pc_12 15 1987subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING
SUMMAY AND MINUTE RECORD
December 15, 1987
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 10 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were read and approved.
III. Members present:
Members Absent:
William F. Rector, Jr.
John Schlereth
Jerilyn Nicholson
Fred Perkins
David Jones
Rose Collins
Richard Massie
Walter Riddick, Jr.
Stephen A. Leek
Martha Miller
Grace Jones
City Attorney: Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
DECEMBER 15, 1987
Deferred Items:
A. Zion Terrace PRD (Z-4924)
Preliminary Plats:
1. Industrial Harbor Area
2. Lot 1, Lois Coulson Subdivision
3. Overlook Park Revised Preliminary (Lots 112 -117, and
23R)
4. Cox Addition West
5. Otter Creek West
6. Dale Garrison Subdivision
7. Garner and Wiley Subdivision
8. Cedar Ridge Commercial
9. Cedar Ridge IV
10. Wood Creek Addition
11. S. Lynn Woodyard
Site Plan Review:
12. Breckenridge Village Addition
Planned Unit Development:
13. LaQuinta Revised Plan Commercial Development
14. AAKP "Short- Form" PRD
15. Parkway Village PRD, Phase II
Conditional Use Permit
16. Dean Beauty Shop CUP (Z-4929)
17. St. Paul United Methodist Church (Z-4942)
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES - Continued
Zoning Site Plan:
18. Easter Seals Training Facility Site Plan Review
(Z-3238-C)
Right-of-Way Abandonment
19. Alley Closure, Block 10, Pulaski Heights
Other Matters
20. Plat Certificate Amendment
21. St. Charles Phase VII - Grading Plan
22. Mobile Home Ordinance Amendment
23. First Baptist PUD Extension Request
24. K- Mobile Home Park Discussion Item
25. Kenneth Cotton Tract Split
26. Perry Norwood Water Service
27. Elections of Officers
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME: Zion Terrace "Short-Form
PRD" (Z-4924)
LOCATION: 38th and Zion
DEVELOPER:
Greval Dev. Co., Inc.
721 Beech Street
NLR, AR 72114
Phone: 375-6177
ENGINEER:
Barry Ferguson
318 Depot
Lonoke, AR 72086
Phone: 676-3305
AREA: 1.69 acres NO. OF LOTS: 16 FT. NEW STREET: 600
ZONING: "R-4" PROPOSED USE: Detached Single Family
A. Developmental Concept
This submittal represents an attempt to utilize an
undeveloped tract of land lying within the boundaries
of the City by in filling it with quality low cost
homes. The developers wish to address the needs of
what they consider to be a "neglected" moderate income
market in this older part of town. The City has in the
past eliminated sewer and drainage problems in the
area.
B. Proposal /Request
(1) The construction of 16 small lot single family
homes and 600' of new street on 1.69 acres.
(2) Concrete pads for parking on each lot.
(3) Private park to be managed by the resident
property owners association. Park to be
surrounded by bicycle /jogging trail and will
contain a small central spa with common hot tub
facilities. An outside recreation area for kids
will also be included.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Improvement of streets.
(2) Submit sketch grading plan because clearing will
be more than 25 percent on an acre.
(3) Abandon alley right-of-way if legally bisects
property. May need improvements.
(4) Submit survey.
(5) Submit typicals, profile on units, and additional
information as required by site plan submission
requirements.
(6) Give more detail on park and its necessity, and
maintenance and Bill of Assurance.
(7) Lots 13, 14, and 16 need front yard landscaping.
Submit landscaping plan with minimum requirements
for each lot.
(8) Hatched area needs to be indicated as maximum
buildable area.
D. Engineering Comments
(1 ) Fifty foot right-of-way instead of 40'.
(2) Radius on the corner.
(3) Eighteen foot pavement and curb /gutter on
developer's side of street ( 27' , 18' from back of
curb).
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until further information is received.
Staff was prohibited in its review of the proposal due
to inadequate information. Engineering's input is
crucial due to the number and status of the
rights-of-way abutting the property. Decisions need to
be made regarding whether or not all of them should be
extended and developed.
Staff is very supportive of the concept of infill
development with moderate income homes in this area.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant asked to defer this item to the December
meeting.
G. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (11-3-87):
A motion for deferral as requested by the applicant was made
and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
H. Subdivision Committee Review
Staff's recommendation on the revised plan: (1)
Submit Bill of Assurance with indication for
maintenance of park; (2) explain phasing; (3) extend
lots in the park area in case future maintenance ceases
- do this in Bill of Assurance.
The main issue was identified as street improvements.
The applicant requested a waiver of street improvements
or construction to rural standards. He explained that
Phase I would include 4 through 10, 14 through 16, and
Phase II would include Lots 1 through 3, 11 through 13,
and the proposed park.
He was asked to: (1) close the whole alley and
indicate an easement; (2) properly note plat name; (3)
provide 10' separation between driveways to lessen
concrete; (4) show utility and access easement; (5)
work out street with Engineering; (6) submit floor
plan.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME: Industrial Harbor Area
Preliminary
LOCATION: East of Lindsey Road, North
of Frazier Pike
DEVELOPER:
Little Rock Port Authority
c/o Garver & Garver Engrs.
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 376-3633
ENGINEER:
Garver and Garver
P.O. Box C -50
Little Rock, AR 72203-0050
Phone: 376-3633
AREA: 377 acres NO. OF LOTS: 36 FT. NEW STREET:
ZONING: "I-3" PROPOSED USE: Industrial
A. Proposal /Request
(1) To subdivide 377 acres into 36 lots for industrial
use.
(2) Phasing:
Phase I - Lots 1-9
Future Phases - Additional lots will be filled and
developed in numerical order as additional fill
material becomes available.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in the industrial port area. It
is bounded on the north by the Arkansas River.
Existing railroad spurs abut the property on the west.
Old Fourche Creek is apparent on the southwest and a
100' AP &L easement with a transmission tower runs
through the center of the property.
C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Fee required.
(2) Indicate street names.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
(3) Show building lines.
(4) Six-inch shoulder on southern street?
(5) Show remainder of plat boundaries east of Lot 36
and northwest of Lot 23.
(6) Explain dedication and building of street (leading
to Frazier Pike) outside plat boundary.
D. Engineering Comments
(1) Indicate survey centerline data.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant stated that plans include the final platting
of one lot at a time. Water Works objects to this approach
since they felt that there could be a heavy user at the end.
The applicant agreed to comply with all the regulations for
water service. The applicant was asked to submit a revised
plan indicating all of the plat boundaries.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10
ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME: Lot 1, Coulson Subdivision
LOCATION: 7400 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Coulson Oil Company
1434 -38 Pike Avenue
No. Little Rock, AR 72115
Phone: 376-4222
ENGINEER:
Melburger, Tanner, Robinson and
Associates
P.O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 375-5331
A. Staff Report
This is a request to plat .446 acre for use a
convenience food store with gasoline pumps. It
includes the addition of 15' from a right-of -way
abandonment on the east and a 10' dedication of
right-of-way on Highway 10.
B. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10
ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME: Overlook Park Revised
Preliminary (Lots 112 -117 and
23R)
LOCATION: West of Overlook Drive
DEVELOPER:
Pfeifer Development
P.O. Box 5151
No. Little Rock, AR 72119
Phone: 372-3456
ENGINEER:
White - Daters and Assoc., Inc.
