pc_07 12 1988subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JULY 12, 1988
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorun of ten was present.
II. Approval of Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were read and approved.
III. Members present: D. Jones, Chairman
R. Massie
J. Schlereth
W. Riddick, III
W. Rector
J Nicholson
F. Perkins
R. Collins
G. Jones
M. Miller
IV. Members absent: Stephen Leek
V. City Attorney
present: Stephen Giles
A
LITTLE ROCK PL NNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
JULY 12, 1988
DEFERRED
A. Flintridge Business Addition
B. Bill R. & Joe Lusk
C. Village Shopping Center Addition
D. Trigon Addition
E. Davis Replat
F. Summit Ridge revised Preliminary
G. University Office Park
H. Markham Commercial Center
I. Z-4930 -A Flintridge Rd. - R-2 to O-3 & I-1
J. Z-4998 - Bowman Rd. - R-2 to MF-18
PRELIMINARY PLATS
1. Pratt -Cates Remmel Road
2. Jernigan's Revised Preliminary
3. Rudy's Farm Replat - Preliminary /Final
4. Hinson Manor Office Park
5. Charles Valley Court
6. Westchester Subdivision, Phase VI
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
7. Spears Revised PCD (Z-4451-B), 12123 Kanis Rd.
8. Arkansas Modification Center Revised PID (Z-3201-B)
9. Polk & Kavanaugh #II PCD
ZONING SITE PLAN
10. Shelter site Plan Review (Z-3689-D)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
11. Pleasant Valley Country Club (Z-2050-A)
12. Markham United Methodist Church (Z-5040)
13. Williams Daycare (Z-5041)
14. The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ House of Prayer
RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT
15. W. 35th Street at Taylor
16. W. 39th Street at Gilman
OTHER MATTERS
17. Subdivision Assurance Improvement Agreement
18. Jeff & Tracy Thompson Request - Waiver of Subdivision
Ordinance
19. Charles & Kelly Nall Request - Waiver of Subdivdision
Ordinance
20. Woodland Heights Road PCD (Z-3370) - PUD Revocation
21. Jess Askew - Informational Request
22. By -Law Amendment
23. Chenal Golf Course Conditional Use (Z-5055
24. Asbury Acres - Casey's Replat
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME: Flintridge Business Addition
LOCATION: Flintridge Drive and I-430
DEVELOPER:
Lewis Realty & Assoc.
6701 West 12th
Little Rock, AR
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates,
Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 32 acres NO. OF LOTS: 13 FT. NEW ST.: 1150
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE:
A. Proposal /Request
1. Replat 32 acres into 12 lots for an unspecified
use.
2, Waivers include length of cul-de-sac and sidewalk
construction on Flintridge Court.
B. Existing Conditions
This property is bordered by I-430 on the south.
Single family homes are located to the north, across
Flintridge Drive.
C. Issues /Discussion /Legal /Technical Design
1. Submit information on plans for development and
purpose for plat.
D. Engineerinq Comments
1. Inadequate access and terrain for this
development.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A (Continued)
E. Staff Recommendation
Deferral until rezoning filed. Plat is premature until
zoning is established. Staff is reluctant to support
this plat with the "I-2" designation.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that his purpose for filing this
plat was to identify any issues that staff, the Planning
Commission, and the neighborhood might have regarding the
plat. Some Committee members agreed that the plat was
premature. Staff was concerned about the proposed
industrial use in close proximity to the existing
residential area. The applicant was instructed to work with
Engineering regarding revisions to the street and their
comments regarding access.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present. The Commission briefly
discussed the issue and placed it on the consent agenda.
The Commission voted to defer the application to the May 31
Planning Commission meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes,
and 2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
There was no added discussion of this item.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item A (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988)
A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of:
9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
Staff recommended denial due to departure from the Land Use
Plan, the amount of cut and fill required, and harmful
effects from traffic.
Mr. Gene Lewis represented the application. He explained
that a waiver of the sidewalk requirement was not requested
and the cul-de-sac would be shortened to 1,000 feet, which
would comply with amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Lewis stated that his proposal consisted of 17- 25
percent density and 220,000 - 225,000 maximum build -out with a
50 foot greenbelt and six foot fence. He used the unusable
portion of the property which was below 295 feet of
elevation for the greenbelt and agreed to extend water to
the north side of Flintridge.
Several residents were present. Mr. Ron Keaton of
7816 Flintridge Road expressed an objection to the rezoning,
but agreed to reconsider if all the neighborhood could be
assured of water and adequate fire protection. Mr. Lewis
had proposed to pay one -half of the cost of extending an 8"
water line up to the intersection of Flintridge Court, but
Mr. Keaton felt this was not a true guarantee for
construction.
Mr. Phillip Craig of 8116 Flintridge objected to loss of
privacy and trees by grading, which would cause harmful
impacts from I-430. The single family community is
currently protected by a ridge. He suggested that
Flintridge Court be realigned in a way that would protect
existing property- owners from the freeway impact. The
Engineer, Mr. Joe White, felt like the realignment could be
done but the Developer would object.
Jerry Gardner of City Engineering felt that the current
traffic hazard at the Flintridge intersection exists because
there is no stop light, and there is no stop light because
the existing residential development does not warrant one.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A (Continued)
There was more discussion of the traffic situation and the
off-site improvements required from the southern end of
Flintridge to Highway 5. A question was raised as to the
legality of requiring these off-street improvements.
Assistant City Attorney Stephen Giles explained that a
variance was needed if this project was classified as a
major traffic generator. Mr. Giles said that there were no
requirements in the Ordinance for subdivision improvements.
Mr. White discussed Staff's objections and stated that no
waivers were requested because sidewalks would be
constructed, and the cul-de-sac fell within the 1,000 feet,
which is within the recommended guidelines currently being
considered by the City Attorney.
