
registered engineer. Please see Mike Batie.
E. Analysis
Staff has serious concerns about the proposed
development. Problems with traffic, site plan, and the
grading plan have been indicated. Of foremost concern
is the applications proposed use, which represents a
radical departure from the I -430 Land Use Plan, which
designates the area as a scenic office corridor. Staff
feels any change in this document as a major shift in
policy; and is very reluctant to support such a change
at this time.
There are several reasons for this position. As
designed, the site plan appears to encourage strip
commercial development along Shackleford with the food
establishments in their proposed locations. Staff is
very concerned about stripping out this area since it
could adversely affect Sandpiper Subdivision, create
traffic problems, and place pressure on the Aldersgate
property to the east. There are also other vacant
parcels available that are currently zoned for
commercial at Kanis and Shackleford, Markham and Kanis,
and the Colonel Glenn interchange. Furthermore, the
area has begun to develop as an office corridor as
recommended in the I -430 Land Use Plan. Examples
include the Farm Bureau and Koger Office Park, which
has bought additional land for an extension of their
current use.
Engineering has pointed out that the traffic study does
not address City requirements and was not very thorough
since it did not recognize Shackleford as a five lane
arterial and the future 36th Street interchange in the
traffic considerations.
It is felt that the site plan is overbuilt with parking
and buildings, which results in the proposed amount of
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
grading. If approved, staff suggests scaling down the
project, and leaving natural vegetation. A 50-foot
undisturbed buffer is recommended all around the site.
F. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff reported that a letter had been received requestinq
deferral until next month's meetinq.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff reported that the Applicant had submitted a request
for withdrawal.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The Planning Commission included this item in the consent
agenda for withdrawal. The motion on withdrawal was
approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Street Name Chanqe Request
NAME: North Parkway Place Drive
APPLICANT: Joseph W. Gelzine representing
property owners and the Bailey
Corporation, developer
LOCATION: The existing collector street
lying between the Rock Creek
Parkway on the south and
St. Charles Boulevard on the
north
REQUEST: To change the name to Royal
Way from the current Royal Way
segment to the Parkway so as to
eliminate the current three
name relationship on this
alignment and establish two
dissimilar names.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This request was filed at the urging of the Bailey
Corporation and several property owners. During 1986, a
phase of the Bailey Corporation's plat of St. Charles and
St. Thomas was recorded with an entry for a street name that
had not been approved by the Planning Commission. This
occurred through an oversight of Planning staff when
reviewing the subdivision final plat. No mention was made
of the street name change when submitting the plat for our
review. These actions created a second street name on a
pavement alignment that is continuous for over a mile. The
break in names occurs at St. Charles intersection in a curve
where confusion exists as to where one street name ends and
the other begins. This can and often does cause conflict
for emergency services when street names are improperly
applied. In this instance, there will be houses side by
side with consecutive numbers in the 800 block north but
with different street names. The several points of concern
which we feel should be discussed by the Planning Commission
are: (1) discontinuity of street name on an important
collector street serving several neighborhoods, (2) direct
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
conflict of street name with a street existing one mile more
or less east of the Parkway Place Drive area. If the
segment of Royal Way now in place had been requested for
name change in the usual fashion, the various departments
and agencies probably would have recommended against such a
change utilizing the points stated above as basis. Since
the 1960's, the various City departments and agencies have
made a coordinated effort to avoid name conflicts and
applying several names on a continuous street alignment. If
we are to maintain that effort, it appears that a new name
for all of the North Parkway Place Drive is in order and the
elimination of Royal Way altogether. This is the
appropriate time to accomplish such a task inasmuch as the
several owners have indicated their willingness to accept a
name change. At this time, there are approximately eight
houses occupied and no more than two under construction.
There are probably nine of these houses with working street
addresses at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff will not offer a specific recommendation except to
encourage the Planning Commission to maintain past policy
and procedure relative to assignment of street names.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-19-87)
The Planning staff offered its recommendation and history on
this proposal. The principal problem identified by the
staff was the potential for the creation of three street
names on a single street center line alignment. This would
be caused by the retention of one block of North Parkway
Place between West Markham and the Parkway. Mr. Joe White
was present representing St. Charles developers. He
offered comments in support of the request as well as
introducing a new street name which would eliminate the
conflict potential with an existing street. The street name
offered was Loyola Drive. The street name to be applied
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
from the Parkway north to the terminus of the current Royal
Way. Henk Koornstra of the Traffic Engineer's Office
offered comments on the proposed street name change to the
effect that the third name between Markham and the Parkway
has a separate street numbering system. He suggested time
to review this proposal in light of the new name and the
conflict with the current streets. The Commission accepted
this suggestion. A motion was made to defer the petition
until June 30, 1987, at which time staff would report on a
study on the street numbering system and resolution of the
problem.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The Planning staff reported that the issues developed at the
last meeting have been resolved. The resolution consists of
the name change being Loyola on all of that part of North
Parkway from the Rock Creek Parkway to its north terminus.
That portion of Parkway Place Drive lying south of the Rock
Creek Parkway was not previously titled North Parkway;
therefore, there is no street number conflict. The street
numbering system in this area starts at the Rock Creek
Parkway running south rather than the Markham Street
intersection. There have been no further contacts with
other interested parties or agencies such as the Post
Office. Our recommendation is that the matter be forwarded
to the City Board for resolution for name change. The
Planning Commission placed this matter on its consent
agenda, and there being no objectors present, a vote on the
matter to approve the application for name change to Loyola
Drive passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D
NAME: Husan Funeral Home
"Short- Form" PCD (Z- 4843 -A)
LOCATION: Mabelvale Pike North of
West 65th Street
APPLICANT /ENGINEER:
Joe D. White
Edw. G. Smith & Assoc.
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 374-1666
DEVELOPER:
Abe Rosen
AREA: 1.1155 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Funeral Home
A. Proposal
1. The applicant is proposing to build: (a) Phase I
- a 2400 square foot building with total parking
spaces for 53 cars, (b) Phase II - 4800 square
foot building and construction of a two-car
garage.
2. The chapel will seat approximately 120 to 130
people.
3. Stormwater detention will be provided on-site and
Mabelvale Pike will be improved to arterial street
standards for the one -half of Mabelvale Pike that
is adjacent to the site.
4. A sidewalk will be constructed along Mabelvale
Pike.
B. Engineering Comments:
1. Access point should be approved by the Traffic
Engineer.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D - Continued
2. Right -of -way dedication and street improvements
are reequired.
3. Stormwater detention required.
C. Staff Analysis
This item was deferred from the June 16 zoning hearing
where a request was made to rezone from "R -2" Single
Family to "0 -3" Office. Staff felt that a
nonresidential reclassification west of Mabelvale Pike
could adversely impact the neighborhood and initiate a
slow transformation of the area. Final recommendation
was denial. The Commission recommended that this be
filed as a PCD.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The applicant was pr�sent. The staff reported that there
were no issues. The site plan has been reviewed by the Fire
Department and interested parties. The west and north
boundaries will be provided with a 6 -foot opaque wood fence,
parking, landscaping, and street improvements will be per
ordinance. The Commission included this item in the motion
to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No 1-
NAME: Twin City Motors Preliminary
LOCATION: Between Mabelvale and the east
side of University Avenue
APPLICANT /ENGINEER: Mehlburger, Tanner, Associates
201 South Izard
P.O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72203-3837
Telephone No. 375-5331
A. Existing Conditions
Existing auto dealership on the northeast and three
single structures on the northwest portion of the site.
Existing zoning includes "C-4," "R-2," and "MF-12."
Most of the adjacent zoning is "C-4."