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72119
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 10.26 acres NO. OF LOTS: 7 FT. NEW STREET: 600"
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request
(1) To plat 10.26 acres into seven lots and 600' of
new street for single family use.
B. Existing Conditions
The area has developed as single family with topography
ranging in elevations from 350' to 525'.
C. Issues /Technical /Legal /Design
(1) Lots 114, 116, and 117 have no street
frontage /redesign lots.
(2) Submit hillside regulations data.
(3 ) Verify approval of existing plats of which this
area is a part.
D. Engineering Comments
Redesign cul-de-sac.
E. Staff Recommendation
Deferral until points addressed.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The issues were discussed. The applicant agreed to submit a
revised plan addressing staff's comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed subject to a
20-foot pipe-stem on Lot 116 and fire department approval.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME: Cox Addition West
LOCATION: West of Hillsboro, Phase V
at the end of Hillsboro Lane
DEVELOPER:
Mary Keets McKinney
and Frank Cox
ENGINEER:
Robert J. Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664-0003
AREA: 3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 7 FT. NEW STREET: 150"
ZONING: Single Family
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request
(1) To subdivide three acres into seven lots and 150'
for development of single family lots.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is in an area that is developing as single
family. The Pleasant Heights Preliminary is located to
the west and Hillsboro is located to the north, east,
and south. Elevations range from 575' to 675'.
C. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Show location map, owner certificate and other
requirements as noted in submission requirements.
D. Engineering Comments
None.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10
ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME: Otter Creek West
LOCATION: West of Otter Creek, Off
Silver Maple Drive
DEVELOPER:
Ira Stewart
ENGINEER:
Robert J. Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664-0003
AREA: 15 acres NO. OF LOTS: 50 FT. NEW STREET: 1,940'
ZONING: Single Family
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request
(1) To subdivide 15 acres into 50 lots and 1,940' of
new street for single family use.
B. Existina Conditions
This site is located in an area on the fringes of the
City that has developed as single family. The property
is bounded on the west by Saline County and on the
south and east by the Otter Creek Subdivision.
C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Show location maps, and owner's signature.
(2) Indicate corporate boundaries, abutting streets,
and Master Street Plan proposals, and County line.
(3) Notice to abutting property owners with 2.5 acres
or greater.
(4) Show sidewalks.
(5) Indicate abutting ownerships.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
None at this time.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial, subject to compliance with staff
recommendation.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The identified issues were discussed. The Committee felt
that the applicant should meet with the Planning and
Engineering staff to discuss access to Saline
County /implications for extensions of roadways and utilities
and to resolve the Master Street Plan alignment issue.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Applicant was present. A revised plan was submitted. A
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10
ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME: Dale Garrison Subdivision
LOCATION: Dixon and Woodyard Roads
APPLICANT:
Hal Kemp
Suite 1300
111 Center Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 372-7243
ENGINEER:
Robert Bickerstaff
1809 West 35th
North Little Rock, AR 72118
AREA: 3.35 NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request
(1) Subdivision of a four lot plat on 3.35 acres for
residential use.
(2) Combined preliminary /final consideration.
(3 ) Waiver of off-site improvements primarily curb and
gutter.
B. Existing Conditions
The site is located in an area that is developed as
rural single family.
C. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Annexation required before water service is
granted.
(2) No problem with variance request.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
D. Engineerinq Comments
(1) Dedicate necessary right-of-way.
(2) Street improvements should be tied to future lot
splits and changes in zoning.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made. Staff has no
problems with considering this as a combined
preliminary final and the waiver of improvements is
conditioned upon Engineering comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present but staff was asked to call
him and inform him to provide a letter approving the sewer
system from the County Health Department.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10
ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME: Garner and Wiley Subdivision
LOCATION: 5234 Mabelvale Pike
APPLICANT: Dale Thiede
DEVELOPER:
Garver, Wiley & Thiede
5709 West 51st Street
Little Rock, AR 72209
Phone: 565-2608 or
565-2517
ENGINEER:
Hope Engineers
P.O. Box 223
Benton, AR 72015
Phone: 778-0786
AREA: .63 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: Single Family
PROPOSED USE: Church and Single Family
A. Proposal /Request
(1) The platting of .63 acre into two lots for single
family and church use.
B. Existing Conditions
The site is located in an area that is primarily
composed of single family uses.
C. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Show remainder of second lot.
D. Engineering Comments
Dedicate 50' right-of-way.
E. Staff Recommendation
Deferral until all of property is shown.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was asked to meet with Mike Batie and discuss
the addition of right-of-way on Mabelvale Pike and to submit
a revised plan showing the remainder of Lot 2.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed, subject to
removal of the building on the abutting property line; and
dedication of a 10-foot additional right-of-way on Dixon
Road. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME: Cedar Ridge Commercial
LOCATION: North of Kanis, approximately
300' east of Asbury Road
DEVELOPER:
Kanix Properties Trust
H. Maurice Mitchell
Trustee
c/o White-Daters & Assoc.
ENGINEER:
White - Daters Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 4.68 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 250'
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Commercial /Office
A. Proposal /Request
(1) To plat 4.68 acres into four lots and 250' of new
street for commercial /office use.
B. Existinq Conditions
This site is located in an area that is developed as
rural single family. New single family development is
also occurring in this area.
C. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Commercial platting of these tracts does not
indicate a commitment to commercial zoning, since
rezoning from single family to commercial has not
been approved by the Planning Commission.
D. Enqineerinq Comments
(1) Limit access of Lots B and C to Parkway Place.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to the comments that have been made.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that the commercial area to the
north was in the transitional zone and all uses would comply
with that plan. Each project would be submitted as PUD with
a minimum of two acres.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff recommended denial, subject to redesign of the lots to
protect the single family lots from the commercial lots, the
recombination of the two commercial lots into one and no
platting of building lines. The reason for the negative
recommendation was due to the fact that commercial rezoning
would be contrary to the land use plan and lead to strip
commercial zoning.
The Applicant admitted that this plat was premature and
asked that it be deferred until after rezoning for "C-1" is
applied for.
A motion for deferral to January 12 was made and passed by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME: Cedar Ridge IV
LOCATION: Kanis and Asbury Roads
DEVELOPER:
Winrock Dev. Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 8080
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 663-5340
ENGINEER:
White - Daters and Assoc., Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 16.24 acres NO. OF LOTS: 55 FT. NEW STREET: 2,350
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request
(1) The platting of 16.24 acres into 55 lots and
2,350' of new street for single family use.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area that is developed with
single family uses. The site is wooded with elevation
ranges from 440' to 540'.
C. Issues /Technical /Legal /Design
(1) Specify revisions to this plat in cover letter.
(2) Eliminate notation showing southern area of the
plat as a commercial subdivision. No commitment
to commercial is made at this time.
D. Engineering Comments
None at this time.
E. Staff Recommendation
Deferral until comments addressed.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that the revisions included adding a
street and extending Parkway Place and an increase in lots.
He was asked to show phase lines and street names.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The main issues discussed concerned the platting of single
family lots next to proposed commercial area on the
abutting plat. Staff identified Lot 48 as being poor
planning since it was creating a bad lot relationship
between the single family and the commercial lots. Staff
agreed that a "PUD" could control points of ingress, egress
and buffering.