It was determined that you could not attach off-site
improvements to a subdivision. However, Mr. Lewis requested
to provide these improvements since it would be good for his
development and would offer some improvements for the
existing residents.
A motion for approval of the plat, subject to: 1) the
amendment that if Flintridge Road can be developed all the
way to Highway 5, then it should; if not the improvements
are a moot issue; and 2) show and label "OS" (Open Space)
zoning on the plat.
The Applicant agreed to extend the water line and pay for
one -half the improvements and not ask the residents for a
rebate. Staff was asked to convey the Commissions concerns
about the importance of the intersection improvements to the
City Board. Mr. White stated that the Developer would agree
to add whatever right-of-way is needed along Flintridge in
case it becomes a collector street. Additional right-of-way
needed to be reflected on the plat.
Finally, the motion was made and passed by a vote of:
9 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item C
NAME: Village Shopping Center
Addition
LOCATION: University and Asher
DEVELOPER:
Rector-Phillips-Morse/
United Artists'
Communications
P. O. Box 7300
Little Rock, AR 72217
Phone: 664-7807
ENGINEER /ARCHITECT:
Townley, Williams, Blair and
and Associates
18 Corporate Hill Drive
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 224-1900
AREA: 29.8 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST. 0
ZONING: Proposed "C-3"
Existing "I-2 " / "C-3"
PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center
A. Proposal /Request
1. To add square footage to an existing shopping
center on 29.8 acres
2. Development Data
Existing:
Main Center 79,850 square feet
65,115 square feet
Union Bank 2,155 square feet
Cinema 150 12,800 square feet
159,909 square feet
New:
Theatre 40,000 square feet
Option A 22,200 square feet
26,200 square feet
Option B 15,000 square feet
103,400 square feet
Total Building Square Footage...... 263,309 sq. ft.
Parking ........... 298 cars
Parking Ratio ....... 4.93/1,000 sq. ft.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C Continued)
B. Existinq Conditions
This site is located at the intersection of two major
arterials. The area is developed as commercial and has
very heavy traffic.
C. Issues/ Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
1. Indicate parking layout.
2. Clarify Options A and B.
3. Meet with Engineering and Parks regarding any
floodway issues.
4. Traffic is a major concern of the area.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Coordination of approval with the State Highway
Department.
2. Address detention concerns with City Engineering.
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved, until further information is available since
traffic is major concern in this area. Staff cannot
lean support to this item until it is coordinated with
State Highway Department and City Engineer gives his
report.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Applicant was informed that the Option A Building at the
rear of the existing shopping center was shown over an
existing easement and contained a main feeder and branch
service to telephone cable; and that Wastewater and Water
Works also had concerns about the building in this area. He
was asked to work with the utility companies to resolve the
issues.
The main issue was identified as traffic. Comments were
needed from both City Engineering and the State Highway
Department.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The application was represented by Mr. Bill Hastings of
Rector, Phillips, Morse and Mr. Joe White, engineer.
Staff recommended approval of the site plan, subject to
resolution of the traffic issue on Asher Avenue.
There was a lengthy discussion on whether or not the site
plan should be approved, since there were no technical
issues to be resolved, subject to negotiations with the
State Highway Department and the City Engineer regarding
access onto Asher Avenue.
Mr. Coleman of Coleman Dairy stated concerns about access to
Asher from his property. He had no problems with the site
plan.
A motion for deferral of the site plan was made and passed
by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 19, 1988)
The Planning staff reported that the site plan was in good
shape except for some utility issues but that the plan is
affected by the unresolved traffic issues. Staff recommends
approval of the plan subject to resolution of the traffic
access problem.
There was one objector present, Mr. Buddy Coleman. The
application was represented by Mr. Bill Hastings and Joe
White of White - Daters Engineers. Mr. Hastings offered a
brief statement on the need to progress with the project.
He stated that Mr. Peters, the traffic engineer he had
retained, was present to answer any questions. Mr. White,
the project engineer, offered comments on the need to defer
the matter as suggested by several persons pending the
Highway Department and City Engineer working out access
issues. Mr. Coleman, an adjacent property owner on the
east, stated his concerns as being associated with the
access to his dairy facilities and the present plan's
impact. He stated that he had no objection to the site
plan.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C (Continued)
Don McChesney, the City Engineer, offered comments on the
traffic issue. The design and effect are all associated.
He indicated that the layout of the project could be
affected by the final resolution of access. He said he
believed that the questions associated with the Highway
Department's concerns could be worked out within 90 days.
The Planning Commission then discussed the pros and cons of
deferral and the appropriate time period.
A motion was made to defer the plan for a period of six
weeks to permit the various parties sufficient time to
resolve the concerns of all involved. The motion included a
provision for additional deferrals without Commission
involvement as needed to obtain resolution. The motion
passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 5 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The City Engineer, Don McChesney, reported his department
has had meetings with the State Highway Department. The
major concern regarded spacing between what has been
proposed and the existing status of University Avenue. An
even greater concern is congestion. He explained that he
was now waiting for final comments from the State.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION; (May 31, 1988)
A motion for a thirty -day deferral was made and passed by a
vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
A motion for deferral until August 23rd was made and passed
so that City Engineering could have more time to review the
plans. The vote was: 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 4 absent.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME: Bill R. and Joe Lusk
"Short- Form" PCD (Z-5008)
LOCATION: 100' north of Cantrell on
west side of Pinnacle Valley
DEVELOPER:
Bill R. Lusk
#7 Berwyn Drive
Little Rock, AR 72207
ENGINEER:
Sam L. Davis
5301 West 8th Street
Little Rock, AR 72204
Phone: 664-0324
AREA: .92 acre NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R02"
PROPOSED USE: Car Wash /Retail /Office
A. Proposal /Request
1. To develop .92 acre into a commercial
development.
2. The existing frame building of 2,393 square feet
which will be used as an antique shop (80%)
and office space (20%).
