pc_03 08 1988subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
MARCH 8, 1988
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum of ten was present.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were read and approved.
III. Members Present: David Jones, Chairman
William Rector
Grace Jones
Walter Riddick, Jr.
Richard Massie
Fred Perkins
Martha Miller
John Schlereth
Steven Leek
IV. Members Absent: Jerilyn Nicholson
V. City Attorney
Present: Stephen Giles
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME: Oxford Valley "Short-Form"
"PRD" (Z-4965)
LOCATION: South end of Oxford Valley Drive
DEVELOPER:
General Properties, Inc.
c/o Thomas Engineering
ENGINEER:
Thomas Engineering Company
3810 Lookout Road
North Little Rock, AR
Phone: 753-4463
AREA: 5 acres NO. OF LOTS: 23 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request:
1. To plat five acres in the 23 lots for single family
development according to the "affordable housing"
concept.
2. Lots will be 50 to 60 feet wide. Structures will be
800 sq. ft. to 1,200 sq. ft.
3. Each unit will have a single-car driveway and garage
or a two-car parking pad.
4. Construction will begin immediately after final plat
approval and will be sold out within a year.
B. Existing Conditions:
This area is located at the eastern edge of a single
family subdivision with lots consisting of 65 feet to 75
feet. A mobile home subdivision abuts on the north.
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
C. Issues/Discussions/Legal/Technical /Design:
1. Transition area should be provided between smallest
proposed lots and existing platted lots. Remove Lots
6-8 and Lots 28-32 from the plat boundary. Lots 4, 5
and 33-36 should have homes consisting of larger
structures, so that the smaller lots would not be
directly across the street from existing larger ones and
negatively impact their value.
2. Provide.
D. Engineering Comments:
None.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Reserve, until comments addressed. Staff has received
many calls and some letters of opposition regarding the
small home nature of this proposal in an area of homes
with 1,200 sq. ft. or more.
F. Subdivision Committee Review:
The Committee felt very strongly that the Applicant
should show plans for the remainder of the property,
since the intention is to continue this type of
development throughout the remainder of the unplatted
land. He was asked to provide a revised plan for the
entire ownership, showing sidewalks throughout the whole
Subdivision.
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The application was represented Mr. Larry Shelton of
Premiere Homes. Approximately 14 persons were present in
opposition. A petition with 200 names in opposition was
submitted. Staff recommended the item be approved, provided
the applicant presented some plan for the remainder of the
ownership, and identifies the recreation area, and plans for
the transition area between the existing and proposed
development.
Mr. Shelton felt that affordable housing is needed in Little
Rock and that southwest Little Rock is the best choice due
to the value of the property. He felt that affordable home
developers/builders were "locked in" as to where they could
go to do such development since land was difficult to find
in the Little Rock area for such development. His goal was
to build a few units at this time to test the market.
There was discussion of providing a plan for all of the
ownership and whether or not the smaller lot subdivision was
compatible with the existing developments in the area. It
was decided that a precedent for considering compatibility
had been established with the denial of a single family
subdivision on Highway 10 that met all the technical
requirements.
The Commission asked that the applicant consider committing
to a minimum square footage. There was concern over the
proposal of 800 square foot houses in an area where many
homes were composed of 1,200 square feet. He would not
commit to a minimum house size because he felt that a larger
house did not mean a better physical design. He did agree
to consider the request.
The specific concerns of the staff and Commission that the
applicant was asked to resolve included: (1) considering a
minimum house size that is over 800 square feet; (2) open
space allocation of entire ownership; (3) submit overall
development plan on entire ownership; (4) defined
"affordable housing" by specifying lot yield; (5) deal with
compatibility question through transition zone; and (6) work
with the neighborhood.
A motion for deferral until March 8 was made and passed,
subject to the concerns stated above. The vote was 10 ayes,
0 noes, and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Due to a request by the applicant, the item was deferred to
the May 31st agenda. A motion to this effect was made and
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
See Engineering about Hinson Woods Drive and Hinson
Woods Place. Centrally located access point
preferred. Also discussed access circulation and
street width. Build loop street to residential
standards.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was instructed to meet with Engineering and
resolve their comments. The engineer, Mr. Joe White, said
that no floodway was involved in this project, but the
creek would be channelized.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present. Mr. Joe White was
present, representing the developer. The staff offered its
comments and recommendation which reduced to: approval
subject to dedication of any floodway land encroaching upon
this tract, plus resolving the traffic issues identified by
City Engineer Don McChesney. These issues were: (a)
pavement width on internal streets, (b) need for proper
loop street, (c) only one access onto Hinson Road, and
(d) eliminating the traffic island.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME: Southwest Subdivision/Site Plan
Review
LOCATION: Southwest corner of Markham and
Bowman
DEVELOPER:
Rock Creek Sq. Limited
12720 Hill Crest Green
Suite 400
Dallas, TX
Phone: 214-991-7881
ENGINEER:
Melburger Tanner and Renshaw
P.O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72203-3837
Phone: 375-5331
AREA: .915 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET:
ZONING: "C-3"
PROPOSED USES: Restaurant /Bank
A. Proposal/Request:
1. To construct a branch bank facility and a
restaurant.
2. Cooperative Agreements will be used for parking and
access since the owners and developers of this site
are also the developers of Rock Creek Square, which
is adjacent on the south.
