pc_11 03 1987subLITT LE ROCK PLA NNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MI NUTE RECORD
NOVEMB ER 3, 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 rea d and approved.
III.Members Present:w.Riddick III
J.SchelerthR.MassieB.Sipes
J.Nichsolsonw.KetcherT.Grace JonesD.J. JonesR.CollinsF.Perkins
Members Absent: w.Rector
IV.City Attorney Present:Step hen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Markham Commercial Subdivision, Lots 11A , 12, and Tract A
B.Plumlee Subdivision
C.Thomas Memorial Baptist Church
PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1.Glen Arnold Subdivision
2.Treyburn Preliminary
3.Parkway II, Tract B, Revised Preliminary
4.Westchester Subdivision, Phase IV Replat
5.Barrow Plaza Addition, Lot 2
6.Otter Creek Indus trial Park, Lots 1 and 2 of Tract B
7.Lakeside Addition .
8.Southwest Hospital Addition Preliminary
MULTIPLE BUILDING SITE PLAN REVIEW:
9.Bowman Curve Retail Center
10.Andy's of America
11.Macon Shopping Center
PLANNING COMMERCIAL DISTRICT:
12.The Summit "Long-Form" PCD (Z-4923)
13.Zion Terrace "Short-Form" PRO (Z-4924)
14.Monroe Manner "Revised" Short-Form" PRD (Z-4073-A)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
15.Mud Connection 4 x 4 CUP (Z-3151-A)
16 . Carver Elementary Magnet School CUP (Z-4705-B)
16A. Rezoning (Z-4 705-A) East 6th and Fletcher -PRD to "R-2"
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVIS ION ACTIVITIES -Continued
17.Roselawn Cemetery CUP (Z-4906)
18.Greg's Tatoo Studio CUP (Z-4907)
19.Jehovah's Witness CUP (Z-4913)
20.Howard CUP (Z-4917)
21.Shiloh Baptist Church (Z-4922)
FINAL PLAN CONFIRMATION:
2?. Eagle Pointe "Long-Form" PRO (Z-4451-A)
RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT:
23.Kingsrow Drive
OTHER ITEMS:
24. Adoption of the 1988 Calendar of Meeting Dates
25.Variance of Street Width on Foxcroft Road
26.Amendment to the I-430 Plan
27.Better Business Bureau Site Plan Review (Z-4931)
28.John Harris "Short-Form" PCD (Z-4909-A)
29.Hunters Ridge Long-form PRD
30.Boathouse Marina PID (Z-4331)
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - File No. 641-D
NAME: Markham Commercial Subdivision
Phase II
LOCATION: Markham Park Drive at Bowman
Road - NE Corner
DEVELOPER:
Markham Real Properties
Limited Partnership
212 Center St., Suite 400
Little Rock, AR 72201
374-2231
ENGINEER:
Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson,
and Associates
201 South Izard - P.O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72201
375-5331
AREA: 5.72 acres + NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C -3" PROPOSED USE: Commercial
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Proposal
This developer proposes to restructure the lots in this
corner of a large commercial plat now partially
developed. The phasing plan is one lot final plats.
Tract A will be provided with a stubout to Bowman Road
to provide access. Also, the Lots 11A and 12 will have
building lines located to control visual aspects with
respect to buildings on Tract A. Along the south
boundary of Tract A, an internal access drive will tie
these proposed lots to existing lots fronting on
Markham Street as well as a large parcel lying to the
east outside this ownership.
B. Engineering Comments
(1) Access problems at points along Bowman with
conflicts between existing approved curb cuts and
the access stub to the larger parcel Tract A.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
(2) Access problems with the drive behind McDonald's
associated with stacking and turning movement.
(3) Access problems between McDonald's and Hot Shots
as to the number and spacing.
(4) See the Traffic Engineer on items 1, 2, and 3
above prior to the August 11, 1987, meeting so as
to provide resolution of these issues.
C. Utility Comments
At this writing Arkla and AP &L respond easements are
okay as submitted.
D. Analysis
The Planning staff feels that the plat needs more
thought given to overall traffic circulation with more
thought given to placement of drives, parking, and
buildings on Tract A. The Wisenhunt Tract to the east
is especially important to circulation given the
relationship of the private roadway extending to the
east. The Planning staff feels that this area is
becoming impacted by each developer dealing with a lot
as a separate entity. A commercial subdivision such as
this deserves a better future than that offered by
unplanned access. The parking and circulation if
developed individually and without thought to the
general area over a number of years will jeoparidize
the desirability of these business locations.
E. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends aproval subject to:
(1) Engineering comments.
(2) Minor plat omissions.
(3) A broader view of the access issue.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87)
Mike Batie of the Public Works Department discussed the
driveway and access issues developed by Henk Koornstra of
the Traffic Engineering Office. The concerns primarily
centered on the potential for multiple points of entry in a
short distance with overlapping turning movement. Don
Chambers representing the plat responded to these comments
by stating that a site plan will be forthcoming which will
clarify some of these issues and perhaps eliminate some of
the driveways which cause concern. There was additional
discussion of the access drive behind MacDonald's.
Mr. Chambers said this will be worked out on the site and
that they will work further with the Engineering Department.
Little Rock Water Works says in its report that an on -site
fire protection system may be required. Wastewater Utility
has no request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, this item was placed
on the consent agenda for deferral items. A motion was made
to defer the application until the September 22 meeting.
The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent,
1 open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff reported that the applicant had requested a 30-day
deferral.
Utility Comments - On-site fire protection may be
required.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-22-87)
A motion was made for deferral as requested by the applicant
until the November 3 meeting. The motion passed by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a request
for withdrawal.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The item was withdrawn as requested by the applicant. The
vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME: Plumlee - Request for Waiver of
Subdivision Regulations
LOCATION: North Side of Beck Road off
Pinnacle Valley Road
APPLICANT: J.A. Carl and Mattie R. Plumlee
c/o Cary Basham
211 Spring Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
STAFF REPORT:
The applicant is requesting a total waiver of the
subdivision requirements regarding a 2.0 acre tract.
The current owners purchased the property from Donald P. and
Mary A. Haney on September 13, 1977, and have only recently
been advised that it was one -half of a lot. Thus, this was
illegal and water services have been denied.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denied.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained his proposal. Due to a mistake on
the survey, which seemed to show the lots as two instead of
one, staff requested more time to reconsider the request and
form a position. The applicant was asked to provide a
subdivision plat, dedicate right -of -way, and provide a
building setback.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The application was reprpented by Mr. Carey Basham. Staff
recommended approval of the plat, subject to confirming with
Engineering that 30" on plat was adequate right-of-way
dedication, FW dedication on northern portion of property,
utility review and easements and the owners' signatures.
Mr. Troy Laha, surveyor, was present.
There was discussion as to the proper procedure of handling
requests such as this. Staff explained that there were
numerous such illegally platted parcels in the area that
would be requesting water service. There were applicants
with similar requests in the audience at this meeting. One
Commissioner felt that the practical situation was whether
or not the Commission should prevent the owner from using
2.0 acres of land, even though it is not a legal lot of
record as identified by the ordinance.
It was decided that some policy needed to be established
regarding this type of problem. Staff was asked to gather
facts about what was going on in the area, find out the
ownership pattern in the area, and meet with the City
Attorney about establishing a strategy for dealing with this
problem.
A motion for deferral until November 3 and was made and
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff explained the results of a study on the ownership
pattern at the retreat. The staff's recommendation is
approval, subject to resolution of the street improvement
issues and a policy on requiring an in-lieu contribution.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed, subject to
working out in-lieu contributions with the Engineering
Department. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0
noees, 1 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Z-4875
NAME: Thomas Memorial Baptist Church
Conditional Use Permit
(Z -4875)
LOCATION: The northwest corner of Brown
and 14th Streets (1316 Brown
Street)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Board of Trustees Thomas
Memorial Baptist Church /John B.
Sewall
PROPOSAL:
To expand an existing church facility in two phases which
are: (1) to construct a 20 feet two story addition (west),
add a second floor on the west 42 feet (35 feet in height)
of the existing building plus a one level corridor on both
sides of the building, and add a 17 space off-site parking
lot; and in Phase II to add a second floor to the remaining
area (auditorium) increasing the capacity from 90 to 150
persons (the church hopes to purchase Lot 6 and construct an
additional 16 parking spaces) on land that zoned "R-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to two residential streets (14th Street and
Brown Street).
2. Compatibility With Neighborhood
This property lies within the Stephens School
Neighborhood Plan. The land use plan calls for single
family in the entire area. The existing facility is
compatible with the surrounding area even though it
does not have any off - street parking. The proposed
second story addition (35 feet) would have a tendency
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
to overshadow adjacent single family uses especially
considering that two setback variances would be
required (14th Street and on the alley). The staff
feels that this proposal would constitute an
overbuilding of the site and would be incompatible with
the surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
The existing site has no parking. The proposal
contains one access (dropoff) off Brown Street and a
paved 17 space parking lot. The applicant is also
proposing a future 16 space parking lot (once acquired)
at the time of Phase II construction.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant has proposed landscaping on the parking
areas.
5. Analysis
The staff does not feel that this proposal would be
compatible with the surrounding area (see note number
2). The staff feels that the proposed addition (35
feet in height) would infringe on the single family
located adjacent to the north and the east. The
overbuilding would result in two setback variances (25
feet rear/alley and 25 feet corner lot /14th Street).
Finally, the staff cannot recommend approval of a
parking lot on land that is not owned by the
applicant.