3. A self-service car wash is proposed with 1' of
the floor elevation below the 100-year flood.
All mechanical and electrical services will be
above flood level.
4. Parking area will be asphalt with 19 spaces.
5. Dedication of floodway for Isom Creek.
6. Twenty-foot additional right-of-way dedication
for Pinnacle Valley Road.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
B. Existinq Conditions
The area is generally developed as single family.
There are currently an existing building and a mobile
home on the site. The floodway cuts across the
southwestern portion of this property.
C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
1. Corner of existing building and parking in
floodway.
2. Proposed use is contrary to the Land Use Plan.
3. Applicant should address traffic impact.
4. Submit landscaping plan.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Street improvements on Pinnacle Valley Road.
2. Meet Floodplain Ordinance.
3. Circulation needs to be reviewed with
Engineering.
4. Responsible for street improvements. Liability
not to exceed 15 percent of cost of project,
defer improvement issue to building permit.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial based on traffic impact and departure from Land
Use Plan.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
Wastewater stated that the car wash needed to be above
floodplain level. Public Works felt that the driveway
needed to be widened.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISION
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There are no objectors present. The petition was
represented by Mr. Randy Treece. Mr. Don McChesney, City
Engineer, presented comments on the street improvements
associated with Pinnacle Valley Road. He indicated that
the County Judge was involved in discussion with the
Highway Department and others relative to widening and
straightening the curves.
Mr. Sam Davis, the project engineer, indicated that 20' of
right-of-way was being dedicated to Pinnacle Valley Road.
Mr. Jim Lawson offered a response to questions about the
Highway 10 Plan and floodplain. Gary Greeson discussed the
plan affects on this site. A general discussion followed
involving the plan content, interpretation of lines for
transition zones and site buildability.
The owner went on record as offering to dedicate the
floodway.
The Chairman asked the owner if a deferral would be in
order. Mr. Treece indicated his client needed some action
at this meeting. He further discussed the mix of uses
proposed and existing, stating some retail was involved in
the new car wash and existing antique sales. The
Commission explained that commercial use was not desirable,
especially within the transition zones.
After a brief discussion of deferral, a motion was made to
defer the request until May 31. The motion passed by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff reported that a request for deferral was received
from the applicant.
July 12, 1988
Item No. B (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988)
The Applicant submitted a letter requesting deferral. A
motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of:
9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
Staff recommended denial, based on the proposed use of the
property and the departure from the Land Use Plan and
traffic impact on the area. The property was shown as a
transition area on the Land Use Plan.
Mr. Sam Davis, Engineer, represented the Developer. His
feelings were that single family could not be built on the
property because of the amount of road dedication required
by City plans to widen Pinnacle Valley to 48 feet on one
side and the floodway on the western side. The 20 foot of
buildable area left would not support a residential use. He
also submitted signatures of property-owners' names that had
no objection to the proposal. The plan being considered at
this meeting had been revised to be one foot above the
floodplain.
The Commission then entered into discussion of the item.
Some Commissioners were concerned about creating a "taking"
situation if the property was restricted only to single
family. Staff felt that a case for office or multi-family
could be made due to hardships created by topography. This
area is in the transition zone which could allow
office /multi-family in such a situation. Others did not
feel that a carwash was appropriate because the only
existing uses in the area are residential. Staff suggested
that some office use may be appropriate.
It was decided that use of the property should be restricted
to only 80 percent of one type of retail use, an
antique /furniture shop, since it has historically been used
as one, and /or 20 percent of office use. A motion to this
effect was made and passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes,
and 3 absent.
July 12, 1988
Item No. B (Continued)
REASONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
1. The property was formerly used as an antique shop for a
period of about 15 years.
2. The proposed uses are low intensive and therefore
should not adversely affect the neighboring residential
area or cause traffic problems.
July 12, 1988
Item D
NAME: Trigon Addition
LOCATION: Baseline Road
APPLICANT: Andy Hicks and Associates
DEVELOPER:
Jim Rhodes, Dean
Roberts, Gary Lee
Suite 301
Evergreen Business Ctr.
69th Street
Little Rock, AR 72209
Phone: 562-6064
ENGINEER:
Anderson Engineering and
Testing
10205 Rockwood Road
Little Rock, AR 72204
r. Phone: 455-4545
AREA: 4.42 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 225.4'
ZONING: "I-2"/ "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Use is commensurate with "I-2" zoning.
A. Proposal /Request
1. To plat 4.42 acres into one lot and 225.4' of new
street for industrial use.
B. Existing Conditions
The site is currently vacant with existing nature
vegetation.
C. Issues/ Discussion/Legal /Technical /Design
1. Tract 2 needs to be rezoned.
2. Tract 2 is inadequate for "I-2" zoning.
3. Balance of ownership needs to be reflected with
signature of owner who is selling his property.
July 12, 1988
Item D
C. Engineering Comments
1. Thirty-six foot and 60 foot right-of-way on Sibley
Hole and Baseline Roads.
2. Is 30' shown one-half or existing right-of-way or
is this all that there is?
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to resolution of comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Applicant was present. She explained that they were in
the process of rezoning this parcel from "R-2" to "I-2," and
agreed to comply with the comments made.
The Committee pointed out that industrial street standards
could possibly be used depending upon the opinion from the
City Attorney regarding waivers.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988)
As requested by the Applicant, a motion for deferral was
made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
As requested by the Applicant, a motion for deferral was
made and passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 4 absent.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E
NAME: Davis Replat
LOCATION: Gamble Road and Lorena Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Joe Davis
P.O. Box 23640
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 223-2243
ENGINEER:
Laha Engineers
P.O. Box 9251
Little Rock, AR 72219
Phone: 565-7384
AREA: 245.05' x 75' NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "O-3"
PROPOSED USE: Office Building
A. Proposal /Request
1. To replat 245.05' x 75.0' into one lot for use as
an office building.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area composed of single
family and quiet office uses.