3. A single access drive is proposed on West Markham
and the drive to the south accesses to Bowman Road
entry drive to Rock Creek Square.
4. An easement for parking and landscaping is planned
along the southern boundary. The common landscape
area will be from 12 feet to 15 feet in width and
have coordinated planning for the requirements of
both parcels.
5. A replat will be filed to adjust existing easements
and building lines, per "C-3" requirements and
dedicated utility easements.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
6. Development Data:
Bank ........... 1,736 sq. ft.
Restaurant ..... 3,100 sq. ft.
Total 4,836 sq. ft.
On-Site Parking ..... 45 + 2 for Handicap
B. Existinq Conditions:
This site is located in an area that is developed as
commercial.
C. Issues/Discussions/Legal/Technical/Design:
1. Show southern half of site in data.
2. Remove dumpster out of building setback area on
Bowman. Place in southwest corner.
D. Engineering Comments:
Handicap parking space milst be eliminated from across
drive. Redesign drive and parking to accommodate
immediate access to building.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Approval subject to comments made. Staff feels that it
is necessary to show the southern half of the site and
give specific data on that site if a Cooperative
Agreement will be used for parking and access.
F. Subdivision Committee Review:
The Applicant agreed to relocate the dumpster and work
with the City Engineer on a solution to the location of
the handicapped parking spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
By request of the applicant, the item was deferred until the
next subdivision meeting. A motion for approval was and
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
A revised plan had been submitted to the staff prior to the
meeting. Since the applicant was not in attendance, the
Committee did not review the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
As requested by the applicant, a motion to withdraw the item
from the agenda was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes, and 2 absent.
March 8, 1988
Item No. C - Z-4973
Owner: Consolidated Leasing, Inc.
Applicant: Grady L. Wahlquist
Location: 3021 Cantrell Road
Request: Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4"
Purpose: Auto leasing with storage
Size: 0.89 acres
Existing Use: Speciality auto leasing
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Office and Commercial, Zoned "O-2" and "I-2"
South - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-3"
East - Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone 3021 Cantrell Road from "C-3" to
"C-4" to permit auto leasing with outside storage/display.
Over the years, the property has been utilized primarily for
auto related uses including a service station and a
speciality auto service, the most recent use. The site has
one building on it and is currently unoccupied. Even though
the property has had a variety of similar uses to the one
being proposed, the lot does not have nonconforming status
for outside display according to the City's Zoning
Enforcement Office.
Zoning in the area is a mix of residential and
nonresidential with the site in question abutting "R-2" and
"C-3." Across Cantrell Road, the current zoning is "O-2"
and "I-2." The existing land use includes single family,
multifamily, office, and commercial uses ranging from eating
places to a tire service center. To the west, there is an
established single family neighborhood, but the proposed
reclassification will not impact it because there is a grade
difference and the prior auto uses did not create any
problems.
The Heights/Hillcrest District Plan recommends a commercial
pattern for this portion of Cantrell Road but does not
suggest that it be restricted to any particular commercial
classification. Considering the location and the existing
development, staff views the "C-4" request as being a
reasonable option.
March 8, 1988
Item No. C - Continued
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. Access points to be reviewed by the City Engineering
staff .
2. A right-of-way of 50 feet from the centerline for
Cantrell Road. This will require dedication of
additional right-of-way because the survey reflects
existing right-of-way of 60 feet, 30 feet from the
centerline.
3. A 20 to 25-foot drainage easement adjacent to the west
property line is needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-4" rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:' (2-23-88)
The applicant was represented by Henry Osterloh, an
attorney. David McCreery, an adjacent property owner, was
present and expressed an interest in the case. Mr. Osterloh
spoke briefly and said there were no problems with the
dedication of additional right-of-way for Cantrell Road.
Mr. McCreery said he was not necessarily opposed to the use
but did have some concerns about development specifics such
as lighting. There were a number of comments made by the
Planning Commission and staff responded to several concerns.
Mr. McCreery spoke again and said he was concerned with the
rezoning because of not restricting the use and then went on
to discuss the PUD process. There was a long discussion
about "C-4," and Mr. Osterloh tried to answer some
questions. Kenny Scott of the City's Enforcement staff
responded to a comment about the site's nonconforming
status. The Planning Commission then discussed the
possibility of deferring the item, and Mr. Osterloh agreed
to a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the
March 8, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote
of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3-8-88)
The applicant, Grady Wahlquist, was present and requested a
deferral to the April 5, 1988, meeting. There were no
objectors in attendance and no one spoke in opposition to
the deferral request. A motion was made to defer the item
to the April 5, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME: Gold Addition
LOCATION: Ridge Haven Road west of
Napa Valley
DEVELOPER:
Allen G. Gold
12600 Ridge Haven Road
Little Rock, AR 72207-0227
ENGINEER:
White-Daters & Associates,
Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREAS: 5 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Proposal/Request
To subdivide five acres into two for single family
use.
B. Existing Conditions
The area is composed of acreage tracts with ongoing
construction of a smaller lot single family subdivision
to the immediate east of the site.
C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design
1. Justify/explain lot design/configuration.
2. Fire Department comments that the proposed
driveway is not of the required minimum width.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
3. Twenty-foot right-of-way dedication.
4. Indicate access easement to Lot 2.
D. Enqineerinq Comments
Will comment at the meeting.