A motion was made and passed for defferal of Lots 25 through
29 and Lots 38 through 48 (south 10 acres) until the January
12, Planning Commission Meeting. The vote was 10 ayes, 0
noes and 1 absent.
A motion was made and passed for approval of the remainder
of the platt, subject to a 30-foot building line on Parkway
Place Drive. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME: Wood Creek - An Addition -
as Revised
LOCATION: Rock Creek Parkway /Pride
Valley Road
DEVELOPER:
Winrock Dev. Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 8080
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 663-5340
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Assoc., Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 21.71 acres NO. OF LOTS: 49 FT. NEW STREET: 2,700
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request
(1) To subdivide 21.71 acres into 49 lots and 2,700'
of new street.
(2) Waiver of 125' distance between intersection to
95' (Wood Creek Court and Huckleberry) .
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in a developing residential area.
C. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Notify church and all abutting owners with 2.5
acres or greater.
(2) Clarify easement on Lot 5.
(3) Specify revisions to plat in letter.
(4) Proper signature should be placed on plat.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
(1) Remove designation of floodway as park. Label it
Tract A.
(2) Show Pride Valley intersection.
(3) Straighten Wood Creek Drive.
(4) Show sidewalks on Wood Creek and Buckthorn.
(5) All streets should be a minimum of 27'.
(6) Favorable to variance request.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to notify property owners and that he
would dedicate the area shown as a park to the City. He
also explained that the easement reflected on Lot 5 was a
water main relocation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Appplicant was present. There were no objectors. After
explanation of the project by Mr. Joe White, the City's
Engineering Department reported that there was no problem
with comments one through three.
A motion for approval was made and passed, subject to
Engineering Comments No. 1, 4, 5 and 6. The vote was: 10
ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME: S. Lynn Woodyard Subdivision
LOCATION: 1/2 mile SW of Highway 67/65, on
south side of Dixon Road
DEVELOPER:
Charles Rusenberger
2803 Dixon
Little Rock, AR 72206
ENGINEER:
Ben Kitler
28 Dena Drive
Little Rock, AR 72206
Phone: 888-3960
AREA: 4.303 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: Outside City
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request
(1) To plat 4.303 acres into two lots for single
family development.
(2) Variances:
(a) Street improvements
(b) Lot width to depth
ratio
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area developed as rural
single family outside of the City limits boundaries.
C. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Metal building shown on property line resolved.
(2) Show 40' right -of -way on plat.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission. The
applicant was asked to eliminate the storage shed shown on
the property line.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval, subject to comments made was passed by
a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME: Breckenridge Village Addition
Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Rodney Parham and Breckenridge
DEVELOPER:
Attn: Geo. Wells
Flake & Co.
P.O. Box
ENGINEER:
AREA: 11.155 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C -3"
PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center Addition
A. Proposal /Request
(1) To add 20,400 square feet of retail space to an
existing shopping center of 103,664 square feet
for a total of 124,064.
B. Existing Conditions
(1) Existing Square footage:
Building A - 19,344
Building B - 19,344
Building C - 26,784
Building D - 22,816
Building E - 15,376
Total 103,664
(2) Existing restaurant use:
Building A - 3,000 sq. ft.
Building B - 3,224 sq. ft.
Building E - 1,984 sq. ft.
Total 8,208 sq. ft.
The balance of uses will be retail and service.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
C. Parking
Existing - 760 parking spaces or one per every 136
square feet.
Proposed - 1 per every 175 square feet.
D. Engineering
Show traffic circulation.
E. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Site plan needs to reflect specific parking
layout, dimensions, turning radii, and perimeter
landscaping.
F. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until further information is submitted.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee requested a screening fence along a service
drive, indication of dumpster locations and the parking and
dimensions on the site plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Applicant was present. No one objected. A revised plan
was submitted, which reflected staff's comments. The
Applicant agreed to provide a six-foot opaque fence to
screen the rear of the proposed building.
The motion passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1
absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME: LaQuinta Revised PCD Z-3143-A
LOCATION: NE corner of Fair Park and
West 10th
DEVELOPER:
Properties West, Inc.
c/o 600 S. McKinley
Suite 309
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 664-3069
ARCHITECT:
Bozeman, Wooldridge & Assoc.
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 664-3069
AREA: 1.165 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Retail /Convenience
A. Proposal /Request
To revise an approved PCD. The original approval was
for a 40,000 square foot, five -story office building in
this area and a LaQuinta Inn Restaurant on the
remainder of the site. The plan was approved in 1982.
(1) The revisions include a mercantile (or retail)
building and a convenience store.
(2) Quantitative Data:
Ground
area ..................5,762 sq. ft.
= 1.165 acres
Total bldg. area .............7,500 sq. ft.
Total planted area ........... 15,377 sq. ft.
Total walks, paving
and miscellaneous .......... 27,885 sq. ft.
Total parking spaces......... 30
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
B. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Proposal represents departure from the Oak Forest
Land Use Plan. The plan indicates that this area
should be developed for office.
C. Engineering Comments
Eliminate curb cut on 10th Street.
D. Staff Recommendation
Denial, due to inconsistency with Land Use Plan and
adverse effects to single family residential on the
south and east.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The issue was identified as use. The applicant explained
that the uses would be a "fun wash" and dry cleaning store
and a convenience store. Staff was asked to check with the
City Attorney regarding any legal restrictions on the
property by Judge Munson.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Attorney Ralph Cloar represented the Developer. Staff
recommendation was stated as denial, due to incompatiablity
with the Oak Forest Land Use Plan and potential adversity to
single family homes in the area.
The City Attorney requested that the action taken by the
Commission be subject to amendment of a Court Order,
resulting from litigation in 1981, that gave the Court
jurisdiction over the site until the entire project is
complete. It was explained the City approved the Project,
the property owner sued the City, and the Developer
intervened. A portion of the decree amendment was to
provide an eight -foot opague fence between the site and the
residential property to the east.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
Mr. Cloar explained that the current proposal was to build a
"fun wash" /dry cleaning store and a convenience store with a
four gas pump island /canopy, in lieu of the five -story
office building that was previously approved. Mr. Cloar
argued that the area would not be negatively impacted since
many single family homes to the south were for sale for
commercial development, that the houses to the east are
protect by a street and 120 feet of setback area, and that
the whole area has single family homes that are being
converted to day -care centers. He also pointed out that a
car wash across the street which was not in conformance with
the Plan had been approved by the Commission.
Staff explained that an office building was more compatible
with residential than the commercial activities proposed due
to less intense activity and different hours of operation.
Commissioner Schlereth explained that during the rezoning of
the car wash site, it was decided that commercial uses would
be appropriate if done only on a large -scale basis. The
improvements for a car wash were not considered to be of
such a permanent nature as to present future redevelopment
for large -scale development. He felt that this proposal was
large -scale development. At that time, staff was opposed to
a car wash and disagreed with the Commission.
Concerns were expressed regarding possible impacts on the
residences across 10th Street to the south from the location
of the convenience store since the houses only have 15-foot
setbacks; and the 24-hour level of activity on the site.