6. City Engineer Comments
Pave the alley to a width of 20 feet (from 14th Street
to the proposed parking lot) and use for two-way
traffic.
7. Staff Recommendation
Denial of the proposed church expansion.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The agent for the applicant was present and stated that the
height of the proposed second story would probably be closer
to 22 feet. The City Engineer also stated that half of the
proposed drop-off /drive would be located in the right-of-way
and that a franchise from the Board of Directors would be
required. A lengthy discussion ensued about the amount of
the proposed construction upon the site. The Committee
advised the applicant to consider scaling down the proposal.
The Water Works stated that a water main extension for
fire protection would be required because the nearest fire
hydrant is 600 feet away.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-17-87)
The applicant was not present. There was one objector
present. The staff stated that they had received a letter
requesting deferral until the September 22, 1987, Planning
Commission meeting. The Commission then voted 9 ayes,
1 absent, and 1 open position to defer this item until the
September 22, 1987, Planning Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was.not present. The item was not discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-22-87)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors.
The staff stated that they had received a letter requesting
deferral of this item until the November 3, 1987, Planning
Commission meeting. The Commission then voted 10 ayes,
1 absent to defer this item until the November 3, 1987,
Planning Commission meeting.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The staff stated that they had
received a revised proposal, but they would have to
recommend the withdrawal of the item without prejudice due
to the fact that the new proposal contained property that
the church did not own. The Committee told the applicant to
get with the staff as soon as possible to provide proof of
an option to buy or ownership.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11-3-87)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
staff stated that they had received a revised site plan that
included converting the structure on the lot immediately to
the north to a fellowship building by tying on to the
existing structure. The staff stated that they could
support the new proposal due to the fact that it would be
one -story in height with adequate setback from the adjacent
single family located to the west and also because of
additional City Engineer approved off-street parking. The
Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent to approve the
revised proposal as recommended by the staff.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME: Glen Arnold Subdivision
LOCATION: 400 Feet South of Bunch Road,
on the West Side of Caulter Lake
Road
DEVELOPER:
Glen Arnold
ENGINEER:
Bill Holt
c/o Holt Engineering
P.O. Box 223
Benton, AR 72015
AREA: .96 acre NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request
To plat .96 acre into two lots for single family use.
B. Existinq Conditions
This site is located in a rural area that is primarily
developed as single family. There is an existing house
on Lot 1. The applicant wishes to build on Lot 2.
C. Issue /Disccusion /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Street Improvements
The applicant has asked for a waiver. No
justification has been given.
D. Engineering Comments
(1) One-half of 50' right-of-way; 25' from centerline.
(2) Street improvements required if more than two lots
developed.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the plat, denial of the street improvements
waiver. The applicant has asked to give justification
for this request.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant explained that the waiver of street
improvements was requested due to cost and the fact
that they were nonexistent in much of the area.
Engineering requested additional time to investigate
the area more closely.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Engineering felt that street
improvements should be provided by the applicant since they
were provided by some property owners in the area. A motion
for approval of the plat and denial of the waiver request
was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1
absent.
I
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME: Treyburn Preliminary
LOCATION: On Bella Rosa, 750 feet south
of Highway 10
DEVELOPER:
Bill Flowers
23 Kings Arms Road
Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone: 225-4026
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Assoc. Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 6.9 acres NO. OF LOTS: 25 FT. NEW STREET: 740
ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request
1. To plat 6.9 acres into 25 single family lots and
740' of new street.
2. 15' setback on Lots 8 and 9.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area that is composed of
single family uses. A significant amount of new
development is taking place in the area also. The land
is wooded with nc existing structures. Snyder Creek is
located to north of this plat.
C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Establish floodway line.
(2) Remainder of ownership should be shown if less
than five acres.
(3) Fifteen-foot setback request - justify waiver
request.
(4) Thirty-foot building required on Bella Rosa which
is a collector.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
(5) Northern boundary of plat indicated as Priority II
on Master Parks Plan.
(6) Name abutting ownership and subdivisions.
D. Engineerinq Comments
(1) Show floodway boundary lines.
(2) Bella Rosa may need to be constructed to collector
standards (60' right-of-way and 36' street).
(3) Restrict D-W access onto Bella Rosa from Lots 1
and 20.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to compliance with Nos. C and D.
Staff has no problems with the plat as proposed. The
technical items, however, need to be addressed. The
area north of the plat has been designated a
Priority II Open Space on the Parks Plan. The
applicant is asked to justify his requests for waivers.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant explained that the waivers were requested
because of a depth problem and that the remainder of
the ownership was greater than five acres. He was
instructed to get with Engineering and Parks to work
out the dedication of lands in the area shown on the
Master Plans Plan.
G. Planninq Commission Action
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval was made and passed, subject to
dedication of floodway. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes,
and 1 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME: Parkway "Tract B"
Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Rock Creek
Parkway and Parkway Place Drive
DEVELOPER:
The Danny Thomas Co.
Agent
212 Center St., Suite 400
Little Rock, AR 72201
ENGINEER:
Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson
and Associates
201 South Izard
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 375-5331
AREA: 6 acres NO. OF LOTS: 9 FT. NEW STREET: 450
ZONING: "O-3" PROPOSED USE: Office
A. Proposal /Request
(1) To permit a 450' long minor commercial cul-de-sac.
The street will be the sole access for only three
lots.
(2) Permit the sidewalks to be constructed by the
owners of each lot as part of the building and
occupancy permitting process.
B. Engineering Comments
None.
C. Staff Report
This is a request to modify an approved preliminary
plat by revising what was originally approved as a true
commercial street between Lots 3 and 4 to a cul-de-sac.
The applicant is asking that the construction of
sidewalks be tied to each lot as building permits are
obtained.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the revisions.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
E. Subdivision Committee Review
Mr. Don Chambers represented the applicant. No adverse
comments were made.
F. Planning Commission Actio
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval was made and passed but subject to
the construction of a 36' street and a 50'
right-of-way. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME: Westchester Subdivision
Phase IV Replat
LOCATION: West end of Westchester Court
DEVELOPER:
Ridgelea Development Co.
Kelton & Valerie Brown
4600 Westchester Dr.
Little Rock, AR 72212
APPLICANT /SURVEYOR:
Robert C. Lowe, Jr., & Assoc.
ENGINEER:
Pat McGetrick
10510 I-30, Suite 5
Little Rock, AR 72209
Phone: 652-7215
AREA: 6.286 acres NO. OF LOTS: 14 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request
(1) To revise an approved preliminary plat by adding
additional land required to make Lots 50, 76, and
77.
(2) To revise plat by relinquishing 50' easement to
Highway 10 and providing a cul-de-sac.
(3) The addition of Lot 62A.
(4) Twenty -four foot wide private drive /45-foot
easement for easement to Lots 77 and 76.
B. Engineering Comments
(1) Where are the S/W required in the entire
subdivision?
(2) Floodway dedication if adjacent to property.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
C. Staff Report
The request for revisions are as stated above. Staff
prefers that the private drive be divided into
pipe-stems. The applicant is requested to notify the
abutting owner, Mr. Tommy Tucker, if his ownership is
2.5 acres or greater and to give the cul-de-sac a name.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
E. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant agreed to comply with the comments made
and to work with staff regarding the request for
pipe- stems.
F. Planning Commission Action
A motion was made and passed for approval, subject to
sidewalks on Westchester Court. The vote: 10 ayes,
0 noes, and 1 abstention.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME: Barrow Plaza Addition
LOCATION: John Barrow Road and
Markham Street
DEVELOPER:
Weingarten Realty, Inc.
2600 Sitadell Plaza Houston, TX 77292
Phone: 713-866-6000
ENGINEER:
Summerlin and Associates, Inc.
1609 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72206
Phone: 376-1323
AREA: 2.07 acres NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C-3" PROPOSED USE: None at Present Time
A. Proposal /Request
(1) To replat 2.07 acres into three lots for
commercial use.
B. Existing Conditions
The site is located in a commercial area. Lot 2-A has
an existing single story structure. Lot 2B will be
used for the new development and Lot 2C is reserved for
the floodway for Grassy Flat Creek.
C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Transfer Creek Lot 2C to City of Little Rock.
(2) Driveway on Lot 2 may be creating spacing problem
which would require a waiver from the ordinance.
(3) Discussion needed regarding use of old roadway.
D. Engineering Comments
(1) Dedicate floodway (Lot 2C).
(2) Driveway on Lot 2B needs to be as far east as
possible due to site distance with bridge railing.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made. The applicant is
asked to look at alternatives to the driveway situation
and discuss with the Commission about the use of the
roadway.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant explained that Old John Barrow Roadway
was still open from Cunningham Lake Road. He agreed to
submit a letter requesting a waiver of the requirements
for curb spacing and to present more information
regarding the dedication of the floodway at the public
hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made and passed for approval, subject to
overflow parking not to be located above the existing land
surface. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME: Otter Creek Industrial Park
Lots 1 and 2 of Tract B
LOCATION: North of Mabelvale West Road
West and North of the Little
Rock Fire Station
DEVELOPER /ENGINEER:
Garver and Garver
11th and Battery Streets
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone 376-3633
AREA: NO. OF LOTS: FT. NEW STREET:
ZONING: PROPOSED USE: Day-Care Center
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Combination preliminary/final plat for minor
subdivision area which is less than five acres.
2. Right-of-way dedication for Mabelvale West Road.
A. Proposal/Request
(1) Access to Lot 1 by private platted access easement
through hospital.
(2) This is a request to plat 4.16 acres into lots.
