pc_01 26 1988subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AND PUBLIC HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 26, 1988
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being ten in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were read and approved.
III. Members Present: Walter Riddick III
J. Schlereth
R. Massie
J. Nicholson
W. Rector
F. Lee
T. Grace Jones
D.J. Jones, Chairman
R. Collins
F. Perkins
IV. Members Absent: M. Miller
V. City Attorney Present: Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
January 26, 1988
Deferred:
A. New Planning Boundary
B. Z-4960 - City of Little Rock - "R-6" to "R-4"
Preliminary Plats:
1. Sportman's Haven II, Lots A, B, C - Harold's Addition
2. Edgerstoune Lane Addition
3. Ensco Park Hill, Lot 1
3a. Z-3607-A - Executive Court - "O-3" to "O-2"
4. Keltner Commercial Plat
5. Prospect Terrace Replat, Lot 119 and 120
6. Hickory Creek Subdivision, Phase II Amended Plat
Planned Unit Development:
7. Oxford Valley PRD (Z-4965)
8. Spring Tree Village (Z-4967)
Site Plan Review:
9. Southwest Subdivision Site Plan Review
10. "Tract G ", Orbit Subdivision
Conditional Use Permit:
11. Delta Express (Z-4962)
12. Eleventh Street (Z-4966)
Other Matters:
13. Otter Creek West Phasing Plan
14. Plat Certificates/Final Plats - Public Hearing
on Subdivision Ordinance Amendment
15. Subdivision Notice to Adjacent Owners Bylaw Amendment
16. Bowman/Kanis Road Water and Sewer Improvement
District Public Hearing
17. Alley Right-of-way Abandonment, Block 5, Deafmute Addition
18. Shell Blakely PCD - Revocation
19. Brookside Drive Briefing
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - New Planning Boundar
NAME: City of Little Rock
LOCATION: Generally 3 miles outside the
City limits
REQUEST: Approved new planning
boundary.
STAFF REPORT:
The planning boundary was not adjusted following the last
few annexations. Thus, the City limits is almost out to the
planning boundary in several places. The proposal presented
is to return the planning boundary to a point three miles
from the City limits. This will allow the City to exercise
subdivision jurisdiction in the area between the City limits
and the planning boundary to maintain the quality of
development around the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the new planning boundary.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-17-87)
The staff recommended deferral so that further discussions
could be completed with Bryant and Shannon Hills. The
Commission deferred the item by voice vote.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends a deferral until the January 26, 1988?
Subdivision hearing, in order to allow time to resolve the
current discussions dealing with the City water extension.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-29-87)
Deferred - Deferred on a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1
absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-26-88)
Approval on the Consent Agenda.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Z-4960
Owner: City of Little Rock
Applicant: City of Little Rock
By: Bill Reimer
Location: 1720 Izard Street
Request: Rezone from "R-6" to "R-4"
Purpose: Single Family
Size: 0.10 acres
Existing Use: Vacant Lot
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North -
Single Family, Zoned "R-6"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R-4"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R-4"
West - Parking, Zoned "R-6"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The lot in question is owned by the City of Little Rock and
the proposal is to construct a single family residence as
part of the City's Affordable Housing Program. The land and
house will be sold to an individual upon completion of the
structure. To accomplish this, the property must be rezoned
because "R-6" High -Rise Apartment district does not permit
single family residences. "R-4" was selected because it is
compatible with the neighborhood and permits single family
residences. The existing "R-6" zoning was approved as part
of the Urban Renewal Program for the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "R-4" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 1-12-88
The applicant, the City of Little Rock, was represented by
Bill Reimer. There were two objectors in attendance.
Mr. Reimer spoke and said that the City has owned the lot
for 15 to 16 years and it has been offered for sale on
several occasions. He went on to describe the City's
Affordable Housing Program and that the City has a
prospective buyer for the lot. Varnell Norman, 1718 Izard,
spoke in opposition to the "R-4" rezoning, and said that the
proposed house would changed the character of the
neighborhood.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
Mr. Norman told the Commission that he has maintained the
lot over the years and is interested in buying the property.
He also discussed the area and the size of the lot under
consideration. Mr. Norman said that he has attempted to
purchase the lot in the past and that placing a house on the
site could create a safety problem for other residents in
the neighborhood. Elbert Scoggins, 1801 South Chester,
spoke against the rezoning and said that he tried to buy the
lot in 1966. Mr. Reimer addressed the Commission again and
explained the process of selecting the lots for the program.
Mr. Norman made additional comments and expressed concerns
with the lot size. There was a long discussion about the
various issues including the possibility of deferring the
request. After some additional comments, the Public Hearing
was closed by the Chairman. There was another lengthy
discussion by the Commission and they were reminded that the
issue before them was to rezone the lot from "R-6" to "R-4."
A motion was made to defer the item for two weeks to the
January 26 meeting and that the additional time be used by
the various parties to discuss the possible sale of the lot.
The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1
absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 1-26-88
The applicant was represented by Bill Reimer, and Nathaniel
Hill, Director of the City's Human and General Services
Department was also present. There was one objector in
attendance. Mr. Reimer spoke briefly about the issue and
then asked Mr. Hill to respond to the Planning
Commissioners' questions concerning the sale of the lot.