C. Issues /Discussion /Technical /Design
1. Show remainder of ownership and have owner
participate in plat.
2. Resolve question of survey /legal description
accuracy since it is not tied to two land
corners.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Five-foot additional right-of-way dedication
required.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E (Continued)
2. Street improvements required.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to resolution of issues.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Applicant was asked to show the dedication of
right-of-way and the balance of the ownership. There was
discussion regarding the conformity of the proposal to "O-3"
requirements for lot width.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988_
Since the Applicant was not present, a motion for deferral
was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and
2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
A motion for withdrawal was made a passed by a vote of:
7 ayes, 0 noes, and 4 absent.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F
NAME: Summit Ridge Revised Preliminary
LOCATION: South of Parkway Place east of
Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:
Winrock Development Co.
2101 Brookwood Drive
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 663-5340
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates, Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 15.4519 acres NO. OF LOTS: 53 FT. NEW ST.: 2,000
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Residential
A. Proposal /Request
1. To revise an approved preliminary of 15.4619
acres, 53 lots, and 2,000 feet of new street.
2. Revisions are as follows:
Original
Approval Modification
Area 25.63 acres 15.4619 acres
No. of Lots 86 53
New Street 3,500' 2,000'
Variances 15' building None
line as
shown
B. Existing Conditions
This property is located in an area that is developing
as single family.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F (Continued)
C. Issues /DiscussionjLegal /Technical /Design
1. Vicinity map is inaccurate.
2. Tract A - Note right-of-way dedication, setbacks,
use of tract, and center line on Kanis.
3. Give notice to abutting property owners.
4. Submit sketch grading plan.
D. En.g.ineering Comments
None at this time.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to resolutions of comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Applicant was asked to show right-of-way dedication and
a 35' building setback on Kanis. Since the status of Kanis
Road requirements would be changing in the near future, the
Committee decided that the applicant could request that
Tract A be Phase 2 and that right-of-way and improvements be
deferred until that time.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988)
The Applicant was present. Staff reported that the
Applicant had submitted a revised plan that corrected the
deficiencies identified by the Subdivision Committee, and
that there was a property-owner to the south that is
concerned about access.
This item spurred more of the discussion from the Agenda
meeting, regarding amending the By-Laws to reflect that
Applicants submit all items to be revised the Tuesday before
the Public Hearing. If the Applicant can't make the
deadline, then he should request more time.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F (Continued)
A motion was made to waive action on this issue taken on
July 12, 1988 and staff was instructed to compose a definite
amendment. The motion was seconded. A motion was made to
withdraw the latter part of this motion regarding the
amendment and discuss it at the end of the meeting. The
motion was seconded. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and
2 absent.
Mr. Joe White then continued his discussion. He requested
termination of Summit Ridge as a cul-de-sac.
Mr. Emile Reichstadt represented his mother, Mrs. Macie
Reichstadt, of 219 N. Palm. He stated no opposition to the
proposal, but was concerned that drainage be handled
equitably and that access be provided to the back portion of
their property even though his land had frontage on Kanis
Road. He felt that this was necessary since their plans
were to develop the property from back to front. It can't
be accessed from Kanis due to the topography.
Mr. Ron Tyne, the Developer, stated that they are only one
abutting property-owner and that access is available on
Kanis and on his property through the south and east. He
noted that the terrain on this property is rather steep and
that there is currently no means for sewer service.
It was decided that the item should be deferred until more
information was received from the City Attorney regarding
the granting of variances. Mr. Tyne was asked to work with
the abutting property-owner regarding the provision of a
stub -out to the south, instead of a cul-de-sac. It was
explained that absent an interpretation from the City
Attorney, the stub-out issued would not have been considered
by the Commission since access was available to the
Reichstadt property.
The City Attorney was requested to submit an opinion at the
July 12th meeting on whether or not a waiver of the 750 foot
cul-de-sac rule can be waived. If it can't, he was asked to
determine whether that constituted land-locking the back
half of this property. Also, the opinion should determine
if the Commission is required to grant access to this
property. A motion for a thirty-day deferral was made and
passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12 , 1988 )
The Applicant was present. Staff requested City Attorney
opinion regarding access to the abutting property. The City
Attorney determined that the abutting property was not land-
locked if this Developer did not provide access from his
property. The abutting property has frontage on Kanis, even
though it may require some physical improvements to develop
on that portion of the site.
Mr. Reichstadt represented his mother, owner of the abutting
property. He again requested that her property not be
turned into a drainage ditch. He was assured that the
proposal for drainage would be reviewed by Engineering.
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G
NAME: University Office Park
LOCATION: South of Northmoor Drive, along
Charlotte and Garfield Drives
DEVELOPER:
University Partners
c/o Rector-Phillips-
Morse
1501 N. University
Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone: 664-7807
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates,
Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 12.96 acres NO. OF LOTS: 26 FT. NEW ST.:
ZONING: "O-3"
PROPOSED USE: Office Park
A. ProposaI /Request
1. To plat 12.96 acres into 26 lots for general
office use.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located just north of the Broadmoor South
Subdivision.
C. Issues /Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
1. Give notice to all abutting property owners.
2. Identify points and lines to be moved.
3. Provide 40' buffer and 6' opaque fence adjacent to
residential areas.
4. Submit phasing scheme.
5. Staff is concerned with the location of office
buildings which will be facing existing houses.
Developers should present ideas for lessening the
impact.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G (Continued)
6. Staff suggests fewer lots to help alleviate
problems with drainage system. During rezoning,
developer promised 20 lots.
7. Revised cul-de-sac to be less than 750 feet.
8. Twenty-five foot building lines required.
9. All widening of streets to be completed with sale
of first lot.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Upgrade drainage system since it is currently
designed for residential property. It must be
designed to handle the commercial office uses.