It is also requested that a 45' access easement to
Lot 1, which is to be used as a day-care center,
be platted to provide legal access to Lot 1 which
will be through the Southwest Hospital tract. The
lot does not have any other means of access.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
B. Existing Conditions
The area consists of commercial and industrial uses. A
Little Rock fire station abuts the property on the
south and the Southwest Hospital site is to the east.
C. Issues/ Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Discussion of access to Lot 1.
D. Engineering Comments
(1) If Lot 1 requires access across the Southwest
Hospital tract, access must be by platted access
easement.
(2) Stormwater detention and Excavation Ordinance to
be followed.
(3) One driveway opening allowed on Mabelvale West
Road, which is to be approved by Traffic
Engineering.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial, because of inadequate access, which could lead
to an undesirable subdivision pattern. The applicant
should submit an overall property development plan so
that the proposed access can be considered in relation
to plans for future development.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The Committee was most concerned about the potential
for additional commercial lots to have access from the
proposed easement; therefore, a proposed layout of how
the lots are to be platted was deemed to be necessary.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
G. Planning Commission Action
The applicant was present. Due to his inability to
provide the additional information requested, a motion
for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes, and 1 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME: Lakeside Addition
LOCATION: South of Foreman Drive
DEVELOPER:
Norman Holcombe
P.O. Box 7244
Little Rock, AR 72217
Phone: 664-1582
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 5.273 acres NO. OF LOTS: 18 FT. NEW STREET: 800
ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request
(1) To revise an approved preliminary (Woodlake) by
including additional property and increasing the
lots so that they number 22.
B. Existinq Conditions
This plat is located in an established single family
area. Foreman Lake abuts on the east.
C. Issues/ Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Ordinance disallows green space between dedicated
right -of -way and plat boundary. Double - fronted
lots are being created.
(2) Notify neighboring property owners.
(3) Redesign Lots 12-13 so that it has dedicated
frontage.
(4) A 15' building line is acceptable on Lots 20-21 if
desired so as to give more buildable area.
(5) Redesign turnaround to simplify traffic flow;
seems so complicated to go such a short distance.
(6) Technically, sidewalks are required on Foreman
Drive.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
(1) Fifty-foot right-of-way required unless granted a
variance.
(2) Excavation Ordinance required.
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until comments addressed. Staff requested
that the green space between street and plat boundary
be into street right-of-way and dedicated as permanent
open space. Several suggestions for redesign of the
plat have been noted.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant agreed to include the green space
adjacent to Foreman Drive in the right-of-way; notify
property owners; and include a dedicated easement
providing access to Lots 20-21 within the lot; have 15'
building lines on Lots 20-21; submit a letter
requesting waivers on the length of a minor residential
since this is 950' and a 90' right-of way diameter. He
explained that a grade problem caused the design of the
turnaround and that he would get with staff and work
out a design before the public hearing. The applicant
stated a preference for a sidewalk waiver. Staff
mentioned that they may be easier built on flatter
portions of the property. The Fire Department requests
that the radii on all culs-de-sac must be a minimum of
50 feet.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
(1) Fifty-foot right-of-way required unless granted a
variance.
(2) Excavation Ordinance required.
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until comments addressed. Staff requested
that the green space between street and plat boundary
be into street right-of-way and dedicated as permanent
open space. Several suggestions for redesign of the
plat have been noted.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant agreed to include the green space
adjacent to Foreman Drive in the right-of-way; notify
property owners; and include a dedicated easement
providing access to Lots 20-21 within the lot; have 15'
building lines on Lots 20-21; submit a letter
requesting waivers on the length of a minor residential
since this is 950' and a 90' right-of-way diameter. He
explained that a grade problem caused the design of the
turnaround and that he would get with staff and work
out a design before the public hearing. The applicant
stated a preference for a sidewalk waiver. Staff
mentioned that they may be easier built on flatter
portions of the property. The Fire Department requests
that the radii on all culs-de sac must be a minimum of
50 feet.
G. Planning Commission Action
The applicant was present. Several persons from the
neighborhood were present. Staff recommended approval
of the revised plan, subject to construction of
sidewalks. The applicant's engineer felt that the
construction of sidewalks would be damaging to the
hillside nature of the property because an extra cut
would have to be made. Staff reported that the
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
applicant had obtained signatures of approval from
property owners on the west that abut Foreman Drive,
and that the Fire Department had requested a radius of
50' on the cul-de-sac. The applicant agreed to work
out all problems with the Fire Department regarding
their comments.
Mr. Preston B. Fleischmann of 8701 Leatrice represented
30 homeowners in the Leawood Subdivision that were not
notified of this projegt. Their concerns were that:
(1) more residents in the neighborhood should have been
notified; (2) size of lots were smaller than existing
lots and had widths of 60'; (3) possible adverse
affects to property values. He also requested that a
restriction in the Bill of Assurance of Leawood
Mountain Subdivision requiring three sides of the homes
to be constructed of brick or stone be placed in this
Bill of Assurance. It was explained to the applicant
that a revised plan was submitted for lot widths of 70
to 75'; notice was required only for abutting property
owners and that the applicant would not be bound by
restrictions in the abutting Bill of Assurance.
Mr. Fleischmann requested a meeting with the developer.
He was informed that the only remaining issue involved
waiving sidewalks, which he had previously said he had
no problems with.
Staff reported to the Commission that the nearest
sidewalk was located on Biscayne.
A motion for approval of the sidewalk waiver was made
and passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 noes, and 2 absent.
A motion for approval of the plat was made and passed
by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME: Southwest Hospital Addition
Tracts 1 and 2
LOCATION: North of Mabelvale West Road
and East of Otter Creek
Industrial Service Center
DEVELOPER:
Safe Care Co., Inc.
900 4th Avenue
P.O. Box 2148
Seattle, WA 98111
Phone: 206-223-4569
AGENT: Don Baker
ENGINEER:
Garver and Garver
11th and Battery Streets
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 376-3633
AREA: 26.75 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: PROPOSED USE: Hospital
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Combination preliminary /final plat for minor
subdivision area which is less than five acres.
2. Right-of-way dedication for Mabelvale West Road.
A. Proposal /Request
(1) To plat 26.75 acres into two tracts.
(2) Tract 1 will consist of 22.96 acres and be
developed as the hospital site.
(3) Tract 2 will consist of 1.26 acres and be
developed as a medical office building. Common
use parking area will be 1.10 acres; and 1.43
acres will be dedicated as right-of-way.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
(4) This plat dedicates a 45' strip along the southern
boundary of the plat as right-of-way and plats a
45' wide access easement, extending from the
southern property boundary which will provide
access for Tract 2.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area that has developed and
is developing as commercial and industrial.
C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Show proposed access on the western portion of the
plat to serve day care center.
(2) 45' platted drive
(a) No gates should be provided on streets.
(b) Public service and access easement to overlay
driveway.
(c) Enter into agreement with Water Works to
maintain fire hydrants.
(3) Clarify right-of-way dedication request.
D. Engineering Comments
(1) Access easement to Lot 1 required.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made. The applicant has
requested that the plat be considered as a combined
preliminary /final plat, even though the acreage is in
excess of that allowed for such minor subdivisions.
Staff has no objections. The applicant needs to
explain the dedication of the 45' of right-of-way.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The comments were discussed. Staff stated that no
further explanation was needed for "C-3." The
applicant stated no opposition to the remainder of the
issues stated.
G. Planning Commission Action
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME: Bowman Curve Shopping Center
LOCATION: West of Bowman Road at
Mara Lynn
DEVELOPER:
A.M.R. Real Estate, Inc.
225 East Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 375-0378
ENGINEER:
Mehlburger, Tanner, Renshaw
AREA: 4.98 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C-3" PROPOSED USE: Retail
A. Proposal /Request
(1) To construct a 51,000 square foot retail
development on 4.98 acres.
(2) A franchise will be provided to satisfy
landscaping that is required in the public
right -of -way and a letter of agreement with the
adjacent property owner to the south is necessary
with respect to the proposed landscaping of the
sewer easement.
B. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Slope in need of, treatment - submit treatment plan
of all exposed cuts and fill.
(2) Ordinances requires a 6' fence and buffer adjacent
to land zoned for residential.
(3) Submit sufficient data on types of uses and
parking.
(4) Doesn't meet ordinance requirement of 300' spacing
between curb cuts.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
(5) Consider primary entrance to be off Bowman Road.
(6) Shield residential area across the street from
parking lot lights.
(7) Submit phasing plan.
C. Engineering Comments
(1) If drive-in window is planned, show and indicate
traffic flow.
(2) Stormwater detention and Excavation Ordinance
requirements are needed; especially on slope in
back.
(3) Driveways are to be 36" in width for three lanes
at both of the southern drives. Taper entries to
30' drives as shown.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made. Staff is not
opposed to development of a shopping center at this
location, but sgveral issues need to be addressed to
minimize adverse impacts on the area.
Suggestions have been made for treatment of the slope
and parking facing the residential property to the
northeast. There is concern about traffic safety in
respect to the westernmost drives onto Mara Lynn; thus,
staff has asked for some designation of the drive off
Bowman Road as the primary access. The plan does not
meet the 300' spacing requirement between curbs, so
consider eliminating one drive.
E. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant was present. The treatment plan for the
cuts and fills was reviewed with no adverse comments.
The applicant felt that the residential property to the
West would be better served by leaving the existing
trees as they are since there is 15 feet between the
property line and the back of the building.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
Mr. Dan Phillips, owner of the property to the west,
stated that he would work out an agreement with the
applicant regarding the buffer and fence issue.