Mr. Hill started by saying that the City followed all the
necessary procedures for making the rezoning request and
that was the issue before the Planning Commission. He went
on the say that the rezoning was reasonable and that the
City's process of selling property did not include the
Planning Commission. Mr. Hill then reported to the Planning
Commission that his department had not enter into any
negotiations with Mr. Norman, the property owner to the
north. He told the Commission that the lot was first
acquired by the Little Rock Housing Authority through the
Urban Renewal Program and then it was transferred to the
City. Mr. Reimer answered several questions about the size
of the lot and other concerns. At that point, Chairman
David Jones suggested that the City should be more sensitive
to neighbors' concerns. Mr. Hill then said it was more
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
appropriate for the Board of Directors to discuss the sale
of the lot because the Board makes the final decision.
There was a long discussion about the process of selling
City property, and what other lots were available for the
Affordable Housing Program. Mr. Hill again reminded the
Planning Commission that the rezoning petition was the only
issue before them to be voted on. Varnell Norman, the
property owner directly to the north, objected to the
rezoning and said that he had tried to negotiate with the
City, but had no success. Mr. Norman described the steps he
followed and told the Commission that he had not made any
offers because he was informed by the City that he could not
buy the lot. Mr. Norman also asked several questions about
the proposed structure, and Mr. Reimer responded to
Mr. Norman's concerns. Additional comments were made by
Mr. Norman and several Commissioners who discussed the
compatibility issue. Mr. Hill addressed the compatibility
and said it was difficult to find any area in the City for
the proposed affordable housing. He said that the City has
a buyer for the property who wants a house on the lot in
question. Mr. Hill told the Commission that the lot had been
listed for nine years and the property was advertised every
year. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "R-4"
rezoning. The motion failed because the vote was 3 ayes, 5
noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (John Schlereth). A second
motion was offered to waive the Bylaws and pass the item to
the Board of Directors without a recommendation. The motion
was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and
1 abstention (John Schlereth).
( The Bylaws read:
In those instances where a majority vote of the full
Commission cannot be obtained to take final action, the
matter before the Commission shall be automatically
deferred until the next scheduled meeting.)
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME: Sportsman's Haven II
LOCATION: 6500 South University
DEVELOPER:
John Nelson
6500 S. University
Little Rock, AR 72209
Phone: 565-3401
ENGINEER /ARCHITECT:
Gordon Duckworth
1008 West 2nd Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 375-8949
AREA: 3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "I- 2"/"C- 3"/ "R-2"
PROPOSED ZONING: "C-4"
PROPOSED USES: "R-2," "C-4" (Open Display)
A. Proposal /Request:
1. The platting of two residential lots with existing
structures and one commercial lot for an existing
business.
2. The commercial tract is approximately two acres and
the residential lots are approximately .45 acres
each.
B. Existing Conditions:
The site consists of a retail boat sale structure
facing University Avenue and two single family
structures that face Mabelvale Pike.
C. Issues/Discussions/Legal/Technical/Design:
The purpose of this plat is to separate the uses on the
site.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments:
No parking or maneuvering of parking in existing
right-of-way; therefore, needs franchise for the State
Highway Department approval.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Approval subject to comments made.
F. Subdivision Committee Review:
The applicant was not present at the meeting. The item
was passed to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The application was represented by Mr. Gordon Duckworth. A
motion for approval was made and passed. It was
conditioned upon resolving the parking issue with the State
Highway Department. The vote was: 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1
absent.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME: Edgerstoune Lane Joint
LOCATION: North Martin and "I" Streets
APPLICANT: David McCreery
DEVELOPER:
Edgerstoune Lane Joint
Venture
#1 City Center
7th and Spring
Little Rock, AR 72201
ENGINEER:
Manes, Castin, Massie &
McGetrick
P.O. Box 22408
Little Rock, AR 72221
Phone: 223-9900
AREA: 5.56 acres NO. OF LOTS: 14 FT. NEW STREET: 900
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request:
1. To plat 5.56 acres and to plat 14 lots and 900 feet
of new street for a single family development.
2. The construction of a private street system and no
sidewalks in an 80-foot easement owned by the
Little Rock Municipal Water Works. The street will
be built to City standards.
3. Waiver on cul-de-sac length due to terrain and
ownership of all the land to the south by Little
Rock Municipal Water Works which does not allow for
any other feasible design for access into this
subdivision.
4. Reduction of building setback to 15 feet from the
back of the curb as is necessitated by the steep
terrain and the location of the road within an
excess easement.
5. To provide a separate off-street parking area,
since sufficient guest parking will not be
available due to the construction of the houses as
close to the street as possible.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
6. Variance of width-to-depth ratio is requested due
to the fact that the north 1/2 is comprised of a
very steep embankment which is totally useless for
construction or for development of a yard. The
Developer prefers to keep this area in individual
lots instead of platting it as a separate tract to
be maintain by an association.
7. Variance of the hillside is requested, because the
lots do not contain the square footage required for
the actual slope, even though these lots are
approximately 65 sq. ft. in width; they are larger
than the existing ones in the area, which are 50 to
60 sq. ft. in area.
B. Existing Conditions:
The site is located in an area consisting of single
family homes. The site is affected by a 34-foot AP & L
easement on the west, 80 -foot AP & L easement on the
south and a 25-foot water line easement on the east.
The northern portion of the property consists of an
exposed cut with a 70 percent slope and some existing
vegetation.