B. Proposal
(1) To consolidate separate properties into large
tracts in conformance with the zoning district
lines and to clean up an existing illegal
subdivision of land.
(2) The application was filed to incorporate Lot 1
into the car dealership and to provide separate
lots for houses on Lots 3 and 4.
(3) Variances
(A) Defer improvements on Mabelvale Pike until
Lots 2-4 are final platted. This includes
sidewalks.
(B) Permit building lines on Lots 3 and 4 to
conform to the existing buildings where they
encroach on the ordinance requirements, since
the existing single family structure on Lot 4
will encroach into the 25-foot front yard
setback when the required right-of-way for
Mabelvale Pike is dedicated.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
C. Engineering Comments
None.
D. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Variances noted above under B-2.
(2) Provide 40 -foot buffer and 6-foot fence.
(3) See staff regarding minor technical deficiencies
on plat and completion of application
requirements.
(4) Indicate right-of-way on Mabelvale Pike to
illustrate variance request.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made. Staff finds no
problem with the request for deferral of improvements
until the stated lots are platted, and the request for
encroachment into the building setback for Lot 4. This
will result in the plattinq of a 20 -foot building line.
Since the reason for the similar request on Lot 4 is
not readily apparent, staff does not support this
request.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The Applicant did not object to staff's
recommendations. He explained that Lot 1 would be the
first phase and consist of a mixed use office
development. A waiver of the ordinance requirement for
the completion of all boundary street improvements in
the initial phase in subdivisions of less than 20 acres
was requested. The applicant was asked to get with
Fire and Water Works and work out the fire service
lines.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The applicant was present. The staff reported that approval
was in order including the setback waiver on Lot 4 as 20
feet and the phasing of street improvements on Mabelvale
Pike in conjunction with Phase II. Phase II consists of
Lots 2, 3, and 4. The Planning Commission then included
this item in the consent agenda for approval subject to the
staff comment above. The agenda passed by a vote of 10
ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
.June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Ltem No. 2
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. Existinq 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.
D. Engineering Comments
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Reserved until further information is available.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
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 thatAsome the could not answer on 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.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No 3
NAME: Coronda Heights
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to
St. Charles
DEVELOPER:
Paul Mooser
14900 High Point Dr.
Little Rock, AR
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates, Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone No. 374-1666
AREA: 37.7360 acres NO. OF LOTS: 112 FT. NEW STREET: 5700
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: "R-2"
A. Existinq Conditions
A residential area that is developing as single
family. The Parkway Village Retirement Center is
located to the south of the site and St. Charles
Subdivision to the east and northeast.
B. Proposal
(1) To plat 37.7360 areas into 112 lots and 5700 feet
new street for single family use.
C. Issues
(1) Thirty (30) foot building line needed on
Corondolet.
(2) Source of right -of -way on perimeter of ownership.
(3) Give more information regarding the relationship
between this Parkway Village and the extension of
Shelton Drive to the south. May be collector. If
so, 30 -foot building line is needed.
(4) Indicate access to Lot 1.
(5) Thirty (30) foot building line on Corondolet.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
(6) Justify design on Lots 341 and Lot 1.
(7) Indicate sidewalks on Shelton.
(8) Relationship of this site to Chenal Valley Plan.
(9) See staff for technical deficiencies on plat.
(10) Notices required for abutting acreage 2.5 acres or
greater.
D. Engineering Comments
(1) Street name changes - Stratford Lane to Stratford
Circle and it should lie north of Corondolet Drive
only; and Winsted Drive to Winsted Court and runs
south off Corondolet Drive to end of cul-de-sac.
(2) Show major and minor drainage ways.
(3) Excavation ordinance requirements - stormwater,
volume calculations, and grading plan.
(4) Eliminate numerous four-way stops.
(5) Eliminate buttons, staff prefers hammerheads.
(6) Redesign intersection of Winsted and Shelton
(90°).
(7) Redesign northwest portion of plat to provide a
cul -de -sac on Stratford Lane and no intersection
at Stratford Lane and Corondolet.
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved, until additional information is submitted.
Staff does not oppose proposed development, but is
concerned about the relationship of this project's
future and existing development in the area, as it
relates to the traffic flow and design. The
relationship of this submission to the recently
approved Chenal Valley plan may be crucial.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Applicant responded to the issues stated by staff as
follows:
1. Agreed to provide 30-foot building line.
2. Explain that rights-of-way will be closed.
3. Explain that Shelton has been extended to provide
access to a small paper plat. The Owner did not
want it to tie into Parkway Place because of the
two different types of residential uses.
4 -6. Explain that there would be a land swap to square
up Lots 341 and 1. Agreed to note this on the
plat.
7. Stated that Shelton would be a cul-de-sac.
8. Explain that the Chenal Valley Plan provides a
north /south arterial to the west.
9 -10. Agreed to comply as asked. He also agreed to
comply with Engineering Comments and to get with
Traffic concerning the provision of buttons or
hammerheads and to file a closed petition for the
perimeter rights -of -way.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The applicant was present. The staff reported that it has
determined the plat to be in conformance with the Committee
Review comments. After a brief discussion, a motion was
made to approve the plat. The motion passed by a vote of 10
ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME: Roller Addition, Lots 1 and 2
LOCATION: Approximately 1500 feet west of
Highway 5, northside of David
O'Dodd
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Harley Roller Marlar Engineering Company
5907 Stagecoach 5318 J.F.K. Blvd.
Little Rock, AR 72204 North Little Rock, AR 72116
Phone: 753 -1987
AREA: 12.4 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: Residential
A. Existinq Conditions
A rural, single family area. Site consists of illegal
mobile home park, Mid -State Ice Company in metal
building on the north, and a mobile home that fronts on
David O'Dodd. An 11 -foot paved drive provides access
from David O'Dodd to the site. No curb /gutters and
sidewalks on David O'Dodd.
B. Proposal
(1) To divide 12.4 acres into two lots, so that a
building permit can be obtained for a single
residence on Lot 1. The mobile home will be
removed.
(2) Waiver of any requirements for street, drainage,
or sidewalk requirements.
C. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Variances requested.
(2) Forty (40) foot dedication for David O'Dodd Master
Street Plan alignment on north property line.
(3) See staff for technical deficiencies on plat.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
Ten (10) foot right -of -way dedication on David O'Dodd.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
In light of existing circumstances, staff supports
consideration of the request for the division of the
parcel into two lots only. If the other uses are not
to be considered, then requiring street improvements
for one house only would not be practical.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Master Street Plan alignment running across the northern
portion of the site was discussed. The City Engineer, Don
McChesney, explained that they had decided that the
alignment was not feasible at this location so no dedication
would be required. The Fire Department representatives
retracted their comments regarding the inadequate width of
the drive since the mobile home park was an existing
nonconforming use.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The applicant was present. The staff reported that the
applicant was willing to accept the dedication on David
O'Dodd Road; the waiver of improvements and the Master
Street Plan dedication on alternate David O'Dodd alignment.
The Committee placed this item on the consent agenda for
approval. The motion on the consent agenda passed by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 -�,
NAME: Ford Addition
LOCATION: NW Corner of Highway 10 and
Patrick County Road
DEVELOPER:
C.V. Ford
Highway 10
Little Rock, AR
ENGINEER:
Manes, Castin, Massie &
McGetrick
2501 North Willow
North Little Rock, AR 72115
Phone: 758 -1360
AREA: 8 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: None
PROPOSED USES:
Single Family
A. Existing Conditions
Generally, rural single family area. Property to east
of site is part of approved rezoning for the Glen
Johnson commercial development. Existinq brick single
family, two -story structure on Lot 1. No curb and
gutter, sidewalks on Highway 10.