The applicant explained that the service drive at the
rear was designed for one-way traffic and would be for
right turn only. The curb spacing was found to 240'
between the first two curbs from the north and 290'
between the second two. No phasing plan is needed due
to plans that develop the total proposal at once.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant explained that he wanted the Commission to
consider an alternative proposal showing the division of
the site into two -lots, which would allow for the possible
sale of a portion of this lot. The Commission decided to
consider the original plan that was filed at this public
hearing and to review the ultimate plan at a future
Subdivision Committee meeting.
A motion was made and passed for approval of the original
plan, allowing for consideration of the alternative plan by
the Subdivision Committee within 90 days. The vote:
10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME: Andy's of America - Site Plan
Review
LOCATION: 600' East of Bowman and Markham,
South Side of Markham
DEVELOPER:
Andy's of America, Inc.
206 Louisiana
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 376-1020
ENGINEER:
White- Daters and Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: .9 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C-3" PROPOSED USE: Office /Restaurant
A. Proposal /Request
(1) To construct two buildings on a site that is .9 of
an acre for use as office /restaurant.
(2) Development Statistics
(a) Restaurant
- 2916 sq. ft.
- 36 parking spaces
- 1 handicapped parking space
(b) Future Office Building - Andy's Headquarters
3,000 square feet
8 parking spaces
B. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Show footprint of office building.
(2) Remove and parking spaces and provide turnaround
near office building. Parking must meet ordinance
requirements.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
C. Enqineerinq Comments
(1) Are the curb cuts shown the same as those
previously agreed upon?
(2) Stormwater discharged into Rock Creek by concrete
flumes.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made. Curb cuts must
conform with previous agreement on West Markham land
addition plat.
E. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant agreed to show the footprint of the
proposed office building, move the building further to
the east, and provide parking. Engineering was willing
to accept the curb cut proposed as long as the
easternmost drive is one way exiting.
F. Planning Commission Action
A motion for approval was made and passed, subject to
redesign of the building and parking to Traffic
Engineering's approval. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes,
and 1 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME: Macon Shopping Center
Site Plan Review
LOCATION: On Macon Drive between Huron
Lane and Merrill Drive
DEVELOPER:
Bill Hastings, Agent
Rector Phillips Morse
Realty
8th Floor, Prospect Bldg.
1501 North University
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 664-7807
A. Proposal /Request
(1) The construction of a four building, 27,300 square
foot project on 2.5 acres.
(2) Development Proposal
(a) Buildings
A - 7,000 square feet
B - 4,350 square feet
C - 11,000 square feet
D - 4,950 square feet
27,300 square feet
(b) Parking
- 139 spaces (5 handicapped)
B. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) More specifics regarding the proposed uses as
needed.
C. Engineering Comments
(1) Excavation and Detention Ordinance requirements.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
(2) S/W on one side required -- collector standards.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approved, subject to comments made. This site is
located in an area that has developed, and is still
developing as office and commercial, so the proposed
use is appropriate. Adequate parking is provided at
5.1 spaces per 1,000 square foot is in excess of
ordinance requirements. More information is needed,
however, on the type of uses to be provided, since
staff should know if food service establishments will
be included.
E. Subdivision Committee Review
The item was discussed. Staff explained that more
explanation of the uses was requested due to staff's
desire to consider compatibility and traffic flow in
the review of site plans. The applicant stated that no
restaurant uses would be involved.
F. Planninq Commission Action
A motion for approval as filed was made and passed by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME: The Summit "Long -Form PCD"
(Z-4923)
LOCATION: West Side of Shackleford Road
Between I-430 and West 36th
DEVELOPER:
Austin Dev. Co.
2216 43rd
Meridian, MS 39305
Phone: 601-693-2703
ENGINEER:
Lawrence Beame
Kober /Bellaschi Assoc.
353 Alcazar Avenue
Coral Gables, FL 33134
AREA: 97.446 acres FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "O-2" PROPOSED USE: PCD
A. Developmental Concept
This submittal describes plans for a mixed use
development of office, hotel, and retail to be located
on 97.446 acres at the intersection of Shackleford Road
and I-430. A two -level retail galleria in the center
of the highest level will be the focal point; and glass
enclosed entrances will provide a welcome atmosphere.
The developer has listed several major design features
and plan components which will include:
(1) Internalized ring road.
(2) Two phased project with off -site improvements to
be constructed in Phase I. Site grading
accomplished during initial phase so that building
construction during the second phase will require
minimal disruption.
(3) Only four points of access to Shackleford in the
3,000 linear feet of spacing, whereas the City
regulations allow for ten.
(4) Cut and fill has been minimized.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
(5) Perimeter Open Space
Treatment of landscaped areas and natural buffer
areas ranging in width from 50' to 100'. A true
survey has been done to reflect the number and
location of large species of trees to be
retained.
(6) Intense landscaping of open space and parking in
excess of City requirements.
(7) Pedestrian connections between major use ares
within the site and covered walkways and bridges
to facilitate encouraging pedestrian movement.
(8) Preservation of an approximate two acre lake as a
focal point for major office development and will
serve as primary detention facility.
(9) Improvements include reconstruction of Shackleford
Road to a five-lane section of installation of
five traffic signals - cost in excess of
$1 million.
(10) Less traffic inpact than an office development
since it is spread out over more hours of the day.
B. Quantitative Data
Gross Acreage 97,446 acres
Right-of-Way Dedication 2.016 acres
Net Acreage 95,430 acres
Use Area Levels Parking
Office
111,667 6
111,667 6
111,667 6
335,000 sq. ft. 6 840
Retail 975,000 sq. ft. 6 4,625
Hotel 190,000 sq. ft. 10 (type) 280
(250 room)
Restaurant 20,000 sq. ft. 1
1 200
1,470,000 2 5,945
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
C. Engineering Comments
Will discuss at meeting.
D. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until further information provided. The main
issue involves land use and amendment of the I-430
plan. Other issues involve phasing of traffic and
excavation and grading.
Staff, therefore, feels that a mixed used development
is compatible with the surrounding area versus the
straight commercial development. The proposal
represents a reasonable use of property at this highway
interchange with very little long-term exposure to
residential uses. The plan also includes extensive
landscaping and buffering along the highway. The
sit-down restaurants are not as conducive to strip
commercial as the previously proposed fast food
restaurants.
The report on the traffic information submitted is
needed from Engineering. Staff does feel that the
extent of excavations and fills seems excessive. The
applicant should add terracing of the parking areas.
E. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant was present. Staff reported that a
letter had been reviewed from Aldersgate requesting
deferral until they had further time to study the
situation. The engineer, Pat McGetrick, stated that
they were working to develop ponds to minimize runoff
to Aldersgate.
Staff felt that the plan indicated excessive grading
and that more terracing should be provided.
SUBDIVISIONS
PLAN
The Applicant was present. The Planning Director called on
Jim Lawson to make the staff presentation, and reported that
City Manager Tom Dalton desired to make a statement. Mr.
Dalton addressed questions that had been previously raised,
concerning the involvement of the City Manager's Office in
this issue. He explained that his involvement was justified
on projects of this magnitude that involved multiple issues
such as land use and zoning, traffic flow, transportation,
aesthetics and public improvements that involved a number of
City departments; and commitments close to 1.5 million
dollars. His role was to coordinate the several meetings
held between the City's various departments and the
developer, and to ensure that the administration spoke with
one voice regarding the proposal; especially since there had
also been prior complaints as to the City's actual position.
Mr. Lawson stated staff's recommendation as approved,
subject to several agreements made by the Developer.
Agreements made include:
(1) Ensuring that there is no ground runoff problems
that would affect Camp Aldersgate and that the
water quality would be checked periodically.
(2) Improve Shackleford to 5 lanes and a contribution
of 1.5 million dollars to the City for the
widening and 5 traffic signals.
(3) Preservation of as many trees as possible.
(4) No grading of the site or cutting of the trees
until assurance is given that the money is
available for development. The preliminary
will be approved now but, before any work can
be done on the site, they have to present their
final plans.
(5) Donation of $240,000 worth of fill materials.
The City is looking at the possibilty of having
an interchange built at I-430 and 36th Street.
This will save taxpayers a tremendous amount
of money due to the amount of dirt that has to
be moved to this site. They are requiring that
within 1 year or 18 months when they begin the
project, the City should have the site determined
so as not to inhibit the progress of their
development.
(6) A $10,000 cash contribution to help fund an
engineering study for the interchange. The
interchange is for the whole of West Little Rock
since it is growing very rapidly and there
is now a traffic problem on I-630, so other
options need to be explored very soon.
Several persons spoke in regard to the project. Those
representing the project included: Mr. Webb Hubbell of the
Rose Law Firm; Ron Mastriana, who represented the Developer,
Larry Beame - Architectural Firm; Merle Seaman - Landscape
Architect; Ernie Peters - Traffic Engineer; and Patrick
McGetrick, the local Engineer. Those offering favorable
comments included: Mr. Ron Hackleman, the General Manager
of Koger Properties, Mr. Patrick Herndon representing
Property Owners in in Pecan Lake, Colonel Glenn and the
South Stagecoach area.
Mr. Doug Strock represented the Sandpiper Property Owners
Association. He requested deferral. Their concerns
involved traffic, Little Rock's ability to support this
development, and the types of stores to be put into the
mall.
Mr. Joe Davis was concerned about security and did not feel
that this was a proper location for this type of
development.
Mr. David Worley, President of NOBLE encouraged
reexamination of the traffic study; and disencouraged
speedily dismissing the City's I-430 plan.
Mr. James Stuckley expressed fears that Peachtree would
become a thoroughfare for people wanting to get to the mall,
thereby creating negative effects on Sandpiper Subdivision.