Finally, a motion was made and passed to approve the
revision with elimination of the curb cut on 10th Street and
agreement to connect the parking between the "fun wash" and
the motel. The vote was: 9 ayes, 1 noes, 0 absent, the no
vote Walter Riddick.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME: AAKP "Short- Form" PRD
(Z -4943)
LOCATION: SW corner of Valentine and
7th Streets
DEVELOPER:
Arkansas Kidneys Patients
Association
Little Rock, AR
ARCHITECT:
Andy Hicks
2510 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR
AREA: 86' x 137' NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: PRD
PROPOSED USE: Kidney House
A. Proposal /Request
1
(1) Develop a two -story lodge / "Ronald McDonald" type
facility on an 86' x 137' site that is currently
zoned single family.
(2) Observance of single family setbacks that are
predominant in the area, such as 25' front yard,
8' side yards, and 40' rear yard.
(3) Quantitative data: Square footage
First level heated and cooled 2,470 sq. ft.
Porches 2,070 sq. ft.
Upper level apartment (resident 800 sq. ft.
manager)
Total 3,540 sq. ft.
Future bedroom addition 570 sq. ft.
(4) Parking - 10 spaces
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
B. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Indicate number of people and employees involved.
(2) Show north arrow and location map.
C. Engineering Comments
Show landscaping strip adjacent to 10' alley.
D. Staff Recommendation
Deferral until issues addressed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant's architect explained that there would be
live -in employees, bedroom space for eight, and room for
four more with the "future" addition. The issue was
identified as parking, since only 11 spaces were shown. It
was determined that there was no ordinance standard, but if
the patients usually drove to the site, then it would be
based on one space per room. The applicant agreed to
research the parking issue.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15
NAME: Parkway Village PRD,
Phase II
LOCATION: Rock Creek Parkway at
Parkway Place Drive
DEVELOPER:
Baptist Medical System
9601 I -630, Exit 7
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 227-1985
ENGINEER:
Mehlburger, Tanner,
Robinson & Associates
P.O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 375-5331
AREA: 3.96 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET:
ZONING: PRD
PROPOSED USE: Nursing Home
A. Proposal /Request
1. To give specific site plan information for a phase
of a nursing home project that was approved in
concept only during 1985.
2. To construct a one-story building with a partial
basement on four acres for use as a part of the
Parkway Village.
3. Special Request
(a) Construction of the project in two phases
with landscaping for future parking areas
delayed until the additional parking is
completed.
(b) No fence on the north property line adjacent
to "MF-12" zoning.
(c) Replacement of temporary fire lane with a 25'
curbed and guttered drive in the next
construction phase.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
4. Development Criteria
As Approved Total %
1982 PRD % of 1982 Future Change
Application As Proposed Proposal Expansion From 1982
Total Area 3.96 acres ± N/A N/A N/A
Phase II
Unspecified
Total Units: 75 44% 135 -21%
170
Nursing Care 75 63% 40 - 4%
Beds: 120
Personal Care 0 0 20 -60%
Rooms: 50
(+ support
services)
1 Bldg., 1 bldg., 1 -story Add 2 wings
3 Stories + basement
Basement
Bldg. Coverage 19,610 sq. ft. 78% 6,232 sq.ft. .3%
= 25,000 sq. ft. (25,842 sq.ft.
total)
total)
Floor Area = 23,410 sq. ft. 36% 6,232 sq.ft. -53%
63,300 sq.ft. (29,642 sq.ft.)
Total Parking 75 N/A 135 N/A
Req. Per
Ordinance:
1 -sp /Bed
Total Parking 83 spaces N/A 64 N/A
Shown - None 1.1 sp /bed 1.1 sp /bed
(147 total)
B. Engineering Comments
None.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
C. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Specify commercial uses in building, if any.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant stated that there would be no commercial uses
in the building. The item was passed to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Applicant, Mr. Don Chambers, was present. A motion for
approval of the plan with only a beauty shop within the
building, was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
NAME: Dean Beauty Shop
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4929)
LOCATION: SE Corner of "B" Street
and North University Ave.
(219 N. University)
OWNER /APPLICANT:
Annette S. Storthz /Sam J.
Storthz, Jr.
PROPOSAL:
To obtain a conditional use permit for an existing beauty
shop (four booths, 850 square feet) which would allow zoning
conformance in an existing one -story (3,850 square feet)
building on 0.47 acres of land that is zoned "O-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a major arterial street (North University
Avenue) and a residential street ( "B" Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is abutted by single family uses on three
sides and a commercial use located to the west (Park
Plaza). The proposed beauty shop is located within an
existing one -story office building and faces North
University Avenue. The staff foresees no adverse
impact to the surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
Two access drives located on "B" Street serve this site
and its 35 existing parking spaces.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
The site has existing landscape areas.
5. Analysis
The staff foresees no problem with this proposal for a
conditional use permit which would bring the beauty
shop into conformity with the Zoning Ordinance. The
staff does not feel that the neighborhood will be
adversely impacted by this use. This site also exceeds
parking requirements (35 existing spaces - 12
required).
6. Citv Engineer Comments
None.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The Water Works stated that
on -site fire protection may be required. There were no
other unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. 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.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
NAME: St. Paul United Methodist
Church, Conditional Use
Permit (Z-4942)
LOCATION: The East side of Durwood
Road just North of Pine
Valley Drive (2223 Durwood
Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: St. Paul United Methodist
Church /Howard Atkins
PROPOSAL:
To remove existing single family structures located at 2205
and 2209 Durwood Road and to construct a parking lot (37
spaces) on 0.34 acres of land that is zoned "R-4."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (Durwood Road) .
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is abutted by church and office uses located
to the north, single family uses located to the south
and east, and a duplex located to the west. The staff
feels the proposed use will potentially be an
improvement in the area since it will provide the first
off - street parking for this church. The greatest
impact will be to the property located to the south.
The staff feels that with proper screening, the
provision of off - street parking will be an overall
improvement in the area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The existing church site currently has no off-street
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
parking. This proposal contains 37 spaces (100
required by ordinance) and two access drives on Durwood
Road.
4. Screening and Buffers
The proposal contains landscape areas designed to meet
the City Landscape Ordinance requirements.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that this proposal will be beneficial
to the neighborhood in that the church currently has no
off-street parking. The property that abuts to the
south is likely to receive the greatest impact from
this project. Staff feels that the applicant has
recognized this by allowing an 8' landscaped buffer on
the south line. Staff also feels that additional
measures can be taken to reduce the impact and
recommends that a 6' screening fence be constructed
along the south property line beginning 15' from the
west property line and continuing east to the southeast
property corner. Finally, the staff feels that a 15'
landscape area (setback) should be allowed from Durwood
Road.
6. City Engineer Comment
(1) Provide signage to designate the southernmost
access drive as one -way in and the northernmost
access drive as one -way out; and
(2) Stormwater detention required.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a revised site plan that includes a 15' landscape area
along Durwood Road, a 6' screening fence along the
south property line as recommended above, and
ingress /egress labeled as recommended by the City
Engineer; and (2) comply with City Engineer comments
numbered (1) and (2).
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The staff stated that
Arkansas Power and Light had stated that any planting in the
10' utility easement located on the east property line would
be subject to trimming by Arkansas Power and Light. There
was no further discussion.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The staff stated that they had
received one letter of opposition (Kenneth R. and Joyce
Taylor), one letter requesting information about stormwater
runoff implications (Mrs. Ravenel B. Brown), and one
petition (eight names) expressing reservations about the
project until they had an opportunity to review the
proposal. The staff stated that Mr. W.M. Qualls,
representing the petitioners, had been provided with a copy
of the proposed plan. The staff also stated that the
primary concern of the petitioners was a stagnant drainage
area to the east of the existing church building and the
timing of the completion of the new construction.