C. Issues/Discussions/Legal/Technical/Design:
1. Notify neighborhood.
2. Redesign parking area; provide one parallel space
per lot.
3. Reduce by two lots; eliminate Lot 14 and provide
70-foot lot width; provide detention area in area
of Lot 14.
4. Discuss whether or not Property Owners Association
needs to maintain the buttons on the streets, the
parking and the slope.
5. Instrument needed so that plat can reference how
the access easement functions.
6. Indicate plans for landscaping be cut on the north.
7. Usual private street restrictions apply, no gate;
agreement to maintain fire hydrants and provide a
service and access easement.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments:
1. Detention facilities and calculations required.
2. Excavation, erosion and sediment control plan
required.
3. Does top of cut slope need diversion ditch to
present existing slope erosion?
E. Staff Recommendation:
Approval, subject to comments made. Staff recommends
that the developers, AP & L and Water Works, all sign
the plat and that a reference be made to the easement
in the Bill of Assurance. The reduction of lots by two
should eliminate the need for hillside regulation
variances and should provide needed detention area on
Lot 14 and provide lot widths of at least 70 feet.
This will help to reduce the amount of variances
needed. Notification to the neighborhood is
recommended due to their intense interest in a previous
proposal on this site for approximately 28 condominium
units. Staff is very concerned about the treatment of
the slope on the north side of this property.
F. Subdivision Committee Review:
The comments were discussed with the Applicant. He
agreed to explore the possibility of providing parallel
parking even though there are problems with locating
the parking due to the AP & L power line and poles;
work with Engineering regarding detention; provide a
property- owners' association for maintenance of
landscaping in the easement, but not for the slope; and
to notify a Mr. Jim McKenzie, a representative of the
surrounding property.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff recommended approval to the reduction of the proposal
by two lots. The applicant, Mr. David McCreery, agreed to
comply with the remainder of staff's comments.
Mr. McCreery represented the proposal. He felt that
reducing the proposal by two lots would adversely effect
affordability of lots in the area, and that the last two of
the subdivision were the best lots.
A motion for approval as requested by the applicant was
made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, and
1 abstention.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME: Ensco Park Hill Subdivision
LOCATION: North of 333 Executive Court
DEVELOPER /APPLICANT:
Bill Davies
Environmental Systems
333 Executive Court
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 223-4147
ENGINEER /APPLICANT:
Delbert Van Landingham
AMI Engineering
1615 Louisiana Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 376-6838
AREA: 3.713 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "O-2"
PROPOSED USES: Office
A. Proposal/Request:
1. To provide a one-lot replat of 3.713 acres to be
used for office development.
2. The tract includes Lot 8 of the Executive Park
Addition, which is zoned "O-3," and Lot 5 of the
Corporate Hill Addition, which is zoned "O-2."
3. Rezoning of the proposed lot to "O-2."
B. Existing Conditions:
This site is located in an area that is developed for
use as offices.
C. Issues/Discussions/Legal/Technical/Design:
1. None at this time.
D. Engineering Comments:
1. Does Corporate Hill Drive cul-de-sac needs an
access prohibition zone?
2. Stormwater detention facilities and calculations
may be required.
3. Excavation, erosion and sediment control plans
submitted before cleaning, etc.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
E. Staff Recommendation:
Approval subject to comments made. If "O-2" zoning is
received for the entire site, then a site plan will be
required before a building permit is received.
F. Subdivision Committee Review:
The need of an access prohibition zone to prohibit any
future connection of the two culs-de-sac was discussed.
The applicant preferred not to have one, since no
connection of the two streets is planned.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3A - Z-3607-A
Owner: Environmental Systems Co.
Applicant: William J. Davies
Location: End of Executive Court
Request: Rezone from "O-3" to "O-2"
Purpose: Office
Size: 1.8 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Office, Zoned "O-3"
South - Office, Zoned "O-3"
East - Vacant, Zoned "O-2"
West - Office, Zoned "O-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone the site from "O-3" to "O-2" for
future office development. The lot under consideration
will be combined with the tract to the east, Lot 5,
Corporate Hill Addition. (The replatting issue is Item
No. 3 on this agenda.) Lot 5 of the Corporate Hill
Addition is zoned "O-2" and the owner wishes to have the
same zoning on the one lot after the replatting is
completed.
There are no outstanding issues and staff supports the
"O-2" reclassification.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "O-2" rezoning as
requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 1-26-88
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the "O-2" rezoning
as filed. The motion passed by a vote 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME: Keltner Commercial Plat
LOCATION: Northeast Corner, Chicot and
Mabelvale Cut-Off
DEVELOPER:
Ronald McKeltner
10200 Rodney Parham Rd.
Little Rock, AR
ENGINEER:
Robert J. Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Rd.
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664-0003
AREA: .5 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C-3"
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
A. Proposal /Request:
1. To plat .5 acres into one lot for commercial use,
dedicate 5.26 feet of right -of -way and plat a
20-foot building line.
2. Preliminary /final plat review.
B. Existing Conditions:
This site is located at the northeast corner of two
minor arterial streets. The remainder of the area is
predominately single family.
C. Issues / Discussions /Legal /Technical /Design:
1. Correct drawing to reflect appropriate right-of-way
dedication.