B. Proposal
(1) To divide eight acres into two lots of four acres
each for single family development.
(2) Variances for improvements to Highway 10 and
Patrick County Road.
C. Issues /Technical /Design
(1) Variances requested.
(2) Provide sidewalks on Highway 10 and Patrick County
Road.
(3) See staff for technical deficiencies.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
D. Enqineerinq Comments
Same as No. 2 above.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed by the Committee. The issue was
identified as a provision of improvements on both streets.
The applicant asked for a waiver of improvements on both
streets. Staff thought that some improvements were needed
due to the proximity of this property to the Glen Johnson
Ranch Site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The applicant was not in attendance. The staff reported
that a properly submitted withdrawal request had been
received. The Commission placed this item on the consent
agenda for withdrawal. The motion on the consent agenda
passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME: Morehart Subdivision
LOCATION: East Side of Sardis Road,
approximately 1 mile south of
developer
DEVELOPER:
Morehart Family
c/o Mr. Donald Boarman
7818 Evening Shade
Mabelvale, AR 72103
ENGINEER:
AMI Engineering, Inc.
615 Louisiana
P.O. Box 1539
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 376-6838
AREA: 63.9 acres - 51.5 without right-of-way
NO. OF LOTS: 65
FT. NEW STREET: 6,094 LF dedicated - 1,245 LF private
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Proposal
(1) Plat filed to dedicate right-of-way and show the
agreement between the City and owner on the intent
for future development when the right-of-way for
the south loop was purchased. No immediate plans
for development.
B. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) David Hathcock has requested street names be
determined and cleared with his office.
(2) Cul-de-sac waiver.
C. Engineering Comments
None.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval, subject to comments made.
E. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW
Don McChesney, City Engineer, represented the
applicant. He explained that this plat was filed to
indicate right-of-way for the south loop and to assure
property owners affected by the alignment that their
property would not rendered useless.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The applicant was not in attendance. The staff reported
that there were no issues. The Commission placed this item
on the consent agenda for approval. The motion on the
consent agenda passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1
absent.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7__.__.____
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.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - 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.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME: Pizza Hut Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Broadmoor Shoppinq Center
DEVELOPER:
Marty Cook, National Pizza
Company
North Little Rock, AR
AGENT:
John Standley
Summerlin Associates
1609 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 376-1323
AREA: 5000 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: Commercial
PROPOSED USE: Expansion of Shopping Center
A. Proposal
(1) To construct an additional commercial structure to
a shopping center on 10.0 acres.
(2) Development Data
- Existing parking spaces 367
- Removed under this proposal 64
- Total remaining 313
B. Buildings
- Existing building square footage 76,374
- Proposed square footage 3,316
- Total square footage 79.690
C. Engineering Comments
(1) Street improvements on University required; remove
triangle on University.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
(2) Right -of -way dedication of ten feet required and
sidewalks.
(3) Provide six -foot wide landscaped strip along
concrete back of proposed building because it
represents a lease line between separate
relationships.
D. Issues
(1) Clarify site plan data - indicate what is included
in total square footage.
(2) Parking appears deficient.
(3) Identify whether the property is one tract or
divided into lots.
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until comments addressed. Staff noticed that
there are at least three restaurants in this shopping
center. This may affect parking. Applicant should
explain whether the TCBY is part of this site or a
separate ownership. Parking must be figured for each
of the separate existing uses.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The comments were discussed with the applicant. He
agreed to provide more information regarding ownerships
of free - standing buildings, size of buildings, the
amount of retail versus restaurant use for existing and
proposed structures, and the relationship of existing
versus proposed parking. Other issues to be resolved
included a potential problem with the parking layout
since some 90° parking spaces appeared to be backing
into 60° parking, the placement of signs and
landscaping not covered in this approval and the
location of the facility for garbage collection on the
plan. The applicant agreed to meet with Engineering
regarding his request to waive the right-of-way
requirement along University because of physical
limitations, and on other improvements needed.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The applicant was present. The staff reported that there
were no issues. There were no objectors in attendance. The
Commission placed this matter on the consent agenda for
approval subject to the Traffic Engineer's approval. The
motion on the consent agenda passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0
noes, and 1 absent.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME: Christ Lutheran Church
Site Plan Review
LOCATION: 315 South Highes
AGENT: Gene Schild
12 Lantern Hill Road
Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone: 373-3889 or 225-0168
AREA: 8 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "O -1"
PROPOSED USE: Church and School
A. Existing. Conditions
Establish single family with several churches in the
area. A multifamily use is to the east of the site.
B. Proposal
(1) To erect two temporary structures totaling 3,920
square feet for use as classrooms in Phase I. One
structure will be built in July 1987, and a
similar one in July 1988.
(2) To erect a permanent structure totaling 16,000
square feet in Phase II which will include nine
classrooms for three and four-year-olds through
sixth grade and for storage area.
C. Engineering Comments
Redesign centerline of northernmost entry to 24' to
facilitate proper traffic movement.
D. Issues
(1) Update drawings.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
(2) Show sidewalks on plans.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made. Staff has no
problems with the proposed request. The church is
currently operating a school with ages ranging from
nursery school through the eighth grade. The plan,
however, was a little difficult to read because it had
not been updated.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed with staff's request for an updated
site plan and the showing of sidewalks on the plan, and
Engineering Comments. He agreed to work out fire service
protection requirements with Fire and Water also.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 30 -87)
The applicant was present. The staff reported that there
were only two items of condition to attach to the approval.
These were: (1) widening of the northernmost drive at
Hughes Street in conjunction with Phase II, permanent
buildings, (2) Provision of a gravel drive open or sod
covered but marked as a fire lane. There were no objectors
in attendance. The Commission placed this item on the
consent agenda for approval. The motion on the consent
agenda passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item Noy 10
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
Hertage 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. Existinq 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.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - 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.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME: Kaylin's Antiques
LOCATION: NW Corner of Palm and
West Markham
DEVELOPER: Dr. & Mrs. L.R. Pyles/
Kaylin Antique
Galleries, Inc.
ARCHITECT:
c/o Architect Daniel D. Chapel
8121 Chatham Drive
Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone: 224-6595
AREA: .32 acre NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "O-3" to PCD
PROPOSED USE: Antique Shop /Residential
A. Development Concept
To develop a "truly first class, mixed used project, a
venture that will put new life in a fine Little Rock
area - life both by day commercially, and by night
residentially."
B. Existing Conditions
General area consists of office and residential uses.
Site is currently zoned "O-3" for office.
C. Proposal
(1) To construct a two -story early Georgian, federal
style building with 4,000 square feet on .32 acre
to house an antique gallery for the display and
sale of fine antique furniture, silver, glassware,
etc., on the lower floor and to provide a
residence for the owners on the upper floor. The
4,000 square feet will be divided equally between
the commercial and residential developments.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
(2) Parking will consist of 13 commercial spaces and
two residential spaces.
(3) Six -foot wooden fence on northern boundary.
C. Engineering Comments
(1) Concerned about lack of internal circulation with
no way to go from one parking lot to another.
Suggest that double - loaded parking lot be provided
on the east side against parking lot on the west.
(2) Indicate square footage of landscaping to be
provided.
(3) Remove improvements from the alley.
D. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Plan indicates office use on this site.
(2) Support is not given for any stripping,
refinishing, or upholstery work in the cleaning
room.
(3) Restrict use of second floor to owner-occupancy
only. Specify in Bill of Assurance.