Mrs. Ravenel Brown also spoke about possible drainage
problems. The City Engineer stated that the applicant would
be required to provide for on -site water detention which
would be good up to a one in twenty -five year standard. The
applicant submitted a revised site plan that met staff
requirements and also agreed to comply with all staff
recommendations. The Commission then voted 10 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent to approve the application as recommended by the
staff and agreed to by the applicant.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18
NAME: Easter Seals Training
Facility, Site Plan Review
(Z-3238-C)
LOCATION: The south side of Fairview
Road approximately 100'
East of Sierra Forest
Drive
OWNER /APPLICANT: Arkansas Easter Seal
Society /John L. Burnett
PROPOSAL:
To receive site plan approval for an existing 18,000 square
feet building and 146 paved parking spaces (60 required)
which will be used as a training facility (100 trainees) on
3.19 acres of land that is zoned "O-2."
ANALYSIS:
This proposal contains three requests. The requests are:
(1) a side yard variance of 20' on the west side of the
existing building (25' required); (2) a side yard variance
of 11' on the east side of the existing building (25'
required); and (3) permission to construct a loading dock
well (uncovered) on the north side of the existing building.
The staff has no problem with any of the three requests.
The staff does, however, have some concern about minimizing
the impact to the single family located to the west. The
staff feels like the loading facility's use should be
limited to the daylight hours, Monday through Saturday. The
staff also feels landscaping should be provided on the west
property line (5' high evergreen /pine every 8') beginning at
the northwest corner of the building northward to the
northwest property corner. The staff further feels that a
6' screening fence should be constructed along the south
property line to screen the adjacent single family.
Finally, the applicant should stripe (delineate) the
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Continued
parking area and revise the site plan to include a 25'
boundary street buffer as required in "O-2."
CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS:
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a
revised site plan that includes a 6' screening fence along
the south property line, a 25' landscape buffer along
Fairview Road, and evergreen /pine (5' height) plantings
every 8' from the northwest corner of the building to the
northwest property corner; (2) limit the use of the loading
dock to daylight hours Monday through Saturday; and (3)
stripe the parking lot.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The staff stated that the
evergreen planting on the west property line could begin at
the north end of the retaining wall and continue northward
(every 81) to the northwest property corner. The Water
Works stated that any cutting, filling, or changing of land
over the raw water lines would require prior approval from
the Little Rock Water Works. The staff reiterated its
recommended approval of the side yard setback variances (see
analysis). A lengthy discussion ensued over the proposed
screening. The Committee stated that trees or other
alternatives could be considered along the south property
line.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent to approve the
application as recommended by staff.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Right -of -Way Abandonment
NAME: Alley in Block 10 of
Pulaski Heights Addition
LOCATION: Alley Running North off
Woodlawn to Kavanaugh
Blvd. between Elm Street
and Holly Street
OWNER /APPLICANT: Skip Cullum of
4110 Woodlawn Street
REQUEST: To abandon the existing
unopened alley and return
it to private use.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Riqht-of-Way
None evidenced by this review.
2. Master Street Plan
No requirement attached.
3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
None evidenced by this review.
4. Characteristics of Riqht-of-Way Terrain
The block is built up and the alley was never opened as
a public thoroughfare. The alleyway has some grade
falling from Woodlawn Street to Kavanaugh involving
retaining walls and poor access on the north end.
5. Development Potential
None except as a part of the residential lots adjacent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Continued
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The neighborhood is predominantly single family with
some multifamily on Kavanaugh Boulevard. No adverse
effect should result.
7. Neighborhood Position
None stated. There are only two owners in the block,
and they are party to this request.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
None reported except from Bell Telephone Company which
reports a need for a ten-foot easement within the
alley.
9. Reversionary Rights
To the abutting owners equally.
10. Public Welfare and Safetv Issues
The abandonment of this alley will return to the
private sector a land area that will be productive for
the private real estate tax base. The abandonment will
prevent the potential for opening of an alley onto
Kavanaugh Boulevard that could cause a traffic
conflict.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends approval of the request subject to
retention of the basic utility easement protection clause in
the ordinance.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-15-87)
There were no objectors present. The applicant was present.
After a brief discussion, the Commission included this item
within the consent agenda. The motion to recommend approval
passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 - Other Matters - General Discussion /Subdivision
n rd i nannp
This item is placed before the Planning Commission for
discussion at the request of Metroplan staff member Charles
Randel. This draft of the proposed certification is offered
as Mr. Randel drafted and presented it to the Planning
staff. This office will review the issue further and offer
comments at the Subdivision Committee meeting.
EXTRATERRITORIAL PLATS
City of Jurisdiction
A copy of this plat has been transmitted to the County
Planning Board for review and comment in accord with Act 186
of 1957 as amended.
This plat contains certain streets depicted thereon that are
intended by the owners of said subdivision to be dedicated
to the County and accepted by the County for public
ownership and maintenance.
The Planning Commission permits
this plat to be approved for filing with the Circuit
Clerk /Recorder. However, the streets are not at this time
accepted for maintenance by the County.
At such time, the owners construct the streets as a minimum
to meet City or County street standards whichever is more
restrictive and after one year from that date provided the
owners have corrected all defects in said roads, the County
may accept application for dedication and maintenance of
these roads.
Date
Subdivision Owner
Chairman, Planning Commission
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-15-87)
The Planning staff made a brief presentation of the proposal
and answered some of the Commissioner's questions concerning
the need for this action. During the course of discussion,
it developed that the author of this Certificate should
appear before the Commission and offer clarification as to
the need and the use related to the City Subdivision
Ordinance. The Planning staff was directed to set this
matter for a second hearing on January 26, 1988, at which
time an advertised public hearing would be held and
Mr. Charles Randel of Metroplan would be invited to attend.
The motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21
NAME: St. Charles Grading Plan
LOCATION: Carbonnet Court in
Carbonnet Circle
ENGINEER: White - Daters and
Associates, Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
STAFF REPORT:
The Applicant is requesting a wavier of the five-percent
tangent required at intersections. Due to the topography,
he has felt it necessary to design them at 12-percent grades
as they leave Ridgehaven Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Reserve, until Engineering is reviewed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was discussed with the Engineering staff and the
Committee and passed to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The application was represented by Mr. Joe White. A motion
for approval was made and passed, subject to Engineering's
approval. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22 - Zoninq Ordinance Amendment - Mobile Homes
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on a
proposal to amend the
Zoning Ordinance to permit
mobile homes /manufactured
housing in the "R-2,"
"R-3," and "R-4" Districts
as a conditional use and
create a one lot
development process
utilizing the "R-7-A"
District as a site plan
review.