Finally, a vote for approval was made and passed by a vote
of 8 ayes, 1 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
.Item No. 13
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.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - 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
None at this time.
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 in fill
development with moderate income homes in this area.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant asked to defer this item to the December
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for deferral as requested by the applicant was made
and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME: Monroe Manor Revised
"Short -Form PRD" (Z-4073-A)
LOCATION: Monroe at "B" Streets
DEVELOPER:
Mike Ipson, Keith Perett
ENGINEER:
Robert Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664-0003
AREA: .51 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "PRD" PROPOSED USE: Single Family Attached "PRD"
A. Proposal /Request
(1) To revise an approved "PRD" from a fourplex of
3,337 square feet to four single family detached
dwellings.
(2) Proposed plan will include 4,146 square feet or an
increase of 22.8 percent over the existing plan.
Land coverage with 15.33 percent on the original
plan, but will now be 18.8 percent.
(3) Development Statistics
(a) Lots 1A and 1B
1800 square feet with a two car carport on
each lot.
Lots 1C and 1D
1700 square feet with a one car carport on
each lot.
(b) Design will match existing structure.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
(c) Units will be two bedroom and 2.5 bath.
(d) Bill of Assurance - Provisions will be made
for common shared driveway.
B. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
(1) Notify abutting property owners.
C. Engineering Comments
(1) Fifty-foot right-of-way required unless granted
variance approved.
(2) Stormwater and Excavation Ordinance to be complied
with.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made. Staff is favorable
to the changes requested but suggest that the applicant
notify the neighborhood due their extensive
participation in the past. The applicant is merely
modifying a fourplex to detached units with no change
in density.
E. Subdivision Committee Review
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission.
F. Planning Commission Action
The applicant was present. No one objected. A motion
for approval was made and passed, subject to comments
made. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15
NAME: Mud Connection 4 x 4
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-3151-A)
LOCATION: Southwest Corner of 65th Street
and Woodson Road
OWNER /APPLICANT: Dr. Robert Barros /James Morton
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 4,550 square feet auto part sales and
service facility (two phases: Phase I - 2,310 square feet,
14 parking spaces; Phase II - 2,240 square feet and 8
parking spaces) on land that is zoned "C-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The intersection of a principal arterial (West 65th
Street) and a residential street (Woodson Road).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The site is abutted by commercial used located to the
north and east, an industrial use located to the south
and an office use to the west. This property abuts a
principal arterial, and the proposed use will be
compatible with the surrounding land uses.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkin
The proposal contains a total of 22 parking spaces (14
in Phase I and eight additional spaces in Phase II) and
two access drives onto Woodson Road (one existing and
one proposed).
4. Screeninq and Buffers
Landscaping has been shown on site plan.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed land use is
compatible with the surrounding area. The proposal
meets City parking requirements. The applicant does,
however, need to submit a two-lot final plat for this
site and the property from which it is being taken.
6. City Engineer Comments
Stormwater detention calculations are required.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a two-lot final plat; (2) meet City Engineer
requirements; and (3) meet City landscape requirements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent to approve this
application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee, and agreed to by the applicant.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
NAME: Carver Elementary Magnet School
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4705-B)
LOCATION: The Northeast Corner of East 6th
and Fletcher Streets
OWNER /APPLICANT: City of Little Rock /Little Rock
School District, Jim Mitchel
PROPOSAL:
To repeal the existing "PRD" zoning to "R-2" and to
construct a 58,000± square feet elementary school (600
children capacity, 42± classrooms) and 75 parking spaces on
9.24 acres of land.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a collector street (East 6th Street) and a
residential street (Fletcher Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is abutted by industrial and single family
uses to the south, vacant land to the north,
recreational (East End Community Complex) to the east,
and single family located to the west. This proposal
lies in a mixed used and residential area. The
proposal can be compatible with the surrounding area
with proper design standards.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
The proposal contains 75 parking spaces and four points
of access (two drives on East 6th Street and two drives
on Fletcher Street).
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
Landscaping has been included on the site plan.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed land use will be
compatible with the surrounding area provided the
design is improved. The staff feels that the proposed
building and parking area should be reversed. The
building should be moved towards the west property line
and the parking should be located on the east property
line with all access taken from East 6th Street. The
site plan should also be revised to show a six feet
screening fence beginning at a point on the 6th and
Fletcher Street property corner and running north
following the school's property line to a point where
the joint school and single family property owner's
line intersects Fletcher Street (approximately 75 feet
south of 4th Street). The plan should also include
screening for the proposed dumpster location. The
applicant also needs to meet with the City Parks
Department to develop ideas for joint access and /or use
of the school site and the East End Community Complex.
Finally, there appears to be a private use restriction
on the property (H.U.D.). Any approval of the
conditional use permit is subject to the applicant
clearing the property for a school use.
6. City Engineer Comments
(1) Relocate or encase existing 48" storm sewer;
(2) Street improvements required on East 6th Street;
(3) Stormwater detention required;
(4) Meet City Excavation Ordinance requirements; and
(5) Keep minimum floor elevations high enough to
prevent the possible flooding of the building.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval provided the applicant: (1) agrees to submit
a revised site plan with revisions as recommended
above; (2) agrees to meet with the City Parks
Department on joint use and /or access; (3) realizes
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
that approval of the conditional use permit is subject
to the applicant resolving any private restrictions
pertaining to the proposed use; and (4) agrees to
comply with City Engineering requirements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with all
staff recommendations with the exception of closing the
access (5th Street) and reversing the building and parking
lot location. The applicant stated that for safety and
traffic flow purposes the present proposal was the best.
The staff disagreed. The Water Works stated that an
existing main under 5th Street and the proposed building
would need to be relocated. The Wastewater stated that
sewer was available from the west side of Fletcher Street.
The applicant acknowledged the utiilty comments and stated
that they would cooperate with them.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present
to speak. The staff stated that they had met with the
applicant three times and had not yet reached agreement on a
revised site plan. The staff also stated that according to
their information, 5th Street had not been legally closed
and any recommendation of approval of this application was
subject to the applicant closing 5th Street. The applicant
agreed to comply. Staff further stated that they had
received a petition from the neighborhood requesting a 12'
barrier fence. The staff stated that they felt that, a 6'
screening fence beginning at the intersection of the south
line of the southernmost Fletcher side single family and
continuing northward along the school property to a point of
intersection of the northernmost single family lot line and
Fletcher Street intersection, would be acceptable. The
applicant agreed to comply. The applicant also stated that
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISION
Item No. 16 - Continued
they had received a verbal release from H.U.D. regarding any
use restriction on the site and that a written release would
be forthcoming. A discussion then ensued between the staff
and the applicant regarding the access for the school site.
The staff and the applicant agreed on what was labeled
Option 3 which calls for one ingress /egress on Fletcher
Street approximately 90' north of East 6th Street and kept
the building and parking in the general location of the
original proposal. The Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1
absent to approve Option 3 as agreed to by the staff and
applicant.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16A - Z-4705-A
OWNER: City of Little Rock
APPLICANT: Little Rock School District
By: Vance Jones
LOCATION: East 6th and Fletcher
Northeast Corner
REQUEST: Rezone from "PRD" to "R-2"
PUPROSE: Elementary School
SIZE: 8.15 acres
EXISTING USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant & Single Family, Zoned "R-4" & "I-3"
South - Single Family & Industrial, Zoned "R-4" & "I 3"
East - Vacant and Public, Zoned "I-3"
West - Vacant & Single Family, Zoned "R-3," "R-4" &
"PRD"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request before the Commission is to reclassify
approximately 8.1 acres in East Little Rock from "PRD"
(Planned Residential Development) to "R-2" for purposes of
constructing a new school. In addition to the rezoning
action, approval of a conditional use permit is also
necessary for the proposed school facility.
The current "PRD," the Fletcher Meadows Project, was to be
an affordable housing subdivision developed by the City to
provide housing units priced around $30,000. Five lots
located north of East Capitol /East 5th have been platted,
and they will be the extent of the development. All five of
the lots have residences built on them, and it is the
staff's understanding that three of the lots have been sold.
In the neighborhood, the zoning includes "R-3," "R-4,"
"C-3," and "I-3." Land use basically conforms to the
zoning, and there, are two public facilities in the immediate
vicinity, the Cheatem Park and the East Little Rock
Community Complex. The proposed rezoning change to "R-2"
will not affect this pattern, and staff supports the
request.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16A - Continued
As part of this process, the Commission must also adopt a
resolution recommending to the Board of Directors that the
existing "PRD" classification be revoked. The necessary
resolution will be represented to the Commission at the
appropriate public hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "R-2" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the "R-2" rezoning
as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes,
and 1 absent.
The Commission also approved a resolution recommending to
the Board of Directors that existing "PRD" Fletcher Meadows
be revoked. The vote - 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
NAME: Roselawn Cemetery
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4906)
LOCATION: East of the Intersection of
Booker and West 25th Street
OWNER /APPLICANT: Roselawn Cemetery /Troy D. Laha
PROPOSAL:
To construct 656 grave plots on .78± acres of land that is
zoned "R-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (25th Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is abutted by a cemetery use to the north and
east and single family to the west and south. The
proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parkin
This site receives its primary access to the existing
cemetery on Asher Avenue. The drive is paved.
4. Screening and Buffers
A six feet screening fence has been erected along the
east and south property lines adjacent to the single
family uses.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
5. Analysis
The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding
area. The applicant does, however, need to submit a
revised site plan that clearly sets the property
boundary and the existing six-foot screening fence.