(4) No support of expanded business. Place provision
and Rill of Assurance for this structure and only
one accessory building.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made. Ordinarily staff
would not recommend approval of commercial on this
site. It is felt that the distinction factor in this
case is the type of commercial use proposed and its
mixture with the residential use. Staff does not see
an antique store as creating a very heavy flow of
traffic like many other businesses. Support of this
proposal does not indicate future support for general
commercial in the area. This proposal is viewed as low
intensity, mixed use.
June 13, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The issues were discussed with the applicant. He agreed to
address Engineering and Traffic comments, indicate the alley
on the plan, identify specific uses versus potential uses,
and to discuss number D -14 with the owners. He was asked to
place a notation in the Bill of Assurance that restrictions
placed on this use cannot be changed without Commission
approval (see D -3). The applicant explained that the
cleaning room was for polishing silverware and similar
activities and was not to be used for any stripping,
refinishing, or upholstery work.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The applicant was not in attendance. The staff reported
that a letter requesting withdrawal had been properly
filed. The Commission placed this item on the consent
agenda for withdrawal. The motion on the consent agenda was
passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME: St. John's Place
Long -Form PRD (Z-4852)
LOCATION: East of Taylor, north of
Hawthorne at Polk (property
on west side of St. John's
Seminary site)
DEVELOPER:
Catholic Diocese of LR White - Daters and Associates
c/o Dickson Flake
Barnes, Quinn, Flake, & ARCHITECT:
Anderson
2100 First Commercial Bldg.
P.O. Box 3546
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 372-6161
ENGINEER:
Brooks - Jackson
2228 Cottondale Lane
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664-8700
AREA: 8.5736 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Attached Single Family
A. Existing Conditions
The site is located in an established single family
area. It is the western portion of the St. John's
Catholic Center site.
B. Pr02Osal
(1) To construct a 26 lot single family residential
development with a private street system and an
average of 14,364 square feet per residence, which
is less density than surrounding neighborhoods
to the west and south of the subject property.
(2) Residence size will be 2,700' heated and cooled
and 3,400 square feet growth, which is larger than
the residences to the west and south of the
proposed development.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
(3) Residences will be of compatible architecture with
the neighborhood. Design will be traditional
one -story with high - pitched roofs and dormers,
allowing individuals to finish attic space for
additional living space. The exterior will be
brick with minimum wood trim.
(4) Site coverage is 2.05 acres on an 8.57 acre tract.
B. Engineering Comments
(1) Submit sketch grading plan, stormwater detention
calculations, and square footage of landscape
areas.
(2) North Taylor is a boundary street - dedicate
right -of -way and provide street improvements.
(3) Entry can't be developed as design in a public
right-of-way.
C. Issues /Technical /Legal /Design
(1) Dedicate access easement.
(2) Preliminary plat required if houses are to be on
separate lots. If not, agreement relative to
maintenance of common areas and drives should be
submitted.
(3) Redesign to break up building masses, eliminate
amount of concrete on northern portion of site.
Some units are double- served by streets.
(4) Site plan poorly dimensioned. Revised to show
building dimensions, floor plans, on-site fire
protection.
(5) Section through the site is backward.
(5) Submit more data required by PUD Ordinance on open
space, construction timetable.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
(7) Specify on plat and Bill of Assurance that all
public services and utilities have rights of
public access.
(8) Parking plan.
D. Staff Recommendation
Deferral, until comments addressed. Approval of a
private street system does not include limiting access
by public agencies and utilities, including building
inspectors, Firefighters, and Water Works personnel,
etc.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. A revised plan was submitted,
which clarified some aspects of the plan relative to
walkways and dimensions. He responded to staff's comments:
1, 2, 5, and 7 - Agreed to do as requested.
C-3 - Explained that he had broken building masses in
response to earlier staff concerns and that the lots
weren't double - served because the rear drives were only
alleys and the houses would be front on the drives to
the west.
4 - Submitted revised plans.
6 - Explained that most open space was privately owned.
In response to Engineering's concerns, the applicant said
that number D 3 was a mute point since the developer and
four property owners would close the street. He agreed to
do numbers B-1 and B-2. Approval, subject to Staff's
Recommendation:
(1) No gate at entrance on Polk Street, with entrance to be
developed as a driveway with no curb return (see
Engineerinq for details).
(2) Move two dwelling units at southwest corner forward
about 10 feet while retaining 15-foot setback from
street.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
(3) File petition to close Polk Street.
(4) Make contract with Water Works for maintenance of fire
hydrant.
(5) Close construction access at the end of the third
phase; no permanent vehicular access to Taylor Street
should be permitted.
(6) Amend the Parks plan.
(7) Complete fence and landscaping along Taylor Street in
the first year. Staff finds that the overall density
of development is consistent with single family
density. The proposed development is attractive and
well - designed with numerous breaks in the massing of
buildings. Except for some disturbance during
construction, the development should not adversely
affect the neighborhood. Waiver of sidewalks is
acceptable due to the private street system and short
loop street, which relate to the overall development
concept as defined in the PUD submission.
(8) Submit a phasing plan and schedule of development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 30 -87)
The applicant, Mr. Dickson Flake, was present. There were
50 or 60 persons present objecting to the application. The
Commission Chairman, Mr. Rector, addressed the application,
what was presented to the Commission for its review, and
asked that the opposition group members try to avoid
repetition in order to expedite the hearing of the matter.
Richard Wood, of the Planning staff, responded to the
Commission's request for history of the Parks Plan and its
relationship to this site. Gary Greeson, the Planning
Director, explained two parts of the staff recommendation,
elaborated on the Parks Plan history, and outlined the
advantages and disadvantages of cluster development.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
Mr. Dickson Flake, the applicant, was asked to present his
application. He offered a slide presentation depicting the
neighborhood and graphics of the project. He offered
commentary on the reasons for choosing this type of single
family housing over conventional platting of 34 lots. He
identified the average floor areas in surrounding residences
and compared them to the unit sizes proposed in his plan.
Commissioner Jones asked for clarification as to why this
type was chosen. Mr. Flake responded by saying that the
approach permitted flexibility of design, marketing to
smaller families with older or no children, and shared
maintenance provisions. He further responded to a question
as to whether the church intended further such developments
to the east of the former seminary. He responded that they
proposed no additional developments, but that he could not
commit to what the church might decide in the future.
A question was posed by the Planning Director as to what
happens if the project fails after the first phase is
completed. Mr. Flake responded by saying that it would be
the same as any other type of development. He followed that
comment by stating that all of the infrastructure would be
installed at the beginning, including utilities, streets,
the Taylor Street wall and such.
Commissioner Jones offered comments on the City's
encouragement of infill development and the effect of
construction activity on established neighborhoods. A
question followed these comments as to the need for access
on Taylor Street during the entire development period.
Mr. Flake stated that access must be to Taylor Street which
is the street that serves best as a collector and access.
He noted that possibly more impact would be experienced on
Polk Street. When asked about the setback from Taylor
Street of his buildings, Mr. Flake offered some dimensions
and followed by a comment that the houses on Taylor will be
about ten feet below the street elevation.
The following persons then offered comments in support of
the petition: Mr. Mays, Mr. Hinkle or his mother,
Mr. W.L. Grace, a prospective purchaser of a unit,
Ms. Carroll Griffee, Norman Holcolm, a builder and resident
of the area.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
The Chairman then asked for opposing views to be presented.