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until issues addressed.
Staff does not have objections to division of the
five -acre into two and the removal of existing
driveway; however, some explanation is needed as to
the design of the two lots whereby 50' is left to the
west of Lot 1 and 100' to the east. The applicant
should resolve the Fire Department.
F. Subdivision Committee Review;
The applicant and her engineer were in attendance.
Mr. Joe White, the engineer, stated that the request
was prompted by the desire for a new home, but a
reluctance to move. He explained that the layout was
designed to allow future development of the property by
the children of the applicant if desired.
The applicant agreed to resolve the Fire Department
issue and widen the 50' portion of the property on the
west to 601. Staff pointed out that a depth to width
variance would be needed in the future.
Sewer main extension required from Eagle Pointe
Subdivision.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion to approve this application as recommended by the
staff was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2
absent.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME: Riverdale Harbor
Development "Long-Form"
(Z-4987)
LOCATION: North of Riverfront Drive
between Turtle Creek and
River Bend
DEVELOPER /AGENT:
Walker Real Estate, Architect
Riverdale Harbor Partnership
2228 Cottondale Lane, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 666-4242
ARCHITECT:
Joe Stanley, Tommy Polk
Polk/Stanley & Associates
700 South Schiller
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 378-0878
AREAS: 40 acres NO. OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "O-2" (Office)
PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use Development
A. Proposal /Request
1. To develop a 40 acre mixed use development
comprised of a marina, multifamily neighborhood,
commercial, and office uses focused on the
recreational uses of the scenic Arkansas River.
2. To develop a six acre marina as the central focus
of the development.
3. The blending of service and commercial retails
into a speciality center by the riverfront/marina
and small store configuration.
4. To develop three principal access points from
Riverfront Drive in anticipation of the festival
draw the lock canal will interject into the
project.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
5. Dedication of internal streets to the City.
6. To close and/or relocate Riverdale Road in the
future.
7. Use of natural berms to shelter the surface
parking.
8. Development Data:
(see attached sheet).
C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design
1. Specify phases on a site plan.
2. Give more information on the relationship of the
commercial area to abutting condominiums.
3. Submit traffic study based on phasing and final
buildout.
D. Engineering Comments
1. All entrances have to be redesigned.
2. Median breaks need to be studied in accordance
with the Master Grading Plan.
3. Review design of internal intersections.
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until issues addressed.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
Engineering explained that the requested study related
to access points and turning. They requested
realignment and rearrangement of parking on the north
end. Mike Batie, Assistant City Engineer, stated a
need for further review of the proposed circulation
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
system since the two access roads would be dedicated to
the City.
The applicant explained that the commercial use would
be 70' from the nearest Bailey condominium.
A 42" sewer main runs through the harbor and clubhouse.
There was also some discussion of the proposed
commercial uses.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff stated its recommendation as approval, subject to
resolution of the engineering issues.
Mr. Brad Walker, developer, gave an overview of the project
and presented a revised plan indicating changes in the
intersections with Riverfront Drive. In responding to
questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Walker explained that
a construction bond would be provided at building permit
time for the marina and lock. The Riverdale Levee
Improvement District would have authority over the locks and
floodgate placed in the easement. Any cost incurred would
be assessed the marina property through Special Improvement
Districts. He stated that no burden would be placed on
other property owners in Riverdale. The total impact would
be assessed against this project and anything within the
easement would need the consent of the District
Commissioner.
Staff warned the applicant that any future conversions of
retail uses to restaurant uses may violate ordinance
requirements. Mr. Walker agreed to abide by the
requirements if changes were made. Mr. Mike Batie of the
Engineering Department explained to the Commission that the
revisions made to the plan were acceptable to the City
Engineers. He stated that the original concern was with the
center drive and the stacking distance, but the issues had
been resolved. He also explained that he originally had
concerns about the internal street system if they were to be
public, but the applicant informed him that they would be
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
private. There were no problems with the traffic and no
floodplain issues. He felt that the Corps of Engineers
would review any issues regarding the lock.
Mr. Gene Lewis and Mr. Larry Jacimore expressed concerns of
existing property owners in Riverdale that were relative to
the physical and financial impacts on the Levee District and
the nature of the ownership of the lot. Mr. Jacimore felt
that it would be helpful if the Improvement District
Commissioners would imform the property owners in the
district of any changes.
A motion for approval was made and passed, subject to Fire
Department approval of the revised plan. The vote: 9 ayes,
0 noes, 1 absent, and 1 abstention.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME: Cedar Ridge Five
"Short-Form" PCD (Z-4988)
LOCATION: 600' east of Nix Road,
north side of Kanis
DEVELOPER/APPLICANT:
Maury Mitchell
Danny Thomas Company
400 Centre Place
212 Center Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-2231
ENGINEER:
White-Daters & Associates
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 4.6866 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW ST.: 250
ZONING: "R-2" Single Family
PROPOSED USE: Commercial/Office
A. Proposal/Request
1. To provide a mixed used office/commercial
development on 4.6866 acres.
2. To provide a mix of uses that will complement
rapid single family development to the north of
this property.