6. City Engineer Comments
None.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval provided the applicant agrees to submit a
revised site plan clearly showing the property boundary
and screening fence.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. There were no unresolved issues.
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 the staff, reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee, and agreed to by the applicant.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18
NAME: Gregg's Tattoo Studio
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4907)
LOCATION: Between South Elm and South
Cedar Just South of Asher
Avenue (2900 South Cedar)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Floyd B. Adams Estate /Gregory
D. Stanley
PROPOSAL:
To renovate a 3,240± feet house (for residential use) and to
construct a 950± square feet one-story addition (tattoo
studio) on land that is zoned "I-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (Cedar Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is abutted by commercial to the north,
industrial to the south, and a combination of
commercial and industrial located to the east and west.
The existing property is an abandoned residence that is
sited in such a way as not to be of any use to any
adjacent property. The combination of residences and
tattoo studio will be, based on the current
circumstances, compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The site plan shows one paved drive and parking space
(access from South Cedar Street).
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
5. Analysis
The proposed use is somewhat different from the
adjacent uses. The staff does feel, however, that the
renovation and use of the structure will not have an
adverse impact on the surrounding area. (See note
no. 2.) The staff does have some concern about parking
for the site. The applicant needs to submit a revised
site plan that includes a provision for at least two
paved parking spaces (3) preferred. The applicant also
needs to be advised that he will be required to meet
City landscape requirements.
6. Citv Enqineer Comments
Appears to have inadequate parking.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a revised site plan that includes two or three paved
parking spaces; (2) meet City landscape requirements;
and (3) comply with City Engineering requirements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to pave four parking
spaces which will take access from South Elm Street. The
applicant also stated that he would meet City landscape
requirements and submit a revised site plan to include
parking and /or landscaping. There were no unresolved
issues.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. One objector (Bill Rush) was
present and left early but had left word with the staff that
he was generally concerned about the direction that Asher
Avenue was going (morally). The Commission voted 10 ayes,
0 noes, 1 absent to approve the application as recommended
by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and
agreed to by the applicant.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19
NAME: Jehovah's Witnesses
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4913)
LOCATION: The South Side of West 51st
Street Just West of Primrose
Lane (5709 West 51st Street)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Jehovah's Witnesses /Dale R.
Thiede
To construct a parking lot addition (26 spaces) to an
existing parking lot (34 spaces) for an existing church
(213 capacity) on 0.87 acres of land that is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (West 51st).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is abutted on three sides by single family
uses. A public school is adjacent to the west. With
proper screening, the proposed parking lot will be
compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The site contains one access drive (West 51st Street)
and 34 existing parking spaces. The proposal is for
the construction of 26 additional parking spaces.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Continued
4. Screeninq and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use the existing trees
and shrubbery as landscaping.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed parking lot, with
proper screening will be compatible with the
surrounding area. The applicant needs to submit a
revised site plan showing a six foot screening fence on
the south and east property line (new parking lot
only) . The applicant also needs to be advised that
this property has been improperly subdivided. The
applicant will need to file a two lot subdivision plat
on his property and the property immediately to the
south.
6. City Engineer Comments
Suggest stormwater detention facilities be placed on
the property due to the high percentage of impervious
surface.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a revised site plan showing a six -foot screening fence
as outlined above; (2) properly plat the property; and
(3) comply with City Engineering requirements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. There were no unresolved issues.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - 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 the staff, reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee, and agreed to by the applicant.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20
NAME: Howard Street
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4917)
LOCATION: The West Side of Howard Street
150 Feet North of West 19th
Street
OWNER /APPLICANT: Albert and Alice Rhodes
PROPOSAL:
To convert an existing 769± square feet frame building to a
furniture upholstery shop Tno refinishing, no automobiles,
one man operation) on land that is zoned "C-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (Howard Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is abutted by single family to the north,
duplex and single family to the south, vacant land to
the east, and single family to the west. The existing
structure is very neat and well maintained and is
proposed as a one man operation of a furniture
upholstery business. The staff feels that the proposed
small scale use on a well maintained "C-3" site would
be compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parkin
Access to this site is taken from Howard Street. No
paved parking currently exists.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed small scale limited
furniture upholstery use on a well maintained "C-3"
zoned site will be compatible with the surrounding
area. The staff does feel, however, that off-street
parking should be provided. The applicant needs to
submit a revised site plan that contains two paved
parking spaces. The applicant also needs to be advised
that they will be required to meet City landscape
requirements.
6. City Engineer Comments
None.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a revised site plan containing two paved off-street
parking spaces; and (2) meet City landscape
requirements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. There were no unresolved issues.
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 the staff, reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee, and agreed to by the applicant.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21
NAME:
Shiloh Baptist Church
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4922)
LOCATION: The Southwest Corner and
East 12th Street (1200 Hanger
Street)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Shiloh Baptist Church /Gordon
Duckworth, Architect
PROPOSAL:
To construct a two -story fellowship hall and Sunday School
classroom addition (3,200 square feet) to an existing
sanctuary (145 capacity) and to close East 12th Street in
association with a proposed parking lot (28 total parking
spaces proposed, 14 on lot, and 14 in street) on land that
is zoned "R-4."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to two residential streets (Hanger and East
12th Streets).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The existing church site is abutted by single family to
the north and south, duplex to the west, and
multifamily to the east. The lot (church building)
slopes substantially from east to west toward the
alley. The continuation of the existing roofline
should have no adverse impact on the surrounding area.
The proposed parking lot, properly screened will
provide off-street parking where none currently exists.
The staff feels that this proposal will be compatible
with the surrounding area.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21 - Continued
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
No on-ste parking currently exists. The proposal
contains 14 spaces on a lot with access from Hanger and
an alley and 14 spaces in 12th Street if the street is
legally closed.
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed building expansion
will be compatible with the surrounding area due to the
fact that the land slopes down toward the alley (west)
and its spatial relationship with adjacent single
family (rear yard of duplex to the west and rear yard
of the single family to the south). The setback
variances of five feet side yard (south) and 25 feet
rear yard (west) and front yard (north and east) will
have little impact and be but a continuation of the
existing circumstances. The proposed parking lot
should include a six feet screening fence on the north
line to protect the adjacent single family. Staff also
feels that the access should be limited to one
centrally located access from East 12th Street. Staff
also doubts it could support closure of East 12th
Street (curb and gutter is in place). The staff can
support the 14 paved parking space proposal (29
required) due to the fact that the sanctuary capacity
is not being increased and the church currently has no
off-street parking. The applicant needs to submit a
revised site plan to incorporate the previously
mentioned changes and will be required to meet City
landscape requirements.
6. City Engineer Comments
None.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a revised site plan as outlined in the analysis
section; (2) meet City landscape requirements; and (3)
comply with City Engineering requirements.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with the
staff recommendation with the exception of the access
provision on the proposed parking lot. A discussion ensued
about access to the proposed parking lot. It was asked that
the parking lot have one access only to be taken from the
alley and that the alley would be paved from East 12th
Street through the point of access. The Wastewater asked
that the applicant verify the location of the sewer in the
alley prior to construction. The applicant agreed to
comply.
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 the staff, reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee, and agreed to by the applicant.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22
NAME: Eagle Point "Long-Form" PRD
Final Development Plan
LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Ridge
Haven and Napa Valley Road
APPLICANT: Joe White
White-Daters Associates, Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request for final plat confirmation of an approved
"PUD." Engineering would like to find out if the 36'
widening for turning lane onto Napa Valley has been dropped.
Engineering is also requiring stormwater detention
locations, methods, and calculations, and the plan needs to
conform to the Excavation Ordinance requirements. Indicate
why there are no hammerheads at the end of the streets.
David Hathcock requests that all streets be given a name.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission. The
applicant submitted a plan showing the planting of trees and
redwood along the west property line in accordance with an
agreement with Doctor and Mrs. Gold and in line with the 40'
buffer.
Staff reminded the applicant of an agreement to flare
Ridgehaven to three lanes at its intersection with Napa
Valley Road. The widening would occur for about 100' in
order to facilitate turning movements in that direction.
Mr. White stated he would honor the agreement but objected
to having to do it. He was directed to meet with
Engineering to work out an alternate agreement.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A letter was received from the abutting
property owner absolving him of any responsibility toward the
construction of improvements on Ridge Haven Road.
A motion for approval was made and passed, subject to Traffic
Engineering's decision on the need for a left hand turning lane.
The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 23 - Street Right -of -Way Abandonment Request
NAME: Kingsrow Drive
LOCATION: NW Corner of Kingsrow at
Cantrell Road
OWNER /APPLICANT: Lois R. Coulson
By: Mehlburger Engineers
REQUEST: To abandon the west 15 feet
of Kingsrow Drive for a
distance of 165 feet running
north off Cantrell Road.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right-of-Way
This street is a residential collector which normally
requires a 60-foot right-of-way. In this instance, 80
feet exist which indicates a surplus.
2. Master Street Plan
Not specifically listed, the residential collector
standard applies at 60 feet.
3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
Ten feet of additional right-of-way is required for
Cantrell Road. This owner will dedicate this ten feet
as a platting action after this abandonment.
4. Characteristics of the Right-of-Way Terrain
Generally flat for one-half block ±, then beginning a
long grade falling northward to Ridge Road. The
current improvements are curb and gutter on most of the
east side of the street with an absence along most of
the west side.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 23 - Continued
5. Development Potential
None except as redevelopment for the proposed service
station property on the abutting lot to the west. The
site is to be cleared of the current improvements and a
new facility constructed.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The land to the north is residential. To the south and
west are food sales, banks, and general retail. We see
no adverse effect from this proposal.