STAFF REPORT:
The amendments as presented to the Commission represent nine
months of Committee and staff discussion and study. The
staff feels that the package as presented represents the
best possibility for including this housing type within the
Little Rock market and providing additional affordable
housing. See the attached Draft 2 as presented by the
special committee.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-15-87)
There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Steven Rogers of
the Manufactured Housing Association was present but offered
no comments. Mr. Rogers had indicated to the staff that the
proposal as presented was acceptable. The staff presented
the amendment package addressing its content, the two
approaches offered, and a recommendation that the package be
approved as submitted. A general discussion followed
wherein several of the Commissioners and Mr. Stephen Giles
of the City Attorney's Office addressed the implications of
several recent court actions and the potential for
litigation. The discussion then moved to a possible
amendment of the text to deal with existing Neighborhood
Covenants or Bills of Assurance. The discussion centered on
modification of the site criteria to include a statement
that the Planning Commission would consider Bills of
Assurance when reviewing a proposed location. Comments were
made that indicated that the City has not been and shouldn't
be party to enforcement of private covenants, but that these
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22 - Continued
instruments should be noted when dealing with the proposed
land use changes. A motion was then made to modify the site
criteria for purposes of dealing with Bills of Assurance.
The motion received a second, but failed passage by a vote
of 2 ayes, 7 noes, 1 abstention (Stephen Leek) and 1 absent.
A brief discussion followed resulting in a second motion
which was for approval as presented. This motion was
seconded and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1
abstention (Stephen Leek).
DECEMBER 15, 1987 DRAFT 2 - PACKAGE A
SUGGESTED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO DEAL WITH MOBILE HOMES.
DEFINITIONS: The three definitions offered below will replace
definitions (b)2. and (b)2.a. in Section 2-102:
2.a Mobile Home - Pre-regulation
A factory assembled detached dwelling unit with the
following characteristics: (a) designed for full-time
occupancy and containing sleeping, bath, and kitchen
facilities; (b) connections for utility systems provided
on the intended site; (c) designed for highway transport
with wheels, chassis, tongue, and other features related
to transportability. This unit type is required to be
placed on foundation supports with anchorage complying
with the City of Little Rock Building Codes. This unit
type is also recognized as having been constructed prior
to the adoption of the the National Manufactured Home
Construction and Safety Standards on June 15, 1976.
This structural type is expressly prohibited whether for
permanent or temporary occupancy in all zoning districts
except the "R-7" Mobile Home Park District.
2.b Manufactured Home
A factory assembled detached dwelling unit with the
following characteristics: (a) designed for full-time
occupancy and containing sleeping, bath, and kitchen
facilities; (b) connections for utilities systems
provided on the intended site; (c) designed for highway
transport with wheels, chassis, tongue, and other
features related to transportability; (d) conformance
with the minimum construction standards of the Federal
Mobile Home Regulations of Title VI of Public Law
93-383, USC 5401. This structural type is required to
be placed upon permanent foundation supports with
anchorage complying with the City of Little Rock
Building Codes. This definition shall be deemed to
include modular homes that are factory assembled. This
structural type is expressly prohibited in all zoning
districts except "R-7" and "R-7A" where it is a use by
right subject to site plan review, and the "R-2," "R-3,"
and "R-4" Districts where it is allowed by conditional
use permit.
2.c. Manufactured Home - Multisectional
A factory assembled dwelling unit as defined in
Section 2- 102(b)2.b. with the additional characteristic
of modular delivery to the permanent homesite. This
structural type shall consist of two (2) or more modules
designed for permanent attachment to make one dwelling
unit.
DECEMBER 15, 1987
DRAFT 2 - PACKAGE A
SUGGESTED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO DEAL WITH MANUFACTURED
MOBILE HOMES.
The following are those changes needed to convert the current
"R-7A" zoning district for the purposes of allowing a single
site development with one structure. This change would
provide for site plan review of a manufactured home on a
separate lot after receipt of "R-7A" district rezoning.
The "R-7A" district and the proposed modification.
SECTION 7- 101.9.1 "R-7-A" Mobile Home Subdivision
(a) PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The "R-7A" Manufactured Home District recognizes a need
for manufactured home placement within the City of
Little Rock. This district provides for ownership of
structure and lot for those homes approved by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development under Title
VI of Public Law 93 -383, USC 5401 et. seq. All mobile
homes must have the date plate attached to the unit
specifying, "This mobile home is designed to comply with
Federal Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards
enforced at the time of manufacture."
This district expressly provides for placement of a
single manufactured home as defined in this ordinance on
a lot or tract zoned for such usage.
(b) USE REGULATIONS:
1. One manufactured home or one on-site constructed
dwelling per lot or parcel.
2. Accessory home occupation, special use, temporary
and conditional uses allowed within the "R-7A"
Manufactured Home District shall be the same as
those in the "R-1" District except that day-care
centers and accessory dwellings may be conditional
uses.
(c) HEIGHT REGULATIONS:
No building hereafter erected or structurally altered
shall exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet.
,DECEMBER 15, 1967 DRAFT 2 - PACKAGE A
(d) BULK AND AREA REGULATIONS:
1. Site Area /Minimum Lot Site
a. The minimum site area for the development
of a subdivision for "R-7A" Manufactured
Home Development shall be five (5)
acres.
b. The minimum lot area for home placement
shall be 5,000 square feet whether
located on one lot or within a
subdivision designed for manufactured
home lots. The minimum width in either
instance shall be 50 feet at the front
setback line.
2. Siting Criteria
The siting of a manufactured home on a
separate lot outside of a mobile home
subdivision shall include the following design
considerations:
a. A pitched roof of 3 in 12 or 14° or
greater.
b. Removal of all transport features.
C. Permanent foundation.
d. Exterior wall finished in a manner
compatible with the neighborhood.
e. Underpinning with permanent materials.
f. Orientation compatible with placement of
adjacent structures.
g. Off-street parking per single family
dwelling standard.
3. Front Yard Setback
There shall be a front yard setback having a
depth of not less than twenty-five (25) feet.
4. Side Yard Setback
There shall be a side yard setback on each
side of the building having a width of not
DECEMBER 15, 1987 DRAFT 2 - PACKAGE A
less than ten (10) percent of the average
width of the lot not to exceed five (5) feet.
5. Rear Yard
There shall be a rear yard setback having a
depth of not less than twenty-five (25) feet.
In the case of a corner lot, however, when
providing a 25-foot exterior yard, the rear
yard may be reduced to not less than eight ( 8 )
feet.
6. Other Area Regulations
Developers are required to submit a site plan
for review at the time of their rezoning
request. Additional site plan review
requirements are those specified in Section
4-103 of this ordinance. For a manufactured
home subdivision, reasonable setbacks from
neighboring properties shall be determined by
the Planning Commission. Perimeter treatment
of the subdivision shall also be considered by
the Planning Commission.
7. Accessory Structures and Additions
Accessory structures or principal building
additions of conventional construction on-site
are permitted by right with bulk and area
requirements being those established by
Section 5-102(a)2.b.c.e.
OTHER ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON
RESTRUCTURING OF "R-7A."
1. Modification of the height and area exceptions section,
Section 5 -102 is required in order to allow the same
considerations for accessory dwellings, The paragraph
to be changed is 5-102(a)2.g.5. which should read as
follows:
In "R-2," "R-3," and "R-4," a single family dwelling or
manufactured home must be on-site prior to approval of
location of an accessory dwelling on a lot.