3. To provide a mixed used development at the
intersection of a collector (Parkway Place Drive)
and an arterial street (Kanis Road), which by
definition recommends office and limited retail
uses.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
4. Development Data
Site 1 Site 2
Land Area 86,000 79,296
Building Area 15,600 15,000
Paved Area 34,290 28,912
Open /Unpaved 42% 45%
Office Space 8,400 sq. ft. 7,800 sq. ft.
Commercial 7,200 sq. ft. 7,200 sq. ft.
Parking 75 60
C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design
1. Property located in City's Upper Rock Creek Plan
in area designated as "Transition Zone." The
recommended uses are multifamily, office, and
office warehouse.
2. Twenty-five foot buffer along property line and
125 foot building setback required.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Drives need radius of 20'.
2. Sidewalk needs to be adjacent to property line.
3. Kanis Road needs 45' from centerline for
right-of-way.
4. Five-lane road section needed.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial due to departure from Land Use Plan and
potential of future strip commercial development.
Staff is concerned about the number of uses proposed in
the convenience store/gas pump islands, restaurant, and
beverage shop. Staff prefers to see accessory-type
commercial and personal services. It is recommended
that retail be restricted to 10 to 15 percent. The
applicant has not met buffer and setback requirements.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The main issue was identified as land use. Staff felt
that there was already 100 acres of land zoned for
commercial uses in the area. The proposal was not
considered acceptable for a transition zone, the
purpose of which is to allow "some" potential for
commercial development.
Sewer pump station currently not allowed, contact LRWU.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Due to a request by the applicant, a motion for withdrawal
was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2
absent.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME: R and R Residential Care
"Short- Form" PRD (Z-4985)
LOCATION: Wolfe Street and Roosevelt
Road
DEVELOPER:
Rose Ruffin /Robert Richardson
6401 East 49th
North Little Rock, AR 72117
Phone: 945-1406
ENGINEER /ARCHITECT:
Michael Hahn Associates,
Architect
2100 Broadway
P.O. Box 1285
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 374-2009
AGENT:
Columbus Brown
372-2834
AREA: 1.66 acres NO. OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R-4" and "R-5" to PRD
PROPOSED USE: Residential Care and Child Care Facilities
A. Proposal /Request
1. To combine 1.66 acres of individually divided and
zoned property into a single unified and
comprehensive development comprising a residential
care facility and a child care center into phases.
2. a. Development Data:
- Existing Residential Care (2- story... 6,400 sq. ft.
- Proposed Residential Care ........... 11,300 sq. ft.
- Proposed Child Care ................. 3,000 sq. ft.
Total Building Area 20,700 sq. ft.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
b. Parking & Pavement ...43 spaces /17,400 sq. ft.
C. Landscaped Area....... 34,298
3. Right-of-Way Abandonment
B. Existinq Conditions
Develop areas to the south, east, and north for
residential. Mitchell Elementary School is to the
west. Site characteristics include an existing
structure to the north with the remaining portion of
the property undeveloped.
C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
1. Shift playground eastward so that residential use
to the north is not impacted.
2. Provide a 6' opaque feet on the north and west
sides.
3. Consider fencing playground.
D. Engineer Comments
1. Angle parking to encourage one-way movement in
area near Roosevelt Road.
2. Limit access drive to one-way west.
3. Dedicate 40' of right-of-way from centerline.
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until comments addressed.
Upon reviewing this proposal, staff considered the
heavy amount of traffic on Roosevelt and a location of
the school on the west; thus, it was decided that some
sort of limitation on the flow traffic should be
requested to provide problems at peak times.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
The applicant defines a residential care facility as "a
place of residence and board for three or more
individuals whose functional capabilities have been
impaired but do not require hospital or nursing home
care on a daily basis but could require other
assistance in activities of daily living." It is a not
a traditional boarding home /room and lodging facility.
The proposed structure will consist of 17,700 square
feet, a maximum of 70 beds, and one full bath per four
residents. Many services and household features for
the elderly will be provided. An elderly day-care
service will also be included for individuals residing
outside the facility.
The day-care center will provide care for a maximum of
60 children with a staff of six, plus the Director and
administrative secretary. Staff has no problems with
the proposed uses.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant requested that he be allowed to revise
the submitted proposal. He was asked to submit the
request to staff in writing before the meeting. The
recommendations of the staff were agreed to. He was
asked to transfer the landscaping area to the right of
the entrance drive.
Sewer requested a capacity contribution analysis and
flow study. Water states that an existing fire hydrant
is not shown at the corner of Wolfe and Roosevelt.
On -site fire protection may be required.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff recommended approval, subject to resolution of any
concerns regarding the alley closure.
Mr. Steve Joiner of the Rose Law Firm represented the
applicant. He proposed to grant an easement for access to
the abutting owners. No objectors were present. A motion
for approval was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0
noes, and 1 absent.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME: Hilaro Springs Road Apts.
"Short- Form" PRD (Z-4986)
LOCATION: Immediately adjacent and
west of 9400 Hilaro
Springs Road
OWNER:
Andy Jones
ENGINEER:
John Dillinger
P.O. Box 9425
Little Rock, AR 72219
Phone: 375-0688
DEVELOPER /APPLICANT:
Hunter Stuart
2816 Painted Valley Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Phone: 227-3415
AREA: 1.72 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R-2" to PRD
PROPOSED USE: Apartment Complex
A. Proposal /Request
1. To construct a 32 unit apartment complex.
2. To provide a secure family environment with
playground equipment for the children, and
exercise area for the adults and designated areas
for family enjoyment and outdoor cooking.