2. Thirty-six foot /60 foot wide commercial streets
required.
Staff Recommendation
Reserved until comments addressed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The comments were discussed. Some major problems were
identified, such as protection for the existing residential
uses and the drainage system, which is currently designed
for residential use. It was indicated that Lots 23-26, Lot
22 and Lots 26 and 27 abut existing residential uses. The
applicant agreed to look into such devices as a berm to
soften the impact of the proposed uses, and to work with
Engineering to devise acceptable plans for storm drainage.
Other issues discussed included the inability of the
Commission to grant waivers at this point. The cul-de-sac
is in excess of 750' and the street should be built to
commercial standards. Staff agreed to research whether
Board action on rezoning could exempt the cul-de-sac.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988)
It was decided that this item should be deferred until
further information regarding the granting of variances was
received from the City Attorney. A motion to this effect
was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and
2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
Mr. John Burnett, Developer, and Mr. Joe White, Engineer,
represented the proposal. Staff recommended denial of the
requested waivers and the Subdivision. Staff stated
opposition to a proposed development with sub-standard
streets and drainage.
Mr. Burnett accused Staff of "subterfuge" in regards to this
proposal. Since Staff did not originally support his
proposal for rezoning, and the item was subsequently passed
by the Commission, he felt that Staff was trying to defeat
him in another way by recommending that he comply with the
usual standards for office /commercial plats.
Commissioner Massie explained that in an undeveloped area of
the City, the Commission would not usually support
residential streets and drainage for a commercial developer.
He felt, however, that the Commission previously endorsed
the waivers by requesting, at the time of rezoning, that the
Applicant file a Subdivision plat. A motion was made and
passed for approval of the plat and waiver. The motion
passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
REASONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
1. A replat of lots in the Section was required as a
condition of rezoning the property to "O-3."
2. The cul-de-sac was also required as part of the
rezoning.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G (Continued)
3. Since this is an existing platted area with completed
streets, widening of the streets should not be
required.
4. Widening of the streets was not contemplated at the
time of rezoning the property.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. H
NAME: Markham Commercial Center
LOCATION: West Markham Street (west of
Quality Ford and east of
McDonald's)
DEVELOPER:
George Wells
Flake & Co.
425 West Capitol
Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 376-8000
ENGINEER /ARCHITECT:
Robert M. Brown.
Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson,
and Associates
P.O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72203-3837
Phone: 375-5331
AREA: 17.647 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C-3"
PROPOSED USE:
General Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail
A. Proposal /Request
1. Approval of multiple building site plan review on
17.647 acres for use as a shopping center.
2. Submission of typicals regarding buildings,
parking, and drive -thru arrangement. Final
layout approval will be given by the City
Engineer prior to construction of restaurant
building.
3. Development Proposal
Primary Tenants .............. 169,815
Restaurant Tenants ........... 13,396
Total Building Area ......... 183,271 sq. ft.
Total Parking ................ 971
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. H - Continued
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area that is developing as
commercial. It is bounded on the west side of
McDonald's Restaurant and on the east by a Ford
dealership. Multifamily uses are to the north.
C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design
1. Specify planting to occur in the terraced area.
2. Future sale of freestanding buildings will
require platting.
3. Provide more variety in setbacks of fast food
restaurants.
4. Provide more green space /berm along Markham.
5. Reduce number of fast food establishments.
6. Provide pedestrian access to restaurants.
7. Show dumpsters.
D. Engineering Comments
Contact City Engineer about transition lane on the
west end. See Don McChesney.
E. Staff Recommendation
Defer until issues addressed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agree to address the provision of directed
lighting before the meeting and provide a berm along
Markham. He explained the plantings to be used, including
trees in the upper level. He would meet with the developer
regarding other comments.
July 12, 1988
Item No. H (Continued)
STAFF REPORT Revised Plan):
1. Need Developers redesign of the parking areas as
specified by the City Engineer.
2. Suggest angled parking stalls along Markham Street
frontage to increased landscaped area.
3. Need verification of the 45 foot access easement behind
McDonald's restaurant. If the easement has expired, a
curb should be provided in the easement area to prevent
access.
4. Lack of interior curbing, to control east - west - flow in
the parking lot, is a safety concern.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to satisfactory resolution of the above
issues and staff approval of final plans for fast food
restaurant locations.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988)
The application was represented by Mr. George Wells of Flake
and Company and Mr. Robert Brown and Mr. Wes Lowder of
Mehlberger, Tanner, Robinson and Associates.
The issues were discussed. Mr. Robert Brown explained that:
(1) the Applicant desired flexibility, with 15 feet to 25
feet variation in set-backs until the final tenants are
confirmed; (2) they will develop a low berm along Markham
with a 12" rise; (3) they couldn't reduce the number of
fast food restaurants.
Mr. Wes Lowder explained that they were working with Public
Works to convert the northernmost excel /decel lane to serve
this property. He agreed to look into the alignment of curb
cuts for the property south of Markham.
July 12, 1988
Item No. H (Continued
One of the major concerns was the effect of traffic that is
generated by such a large amount of commercial and fast food
uses on this rapidly developing commercial area. The
Applicant was asked to submit a traffic study. Chairman
Jones summed up the Staff's concerns: (1) one too many fast
food sites; (2) pedestrian trafficways between parking
areas; (3) variety in set-backs.
A motion for deferral of this item, subject to submission of
a traffic study, was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes,
0 noes, and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
The Applicant was present. No one objected. Staff
recommended approval, subject to: (1) interior curbing to
control east -west traffic flow; (2) all landscaping islands
be curbed and contained; (3) posting of financial
agreements to cover traffic signal and street improvements
at time of Building Permit; and (4) Staff approval of final
plans for each restaurant.
Mr. Gregg Simmons, Traffic Analyst with Mehlburger, Tanner,
and Robinson, gave his analysis of the traffic impact. The
main issue discussed involved the timing of the traffic
signal. The Engineering Staff's policy was for the
Developer to put up money for the installation of the
traffic signal when it is justified by the traffic count.