DECEMBER 15, 1987 DRAFT 2 - PACKAGE A
2. The nonconforming structures /use provisions (5-101) and
definitions 56 and 57 should in relation to annexed
mobile and manufactured homes. Suggested additions to
(5-101) are as follows:
NONCONFORMING USES:
3. Pre-Regulation Mobile Homes and Manufactured Homes
A pre-regulation mobile home or a manufactured home
lawfully placed prior to annexation or the effective
date of this ordinance shall be a nonconforming use. A
nonconforming pre-regulation mobile home or a
manufactured home when removed shall not be returned or
replaced by another pre-regulation mobile home, except
that a pre-regulation mobile home may be replaced by a
pre-regulation mobile home or a manufactured home within
a nonconforming mobile home park. In order to replace a
nonconforming manufactured home with another
manufactured home, the property must be rezoned to the
"R-7A" District and site plan review approval obtained
or a conditional use permit is obtained.
DECEMBER 15, 1987
DRAFT 2 - PACKAGE B
SUGGESTED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO DEAL WITH MANUFACTURED
HOMES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
The definitions are the same as proposed in Package A (see
Page 1).
The first changes would be in the "R-2" zoning district with
similar language to be added in the "R-3" and "R-4" districts as
needed.
Section 7-101.2
Paragraph (b) Use Regulations:
(b) 2. To be modified to add this new language.
2. Accessory, home occupation, special use, or
temporary uses allowed within the "R-2" Single
Family District shall be the same as those in
the "R-1" District except that day-care
centers, accessory dwellings, and manufactured
homes may be allowed as conditional uses.
Paragraph (d) Area Regulations:
(d) Would be modified to add a number 5. to be
titled "Other Area Regulations /Siting
Standards" and to read as follows:
5. Other Area Regulations /Siting Standards
The following minimum siting standards shall
apply to all instances of placement of a
manufactured home in an "R-2" Single Family
District by conditional use permit:
a. A pitched roof of 3 and 12 or 14 percent
or greater.
b. Removal of all transport elements.
C. Permanent foundation.
d. Exterior wall finished so as to be
compatible with the neighborhood.
e. Orientation compatible with placement of
adjacent structures.
f. Underpinning with permanent materials.
DECEMBER 15, 1987 DRAFT 2 - PACKAGE B
g. All homes shall be multisectional.
h. Off-street parking per single family
dwelling standard.
Manufactured Homes
6. Accessory Structures and Additions
Accessory structures or principal building
additions of conventional on-site construction
are permitted by right with bulk and area
requirements being those established by
Section 5-102(a)2.b.c.e.
THE NEXT SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE FOR MODIFICATION WOULD BE THE
"R-3" SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.
Section 7-101.3
Paragraph (b) Use Regulations:
(b) 2. Would be modified to add this new language.
2. Accessory home occupation, special use,
temporary and conditional uses allowed within
the "R-3 Single Family District" shall be the
same as those in the "R-1" and "R-2" Single
Family District except that two family
residences, accessory dwellings, day camps,
day nursery or day-care centers, and
manufactured homes may be allowed as
conditional uses.
PARAGRAPH (d) AREA REGULATIONS:
(d) Would be modified to add a number 5 to be titled
"Other Area Regulations/Siting Standards" and to
read as follows:
5. Other Area Regulations/Siting Standards
The following minimum siting standards shall
apply to all instances of placement of a
manufactured home in an "R-3" Single Family
District by conditional use permit.
a. A pitched roof of 3 in 12 or 14 percent
or greater.
DECEMBER 15, 1987 DRAFT 2 - PACKAGE B
b. Removal of all transport elements.
c. Permanent foundation.
d. Exterior wall finished so as to be
compatible with the neighborhood.
e. Orientation compatible with placement of
adjacent structures.
f. Underpinning with permanent materials.
g. All homes shall be multisectional.
h. Off- street parking per single family
dwelling standard.
Manufactured Homes
6. Accessory Structures and Additions
Accessory structures or principal building
additions of conventional on-site construction
are permitted by right with bulk and area
requirements being those established by
Section 5-102(a)2.b.c.e.
THE NEXT SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE FOR MODIFICATION WOULD BE THE
"R-4" TWO FAMILY DISTRICT.
Section 7 -101.4
The "R-4" Two Family District is proposed for modification in the
same fashion as the "R-3" District.
DECEMBER 15, 1987
DRAFT 2 - PACKAGE C
SUGGESTED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO DEAL WITH USE OF MOBILE HOMES
AND OTHER TEMPORARILY PLACED BUILDINGS FOR COMMERCE OR INDUSTRY.
The change proposed is in Section 3-101 of ART. III. paragraph
(c)(1)c. Titled "c. Temporary buildings." this paragraph should
be modified to add additional language as follows:
c. Temporary Buildings
The Planning Director is empowered to allow a temporary
building, pre - regulation, mobile home, or manufactured
homes for commerce, or industry in any district where
such building is used: (1) incidental to construction
on a site or development of a residential subdivision;
or (2) as a temporary office, store, or other facility
while the primary structure on the same site is being
remodeled or constructed. Such temporary building,
mobile home, or manufactured home may be allowed for any
period of time up to one (1) year, after which the Board
of Adjustment must rule on an extension of time.
Appeals from the decision of the Planning Director shall
be to the Board of Adjustment. In making decisions, the
Planning Director and the Board of Adjustment shall
evaluate the need for such temporary uses, compatibility
with neighboring properties, parking, traffic, safety,
and other factors related to the public health, safety,
and general welfare.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 23
NAME: First Baptist Church PRD
Extension Request - (Z-4562)
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
First Baptist Church
Manes, Castin, Massie &
McGetrick
11225 Huron Lane, Suite 200
P.O. Box 22408
Little Rock, AR 72221
Phone: 501-223-9900
ENGINEER:
Pat McGetrick
Manes, Castin, Massie &
McGetrick, Inc.
11225 Huron Lane, Suite 200
P.O. Box 22408
Little Rock, AR 72221
Phone: 501-223-9900
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request on behalf of First Baptist Church for a
one year extension of the PUD project. This extension will
be the second for the project since the first expires
November 26, 1987. The applicant is asking for
clarification on two points concerning PRD timing: First.
what classifies as work beginning on the project? First
Baptist Church has expended approximately $175,000 for
construction of street improvements, water line extensions,
and sewer extensions across their property which were
required as part of the PRD approval. It is the
interpretation of the applicant that this constitutes the
beginning construction on the project, although there have
been no buildings constructed. If, in fact, this does
represent construction starting on the project, the
applicant would like to know if he needs to continue to
request extensions on the PRD approval. Secondly, if the
work done to date does not constitute construction starting
on the project, then what steps should the church need to
take to ensure at the end of the second extension, which
will probably be in November 1988, that the PUD is not
voided. The applicant explained that construction on the
actual buildings will not take place for approximately two
to three years. Although prior to that time, the church may
move forward with construction of parking lots or channel
improvements to Taylor Loop Creek.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the extension.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 23 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Applicant was present. It was decided that the parking
lot or foundation of one building would constitute beginning
work on the project. A motion to this affect was made and
passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24
NAME: K-Mobile Home Park
Discussion Item
LOCATION: South side of Highway 5
east of County Line Road
APPLICANT: W.A. Jones
#9 Don Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
ENGINEER: E.T. Armstrong
A. STAFF REPORT:
The applicant is requesting that he be allowed to
install seven additional spaces at the K-Mobile Home
Park which is located at the County Line on Stagecoach
Road. On August 13, 1985, the applicant requested
approval of revisions to a mobile home park, which
included (1) increasing the spaces from 127 to 136, (2)
providing a stub-out street instead of cul-de-sac on
the southeast, (3) changing access to the playground.