3. Construction shall be of wood frame with cedar
siding and trim. The buildings will be two-story,
with slab foundations. The roof will be
composition fiberglass shingles.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
4. Development Data
8 - one-bedroom units
24 - two bedroom units
32 total
Parking Spaces - 48 with 2 for handicapped
B. Existinq Conditions
The area is composed of mixed residential uses. The
site abuts a single family subdivision on the west, and
a single residence on the southeast. Apartments are
located to the northeast. A structure of undetermined
use is located to the northwest.
C. Issue / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
1. Provide individual and total square footage for
units.
2. Staff lacks excitement about location of
playground equipment and required buffer area.
3. Provide information as to date property sold. It
appears that a plat may be needed.
4. A minimum of 10' required between buildings.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Entryway needs to be 27'.
2. Right -of -way dedication required - 45' from
centerline.
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until comments addressed.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The Committee raised questions about the proposed
density, the surrounding uses and the splitting of the
original ownership. It was thought that the project
was too dense at 18.6 units per acre.
The applicant was asked to seek participation of the
abutting property owners in a preliminary plat, since
the land was illegally subdivided into three sites.
Sewer plan must be submitted to LRWU for approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff recommended denial of the project, due to the density,
departure from the Land Use Plan, lack of recreational
space, and a fear of adverse impact to the single family
area to the west.
Mr. Hunter Stewart represented the applicant. He stated
that they had reduced the units from 32 to 30 and moved the
playground equipment and widened the entrance from 29 feet
to 40 feet. Engineering requested that the drive be widened
to 45 feet. The applicant discussed providing the required
right -of -way for Hilaro Springs and deferring the
improvements until further development of the other
ownerships.
Ms. Judy Oswald, a resident of the area, felt that Southwest
Little Rock did not need another apartment complex, and
urged the Commission to vote accordingly.
It was decided that the item should be deferred so that the
applicant could address the issues relating to density,
platting, recreational amenities, area, access, and
buffering.
A motion for deferral to the April 19 meeting was made and
passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME: Ashley Square Revised
Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Northeast corner of
Reservoir and Rodney
Parham
DEVELOPER:
Ashley Square Associates
2649 Pike Avenue
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Phone: 758-7741
ENGINEER:
Robert Holloway
200 Casey Drive
Maumelle, AR 72118
Phone: 851-3366
AREA: 11.63 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C-3"
PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center
A. Proposal /Request
1. To submit for approval a revised commercial
shopping center on 11.63 acres.
2. Development Data:
(a) T.J. Maxx Store............ 24,050
Different Seasons.......... 12,000
Linen -N- Things ............. 8,800
L.L.1 ............. 43,875
Under Construction........ 3,675 sq. ft.
Approved for Construction. 8,435
Proposal for Approval .... 66,360
Total Square Footage ..... 164,435 sq. ft.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
B. (Parking) ............... 596 spaces
- Ratio /1,000 ........... 3.63
C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
The applicant has made some minor changes to the site
plan since the original plan was approved by the
Commission. He was told that additional revisions
would require further Commission review. The Phase IV
building, the proposed restaurant building, and the
building in the northeast corner have increased in
square footage.
D. Engineering Comments
Entrance off Rodney Parham needs redesigning.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The main issue was identified as a shortage of parking,
due to an increase in proposed square footage.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
B. (Parking) ............... 596 spaces
- Ratio/1,000 ........... 3.63
C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design
The applicant has made some minor changes to the site
plan since the original plan was approved by the
Commission. He was told that additional revisions
would require further Commission review. The Phase IV
building, the proposed restaurant building, and the
building in the northeast corner have increased in
square footage.
D. Engineering Comments
Entrance off Rodney Parham needs redesigning.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The main issue was identified as a shortage of parking,
due to an increase in proposed square footage.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
applicant submitted a revised plan showing conformance to
the parking requirements. Staff recommended approval of the
revised plan. Some discussion was held on staff's decision
to use the new requirement of one space per 225 square feet
on the new addition versus the entire site.
Finally, a motion to approve the revised plan was made and
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME: Sweet Home Fire Station
Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Southwest corner of South
Wilson and State Highway
No. 365
DEVELOPER:
Velda Nelson
Planning Specialist
105 Main Street
Wallace Bldg., Room 711
County Planning Office
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 377-6021
ENGR./APPLICANT/ARCHITECT
Ronald E. Ross
719 Main Street
P.O. Box 9330
NLR, AR 72119
AREA: 1.9 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: Outside City
PROPOSED USE: Fire Station/Community Development Center
A. Proposal/Request
1. Site plan review of a multiple building site on
1.9 acres.
2. On the behalf of the Community Workers'
Organization/Sweet Home Volunteer Fire Department,
Pulaski County would like to utilize Arkansas
Industrial Development Commission funds for the
construction of a 3,000 square foot, two-bay fire
station. An eight-vehicle paving area will be
provided. An existing building houses a 4,200
square foot community center with 30 parking
spaces.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
3. Utility services are requested for: water,
natural gas, electricity, and telephone.