He stated that 43 plus cards of speakers had been presented
(actual final count 55). The first spokesperson was
Mr. Mike Huckaby. He requested deferral and said they
wanted the site to be a park. He addressed a broad spectrum
of mattters, including effects that the neighborhood would
experience if these homes were constructed. His points
included: (1) the use is not conventional single family of
the type in this area, but practically speaking is a
condominimum which would change the flavor of the area; (2)
this area is not all Country Club members, but contains a
mix of housing and income levels; (3) the site would lose
big trees when creating all the roof tops and drives, (4) no
assurance that the church will not sell or develop more of
its land to the east; (5) a 1990 plan showed the site for
public, quasi - public land; (6) existing traffic may be
undercounted and there is more in the fall; (7) the land
could be given to the City by the church or purchased
through private sector contributions or the City bond money;
(8) bicyclists, mothers, and babies would be affected by the
additional traffic; (9) the market for the project is
unpredictable; (10) the units will be difficult to sell;
(11) construction traffic on neighborhood streets would be a
problem; and (12) the church should use its own entrance for
construction traffic. He closed his comments by stating
that he as well as the neighborhood felt like the park issue
should be settled first. During the course of Mr. Huckaby's
presentation, he offered a petition of some 500 signatures.
Mr. Rector, the Chairman, then offered for the benefit of
all involved, that the issue of the park has been acted upon
by the Planning Commission in the past. What is being
considered here is the Planned Unit Development application.
The next speaker, Pat Miller, a North Taylor resident,
offered comments on speculation, the need for a wall during
construction, construction access through Polk Street or the
church property, and loss of green space. The next speaker,
Mr. Bob Lowery, offered his objections and those of his
parents and his wife. He suggested that the diocese offer
the land and others offer money. He discussed the
appropriateness of the plan (traffic and density), the
neighborhood loss of green space, and the need to deal with
the park issue. The next speaker, Mr. Richard Groh, a
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
resident of Hawthorne Street, offered a broad range of
objection but primarily to the use of the land for any
development other than single family lots or a park.
At this point Commissioner Jones offered a statement to the
effect that it was inappropriate for the Commission to
proceed and that the Board of Directors should dispose of
the park site questions first. Commissioner Jones then made
a motion to defer the application until the Board of
Directors decided the park issue. The motion was seconded
by William Ketcher.
A general discussion followed wherein the appropriateness of
the separation of the two issues was dominant. Several
Commissioners felt that the politics of acquisition would
have to be dealt with first. Commission members briefly
discussed their responsibility for acting on the matter as
opposed to deferring the subject. The subject of the 60 day
notice relative to the Master Park Plan arose. The primary
question being when the 60 day period began during which the
City must give notice to purchase the site or lose the
opportunity. The City Attorney's representative,
Mr. Stephen Giles, instructed the Commission that the time
began when the development request was presented at the
Commission meeting. It begins with the presentation in the
form of a plan or a plat to the Commission, which triggers
the ordinance requirement. The Board of Directors will have
to act within the 60 days if purchase is intended. One year
is provided for actual payment for the land.
The opposition was asked whether it opposed a deferral, and
several persons stated they were not. However, Mr. Flake
stated the Board of Directors had previously refused to act
on the park acquisition separately and had deferred action
pending receipt of the PUD application.
The City Attorney, Mr. Giles, stated that there was no
reason the Commission could not or should not vote on the
matter. The motion as offered was restated. The vote on
the motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 6 noes, and 1 absent.
(Being a procedural vote, the matter remained active on the
agenda.)
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
At this point, the Chair offered to hear additional
opposition comment. Mr. Bill Woodard, a resident, requested
additional time to address the park issue. Thelma Hobby
added to that comment expressing the desire that it be a
park. Lindsey Huckaby made comments to the effect that she
was responsible for the opposition turnout but wants more
time to deal with the park issue. Therisa Brown added
comments from the perspective of catholic church members and
lay persons and suggested that the church reconsider its
action due to the neighborhood opposition.
The Commission then entered again into general discussion of
deferral of the proposal. The Chairman and others entered
into a discussion with Mr. Huckaby on procedural matters.
Commissioner Massie then offered that perhaps a two week
deferral could allow time for the opposition to organize,
obtain professional expertise, get direction from the Board
of Directors, and ask the church to take a harder look at
the park issue. Mr. Massie then offered a motion in these
terms and indicated the July 14 Planning meeting as being
appropriate meetinq date to take up the matter again.
Attorney David Meens, a representative of the Catholic
Church, added to the record that the church was thoroughly
involved with the views of the lay membership. He noted
that lay boards within the church organization had held many
meetings on this proposal and were committed to the project.
A vote on the deferral motion passed by 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1
absent, and 2 abstentions (Jones, Ketcher).
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME: Meadow Park Addition
LOCATION: North side of Baseline Road,
3,000' west of Highway 5
DEVELOPER:
Butler -Avery Homes
West Memphis, AR
ENGINEER:
Manes, Castin, Massie, &
McGetrick
2501 North Willow
North Little Rock, AR
Phone: 758 -1360
AREA: 55 acres NO. OF LOTS: 263 FT. NEW STREET: 7,200
ZONING: Outside City
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Development Concept
(1) To develop a zero lot line subdivision with 41.40
acres of a larger 55.1 acre tract.
(2) Basic design rationale followed was the City's
land use plan - Southwest District Plan. The plan
calls for a mixture of single family, multifamily,
and park and recreational uses in this area.
B. Proposal
(1) The construction of a small lot, single family
detached, residential subdivision for zero lot
line homes ranging in size from 800 to 1,200
square feet. Typical (2) The property will be
7,200' of new street.
lot size is 40' x 110' .
3ivided into 264 lots and
(3) The density of the total plan including the
"MF -18" parcels adjacent to Baseline is 6.37 units
per acre. The single family portion as a density
of one to five units.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
(4) Average lot coverage is 15 to 27 percent.
(5) Sidewalks - developer requests that sidewalks be
constructed at the time each unit is built, and
tied to building permit /certificate of occupancy,
since for most lots, almost half of the sidewalk
would be incorporated into a double-wide driveway.
Developer guarantees construction of all walks
within 18 months of final plat approval.
(6) Development Schedule
Project will be phased. The first phase includes
81 lots. The remainder of development will be
in two or possible three successive phases that
would contain 60 and 90 lots. One phase per year
will be developed with first phase scheduled for
construction during latter portion of 1987.
C. Engineering Comments
(1) Multifamily parcels should be indicated as
Tracts A and B and improvement should be done on
Baseline Road. The ordinance mandates that the
entire ownership of the applicants should be
shown. If under separate title, include on plat.
(2) Ninety degree right -of -way on Baseline, provide
five -lane section.
(3) Show abutting ownerships, and floodplains/floodway
dedication.
(4) Indicate intersection of Baseline with Wimbledon
Loop.
(5) Stormwater detention required.
(6) Excavation site plan required and square footage
of landscaped area.
(7) Redesign typicals to reflect 10' drive entrys to
accommodate on- street parking.
(8) Redesign Daphne and Winterbury intersection (see
Henk).
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
D. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Redesign plan to provide for more variety and to
break up linear design.
(2) Provide common open areas.
(3) Graphically show sidewalks on typicals to
illustrate requests made.
(4) Specify other phases.
(5) Typical are deficient - shows three different size
configurations, but no dimensions or whether
structures are one or two stories.
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved, until comments addressed.
Staff is favorable to addressing the need for
affordable, small lot housing in the City; however, it
is felt that the plan could be improved. Livability
could be greatly enhanced by cul-de-sacs and loop
streets, and open areas. Due to the small lot size and
tying in of the site to multifamily tracts, internal
park -like areas could greatly enhance the proposal.