7. Neighborhood Position
None expressed at this writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
None reported at this writing. The utility companies
have responded by indicating conventional easement
retention.
9. Reversionary Rights
The 15 feet of right-of-way will revert totally to the
property owner on the west side.
10. Public Welfare and Safetv Issues
(1) The abandonment of this segment of street
right-of-way will return to the private sector a
land area that will be productive for the tax
base.
(2) The land involved in a redevelopment proposal will
produce an improved street design with curb and
gutter and proper driveway construction, thus
improving the safety at a busy intersection on
Highway 10.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 23 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends approval subject to:
1. Reconstruction of the driveway access along Kingsrow
Drive to City standards.
2. Relocation of any utility or other public facility
affected.
3. Completion of a final plat on the lot to encompass the
15 feet of street abandoned and dedication of the 10
feet on Cantrell Road.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION:
The staff presented the proposal. Mr. Robert Brown of
Mehlburger Engineers was present. There were no additional
comments added by the Engineering Department except to say
it had been reviewed and approved. The Committee passed the
item to the full Commission without further comment.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11-3-87)
The Planning Commission discussed this proposal briefly. It
was determined that it would be appropriate to place the
request upon the consent agenda listing. A motion was made
to recommend approval of the request to the City Board of
Directors with the conditions as specified by staff. The
motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24 - Adoption of the 1988 Calendar of Meetinq Dates
The Planning staff submitted to the Commission at its last
scheduled meeting the proposed calendar for 1988. The
calendar as drafted includes the six -week format as approved
for the 1987 calendar. With the exception of the number of
meeting dates within 1988, the calendar will be identical to
1987.
The Planning Commission briefly discussed the calendar for
1988 and determined it to be appropriate to their needs. A
motion was made to adopt the calendar as presented by staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 25 - Other Matters - Foxcroft Road Master Street
Plan Amendment
APPLICANT: Bailey Corporation
By: Joe D. White
LOCATION: North end of current Foxcroft
Dedication
REQUEST: To reduce the pavement width
of the remaining 94 feet of
Foxcroft Road from 36 feet as
provided in the Master Street
Plan to 27 feet with a
speed design of 25 miles per
hour.
BASIS FOR REQUEST:
In 1972, the Bailey Corporation requested and received
permission from the City of Little Rock to teriminate the
collector pavement of Foxcroft Road 94 feet short of the end
of the dedication. The Bailey Corporation agreed to provide
funds to extend the roadway when needed and requested as
access to adjacent property. A request has been made, and
the Bailey Corporation is prepared to respond. However, the
Master Street Plan has changed since 1972, and a collector
is no longer required northward to the river. Bailey
Corporation's application indicates that they feel a reduced
standard will suffice to serve the remaining low density
development potential plus a tapering of the pavement from
36 feet will be required to match whatever is constructed to
the north.
ENGINEERS COMMENT:
The Public Works Department reports that they have discussed
this proposal with the engineer and approve of Mr. White's
approach plus the addition of the one sided hammerhead as a
turnaround device.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 25 - Continued
STAFF REPORT:
Planning staff feels that the commitments that have been
made to extend a 36-foot pavement were predicated on a
continuation of the collector street. It seems reasonable
to assume that the roadway will require a gradual transition
or tapering from 36 feet to whatever standard will be
applied northward. It also is reasonable to assume that
since Bailey Corporation constructed all of Foxcroft Road
from the subdivision entry over one -half mile to the south
that they have the option of the taper rather than the next
developer north. This short segment will be sufficient to
construct the transition in such a fashion that traffic
northbound will realize the change in sufficient time to
compensate. The last point staff would offer is that
consideration should be given to some type of turnaround
device at the end of the dedicated right-of-way. We
introduce this thought inasmuch as the private street
extension will probably offer obstacles to driveway
turnaround and other potential. Based upon these
assumptions, the staff recommends approval of the Master
Street Plan modification and the pavement width subject to
the City Engineer's approval of specific street plans.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION:
The staff presented the proposal. There was a brief
discussion of the issue. The only unresolved matter was a
termination device at the end of the street. Tne
Engineering Department indicated that it had suggested and
approved a preliminary layout for a half hammerhead.
Mr. Bob Richardson presented a drawing of such a design.
The matter was forwarded to the full Commission without
additional comment.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11-3-87)
The Planning Commission briefly discussed the request.
Mr. Joe White representing the Bailey Corporation addressed
the concerns of staff and the Commission. The concerns
expressed were those about the future extension of the
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 25 - Continued
street as to its appropriate width and the number of lots
that may be served. Mr. White stated that his client, the
Bailey Corporation, would construct the turnaround device as
requested by the staff at the north end of the construction.
A motion was then made to recommend approval of the Master
Street Plan amendment to the City Board of Directors. The
motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 26
NAME: City of Little Rock
LOCATION: I-430 Corridor from Kanis
to Colonel Glenn
REQUEST:
STAFF REPORT:
To amend the I-430 Land Use
Plan
After review by staff, several proposed changes are
recommended along the I-430 Corridor. Over the last few
years, the land use demands along I-430 have changed from
what had originally been planned. A change from single
family and major office uses is needed to allow for a better
development pattern in the corridor. Thereafter, an area of
commercial /office development is shown between I-430 and
Shackleford, with a PCD recommended to assure high quality
development and to minimize traffic flow problems on
Shackleford and 36th Street.
South of 36th Street to Colonel Glenn the suburban office
area is increased to more effectively use the land, and the
multifamily area is continued on the east side of
Shackleford. These two areas combined with an open space
zone along the flow way of Panther Creek serve as the buffer
from the light industrial area to the single family areas to
the north and east.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of changes.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Jim Lawson presented the I-430 Plan Amendment to the
Planning Commission. He explained that because of the
recent rezoning request and changes in the area the staff
initiated a study of the I-430 Plan in proximity to I-430,
Shackleford, and 36th street. The recent rezoning request
of the Summit was also a consideration in possibly
amending the plan but was not the sole reason. The staff
felt, with or without the Summit proposal a plan amendment
study would be proper. Jim explained that the staff
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 26 - Continued
recommended approval of the I-430 amendments which contained
the following considerations:
1. Amending the SO (Suburban Office) between
Shackleford and I-430 to a C/O (Commercial /Office)
designation. This designation would run west of
Shackleford at I-430 and south to 36th Street.
This land use type would require a PCD rezoning
application for the mixed used development.
2. South of 36th Street and east of Shackleford, the
plan would be amended from single family to a
mixed single family /multifamily use.
3. The floodway areas were designated on the plan
mainly south of 36th Street.
4. The SFA (Single Family Attached) shown on the
original plan east of I-430 is amended to SO
(Suburban Office).
5. Multifamily and light industrial were added to the
plan east of Shackleford and south to Colonel
Glenn Road.
6. An additional light industrial and open space use
was added to an area in the southern portion of
the district.
The Planning Commission discussed the item at length and
then voted to defer action on the plan until the rezoning
request for the summit was reviewed. The Planning
Commission then reviewed this Summit proposal at length.
After hearing the Summit rezoning proposal, the Planning
Commission voted to approve the I-430 amendments to the plan
as recommended by the staff. The vote was 8 ayes, 1 no,
1 abstention, and 1 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 27
NAME: Better Business Bureau
Site Plan Review
(Z-4931)
LOCATION: The east side of South
University approximately 200
feet south of Look Street)
(1415 South University)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Better Business Bureau /Fred
Storm, President and Bob Boyd,
Chairman
PROPOSAL:
To receive Planning Commission site plan review (per court
settlement) which would allow the applicant to construct a
1,500+ square feet office building and six parking spaces on
one lot (6,600 square feet) that is zoned "C-3."
ANALYSIS:
This site plan proposal is a result of a court case that
caused a covenant to be filed on the property. The covenant
requires site plan review by the Planning Commission and
asks that the development plan take the following into
consideration: (1) The fact that some individual lots are
small to the point that single lot development would create
problems; (2) public safety makes controlled access to
University desirable; and (3) close proximity to existing
single family dwellings make necessary appropriate
protective screening of these properties.
The applicant has proposed a six feet screening fence along
the east property line adjacent to the single family area.
The plan also contains parking that meets ordinance
requirements (four required, six proposed). The City
Engineer has reviewed the proposal for parking and access.
Finally, the proposal contains a variance request (rear yard
25 feet required, nine feet proposed).
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 27 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff reserves comments subject to receiving additional
information.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and asked that this item be placed
on the November 3, 1987, Planning Commission meeting agenda.
The Committee stated that the applicant would need to hand
carry a notice around to the adjacent single family
properties located to the east and work closely with the
staff. The applicant agreed to comply. Staff reminded the
applicant that he would need to provide the staff a written
common access agreement or an agreement that one would be
forthcoming. The applicant agreed to comply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
staff stated that they had received proof of notice as
requested by the Subdivision Committee and an agreement for
a common access easement to the property immediately to the
south. Staff also stated that a variance was being
requested (25' required rear yard - 9' proposed) and that
they City Attorney felt that the variance could be
considered under our current Zoning Ordinance Site Plan
Review Section. The staff then recommended approval of the
site plan as filed. The Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent to the approve the application as recommended by
the staff.
November 3, 1987
Item No. 28 - Z-4909
Owner: Markham Real Properties
Applicant: Maury Mitchell
Location: North Bowman Road and Markham
Park Drive
Request: Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4"
Purpose: Auto Sales
Size: 1.1 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
South - Vacant, Zoned "C-3"
East - Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
West - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1. The request is to rezone a tract of land, two platted
lots, from "C-3" to "C-4" for an automobile dealership.