4. Gilbert, Hampton, and South Wilson are dedicated
Pulaski County roads on the Mackey Court Order of
June 17, 1970.
B. Existing Conditions
The property is bounded by Arkansas State Highway 365
and by Gilbert, Hampton, and South Wilson Streets.
C. Issues/Discussion/Legal /Technical/Design
1. Main issues regard water service. Approval of
such service would necessitate a water meter
connection outside of the City. Staff recommends
making application to the Water Works for mains
and a water meter.
2. The site plan should be revised to indicate
parking layouts, and designation of building use
and size, handicapped parking spaces, vicinity
map, and acreage in the legal description.
3. A one-lot final plat should be submitted after
preliminary approval is received.
D. Enaineerina Comments
Dedication of right-of-way and street improvements on
principal street in Phase I - 45' from centerline. In
Phase II, do improvements on other streets.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The issue identified involved the required public
improvements. Engineering revised its recommendation
to request dedication on the highway only, with
boundary improvements on the highway, and the
construction of additional lane. No sewer is
available.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff recommended approval of the project, the requests for
a waiver of street improvements, and the filing fee. The
application was represented by Mr. Ronald Ross, the
architect, and Velda Nelson of Pulaski County Federal
Programs. Mr. Ross agreed to provide the requested
right-of-way dedication, and explained that this was for a
volunteer fire department in an area that greatly needed
fire protection. He also said that the community workers
organizations were set up through federal grants and
programs administered by the Arkansas Industrial Development
Commission. The funds were now depleted so a request for a
waiver of the fees and the improvements was needed.
Commissioner Massie stated his vote in favor of the item due
to its benefit to the public; but he felt that AIDC could
have come up with additional funds for this, since the state
of Arkansas receives $12 to $15 million a year for funds
like these.
In answering a question by Commissioner Jones, staff
explained that it supported the waiver of the street
improvement because it is a proposed voluneer fire
department that receives funds from AIDC. Not enough money
is left for improvements and no additional traffic problem
would be caused by the waiver of improvements.
A motion for approval of the plan and waiver request was
made and passed subject to Water Works and City Board
approval of the water issue. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes,
and 1 absent.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME: Little Rock Municipal
Water/Wastewater
Operations and Maintenance
Center - Site Plan Review
(Z-4989)
LOCATION: West side of Shackleford
Road approximately 900
feet south of Godwin Drive
(5400 South Shackleford
Road)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Little Rock Municipal
Water Works and Little
Rock Wastewater Utility/
Charles W. Letzig of
Wittenberg, Delony and
Davidson
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 43,434 square feet operations /maintenance
building (13,500 square feet in future additions), two
storage buildings (no. 1 - 8,400 square feet and no. 2 -
6,400 square feet with 3,750 square feet in future
additions) and 361 parking spaces (253 for employees and 108
for visitors) on 36.59 acres of land that is zoned "I-1."
ANALYSIS:
This project meets City Ordinance requirements for the "I-1"
District and the parking requirements as well (137
required). The applicant has also submitted a landscape
plan. The proposed access to this site is two 30 feet paved
drives on Shackleford Road and one 25 feet paved access to
Talley Road. The Water Works has proposed that the Talley
Road access be used only by employees. Staff agrees that
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
the Talley Road access be limited only for employee access
to parking.
CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS:
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to the Talley Road access being limited
only for employee access.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 9 ayes, 2 absent to approve the application
as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision
Committee, and agreed to by the applicant.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME: Arkansas Eclipse
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4243-C)
LOCATION: The west side of John
Barrow Road approximately
400 feet south of Kanis
Road (1200 John Barrow
Road, Suite No. 404)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Robert A. and William
Johnston
PROPOSAL:
To use 1,000 square feet of an existing commercial center
for an office and automobile window film /tint application
(one bay) on land is zoned "C-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to an arterial street (John Barrow Road) .
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This project lies within the interior of an existing
commercial center. The commercial center is abutted by
single family to the north, commercial to the south and
east, and vacant land located to the west. The
proposal poses no adverse impact to the surrounding
area.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
3. On-Site Drives and Parkinq
The proposal has been assigned four paved parking
spaces (three required by ordinance) and the site has
two points of ingress/egress located on John Barrow
Road.
4. Screening and Buffers
The site contains screening and landscaping.
5. Analysis
The proposal meets City Ordinance requirements and
should not create any adverse impact to the surrounding
area.
6. City Engineer Comments
None.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 9 ayes, 2 absent to approve the application
as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision
Committee, and agreed to by the applicant.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME: Good Counsel
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4984)
LOCATION: The southwest corner of
12th and Jackson Streets
(1321 South Van Buren)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Diocese of Little Rock/
Thomas L. Humphries
PROPOSAL:
To construct a one -story (6,250 square feet) classroom
building addition (five classrooms - two kindergartens, two
first grade and one second grade) to an existing school
(grades 1-8 - 438 capacity) and an existing sanctuary (550
capacity) on 4.04+ acres of land that is zoned "R-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to an arterial (12th Street) and three
residential streets (Jackson, 14th, and Van Buren
Streets).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is abutted by office to the north and east,
and single family located to the south, east, and west.