Staff is not favorable to phasing sidewalk construction
since it is difficult to keep track of.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
Staff and Engineering comments were discussed. The
Applicant, took exception with number C-1, D-1, and
D-2. He stated a preference for doing street
improvements on Baseline at the time the multifamily
was done. No agreement was reached, so he decided to
meet with Engineering and discuss phasing of
improvements and a timetable for development of
multifamily tracts. The Applicant felt that
redesigning the plan for more variety wasn't necessary.
Henk Koornstra, Traffic Engineer, felt that "No Parking
Anytime" signs should be placed on the streets or a
restriction in the Bill of Assurance against on-street
parking. The Applicant did not feel that this was
necessary due to the pad for four parking spaces on
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
the site. Traffic explained that their experience was
that this was not a deterrent to on- street parking and
to place a restriction on the on- street parking would
help circumvent future problems and complaints from
citizens. The Applicant also felt that internal open
spaces were not necessary due to the property's
location to the "Future City Park."
He did agree to specify phases and provide more
information on typicals and to certify that all
sidewalks would be built within 18 months of the
beginning development date if phasing was allowed.
Staff recommends approval, subject to previous
comments, plus: (1) dedication of park and floodway
land north of the site, (2) redesign of driveways to
"bulb form ", and (3) provision of secondary access to
the park area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The planning staff presented the application and an update
on the efforts to solve the various issues developed at the
last hearing. Mr. Greeson stated that the concerns that
were previously addressed have been resolved to the
satisfaction of City staff. Mr. Castin and the owners have
presented a letter and other materials for documentation of
the files. Additionally, the parkinq design on the front
yard parking pads has been modified to eliminate the wider
driveways as requested by the Traffic Engineer. The
floodway lying along the north boundary of this plat will be
dedicated, and the balance of the floodplain between the
floodway and this plat will be offered to the City for
purchase at an agreed upon price. The Planning staff
recommends approval of the plan and plat and other Planned
Unit Development items. Mr. Jack Castin was present
representing the developer. A brief discussion was held
followed by a motion to approve the PRD as recommended by
the staff and recommend the approval to the City Board of
Directors. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes,
2 absent, 1 abstention (Richard Massie).
June 30, 1987
Item No. 13A
Owner: Cabalette Properties
Applicant: John A. Castin
Location: West Baseline Road west of
Stagecoach Road
Request: Rezone from Unclassified to "MF-18"
Purpose: Multifamily
Size: 14.0 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Unclassified
South - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" and "MF-12"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
West - Vacant, Unclassified
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. This request, Unclassified to "MF-18," involves 14
acres on West Baseline Road approximately one mile west
of Stagecoach Road. (An annexation petition has been
filed and the rezoning will not be forwarded to the
Board of Directors until the petition is on the Board's
agenda). The surrounding land is undeveloped and on
the south side of Baseline Road there are several
single family uses. Also, the site is in close
proximity to a later phase of the Otter Creek
Subdivision. Zoning in the area includes "R-2,"
"MF-6," "MF-12," "MF-24," and "O-S" with all the
multifamily locations still vacant.
2. The site is vacant and relatively flat.
3. West Baseline Road is classified as a minor arterial on
the Master Street Plan and the recommended right-of-way
for a minor arterial is 80 feet. It appears that the
existing right -of -way is deficient so dedication of
additional right-of-way will be required with this
rezoning.
4. Engineering reports that:
Right-of-way dedication and street improvements are
required.
June 30, 1987
Item No. 13A - Continued
. Show the access points.
. Drainage permit is required.
. Stormwater detention facilities are required.
5. There are no legal issues associated with this
request.
6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position
on the site.
7. This location is part of the new Extraterritorial Land
Use Plan and more specifically the Southwest District.
For the site in question, the Plan recommends a
multifamily use with a density between 12 and 18 units
per acre. After reviewing the existing zoning and the
plan, staff's position is that the requested density of
"MF-18" is too high for the area and recommends "MF-12"
as being more appropriate. This is consistent with the
most recent multifamily rezonings directly to the south
which have been to "MF-6" or "MF-12." It should be
noted that this area is also part of the Otter Creek
District Plan which recommends multifamily uses for the
south side of Baseline Road only.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "MF-12" and not "MF-18" as
requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 16, 1987)
The applicant, Jack Castin, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Castin discussed the request and said that
the owners needed the "MF -18" zoning to better market the
property. He then pointed out that the adopted plan shows a
larger area for multifamily use and described other
multifamily zonings in the area. Mr. Castin told the
Commission that the property under consideration is part of
a larger tract, 55 acres, with the balance of the land to be
reviewed as a PRD fora single family development. He went
on to say that a proposed collector will divide the site and
that a possible compromise could be five acres of "MF-12"
and nine acres of "MF-18" with the "MF-12" area to the east
of the proposed collector. Mr. Castin discussed the PRD in
some detail and made additional comments. There was
discussion about deferring the rezoning request to the PRD
June 30, 1987
Item No. 13A - Continued
hearing and Mr. Castin agreed to a deferral. A motion was
made to defer the item to the June 30, 1987, meeting. The
motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent,
and 1 abstention (Richard Massie).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 30, 1987)
The applicant, Jack Castin, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Castin spoke and discussed the proposed
compromise of "MF-12" for five acres and "MF-18" for nine
acres with a street bisecting the two tracts. After some
additional comments Mr. Castin amended the application to
reflect the "MF-12" and "MF-18" configuration. There was a
brief discussion about the existing "MF-24" zoning to the
southwest and the adopted plan for the area. Staff pointed
out that the "MF-24" was accomplished several years ago as
part of the Otter Creek development and without the benefit
of any land use plan. Mr. Castin then amended the rezoning
request to "MF-12" for the entire site, 14 acres. A motion
was made to recommend approval of the request as amended.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, and
1 abstention (Richard Massie).
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
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
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
3. Rankinq 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.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. _15
NAME: Pyramid Place
Long Form PCD (Z-4857)
LOCATION:North end of Harden off
Harden and Financial Centre
Parkway
DEVELOPER:
Flake & Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 990
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 376 -8005
ENGINEER:
White-Daters & Associates
401 South Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
ENGINEER:
Rex Wilkins
Wilkins-Sims Architects
AREA: 9.446 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET:
ZONING: "C-3" to PCD
PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center
A. Existing Conditions
The site is abutted by Birchwood single family
subdivision on the west and north, by the Mariott Hotel
PCD to the east, and vacant property zoned "C-3" to the
south.
B. Proposal
(1) The construction of a retail shopping center on
9.446 acres.
(2) The center will be a one level, steel structure
with brick facade, with a small portion to two
levels to accommodate the use of a major retail
outlet user. The total square footage will be
82,000 with 364 parking spaces.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
(3) The residential properties to the north and west
will be protected by a 50' undisturbed green space
which is presently heavily wooded. No structures
will be built within 50' of the greenbelt area.
The area will consist of access drives and rip-rap
which will allow for a total separation of 100'
from buildings to property line.
(4) Phase I - parking, curbing, and site work
Phase II - construction of buildings starting late
fall of 1987 and covering 12 to 18 months..
C. Enqineering Comments
(1) Traffic analysis needed that includes impact from
abutting tracts. Harden Road does not appear to
be adequate for development.
(2) 60' right -of- way /36' pavement required on Harden
Road.
(3) Pay for design and construction of signalization
of Hardin and Financial Parkway if its justified.
(4) Intersection does not appear as if it will work
(Harden and Financial Parkway). If numbers don't
warrant signal, then development may not work.
D. Issues
(1) Inappropriate land use. Staff prefers low key
activity.
(2) Dimension site plan.