The Developer preferred to install the traffic light when
the initial anchor site is developed.
Mr. George Wells, representing the application from the
perspective of Flake and Company, objected to restricting
"freedom of movement" by interior curbing to control the
traffic. His reasons for doing so were because the major
tenant, Mr. Walton (Wal- mart), objected to it and felt that
the success of the center would depend on uninhibited
traffic movement. Staff felt that interior curbing was in
the best interest of public safety.
Mr. Jerry Gardner of the City Engineering Staff explained
that University Plaza and Southwest Mall are channelized in
the manner that Staff was suggesting. He pointed out that
the traffic signal would hinder traffic on Markham, but help
traffic in and out of the center.
July 12, 1988
Item No. H Continued
Chairman Jones felt that it was not a "travesty" to approve
the plan without the interior curbing. Commissioner Massie
agreed. He explained that major tenants usually have
various "quirks" that they desired, and in shopping center
development, "the world centered around the major tenant ".
He felt that 150' of protection was adequate, and that the
public safety issue was satisfied as long as the traffic
could flow in and out of the site easily. Thus he felt that
any congestion within the site would be the Developer's
problem.
Finally, a motion to approve the plan was made and passed,
subject to:
(1) Traffic lights installed at the time of shopping
center development; and
(2) Staff review of restaurant locations.
The motion passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes, and
1 absent.
J
July 12, 1988
Item No I
Owner: Arkansas National Life Insurance
Company
Applicant: Eugene Lewis, Jr.
Location: Flintridge Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "O-3" and
"I-1"
Purpose: Office Park and Office Warehouse
Size: 32.0 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
South - Single Family, Industrial, Zoned "R-2" and
If C-4 "
East - I-430 Right-of-way, Zoned "R-2"
West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone a 32 acre site from "R-2" to
"O-3" and "I-1" for future development. The proposal
is to subdivide the tract into a total of 13 lots for
office and office warehouse uses. if approved, the
rezoning request will create two large "I -1" lots and
11 "O-3" parcels. Flintridge Road is located west of
the 1- 430 /Stagecoach Road interchange and Flintridge
Road intersects Stagecoach Road (Highway No. 5) just
west of the southbound ramp. Flintridge Road is a
substandard residential street and terminates at the
western boundary of the 32 acres. Zoning in the area
includes "R-2," "C-1," "C-2," "C-4," and "PCD."
Several of the nonresidential tracts are undeveloped
including the "C-3" on the south side of Stagecoach
Road and the "C-2" site east of I-430. The land use
tends to be a conglomeration of both residential and
nonresidential uses, especially property fronting
Stagecoach Road. Along Flintridge, there are single
family residences, a light industrial use, and a
church.
July 12, 1988
Item No. I (Continued)
2. The site is heavily wooded and increases in elevation
from 285 to 355 along the west property line. The
grade differences between I-430 and Flintridge Road are
fairly substantial.
3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. Engineering has indicated that access is inadequate for
the proposed development and have also expressed
concerns with the topography and potential grading.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. In December of 1987, a "C-4" request was filed for the
entire site, 32.0 acres. At the Planning Commission
public hearing, residents from Flintridge Road spoke
against and in support of the rezoning. Some residents
voiced concerns about access, grading, and how the
residential uses would be protected. One property
owner said a quality office park was desirable and
spoke for the rezoning. After a lengthy discussion,
the "C-4" request was withdrawn without prejudice.
Staff recommended denial of the "C-4" rezoning..
7. As with the previous rezoning attempt, staff has
problems with the current request and does not support
the "O-3" and "I-1" reclassifications. The adopted
Otter Creek District Plan does not recognize the
property for nonresidential uses, and staff feels that
there is no justification for changing the direction of
the plan at this time. Another factor in opposing the
request is access, which is inadequate for
nonresidential development. The street system is also
substandard and does not provide the needed traffic
circulation /movement to make the site a viable office
location. Other concerns included the existing
topography and grading of the land.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "O-3" and "I-1" rezoning
request.
July 12, 1988
Item No. I (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988)
The applicant, Gene Lewis, was present. There were several
interested residents in attendance. Mr. Lewis requested
that the item be deferred to the July 12th meeting because
of a potential problem with the Commission and a quorum.
The item was placed on the consent Agenda and deferred to
the July 12, 1988 meeting. The vote: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 5
absent, and one abstention (Bill Rector).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
The applicant, Gene Lewis, was present. Joe White was also
in attendance to discuss the subdivision issue (Item A).
There were three objectors present. Mr. White spoke briefly
and said that the zoning was the key issue because without
the necessary rezoning, the proposed plat would be
meaningless. Mr. Lewis then addressed the Commission and
indicated that he was both an owner and the applicant. He
went on to discuss the history of the previous "C-4"
application and said that he worked with the Staff on the
plat. Mr. Lewis pointed out that the "O-3" district will
allow an office warehouse use as a conditional use in the
proposed zoning ordinance amendments. He then said that the
"I-1" area was needed for larger users /occupants and told
the Commission that the development plan would be for a
seven to ten year period. He also reviewed traffic counts
for the I-430 corridor and said the traffic impact would be
minimal for the proposed project. Mr. Lewis made additional
comments about the site and discussed screening areas; he
said that he had no problems with "OS" for the various
buffer areas or green belts.
Ron Keaton, a resident on Flintridge, told the Commission
that he was opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Keaton then
discussed Mr. Lewis' proposal for water and said that he was
concerned with water and adequate fire protection. He
concluded by saying that he has some problems with the
possibility of facing a loading dock or a warehouse. Joe
White said that Mr. Lewis would extend a 8" main and pay for
one -half the cost to the end of Flintridge.