The new construction will take place toward the north
end of the property (12th Street) and will have minimum
impact on the surrounding area. A church and a school
use is compatible with the surrounding area provided
adequate attention is paid to the resulting traffic
patterns, parking, and drop-off areas.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
The site contains three paved access drives (one on
Jackson and two on Van Buren Street) and will contain
112 paved parking spaces (18-20 spaces will be lost due
to new construction).
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use the existing trees
and shrubbery for landscaping and is showing additional
landscaping on the site plan adjacent to the proposed
building.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed use is compatible
with the surrounding area (see no. 2). The staff does,
however, have some concern about traffic circulation,
parking and drop-off areas. The proposed addition (40
additional students and two additional teachers) will
displace 18 to 20 existing parking spaces. The project
will still exceed ordinance parking requirements (112
proposed for church use - 110 required/less than 60
required for the school use). The staff would like to
see the applicant offer ideas for improvement for
traffic circulation and stacking. The staff
recommendation is also subject to any comments by the
City Engineer regarding circulation and stacking.
6. City Engineer Comments
(1) Improve one-half of Van Buren Street to City
standards for the length of the church property;
(2) Meet with the City Engineer to redesign the
northernmost exit on Van Buren Street.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) offer
improvements for the traffic circulation and stacking;
and (2) City Engineer comments nos. 1 and 2.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The staff stated that it had
some reservations about the project due to recent doubt
about the accuracy of the information it had received and
asked that the architect submit a letter giving specific
information about the capacity of the church sanctuary and
the number of parking spaces that would be displaced due to
new construction. The applicant stated that street
improvements along Van Buren Street would be a difficult
financial burden on the church and the project in
particular. The applicant agreed to meet with the City
Engineer and submit a revised site plan accordingly.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Objectors were also present.
The staff stated that they had received one call for the
project and five against, one letter in support, and four
letters against. Most of the objections related to the
parking and traffic circulation in the neighborhood. A
petition in opposition that contains seven names out of
eight homeowners on 13th Street that opposed the project was
also received. The staff then recommended approval of the
development subject to the parking being verified by the
architect and the applicant submitting a revised site plan
containing the revised parking area and the revised
northernmost access point on Van Buren Street. Staff's
recommendation of approval was also subject to the applicant
agreeing to one-half street improvements from the
northernmost access point northward to the 12th Street
intersection on Van Buren. Mr. Thomas Humphries, the
applicant, said they were concerned. He said that they met
with the City Engineer and agreed to one-half of the street
improvements on Van Buren from the northernmost access to
12th Street. They proposed additional improvements to Van
Buren Street when any other additional construction on the
site would take place. Ms. Cindy Hartsf field who lives at
5218 West 13th Street spoke in opposition. She brought a
petition from the residents of West 13th Street between the
cross street of Harrison and Van Buren Streets.
Ms. Hartsf field said that they were requesting that Our Lady
of the Good Council Church be required to limit the parking
and traffic situation prior to the Commission approval of
the application. She said that they were not opposed to the
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
expansion of the physical site not expansion of the
building. Their problem is traffic and parking.
Ms. Hartsfield also stated that a reduction from 18 to 20
parking spaces resulting from the construction would just
intensify the parking situation. She said that their
request was no different from what the staff had pointed
out. The only exception is that they had asked that the
permit not be approved until they have a chance to look at
what the applicant is trying to do. Ms. Hartsfield pointed
out that the changes were where they were going to make the
accessway off 12th Street will not help them at all due to
the fact that it was a minor change. Their major problem is
homeowners are on the street and traffic parking is a
problem. Mr. Jim Tribou, representing the applicant who is
a civil engineer and is with the developing firm and also a
member of Good Council, said the improvements they would
make will be large enough to accommodate two traffic lanes
on the one -way street of Van Buren from the northernment
access down to 12th Street and the stacking problem was due
to the volume of traffic. There was a lengthy discussion
concerning the traffic and the parking problems. A motion
was then made to approve the conditional use permit. The
Commission then voted 7 ayes, 2 noes, and 2 absent to
approve the application as recommended by the staff and
agreed to by the applicant.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME: St. John's Place
Final Plan Approval
LOCATION: North end of Polk,
west of North Taylor
APPLICANT: White-Daters & Associates
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
STAFF REPORT:
The applicant is requesting approval of the final
development plan for St. John's Place.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed by the Committee. No changes from the
final approved plan were found.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff recommended approval subject to: (1) filing tree
survey, (2) staff approval of the construction access point
to minimize tree disturbance, (3) location of the wall to
minimize tree disturbance, (4) filing petition to close Polk
Street, (5) installing sidewalk on Taylor Street, (6) filing
a tri-party agreement to guarantee completion of
improvements prior to building permit in the last phase.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Joe White of
White-Daters Associates, and the developer, Mr. Dickson
Flake. The developer asked to phase the construction of
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
a street within the development. He explained that he
wanted to delay paving the interior roadway surface in Phase
II in order to avoid damaging the street with construction
vehicles. All the grading, utilities, and drainage on the
entire site would be done.
Ms. Lindsey Huckaby of 2500 N. Taylor represented the
property owners of the area, but mainly those on Taylor
Street. They were opposed to the phasing. They felt that
the busy activity on Taylor Street was not adequately
reflected by the traffic study, since it was done during a
time during a time when one-half of the area was out of
town. The construction entrance should be off Tyler and
Polk, not Taylor. She also felt that the years of
disruption caused by construction would be bad for the
neighborhood. She was against any change in the phasing.