D. Engineering Comments:
1. Engineer needs to provide updated map showing
right-of-way dedication.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Approval subject to comments made.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
F. Subdivision Committe Review:
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME: Prospect Terrace Replat, Lot 119
and 120
LOCATION: 5420 Edgewood Road
DEVELOPER:
David Scruggs
5506 Edgewood
Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone: 664-1635
ENGINEER:
Melburger Tanner Renshaw
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 375-3331
AREA: 3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Proposal/Request:
1. To replat two lots; Lot 119 will have 6,300 sq. ft.
and Lot 120 will have 7,798 sq. ft.
B. Existing Conditions:
The site is located in an older, fully developed single
family area.
C. Issues/Discussions/Legal/Technical/Design:
1. Inadequate lot size of Lot 119.
2. Zero side yard provide by existing carport.
D. Engineering Comments:
1. None at this time.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Denial due to Subdivision Ordinance requirement
prohibiting the creation of substandard lots. A
previous illegal sale has created a zero setback around
the area of the existing carport.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
R. Subdivision Committee Review:
The item was discussed by the Committee. The Applicant
was requested to examine the Bill of Assurance for any
prohibitions to this request and to notify abutting
neighbors by petition.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
David and Ginger Scruggs, owners of the property, spoke in
favor of the application. Staff recommended denial. The
Assistant City Attorney, Stephen Giles, stated that the
Commission did not have the authority to waive lot sizes
and that this could not be approved because it violated the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Scruggs explained that his present home is 34' wide and
7' from the property line. His new home would be 33' wide
and 6' from the property line; therefore, there would not
be a significant difference in the two. He stated a love
for the neighborhood and a commitment not to build anything
out of character with the existing homes. A petition with
the signatures of 14 residents in favor of the proposal was
submitted.
It was determined that the only legal means of approving
this item was through the PUD process since the Commission
was prohibited from waiving any of the Zoning Ordinance. A
motion for deferral to the April 19 meeting was made and
passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME: Hickory Creek Subdivision
Amended Preliminary Plat,
Phase II
LOCATION: Hickory Creek Drive at Hinson
Road
DEVELOPER:
Clint Boshears
c/o Garver and Garver
Little Rock, AR
ENGINEER:
Garver and Garver
11th and Battery Streets
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 376-3633
AREA: NO. OF LOTS: 9 FT. NEW STREET: 500
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
1. Sequence of phasing different from preliminary plat.
2. Deferral of Hinson Road construction to be completed for
City Bond Issue project.
A. Proposal /Request:
1. To amend the preliminary plat for Hickory Creek to
allow a plat of nine lots on the south side of the
lake before the improvements before the remainder of
Hinson Road is completed.
2. Construction of improvements with the City Bond
Issue project.
3. Change in phasing of plat.
B. Existing Conditions:
This site is located in an area that is developed for
single family. New residential development is still
occurring throughout the area.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
C. Issues/Discussions/Legal/Technical/Design:
See Item A.
D. Engineering Comments:
1. Sidewalks on Hinson.
2. Extension of Hinson Road to be constructed of funds
provided in -lieu of construction. Developers are
required to complete construction or in-lieu until
any City street project has been contracted between
the City and the contractor. See CLR Boundary
Street Ordinance for clarification.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Denial of the request. Staff feels that the applicant
should follow the usual requirements for construction of
the streets.
F. Subdivision Committee Review:
The Applicant clarified /revised his request:
(1) Allow development in platting of Lots 1-6 and 85-87
as the next phase (Phase II) with the construction of
the remaining 200 feet of Hinson Road being deferred
until Phase III is developed.
(2) Waiver of sidewalks along Hinson.
(3) An alternate plan (Lots 1-3) be platted as a single
lot with the cul-de-sac, Hickory Creek Cove East, being
eliminated and included in the revised Lot 1 as shown on
the alternate plan; also allow the immediate platting of
the revised Lot 1 without any additional improvements
being required.
The staff spoke against any change in the requirements
for construction of the street. The Applicant,
Mr. Clint Boshears, then explained that it was a "matter
of economics" that forced him to develop Phase IV
instead of Phase II. He identified the request as a
"phasing conflict" which he would resolve by building
the streets when the last phase of the project is built.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
He reassured the Committee that he was not trying to get
out of the requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Clint Boshears and Mr. Ronnie Hall, the engineer, were
present in favor of the application. They agreed to replat
Lots 1, 2, and 3 into one lot. Engineering gave its
approval to the alternate plan. A motion for approval was
made and passed, subject to: (1) right-of-way dedication,
(2) deferral of in-lieu contribution until the City builds a
portion of Hinson Road or Phase III whichever comes first.
The motion was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes,
and 1 absent.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
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/Reguest:
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.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - 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.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - 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.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME: Spring Tree Village PRD
LOCATION: Approximately 2,000 feet east of
the Intersection of Chicot and
Yarberry
DEVELOPER:
Winrock Development Co.
2101 Brookwood Drive
P.O. Box 8080
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 663-5350
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 9.17 acres NO. OF LOTS: 60 FT. NEW STREET: 1850
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES:
Single Family
A. Proposal/Request:
1. To develop a single family detached zero lot line
development on 9.27 acres in two phases of 30 lots
each.