Staff recommended the addition of storage if the
density was increased. Staff supported the 127 spaces
only. The Planning Commission voted to deny the
request for revisions due to: (1) unacceptable
increase in density, (2) location of lots and 50'
right-of-way and (3) violation of original agreement to
provide slightly larger mobile home lots in exchange
for a waiver of the common storage area usually
required; and (4) conformance to the previous plan
authorized.
The motion also included the approval of one of the
revisions - the stub-out street on the southeastern
corner in lieu of the cul-de-sac. The vote was:
7 ayes, 0 noes, and 4 absent.
The revised plan was filed due to a report that the
applicant was laying out more lots than was approved on
the original plat.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24 - Continued
This is a request to replace these lots that were
previously denied.
B. Staff Recommendation
Reserved.
C. Subdivision Committee Review
The Committee decided to place the item on the agenda
for consideration by the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Mike Jones, the Applicant, was present. Staff stated
its' recommendation as denial, based on its' previous
position. The item was discussed, and several questions
were posed: (1) Will the additional lots negatively affect
the development? (2) What is the public gain in keeping the
lots undeveloped, since the existing mobile home park was
nicely developed? (3) Is it in the public interest to defy
the regulations of the City, since adequate recreation and
no storage spaces would be provided?
Some Commissioners were also concerned that approval of this
item which set at press and for others will previous receive
votes of denial from the Commission.
A motion was made to approve the application as filed.
After further discussion, the motion was withdrawn. A
substitute motion of compromise was made for approval of
Lots 243, 245 and 247 for mobile homes, leaving the other
four lots as open space. It passed by a vote of: 6 ayes,
4 noes and 1 absent. (No votes: Commissioners Riddick,
Nickerson, Rector and Miller.)
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 25
NAME: Kenneth Cotton Tract Split
LOCATION: 390' west of intersection of
Pinnacle Valley and Wilkins
Road
DEVELOPER:
Kenneth and Rovanne Cotton
3304 West 27th
Little Rock, AR 72204
Phone: 666-1748
ENGINEER:
Blaylock, Threet
1501 Market
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 224-3922
AREA: 2.9572 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW ST: 0
ZONING: Outside City
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Staff Report:
This item was prompted by a request for water service
to serve Tract A. The site is bounded by Nelson Road,
an undedicated right -of -way on the west and by Wilkins,
a county road on the east.
The applicants have acquired some property for a 20'
frontage on Pinnacle Valley and divided the parcel into
two tracts.
B. Staff Recommendation:
Approval.
C. Subdivision Committee Review:
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission.
D. Planning Commission Action:
The Applicant was present. A motion for approval,
subject to ten foot of additional right-of-way
dedication was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 26 - Other Matters -- Water Meter Service Request
APPLICANT: Perry Norwood, Agent
LOCATION: On the north side of Taliaferro
Road east off Heinke Road
(southwest quadrant of the City)
SIZE: 30 acres±
REQUEST: Permission to tie the existing
five residential structures to
separate water meters when all
five are located on one
ownership.
PROBLEM:
1. The current ownership contains five building sites that
require separate lots prior to extension of additional
water meter connections.
2. A plat is required to separate the lots.
3. A plat of 30+ acres would be quite expensive and would
call for street improvements.
4. Two of the houses do not face on a street and present a
problem as to the provision of access.
5. The Little Rock Water Works in keeping with policy
requires an 8 -inch main to serve the two houses. This
main is lengthy and expensive.
STAFF REPORT:
This request was received from Mr. Norwood and his family
after the water well on the property stopped supplying the
water needs of three houses. These houses have relied on
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 26 - Continued
that service for a number of years. The property contains
five residences two of which front Taliaferro Road and
currently have water meters. The remaining three are the
owner's residence and two rent houses immediately to the
rear that take access from a narrow private road.
The property is in the City limits and has been since
December 1979. The area is included in large water and
sewer districts which have caused significant improvement
taxes to be levied against this ownership. The ownership at
this time is a retired elderly couple on fixed income. The
owner proposes to dispose of most of the land and retain
that portion containing their home and the four rent houses.
The owner has taken emergency measures to provide water
after losing the well by tying a garden house to one of the
rent houses.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (11-30-87)
The Committee discussed Mr. Norwood's request at length.
The staff and Committee members offered several suggestions
as to resolution of the problem. The issues became very
involved and resulted in the Committee suggesting three
options. These were: (1) Attach the owner's residence to
one of the existing rent houses for permanent water service
and share the meter cost. (2) Replace one of the current
water meters with a larger meter to serve the remaining
houses. (3) Pursue a Commission authorization for
additional meters and variance of the Subdivision Ordinance
plat requirement.
The applicant suggested that he would pursue a combination
of the three in order to deal with the short and long-term
needs of the owners. He was encouraged by the Committee to
immediately file supporting materials with the staff in
order to be placed upon the December 15 aqenda for
consideration.
December 15, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 26 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-15-87)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors in
attendance. The staff presented the request and offered the
several options available short of a complete subdivision
plat submittal. Staff offered that with the kinds of
improvements required on boundary streets and the cost of
engineering that such a plat would be a financial burden on
the owners. The staff suggested that a short-term remedy
was available which would not increase the number of meters,
but would allow the three remaining houses water service.
This action would consist of removing one of the two
existing water meters and replacing it with a larger meter
that would have capacity to serve four houses. The staff
pointed out that since this land is in the City limits that
any change of circumstances will be subject to City review
for plats, permits, etc. The applicant would also be warned
that sales of any land may cause further Planning Commission
review and the expenditure of funds for street improvements
and /or utility extensions. After a brief discussion, a
motion was made to approve the option as offered by the
staff. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and
1 absent.
DATE /,:�
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
7OUT r. 9lJRnTVTSTCIN
V 0 T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
MEMBER
12
1,
5-
If
W. Ri ddi ck, III
�/
v
►�
v
v
v
�—
ci
("J
✓
ri
v
ci
J. Schlereth
✓
v'
L,-
�-
R. Massie
j
✓
v
v
v
v
�/
�/
�/
✓
:/
Z"
v
M. Miller
�/
�
v
�
�
v
�
✓
v
t�
ci
U
v
✓
✓
�/
;/
r/
(/
�/
✓
J. Nicholson
cam-
✓
✓
W. Rector
;i
v
ri
v
v
,�
v
v
cl
v
t/
v
✓
✓
✓
✓
S . Leek
✓
�/
r/
✓
/
T-. Grace Jones
-
U. J. Jones
✓
�'
✓
'�
✓
v
✓
✓
c�
v
✓
v
✓
'�
'�
R. Collins
�/
�
v
✓
r/
v'
l/
l�
r/
�
�
✓
1/
t�
v
�
F. Perkins
'�
✓
v
✓
V
'�
`�
v
✓
✓
�/
`�
F
VAYE 0 NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN
P L A N N I N G C O M M I SS I O N
V 0 T E R E C O R D
DATE
ITEM NUMBERS
7n1uTM.. 911RnTVTgTnN
Y AYE NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN
W. Riddick, III
��11�
■
■t
■t■
R. Massie
T*. Grace Jones
F. Perkins AAl
Y AYE NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN
December 15, 1987
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 4.:45 p.m.
Chairman Planning Director
Date