There was discussion as to whether the request was to be
considered as an amendment to the plan. Mr. Flake argued
that this was not a change in the plan. They had previously
asked to do all the site work on the front end and they
still would do it. The only thing requested was phasing the
paving from the interior roadway based upon where
construction would take place.
A motion to include an amendment in the final plan for
phasing of construction of the interior roadway was made,
but failed to pass. The vote was 5 ayes, 4 noes, and 2
absent.
A motion to approve the final plan was made and passed by a
vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, and 2 absent.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No 12 - Other Matters/Alley Abandonment
NAME: All of the Alley in Block
9, McCarthy's and Block 8
of Oak Terrace Addition
LOCATION: Lying between West 24th
Street and Roosevelt Road
west of Wolfe Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Rose Ruffin representing
various owners
REQUEST: To abandon the existing
platted alley for public
use and join with adjacent
lots for redevelopment
as a residential-care
facility and day-care
center.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right-of-Way
None reported and a site plan review suggests that
little potential exists for public use.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no issues associated with this petition,
however, Board policy requires dedication of other
abutting right-of-way when the Master Street Plan
indicates a need. The City's Engineer's Office has not
determined specific need at this time.
3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
None evidenced by this review, however, Roosevelt Road
may require additional. This is to be determined by
the City Engineer.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
The alley running north and south on a grade which
generally falls to the north. The alley is encroached
upon in several instances by buildings and fences.
5. Development Potential
None except as a part of the several lots abutting
which are proposed for redevelopment.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
This block is comprised of older, larger residential
structures which have been in some instances converted
to higher densities in the form of multifamily and
rooming houses. Approximately 40 percent of the block
is vacant land.
7. Neighborhood Position
None reported at this writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
It is expected that utility easement rights will be
retained by the several utilities. At least three have
requested easements for existing facilities.
9. Reversionary Rights
The alley will be equally divided between the several
abutting owners.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
1. The abandonment of this public right-of-way now
unused as a conventional alley will return to the
private sector a land area that will be productive
for the real estate tax base.
2. Further, this action will eliminate an open space
now poorly used and causing a maintenance burden on
the property owners.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the petition subj ^ct to: (1) retention of the
utility easement rights in the Ordinance, (2) dedication of
needed right -of -way on Roosevelt Road as may be required by
the Master Street Plan, (3) replatting of the block to
remove the single family lot format and produce one or two
lots compatible with the planned unit development request
for a day-care operation and a residential-care facility.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3-8-88)
There were no obj -ctors present. The applicant was
represented. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted
to approve a motion to recommend the abandonment of the
right-of-way as filed. The vote 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Other Matters/Alley Abandonment
NAME: All of the east to west
alley in Block 4 of
InterCity Addition
LOCATION: Lying between Asher Avenue
west of 33rd Street and
Mary Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Don Kirkpatrick by David
Henry
REQUEST: To abandon the alley
as public use and join
with the adjacent lots for
reuse.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right-of-Way
None reported at this writing. The alley lies within
an area being assembled by one owner for redevelopment.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no requirements related to this right-of-way
if the rezoning dedication is accomplished.
3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
The right-of-way on Asher Avenue is deficient, and the
owner has been required to dedicate additional
right-of-way in conjunction with the rezoning of the
site.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
The right-of-way is open land area that dead-ends on
the east and is flat terrain.
5. Development Potential
None except as a part of the adjacent lots for
redevelopment proposes.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The adjacent lots on the east are commercial use, to
the west and north are industrial, and vacant on the
south. No adverse effect should be expected from this
action.
7. Neighborhood Position
None expressed at this writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
No adverse effects have been reported, however, it is
expected that the right-of-way may be retained for
utility easement purposes.
9. Reversionary Rights
One owner abuts and will receive the entire
right-of-way.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
The abandonment of this short segment of alley will
return to the private sector a land area which has no
public use but will be productive for the real estate
tax base. The abandonment will allow the redevelopment
of an area platted for residential which is now under
redevelopment as industrial /commercial.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the petition subject to the retention of utility
easement rights within the Ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3-8-88)
There were no objectors present. The applicant was
represented. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted
to approve a motion to recommend the abandonment of the
right-of-way as filed. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Other Matters - Water Main Extensions and
Water Tank Construction
The Little Rock Water Works is requesting Planning
Commission approval for:
(1) A 16" main extension from Chicot Road to Arch Street
Pike;
(2) A 20" main extension from Roosevelt Road to 40th Street
(College Station); and
(3) Water tank construction (west of the proposed Outer
Loop Road).
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 9 ayes, 2 absent to approve the application
as reviewed by the Subdivision Committee.
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
V 0 T E R E C O R D
DATE 0 a
ITEM NUMBERS
20NIIIG SUBDIVISION
-v/AYE @ NAYE AVABSENT l" ABSTAIN ,
rT ly
III
m�
mmul%mmOmmumm
OWN.,
mummmomm
T-. Grace Jones
Numm
KA
FpM
NO,
mmummmom
-v/AYE @ NAYE AVABSENT l" ABSTAIN ,
rT ly
March 8, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at
4:30 p.m.
Date
Chairman Secretary