2. The development will consist of 61 new affordable
homes on lots of 38 to 40 feet in width and 100 to
110 feet in depth, which will be built for sale to
first-time and moderate-income home buyers.
3. Approximately 1.35 acres will be dedicated as open
space easements which will be restricted in the Bill
of Assurance. Density is 6.5 lots per acre. A
30 -foot easement containing floodplain buffers a
single family area to the south.
4. House sizes will be 700 to 1,000 sq. ft. with an
18 by 20 foot parking pad.
5. Due to plans of targeting a market in the range of
$40,000 to $50,000, several alternatives to the
normal development requirements are requested: (a)
construction of a 3.0-foot walk at the curb line of
the street, (b) allow sidewalks to be constructed at
the time each lot is developed since lots are narrow
and much of the sidewalk would be removed to
construct parking pads, (c) allow construction of
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
the 18 by 20 foot parking pads to begin at the curb
line or at the back of sidewalk where sidewalk is to
be constructed, (d) allow 50-foot centerline radius
as shown on Minor Loop Street, (e) allow
construction of a four-inch high drive - over curb
to eliminate expensive curb cuts for each lot, (f)
waiver of stormwater detention requirements because
of absolute zero impact that those requirements have
on adjacent floodplains for this project, (g) omit
prime coat application (an expensive questionable
value) for asphalt pavement.
B. Existinq Conditions:
The area is a typical fringe area, rural in nature with
various uses such as mobile homes, commercial and
industrial. A single family brick structure is located
on a 100 foot lot to the immediate east of the property.
An existing affordable homes subdivision is located
north of the site.
C. Issues/Discussions/Legal/Technical/Design:
1. Further review of potential open space is needed.
2. Applicant is asked to provide the usual street
standards.
3. Applicant is asked to provide a transition zone on
the northwest quadrant between the larger existing
single family homes and the proposed smaller lot
homes.
D. Engineering Comments:
1. Five-foot sidewalks at curb or four-foot sidewalk at
property line. No three-foot sidewalk at curbs.
2. Stormwater detention facilities' location and
calculations.
3. Excavation, sediment and erosion control sketch
plan.
January 26, 1888
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
E. Staff Recommendation:
Deferral until comments are addressed.
F. Subdivision Committee Review:
The Applicant explained that the requests outlined under
the proposal are for "cost-cutting" features necessary
for affordable housing development. He also pointed out
that there were 500 to 600 feet between this site and
Deer Meadows. This is undeveloped and owned by the
Developer. The Applicant was asked to meet with Parks
and Staff and work out acceptable open space and
recreational areas.
There was a question as to the acceptability of the area
behind the lots that is open space. Another major issue
was identified as parking, since the City Ordinance
restricts parking on the streets. This project leaves
no room for visitor parking in the whole Subdivision.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The proposal was represented by Mr. Ron Tyne of Winrock
Development Company, and Mr. Joe White, Engineer, of
White - Daters and Associates. Mr. Tyne revised his request
to eliminate any waivers and to dedicate 1.5 acres of
additional open space adjacent to the southern portion of
the site. He also presented alternate plans for on-site and
off-site parking. It was agreed that he would provide two
off-street parking spaces per unit, 27' separation between
driveway and no on-street parking on curbs.
The Builder, Mr. John Wright, was also present. He
presented pictures of the homes to be built.
January 26, 1888
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
Mr. Bill Wilson of 6720 Yarberry was concerned about the
maintenance and upkeep of the open space and the fact that
Yarberry Lane did not have existing curb and gutter.
Mr. Olin Wahrmund of 11301 Kerry Drive felt that there was
not a market for this type of development, and he felt that
the concentration of small-lot homes in this one area would
adversely affect property values. He strongly felt that it
was the City's responsibility to protect existing
neighborhoods against this sort of thing. He argued futher
that the Planning Commission's responsibility was to help
balance the orderly growth of the City. Mr. Wahrmund
explained that the Southwood Subdivision, which is located
across the street from this proposal, has homes of 700
sq. ft. and has not sold very well. He explained that out
of 104 units, 20 had sold. Perry Place is also a nearby
Subdivision of homes of 1,000 sq. ft., that was not selling
very well.
Finally, a motion for approval was made and passed by a vote
of: 7 ayes, 3 noes, 1 absent (no vote: Grace Jones,
Riddick, and Leek).
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
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.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - 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. Existing 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 must 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.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME: "Tract G ", Orbit Subdivision
LOCATION: Near the northeast corner
of Chicot and the I -30 Frontage
Road, north side of Chicot.
DEVELOPER:
McCoy Corporation
1200 I -435
San Marco, TX 78666
Phone: 353-5400
ENGINEER:
Melburger Tanner Robinson
and Associates
201 South Izard
Little Rock, AR 72203-3837
Phone: 375-5331
AREA: 3.445 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C-4"
PROPOSED USES: Retail Building Materials
A. Proposal /Request:
1. To allow for building on a site for retail sales.
2. Development Data:
a. Lumber Storage ...........849.6 sq. ft.
b. Lumber Storage ...........849.6 sq. ft.
c. Warehouse ................9,375 sq. ft.
d. Sales ...................18,000 sq. ft.
3. Parking .........................73 spaces.
B. Existing Conditions:
This site currently has two recently constructed
buildings for lumber sales. It faces the I-30 frontage
road and is bordered on the west by "C-4" and on the
east by "O-3."