(3) Indicate planned use groups.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial, based on inappropriate use of the land and
possible adverse effects to abutting single family
uses. The applicant has argued that the "commercial
nature of the properties to the south and east" make
this a good location for a PCD. Staff supports office
use in this area.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant-submitted a letter requesting withdrawal of
the application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The Commission placed this item on the consent agenda for
withdrawal. The motion on the consent agenda passed by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16___
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.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - 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.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - 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.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
NAME: West Markham Conditional Use
Permit (Z-2245-B)
LOCATION: The south side of West
Markham approximately 1300
feet east of Bowman Road
OWNER /APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
J. Wythe Walker, et al. /Brad
Walker
To construct a one story 6080 square feet tire and auto
service center (includes minor motor tune -ups) and 30
parking spaces on 0.5611 + acres of land that is zoned
"C-3 ."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a minor arterial street (West Markham
Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is part of a long narrow strip of land
that lies between West Markham and Rock Creek. The
entire strip of land is zoned "C -3." The adjacent land
uses include: vacant and commercial uses located to
the north; the Rock Creek Floodway and single family
(well above grade) located to the south; vacant and
industrial uses located to the east; and vacant land
located to the west. The proposed use is compatible
with the surrounding area.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
3. On-Site Drives and Parking:
The proposal contains a 30 feet common access drive on
the east (to West Markham Street), 30 parking spaces,
and a proposed common access area with the property
located to the west.
4. Screening and Buffers
The proposal contains landscaped areas and a 6 feet
wooden screening fence that will surround the entire
holding area located on the southeast corner of the
property.
5. Analysis:
The staff feels that the proposed land use will be
compatible with the surrounding area (see note 2). The
applicant needs to file a final plat on this lot. The
staff does, however, have some concerns about the
proposed plan. The staff's concerns will be addressed
in the following engineering comments.
6. City Engineer Comments:
(1) Reduce the west curb return to allow a 4 feet
clearance of the building; (2) reduce the size of the
proposed building to allow a 3 feet landscaped strip
and a 20 feet access drive around the west end of the
building (delete the proposed common access area on
the west property line); (3) provide a landscaped strip
along the west side of the curb return; and (4) design
and construct the curb on the south property line to
prevent soil erosion.
7. Staff Recommendation:
Approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a final plat for this lot; (2) comply with City
Engineering Comments number 1 -4; and (3) submit a
revised site plan that incorporates said changes.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to plat the property.
The applicant also agreed to comply with City Engineering
Comments numbered 1, 3, and 4. A lengthy discussion ensued
regarding the proposed common access area located on the
west property line. The applicant was informed that he
would need to seek release for the landscape requirements on
the west property line from the City Beautiful Commission.
The City Engineering Department dropped its opposition to
the common access area on the west property line and stated
that they were willing to accept the plan as shown, provided
the applicant was relieved of any landscape requirements on
the west property line. The applicant agreed to seek relief
from the City Beautiful Commission and asked that his
proposal be approved as submitted subject to the City
Beautiful Commissions removal of any landscape requirements
on the west property line.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were three objectors
present (Mr. Bowers, Mr. Jeff Hoyt, and Mrs. Agnes Beall)
who all resided on Ashwood Drive. The primary concern for
the objectors was the possible noise problems and their
general unhappiness about the way the entire Markham Street
corridor (below Ashwood Drive) had been developed. The
staff stated that they had received a revised site plan that
met the requirements and that no service bays would be
located on the south side of the building. A lengthy
discussion ensued. The Commission and the neighbors felt
that a screening fence on the south property line would be
beneficial. The applicant agreed to build an 8-foot
screening fence along the south property line. The
Commission then voted 7 ayes, 1 no, and 3 absent to approve
the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee, and agreed to by the applicant.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18
NAME: First Church of God Conditional
Use Permit (Z-4854)
LOCATION: West of the intersection of
Nova and Frenchman's Lane
OWNER /APPLICANT: First Church of God /Susan Ellis
PROPOSAL:
To open a day -care center (40 capacity) which will operate
Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. in an
existing church facility (250 capacity) that is located on
land that is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to two residential streets (Frenchmans Lane
and West 83rd Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is located in a mixed use area. The adjacent
land uses include: commercial located to the north;
public school and single family located to the south;
vacant land to the east; and multifamily located to the
west. The proposal includes facilities that are
already in place. The staff feels that the existing
use as well as the proposed use are compatible with the
surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
The site contains three existing paved access drives
(two on Frenchmans Lane and one on West 83rd Street)
and 58 paved parking spaces.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Continued
4. Screeninq and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use the existing trees
and shrubs.
5. Analysis:
The staff feels that the proposed use will be
compatible with the surrounding area (see note 2).
Staff does not have any concerns about this proposal.
6. Citv Enqineer Comments:
(1) Expand the 83rd Street access drive to 24 feet in
width; (2) improvements on 83rd Street will not be
required at this time. Any future building
construction will require construction of 83rd Street
to City standards (adjacent to this property).
7. Staff Recommendation:
Approval subject to the applicant agreeing to comply
with City Engineering Comments numbered 1 and 2.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. The City Engineering Department clarified
their comments on the access drive to mean expansion of the
existing 20 feet access drive located on 83rd Street to 24
feet in width for a depth into the property of 30 feet. The
applicant agreed to comply. The Water Works stated that the
water line in 83rd Street was only two inches in diameter
and would not support fire service or additional fire
hydrants and that a main extension might be required. The
applicant stated that a new water main and fire hydrant had
just been installed on Frenchmans Lane.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were objectors. The staff
stated that there were two fire hydrants on the property.
The Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent to
approve the application as recommended by the staff,
reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and agreed to by the
applicant.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Street Right -of -Way Abandonment
NAME: Acorn Street, Cameron Street,
Preston Drive, and Adkins Street
LOCATION: East off Chicot Road
approximately 1/4 mile south of
Baseline Road
OWNER /APPLICANT: Tom A. Buford Attorney for
Various Owners
REQUEST: To abandon this series of streets
and permit replatting as a
private street system
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right-of-Way
None exhibited, except the obvious physical tie of the
Gardner Road neighborhood to Chicot Road. In this
instance, there are alternate routes to both Baseline
and Chicot Road.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no Master Street Plan issues attendant to
this request.
3. Need for Right-of-Wav on Adjacent Streets
None evidenced by this review or reported by Public
Works.
4. Characteristics of Riqht-of-Way Terrain
These streets are paved and have curb and gutter as
required when subdivided under City jurisdiction. The
streets have little or no grade change from east to
west. The abutting lots are either vacant or
multifamily usage.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Continued
5. Development Potential
These rights -of -way have no usage except as streets
whether public or private.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The primary effect will be traffic circulation. The
neighborhood lying to the east will loose access to
Chicot Road. Detour to Fairfield Drive on the south is
possible.
7. Neighborhood Position
None reported at this writing. However, tenants in the
remaining occupied apartments favor the issue.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
The entire right -of -way will be required as utility
easement inasmuch as a replatting will be required.
The utilities will have additional opportunity to
determine the easement format on the occasion of
Planning Commission review.
9. Reversionary_Rights
The petitioners will receive the entire right -of -way.