The site is located in the West Markham /Bowman Road
area and the property is L- shaped, so the parcel has
frontage on two streets, North Bowman and Markham Park
Drive. Zoning in the area includes "R-2," "MF-12,"
"MF-24," "O-3," and "C-3." Commercial zoning is found
on both sides of West Markham and a majority of it has
been in place for a number of years. Land use follows
the zoning pattern with several of the multifamily and
commercial tracts undeveloped. The existing "R-2"
zoning is for some City parkland to the west and for a
well- established neighborhood that is located south of
West Markham. With the recent improvements to West
Markham and the extension of Bowman Road north of West
Markham, this area is experiencing rapid growth and
becoming a visible commercial core.
2. Both lots are currently vacant.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
November 3, 1987
Item No. 28 - Continued
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history
on this particular site.
7. The proposal is to rezone the property to permit auto
sales which staff feels is inappropriate for the
location and does not support the "C-4" request. Staff
is concerned with a "C-4" reclassification at this site
because of the open display aspect and some of the
permitted uses in "C-4" being potentially incompatible
with the existing development pattern. Currently, the
uses in the immediate vicinity are either service
oriented or the convenience type such as fast food
outlets. There are some auto related uses in the area,
but their operations are mostly enclosed and permitted
in the "C-3" District either by right or as a
conditional use. Also, approximately one-half mile to
the east on West Markham, there is a new car sales lot,
zoned "C-4," and staff did not support the rezoning
either. Another factor staff considered in its review
is the site's location and whether it conforms to the
purpose and intent of the "C-4" District. The Zoning
Ordinance states that "appropriate locations for this
district are along heavily traveled major traffic
arterials and suitable for displaying storage outside
the confines of an enclosed building." Neither North
Bowman or Markham Park Drive can be characterized as
heavily traveled arterials and only North Bowman is
identified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial. One additional plan element that needs to be
mentioned is the I-430 District Plan. The recommended
land use for the area in question is designated as
community shopping center, and both the "C-2" and "C-3"
Districts are more appropriate classifications for that
type of designation. "C-4" is not normally associated
with or lends itself to that development pattern.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C-4" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Maury Mitchell, was present. Three objectors
were in attendance. Mr. Mitchell spoke briefly and
introduced John Harris, the proposed buyer of the property.
Mr. Harris said that he has several new car dealerships in
November 3, 1987
Item No. 28 - Continued
the Central Arkansas area and indicated that there was a
need for a speciality dealership for used autos in West
Little Rock. He said he would specialize in the upper end
of the auto market, such as Mercedes and Corvettes.
Mr. Harris then discussed existing dealerships in West
Little Rock and presented the proposed site plan and some
photos. He went on to describe the site plan and said the
lot would be completely asphalt with a 3500 square foot
building. Mr. Harris told the Commission that no major
repair work would take place, and he would have to maintain
an image because of the clients. Mr. Mitchell then
discussed the "C-4" District and said that the developers
did not want any junky uses either. He also said that the
land prices will have an impact and dictate an upper end
use. Hal Kemp representing Don Feelen, the owner of
Browning's Express, then spoke and objected to the "C-4"
rezoning. Mr. Kemp said that the area is occupied by "C-3"
uses, and a "C-4" reclassification would destroy the "C-3"
concept. He was also concerned with some of the permitted
uses in "C-4" and said the site plan appears to have some
problems. At that time, there was a long discussion by the
Commission about the possibility of utilizing the "PUD"
process for the development. Mr. Kemp spoke again and said
the use should be compatible with the other uses and a used
car lot is undesirable. Mr. Mitchell described the area and
said that there was nothing wrong with the proposed use, a
used car dealership. There were additional comments made by
the various individuals and several Planning Commissioners
who indicated that the use was compatible with the area.
Mr. Mitchell then questioned the time frame for a PUD, and
Mr. Kemp said that a "PCD" was a reasonable possibility. At
that point, a motion was made and seconded. The motion
stated that the applicant resubmit the request as a "PCD"
which is to be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee at
their October 22 meeting and placed on the agenda for the
November 3 Planning Commission hearing. Prior to the vote,
additional comments were made by various persons, including
Danny Thomas. Mr. Thomas discussed the property and said
that the Bill of Assurance would protect the area. The
Commission then voted on the motion. The votes 11 ayes, 0
noes, and 0 absent.
STAFF REPORT:
The applicant submitted an application for approval of the
John Harris "PCD" (Z-4909-A) for the purpose of allowing an
automobile sales dealership on "C-3" property.
November 3, 1987
Item No. 28 - Continued
The property consists of 1.06 acres that include two lots.
The building consists of 3,545 square feet with 2,105 square
feet for office and 1,440 square feet for washing vehicles.
There is a future expansion planned of 480 square feet.
There will be eight employees and 123 spaces for parking and
display.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval, subject to lighting directed
inward, sales or leasing of private passenger vehicles, no
body work, painting, or engine rebuilding.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made and passed for approval, subject to staff's comments.
The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 29
NAME: Hunter's Ridge Long-Form PRD
(Z-4523) 2nd Extension Request
LOCATION: North Side of State Highway 10,
approximately one mile west of
I-430
DEVELOPER:
Winrock Development Co.
2101 Brookwood Drive
Suite 100
P.O. Box 8080
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 663-5340
STAFF REPORT:
The applicant is asking that he be granted a second
extension of a PUD that was approved by Ordinance No. 15,004
on December 3, 1985. An extension was granted on
November 11, 1986.
Staff has no problems with the request. The applicant is
cautioned that this is the last extension that can be
granted by the Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made and passed for approval of the extension
request. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 30
NAME: Boat House Marina PID
(Z-4331)
LOCATION: North Side of Cantrell at
Worthen Bayou, east end of
Capitol Warehouses
DEVELOPER:
Jack D. Oliver II
Boat House, Inc.
P.O. Box 7621
Little Rock, AR 72217-7621
STAFF REPORT:
The applicant is asking that he be granted an extension for
a Planned Industrial Development that was granted a previous
extension on November 27, 1986, but originally approved on
October 9, 1984.
Staff feels that the equivalent of two extensions have been
granted and any further efforts to extend the approval
should be granted by the City Board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the item be passed to the City Board for
recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made and passed to pass pass this item to the
City Board for consideration. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes,
and 1 absent.
DATE 1'3/41
ZONING
MEMBER
W.Riddick, III
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Sipes
J.Nicholson
w.Rector
w.Ketcher-r��G.9�
O. J. Jones
R.Collins
F.Perkins
✓AYE @NAYE
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
II-/5 . {'_; I ,,:2_ 3 .}C � (p 7 ? 9 I tJ II
1,/' L, c,. '-v I/I,,, c.. i..--i_. i-, '-'--"' '--c.,__.-, -I-L--
'--_....,,. , .... I, • .....--V -... � '-"""' (./ V' ,_,
V I/ V V V ,_, '-"" V V t,,,-' jr' I/ l..,,, v
I/ ,, I/ ,/ ✓ V V I,/ (../ L,,,' v V v V '-"' V
J/ v v" t/ V V V t/ V V t.,/' � V L,,-
A v ,/ ✓✓ V v" V .......--I.,) v V l-/ V v
✓t/ ✓ A.6 V ,::/-t,,'-�v v V V t,/ V' I/
t/ v' v' v" '-"""' V v V I/V ✓v l/' v
I/ � .. i/ v" v V v v .,. <.,,A (,./ v V v--v
y v I/ � t/ v v'J,/ ✓t.,,,/t,.,,/
p' 1,,/ t/ . A AUS.ENT �ABSTAIN -·
\,
/� /3 IYl /S-/(o I&� /7 Ii'--� -<-\.----1-'--
1,,,,,-I,,,"' I,"' � v-v e--v
A.B v V � v V' <---t./
V" l.,/ '-"' (..,/' L,..,--L,.,,-" <-V
"-"""' '-"' � � «--'-"" I,//,' 11
v V � '-"' '--"'v-c,/•v"V I/ A ,_-V""' . l./
✓ I/ v 1-,/ � '-' <.,...,-' ""
-� ✓ c----�-(.,,/' '-"" I.../ v
1,/'"' L,,/' ✓ 1./' (./' (./' .,....--{./'
DATE 11/41#7 ,,
ZONING
MEMBER
W.Riddick, III
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Sipes
J.Nicholson
W.Rector
W.l<etcher
7.Ch� 0:, ::__,,
O. J. Jones
R.Collins
F.Perkins
✓AYE � NAYE
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 19 l;Jt; Lt! lrl1 :J.3 bi.st � b<� �7 b<! �9 Jo
v .,,,,. v i.,,,, '-""' V"' V .--v �
,/ I/ I.., '-' t...-� ,._.. I/ --L,,-V' (...,,
'--l/ I/ <-(..., L.---c.., � '.,,I, V' .__ t,.,,,' v'
t--I-I,/ 4/ c--v y-I/'" ,_,,. I,, 1,/" t/ v v """ ..
'-' V' V"" v' l./ I __, // ,I,,," J/ i:,..,.,-� [/
A, . ,..,
L.,; IP' v b' v-L,, V V" V'v V' I./
� -V'L/ v -> . I," y V G/v' . ""' i.,, V J,,, I/ v L/ V" V V � V
I/' V' ,._.(/ V V J/ V v J,/ I./ � �
v ✓ I/ b'� v" J/ � v 1,/"' v �,_
A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
I I t
'
I
November 3, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
Chairman Secretary
Date