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design:
Landscaping plans should be approved by Kenny Scott's
office.
D. Engineering Comments:
None.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Approval.
F. Subdivision Committee Review:
The Applicant was present. The item was reviewed and
passed to the Commission for further consideration.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME: Delta Express Conditional Use
Permit (Z-4967)
LOCATION: The south side of West 65th
Street just west of I-30
(2715 West 65th Street).
OWNER /APPLICANT: Hastings Realty Company/Murphy
and Sons, Incorporated, Bryan
Addison
Proposal:
To add one 24 feet by 60 feet canopy (two new pump islands
requires a 40 feet front yard variance), to construct a 293
sq. ft. addition and enclose 332 sq. ft. of additional floor
space to an existing 1,653 sq. ft. convenience store on 0.83
acres of land that is zoned "I-2."
Ordinance Design Standards:
1. Site Location:
Adjacent to an arterial street (West 65th Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The property is abutted by industrial/commercial uses to
the north, vacant and industrial use located to the
south, office and commercial use located to the east and
vacant land located to the west. The proposed use is
compatible with the surrounding area and with the 65th
Street East District Plan (shown as commercial).
3. On -site Drives and Parking:
The Plan contains 12 existing paved parking spaces
(eight spaces required) and two 44-feet wide access
drives to West 65th Street.
4. Screening and Buffers:
The site plan contains no landscaping.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
5. Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a 40 feet front yard setback
variance. The existing canopy sits ten feet off the
property line (50 feet required in "I-2 "). The staff
sees no problem in allowing an additional canopy in the
setback area. The site plan is, however, somewhat
deficient. The applicant needs to revise the site plan
to include all dimensions of structures (existing and
proposed) and their setbacks from each other as well as
the property line. The applicant also needs to show
landscaping.
6. City Engineer Comments:
Provide landscaping.
7. Staff Recommendation:
Approval provided the applicant agrees to submit a
revised site plan as described above.
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 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent to approve the
application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME: 11th Street Conditional Use
Permit (Z-4966)
LOCATION: Fifty feet east of the
southeast corner of Washington
and West 11th Streets
(4423 West 11th Street).
OWNER /APPLICANT: Jessie L. and
Tolly Dicosmo/John Stuart
Proposal:
To convert an existing 1,482 sq. ft. single family structure
to a duplex on 0.15 acres of land that is zoned "R-3 ".
Ordinance Design Standards:
1. Site Location:
Adjacent to a residential street (West 11th Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The property is surrounded by single family uses. The
Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan shows this as a residential
area. The proposed use is compatible with the
surrounding area.
3. On -site Drives and Parking:
The applicant is proposing all parking to be located on
the existing driveway on West 11th Street.
4. Screening and Buffers:
The applicant is proposing to use existing trees and
shrubs as landscaping.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
5. Analysis:
The staff feels that the proposed use will not have an
adverse impact on the surrounding area provided that
proper off - street parking is provided. The applicant
needs to submit a revised site plan that includes two
paved parking spaces on -site with access from the paved
alley. The combination of two paved parking spaces and
an extended driveway should meet the needs of a duplex
use.
6. City Engineer Comments:
The applicant should provide two paved parking spaces on
the rear of the property.
7. Staff Recommendation:
Approval provided the applicant agrees to submit a
revised site plan as outlined above.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and submitted a revised survey
that contained an additional drive located on the west
property line on 11th Street. The applicant stated that he
felt that the long drive and the short drive contained
adequate off-street parking. The Committee questioned the
need for paved off-street parking. The staff stated that
Ordinance requirements were 1.5 paved off-street parking
spaces per dwelling unit (total of three). The applicant
stated that he did not wish to build any addition parking
spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent to approve the
application subject to the applicant paving the east drive
to a depth of 40 feet and the west drive to a depth of 20
feet.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME: Otter Creek West Phasing Plan
APPLICANT /ENGINEER: Mr. Bob Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 664-0003
STAFF REPORT:
This subdivision has recently been approved by the Planning
Commission. At the time of the approval, the applicant
failed to submit a phasing plan. This is a request to phase
the subdivision as proposed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The request was reviewed and passed to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Other Matters - General Discussion/Subdivision
Ordinance Amendment.
This item is placed before the Planning Commission for
discussion at the request of Metroplan staff member Charles
Randel. This draft of the proposed certification is offered
as Mr. Randel drafted and presented it to the Planning
staff. This office will review the issue further and offer
comments at the Subdivision Committee meeting.
(f.) EXTRATERRITORIAL PLATS
City of Little Rock, Arkansas Jurisdiction
A copy of this plat has been transmitted to the County
Planning Board for review and comment in accord with Act 186
of 1957 as amended.
This plat contains certain streets depicted thereon that are
intended by the owners of said subdivision to be dedicated
to the County and accepted by the County for public
ownership and maintenance.
The Little Rock Planning Commission permits this plat to be
approved for filing with the Circuit Clerk /Recorder.
However, this filing shall not be deemed to be acceptance by
Pulaski County of street dedication.
At such time, as the owner(s) has constructed the streets
to meet minimum City or County standards as applicable and
for at least one year thereafter the County may accept said
streets for dedication and maintenance.