Phillip Craig spoke in opposition to the rezoning and said
that the residents would loose the buffer between their
homes and I-430. Mr. Craig then distributed a hand-out and
July 12, 1988
Item No. I (Continued)
summarized a written statement. He said the existing "C-4"
to the south was causing some problems and went on to
describe the entire area. Mr. Craig also proposed a
different entrance point for the development. Mr. White
responded to Mr. Craig's proposal and said that some of the
land could not be developed if the entrance was changed.
Jerry Gardner, City Engineering office, made some comments
about Flintridge and its intersection with Highway 5
(Stagecoach Road). He said it was substandard and
undesirable for a non-residential development.
There was a discussion about the Otter Creek District Plan
which recommends single family use for the property. Gary
Greeson, Planning Director, responded to several questions
and discussed the Staff's objections to the "O-3" and "I-1."
Mr. Greeson said the plan was a major consideration and
residential development would require less site
modification.
Additional comments were offered by several Commissioners
and Mr. Lewis who said there would be approximately 19 acres
of developable land. Jerry Gardner discussed Flintridge and
said future traffic on Stagecoach will be heavy.
There was some discussion about amending the request to
"O-3" and including several "OS" areas. Mr. Lewis agreed to
the "O-3" and "OS." The "I-1" area was removed from
consideration by Mr. Lewis' action. A motion was made to
recommend approval of "O-3" and "OS" as amended. The motion
passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 no, 3 absent, and 1 abstention
(Bill Rector).
July 12, 1988
Item No. J - Z-4998
Owner: Winrock Development Co.
West Little Rock
Partnership
Applicant: Joe D. White
Location: Bowman Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to
"MF-18"
Purpose: Multifamily
Size: 16.8 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "MF-12"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone 16.8 acres from "R-2" to
"MF-18" for a multifamily development. The property is
located on the west side of Bowman Road and in an area
that is still underdeveloped for the most part. In the
immediate vicinity, land use on the developed parcels
is primarily single family zoned "R-2." To the north,
there is a nonconforming use on the east side of Bowman
Road and at the intersection of Kanis and Bowman Roads,
there are several nonresidential uses. In addition to
the "R-2," other zoning found in the area includes
"MF-12," "MF-18," and "OS." All the property that
abuts the site in question is undeveloped and zoned
"R-2." The existing "MF" tracts are vacant including
the large "MF-12" area across Bowman Road to the east.
2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded. The land
increases in elevation from east to west especially
directly adjacent to Bowman Road.
3. Bowman Road is classified as minor arterial so
dedication of addition right-of-way will be required.
July 12, 1988
Item No. J - Z-4998 (Continued)
4. Engineering Comments
Dedication of additional right-of-way for Bowman
Road.
The future alignment of Bowman Road will basically
remain in the same location.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position
on the site.
7. The land under consideration is part of the I-430
District Plan which recommends single family use for
the property. The multifamily areas are shown adjacent
to this site on the north and on the east side of
Bowman Road, but the plan does not recognize the
existing "MF" area directly to the east. When the
"MF-12" was reclassified as part of the larger rezoning
action, the I-430 Plan was never amended to reflect the
change in land use. (The Planning Commission has
endorsed an "MF" rezoning for some land to the north,
but no action has been taken by the Board of
Directors.) After reviewing the proposal, staff feels
that the "MF" use is a legitimate option for the
property, but at a density of 12 units per acre and not
the "MF-18" as requested. This would provide for a
good transition from the proposed commercial at Kanis
and the single family to the south. Also, "MF-12"
would maintain the density established by the rezoning
action to the east. It is envisioned that the same
type of development pattern will take place on the west
side of Bowman Road as is occurring on the east side.
A single family plat has been approved for the land
south of the "OS" strip. Because of the area's
emerging development pattern, a mix of multifamily and
single family, a reclassification to "MF-12" would not
change the direction of this trend. One issue that
needs to be addressed by the owners is access to the
entire site. It appears that a collector through the
property would benefit a multifamily development and
should be given some serious consideration during a
later review process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "MF-12" and not "MF-18" as
requested.
July 12, 1988
Item No. J - Z-4998 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 5, 1988)
A motion was made to defer the item to the May 17, 1988,
meeting as requested by the applicant. The motion was
approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 17, 1988)
The applicant, Ron Tyne, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Tyne said that there were some unresolved
issues between the two property owners and requested a
deferral. There was a brief discussion and then a motion
was made to defer the issue to the June 28, 1988, meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and
1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. It was
reported to the Commission that the applicant had submitted
a written request for deferral to the July 12, 1988 meeting.
A motion was made to defer the item to the July 12, 1988
meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes,
0 noes, and 5 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
The applicant, Ron Tyne, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Tyne spoke and said that Winrock owns
10.9 acres of the total acreage with the remaining acreage
being owned by the West Little Rock Partnership. He said
that access could only be resolved at the time of
development because the two parcels would probably be sold
as one site. Mr. Tyne then agreed to "MF-12" and amended
the request. A motion was made to recommend approval of
"MF12" as amended. The motion was approved by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME: Pratt - Cates - Remmel Road
Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: South of Lindsey Road,
1,000 feet west of Fourche
Bayou
DEVELOPER:
Picron - Property - owners'
Association
Rowland R. Remmel, Agent
P. O. Box 2219
Little Rock, AR 72203
ENGINEER:
Cromwell, Truemper, Levy,
Parker and Woodsmall
#1 Spring Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 372-2900
AREA: 2.97 acres NO. OF LOTS: 0 FT. NEW ST.: 2,200
ZONING: None
ROPOSED USE: Dedicated Right-of-way
A. Proposal/Request:
1. To construct and dedicate 300 linear feet of
collector street, south from Lindsey Road, to
serve the new Arkansas Freightway truck terminal.
The street will be completed to Frazier Pike Road
in the future.
B. Existing. Conditions
The property is located adjacent to property zoned for
single family.