10. Public Welfare and Safety_Issues
a. The abandonment of these street rights -of -way will
return to the private sector a land base that will
be productive for the real estate tax base.
b. The abandonment will eliminate the continual
through traffic aspects of this street which can
prove hazardous to both vehicles and pedestrians
in a high density project. Much of the parking
within this project backs onto this roadway from
parking stalls. This does create a hazardous
circumstance.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends approval of these abandonments
subject to provision of a public turnaround in the form of a
hammerhead or cul -de -sac near the Chicot Road end of Preston
Drive, plus provision within the Abandonment Ordinance of
utility and drainage easements. We would further suggest
that the plat and Bill of Assurance required by this action
provide public vehicle access. This access should be in the
form of specific easements providing for Fire, Police,
Sanitation, Building Inspectors, or Utility service
personnel. The Fire Department should be provided keys or
control devices as necessary to enter gates or barriers
constructed after abandonment.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 30 -87)
The Planning staff offered its recommendation. There were
no objectors in attendance. The Planning Commission placed
this item on its consent agenda. A motion was made to
approve the application as filed subject to the provision of
the appropriate utility and drainage easements. The motion
passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20
NAME:
The Pointe, Phases III and IV
LOCATION: West of Hillsborough
Subdivision
DEVELOPER: APPLICANT /ENGINEER:
Big "K" Development Co. Bob Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664 -0003
AREA: 14.3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 21
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Private streets
A. STAFF REPORT
The applicant is asking that he be allowed to realign
lots, change the public street system to a private
system, and add a private driveway behind Lots 25, 26,
and 32 to serve as Lots 25, 26, and 32 of Phase III and
Lots 5, 6 of Phase I, and Lots 22 and 23 of Phase II.
The street should be as noted on the plans with 40'
common access easements. The applicant is also asking
to provide a private driveway to the rear of Lots
43 -50.
B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Denial.
C. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW
Water Works felt that service couldn't be provided
until the Pleasant Heights system is developed.
Mr. Dale Russom of that department was present and
informed the applicant that property owners would have
to maintain the system and that they would have to have
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 - Continued
a contract for inspection every year. Staff requested
that the plat and Bill of Assurance state rights of
access for public officials.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 30 -87)
The applicant, Mr. Richardson, .filed a written request with
the Planning staff to withdraw the request as filed for a
private street system. He added that he and client would
dedicate and build a normal residential street section
except that he would like the flexibility to omit curb and
gutter at certain points and reduce street widths due to
grade and /or drainage needs. The Public Works staff
representative stated that they could work this out with
Mr. Richardson. The Commission then voted on a motion to
approve the withdrawal and accept the design modifications
to be agreed upon by the City Engineer. The vote 8 ayes 0
noes, and 3 absent.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21 w-
NAME:
Edgerstoune Extension Request
LOCATION: NE Corner of North Martin and
"I" Street
APPLICANT: David McCreery
Flake & Company
P.O. rox 990
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 376 -8005
A. STAFF REPORT
The applicant is requesting reinstatement of the above
PRD that was approved by the City Board on December 3,
1985, and the Planning Commission on November 12, 1985.
Due to an oversight, they are tardy in requesting an
extension. They have also chosen to delay the first
phase until the climate among financial institutions is
sufficient for adequate financing for such a
development.
B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 30 -87)
The applicant was present. There were several objectors
present. They did not identify themselves for the record.
The staff offered its recommendation but modified it in
light of comments from the City Attorney that the Commission
could and should not offer extension to a Planned Unit
Development that had not complied with the time constrains
in the ordinance for continuance. A lengthy discussion
followed wherein it was determined that the Commission
should take steps to notify the owner of revocation
proceedings and a hearing date before the Commission. A
motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of 8
ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22_�_._.___._
NAME:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT /ENGINEER:
A. STAFF REPORT
Pleasant Heights Sidewalk
Waiver Request
West of Hillsborough
Joe White
White - Daters and Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 374 -1666
The applicant is requesting that sidewalk requirements
be waived for all streets except those required on
collector streets for the following reasons: (1) The
property being developed is very steep. (2) Problems
with side hill cuts will be compounded by sidewalks.
(3) There are no sidewalks and no subdivisions
previously developed adjacent to Pleasant Heiqhts. (4)
The lots are extremely large, thus eliminatinq density.
B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Reserved until further info available.
C. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 30 -87)
The applicant, Mr. White, was present. The staff offered
its objection to the waiver request. Mr. White discussed
the grade problem pointing out the issues on a graphic. The
cuts and possible retaining walls would increase costs
significantly. After a brief discussion, the consensus of
all parties involved was that the sidewalks be waived on the
cul -de -sacs running west off the Saddle Hill Street
extension and that sidewalk be required on one side of
Saddle Hill. A motion to this effect was made and passed by
a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24
NAME:
LOCATION:
Ford Motor Credit Company
Additional Driveway Request
800 Reservoir Road
APPLICANT: Sam J. Storthz, Jr.
801 North University
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 666 -8909
A. STAFF REPORT
This is a request to add an additional 20 -foot driveway
at the south end of this lot. There is currently an
existing 30 -foot driveway at the north end of the lot.
The existing site has a building of 9,500 square feet
and RO parking spaces.
Ford Motor Company occupies 6400 square feet and has 43
employees and a constant flow of customers. The
remaining 3,200 square feet is available for retail use
and will probably have 5 to 10 employees. The 3200
square foot space has been available for lease for over
three months and objections have been raised because of
limited access from Reservoir Road.
B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Reserved until the site is investigated.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 30 -87)
The applicant was present. The Planning staff offered
history and passed the matter to the Traffic Engineer for
comment. Mr. Koornstra offered concerns about the multiple
driveways in this area; but stated that the issue comes to a
hardship waiver and that is the Planning Commission's
preroqative. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted
to approve the request as filed for a second driveway. The
vote 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
DATE & / 3() /�,z r 7
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 0
ITEM NUMBERS
. ZONING -SUBDIVISION
MEMBER 4.. � � V I z. 3 1./-0 0 /A Cj ID
W.Riddick, III ✓✓ ✓ ;/ ✓ / / v v ✓ / ✓ / ✓
J.Schlereth ✓ / / / / j / / // / / / �
R.Massie ✓ ,/ ./ ,/ ✓ I/ ✓ / /✓✓ / ✓ /
B.Sipes / / ✓ ✓ ,/ �/ / / // / / / ✓
/J '
J.Nicholson 1n
w.Rector ✓,/ ,-✓✓ ✓/ ✓ / / / / v / ✓
W.!<etcher / / ✓✓ ✓/ './ �✓✓ ✓-✓✓ / ✓
D.Arnett / // ✓ / ✓ / / ,/ ,/ / / ✓ / /
D.J. Jones / / / / / I I ✓ / ./ ( ✓ ./ /
R.Collins ✓/. / / / / / / / / // / ,/ ./
F.Perkins / ✓ / /✓/ I / ./ ./ I / / /
✓AYE @ NAYE A ADSENT ':e_ABSTAIN
II /2. 1s l BA J 4-1..-rl //,,, I?
✓✓ / ✓✓ V •
✓✓ / / ✓ ,,,,,/" / ✓
/ ✓ At, ,{;f; ,/ / / ✓
✓ ✓./ / ✓ / -•
� n
✓✓ ✓ / / /•/
✓� ./ / ✓ / 4 fl.
/ ✓-✓✓ ✓/ • ,// 1/j.J il ./ / / /
/. ✓ ✓ ✓/ ✓✓ ,/ /
/ ✓ / / ✓ ✓ •/J
DATE �Jc30,la2
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 i 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
I� JC/ ll, di llz 17:s-IZ!J
/ ✓ / AB ,I / :✓
/ ✓✓ ✓,/ ✓✓
✓✓ ./ / ,/ / /
✓/ / ✓ ,I !/ /
/} .A I I rl v / ✓/ ,/ I ✓
/ / / If II I+ ./ .•
/ / / / ✓ ✓ /
✓/ / ✓ j ✓ /
/ ✓ ,/ ✓ ✓ j /
✓/ / If A A /
✓AYE @ NAYE AAoSENT �ABSTAIN
I I
f'.
June 30, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business presented to the Commission,
the meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
Date
Secretary Chairman