Date
Subdivder Owner
Little Rock, Planning Commission
General Discussion/Subdivision Ordinance Amendment -
Continued -
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-15-87)
The Planning staff made a brief presentation of the proposal
and answered some of the Commissioner's questions concerning
the need for this action. During the course of discussion,
it developed that the author of this Certificate should
appear before the Commission and offer clarification as to
the need and the use related to the City Subdivision
Ordinance. The Planning staff was directed to set this
matter for a second hearing on January 26, 1988, at which
time an advertised public hearing would be held and
Mr. Charles Randel of Metroplan would be invited to attend.
The motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-26-88)
There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Charles Randel
of Metroplan was present to answer questions as instructed
by the Commission at its meeting December 15, 1987.
Mr. Randel identified the need for the Certificate as a
County Planning tool for controlling dedication and future
maintenance. The Planning staff offered comments in support
of the required Ordinance Amendment. The action taken by
the Commission on this occasion will require that the City
Board of Directors approve an Ordinance Amendment placing
the proposed Certificate as modified within the Subdivision
Regulations. The Commission questioned both Planning staff
and Mr. Randel concerning the form and content of the
Certificate, offering a number of suggestions. It was
suggested that changes be made within the last paragraph to
clarify its content. Further, it was noted that the
signature titles should be modified to say Owner/Subdivider
beneath the first entry and Little Rock Planning Commission
beneath the second entry. The Planning staff was directed
by the Commission to meet with the City Attorney staff prior
to submittal of this item to the Board and rewrite the
Certificate as appropriate. A motion was then offered to
recommend approval of the Ordinance Amendment with staff to
resolve the wording prior to forwarding to the Board of
Directors. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes,
3 absent.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Bylaw Amendment/Subdivision Ordinance Amendment
Subject: Subdivision Notice to Adjacent Owners a Public
Hearing for Ordinance Amendment
Proposal:
1. Remove from Subdivision Ordinance and place within the
Bylaws with all other supplemental notice requirements.
2. Change the language to one of the three following:
3.1. Supplemental Notice of Subdivision Hearing.
Before a hearing, the applicant shall submit proof that
at least 15 days' notice of the Commission's hearing has
been given to all property owners abutting the boundary
of the subdivision plat including those directly across
streets or alleys. Discussion of certified mail or
walk-around notice is required.
3.2. Supplemental Notice of Subdivision Hearing.
Before a hearing, the applicant shall submit proof that
at least 15 days' notice of the Commission's hearing has
been given to all property owners lying within 200 feet
of the boundary of the subdivision plat.
3.3. Supplemental Notice of Subdivision Hearing.
Before a hearing, the applicant shall submit proof of
notice to property owners as outlined in Paragraph (5)
(below).
(5) All issues submitted for public hearing as directed by
Section 4-103 of the Zoning Ordinance No. 13,777 (amended) or
by Section 37.33 of the Subdivision Ordinance No. 13,556
(amended) shall provide notice as follows:
1. Each instance where review by the Subdivision
Committee is required, the Committee shall determine
the need for supplemental notice. The Committee
shall set the date, content and form for such notice
and name the party responsible for compliance with
the requirements. The record of the Committee
meeting shall reflect the instructions given so as
to provide a record of the requirement or record
that no notice was required.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
2. It shall be the responsiblity of the owner or agent
of record to accomplish the notice and bear the cost
of the notice.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-26-88)
There were no objectors in attendance. The staff offered a
brief overview of the notice problem and suggested three
options for review. The staff recommendation supported
Option No. 1, with the provision that an owner or developer
be permitted to utilize either a walk-a-round signed notice
or a mailed notice with certified proof of mailing. It was
pointed out by staff that this action will require a Bylaw
Amendment as well as the Ordinance change in order to place
all Supplemental Planning Commission Notices within the
Commission Bylaws. This Subdivision Notice is the only
supplemental that is not included at this time within the
Bylaws. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted on a
motion to recommend the Ordinance Amendment to the Board of
Directors. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes,
3 absent.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Improvements District Formation
NAME: Bowman/Kanis Road Water
and Sewer Improvement
District
LOCATION: Generally along both
sides of Bowman Road for
a distance of one-mile ±
running north and south
of Kanis
OWNER /APPLICANT: Various owners by
Mark Spradley, Attorney
for the District
REQUEST: To establish an
Improvement District for
purposes of extending
mains and providing
service to an area inside
the City limits.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need
The need is expressed by the submittal of a petition
involving the existing owners of land being 97 in
number and being a majority of the property ownership.
2. Master Street Plan
No issues attendant to this petition.
3. Characteristics of the District
The land is hilly with several drainageways, two
arterial streets bisect the district, Kanis Road
running east to west and Bowman Road running north to
south.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
4. Development Potential
The neighborhood development plan reflects primarily
residential being a mix of single family and medium
density multifamily. There is a commercial corner at
the intersection of Bowman Road at Kanis Road with
several commercial uses in place. There currently
exists some vacant commercial land in the immediate
vicinity of this intersection with development
potential.
5. Neighborhood Land Use
Most of the area within the district is residential
except adjacent to the arterials. The arterials
currently have a range of uses from plant nurseries and
miniwarehouses to an X -ray company office. The single
family development within the immediate area is
somewhat sparse, however, adjacent properties to the
district boundary have built out single family
neighborhoods.
STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION:
This district is entirely within the City limits thereby
exempting the lands from normal growth policy restrictions.
The corridor along Bowman Road is developing as an important
future thoroughfare with a number of projects completed or
beginning. There are several significant developments at
the north end of Bowman Road under construction and
completed. To the south of this district lies a large area
of land with significant development potential as may be
encouraged by the development of the Summit Mall. There are
several successful single family subdivisions adjacent to
the distict boundary to the east and to the west. The
natural growth patterns of these areas are into and around
this district. Water and sewer service is available on
three sides and this district will close those service
areas. The creation of this district should encourage
in fill of this area so that it grows and develops properly.
The staff recommends approval of the district as filed.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.'16 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-26-88)
There were no objectors in attendance. The staff suggested
the item be placed on the Consent Agenda. The Commission
included the item within the Consent Agenda and by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent approved the petition and
recommended formation of the District to the Board of
Directors.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Alley Abandonment
NAME: Alley in Block 5 of Deaf
Mute Addition
LOCATION: East-west alley between
High Street and Bishop
Street, north of West 3rd
Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Various by E. Stuart Estes
for National Engineering
Systems
REQUEST: To abandon the current
dedicated right-of-way
and join the land with
neighboring properties in
the block.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right-of-Way
There is no apparent need exhibited by all of the
abutting owners' participation, plus the alley is only
one -block long. Portions of the alley currently
function as a parking lot driveway and maneuvering
area.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no requirements attached to this request.
3. Need for Right-of-Wav on Adiacent Streets
None reflected by contacts in their comments.
4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
The alley currently follows the contour running east to
west. The land both north and south has grade running
above and below the alley surface.
5. Development Potential
None except as a part of an adjacent redevelopment.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The uses on the east one-half of the block are
contractors offices, garage and service station. While
on the west one-half are offices and a large parking
lot.
7. Neighborhood Position
None expressed at this writing, however, notice is not
given when all abutting owners are participants.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
The Arkansas Power and Light Company and Southwestern
Bell Company have utilities in the right-of-way and
request maintenance of the right-of-way as an easement.
9. Reversionary Rights
The alley will be divided equally between abutting
property owners.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
The abandonment of this alley right-of-way will return
to the private sector a land area that will be
productive for the real estate tax base.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to retaining utility easement rights within
the abandonment orders.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-26-88)
There were no objectors in attendance. At the suggestion of
the staff, the Commission placed this item on the Consent
Agenda for approval. The Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes,
2 absent to approve a motion to recommend to the City Board
of Directors, the abandonment of this alley.
January 26, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18
IN -111UMV
Shell Blakely PCD (Z-4743)
- Revocation Request
LOCATION: 2408 Cantrell Road
APPLICANT: Shell Blakely
c/o Manes, Castin, Massie,
McGetrick
P.O. Box 22408
Little Rock, AR 72221
Phone: 223-9900
REQUEST: The revocation of the Shell
Blakely Short-Form PCD
(Z-4743).
A. Staff Report:
This is requested by the Applicant for revocation of the
Shell Blakely Short -Form PCD (Z-4743), which was
approved by the Little Rock Board of Directors on
November 4, 1986, by the adoption of Ordinance
No. 15,195. He feels that development of the land as
was previous proposed will not be feasible at this time.
The property will be returned to the "I-2" Light
Industrial District.
B. Staff Recommendation:
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval of the request was made and passed by
a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
DATE ;,/14/f t7 ,
. ZONING
MEMBER
W.Riddick, III
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
M.11iller
J.Nicholson
w.Rector
S._Leek
T·. Grace Jones
D.J. Jones
R.Collins
F.Perkins.-
--...
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
SUBDIVISION
II A I d----? 3.A c/ l½ � '7 t q iJO II v' v ✓V' V v V V v 0 v v V
J/ :� ✓✓ V ,/ {/ V v V v ✓V V
V �i/ N3 V I/ V V v v tl v c..,../ I./
ft-� /}-/}-A 11 A fl II A Ii-fl-It II-v ... v v v v ✓V V I/ z/ y � V'
V.1v ✓ II v v // V V r/ ✓ v v V
J/ X v v V t/ V V v v·0 v l/ v
A-¾ It-II � IA A V V v 0 II V v
✓'X v' v v 1/ L,./ v' 2./ v v v V V
;/ % .v ll ✓J/ V V V v ✓ ✓ V ✓
✓ � V ) _/ v' V V v V ✓V' V V
,� v
V
V ii
V
v
t./
1../'
V
I.,,
V' ft"" � t" /t ff rr;.: 1-r II J.J .LI l1 {:f-J) H-/,I-�
1� I <.J, I ;c;-/<,,17 �IP' I /9,
V 1/ [/ l./ v1 v
V V V L/ v u �
V fr v" V L/ V b�
A A A 11 fl.
. },,/" v v V V ✓
J/' ✓ v v v l/"' a
V V v v l./ l,,,/ H-
V.v V" II A IA (t\
V 1./ v V V �
"v V ✓ V I/ V
v-v ✓ v ✓ V
Jl fl LJ. A ·� -II-
✓� 8 Wl� 1� -0 Lk � � Id ��f v�✓-h.1--� rh' f'-r/4 /4_ Cl3_f!J� �&,/(t � 4 ?9--rl 1Lu C,.(3.()
January 26, 1988
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 4:42 p.m.
Chairman Secretary
DATE