C. Issue /Legal /Technical /Design
1. Discuss relationship of this submittal to
previously approved plat.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Conformance to detention ordinance required or
written justification for a waiver.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until further information received. Staff is
somewhat concerned with platting only this right-of-way
with none of the adjacent properties included.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was asked to extend the boundaries of the plat
so that the surrounding ownership was included and
identified as lots, and to provide a 90 degree angle at the
intersection with Lindsey Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
The Applicant was present. No one objected. A motion for
approval was made and passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes,
and 4 absent.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No . 2
NAME: Jernigan's Addition
LOCATION: Located on the west side of
Pine Manor 150 feet south of
Shannon Drive
DEVELOPER:
Jane W. Swope
Star Route 1, Box 122
Ferndale, Arkansas 72208
Phone: 821-2500
ENGINEER:
Robert D. Holloway, Inc.
200 Casey Drive
Maumelle, Arkansas 72218
Phone: 851-3366
AREA: .94 acre NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R-2," Single Family
A. Proposal /Request
To replat a lot of .94 acre into two lots for single
family use.
B. Existing Conditions
The site is located in an older neighborhood of
existing single family homes. Elevations range from
515 feet to 545 feet. The lots will front on Pine
Manor, where the land abruptly falls to a 25 foot
drainage ditch adjacent to the right-of-way. Access is
also provided by a 16 foot access easement from
Broadview Drive.
C. Issue /Lega..I /Technical/Desipn
1. Street Improvements
2. Applicant should explain proposed improvements to
the ditch.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Street improvements required.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item N o. 2 (Continued)
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made. This lot is part
of what was originally a 2.2 acre ownership with one
existing residence. On April 7, 1987, the Commission
approved a replat for three lots. This proposal
replats that third lot into two, making it four lots on
the total ownership.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee reviewed the plat and identified the main
issue to be resolved as that of street improvements. Staff
supported access to the property from Pine Manor.
LANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
Staff recommended approval of the plat without endorsement
of the access across the rear of the property. Mr. Bob
Holloway, Project Engineer, explained that the issue of
using access easement came up on the previous proposal to
replat the entire ownership. At the time this portion of
the lot was created as Lot 3, the Developer did not desire
to pave the access easement. Now he does plan to pave it.
He hoped that this would help alleviate concerns about the
easement. Mr. Holloway acknowledged that access on Pine
Manor is poor, since it is steep and has a large drainage
channel.
Several neighborhood residents were in attendance. Mr.
Robert Faulkner was in favor of the access. Mr. Odis
Lawson, a resident of Broadview Terrace, supported the
change also. Mr. Mark Johnson stated opposition to the
proposed access because the easement was a part of his
property. He passed out minutes of the April 7, 1987
meeting. At that time, the Applicant decided to remove the
easement from the plan. He explained that there was a legal
question about the access easement across the lots owned by
him and Mr. Jim Powell. Mr. Powell was not notified of the
meeting since he is not an abutting property-owner.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 (Continued)
His major objections were that:
(a) The drive is 8' - 12' with utilities located in a
manner that would prevent major improvement of the
drive;
(b) The drive is located on his property and was
created before Pine Manor was built;
(c) Other access drives on Pine Manor have bridges
from the street to their property;
(d) Additional traffic would be harmful;
(e) April 7th minutes reflected that Staff recommended
pipe-stem access off Broadview to be located on
Lots 1 and 2.
He was vehemently opposed to the use of an access easement
on his property.
The Commission asked the City Attorney for information
regarding the legal status and nature of the easement.
Attorney Giles could not determine this from the information
presented.
Staff recommended approval of the waiver of street
improvements.
Finally, a motion for deferral of the item so that the City
Attorney could research the easement issue. The vote:
8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME: Rudy's Farm Replat
LOCATION: Southwest corner of 33rd and
Polk Streets
DEVELOPER:
Sara Lee Corporation
Chicago, Illinois
AREA: 9.8 acres
ENGINEER:
Robert J. Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664-0003
NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "I-2"
PROPOSED USE: Industrial
A. ProposaI/Request
1. Consideration of this request as a combined
preliminary /final even though it is in excess of
five acres.
B. Issue /Legal /Technical /Design
1. Explain purpose of replat.
2. Give status of floodway dedication.
3. Variance requested above.
C. Engineering Comments
1. Additional right-of-way dedication (5 foot) for
Polk Street.
2. (Improvements required).
D. Staff Recommendation
Reserved, until further information submitted.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
E. Subdivision Committee Review
This plat was filed to correct several minor problems
regarding street closures and right-of-way owned by the
City. The request for preliminary /final consideration
is a variance and must be sent to the City Board.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
The Applicant was present. No one was present who objected.
A motion for approval was made and passed with a vote of
7 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME: Hinson Manor Office Park
LOCATION: Napa Valley and Hinson Road
DEVELOPER:
Roger Thurmand
650 S. Schackleford
Suite 229
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: 227-8888
ENGINEER:
White /Dater & Associates,
Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 6.67 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "O-2"
PROPOSED USE: Office
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Off -site street improvements to be constructed in
two phases.
2. 27 foot pavement and 50 foot right-of-way.
A. Proposal /Request
1. To plat 6.67 acres into nine office lots and
580 feet of new street.
2. Deferral of street improvements until second phase
of development.
B. Existino Conditions
This site is located on property zoned for offices that
is abutted by single family on the south and offices on
the east and west. Two existing structures are this
site. One is a two -story brick, rock and frame
residence, the other is a one -story frame structure.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
C. Issue /Legal /Technical /Design
1. 27 foot pavement and a 50 foot right-of-way
2. Variances needed for: street width, curbs,
sidewalks, street frontage, and pipe-stem for
office plat.
3. Grading plan needed.
D. Engineering Comments
1. No street name indicated.
2. No preliminary drainage information.
3. 60 foot right-of-way required for 36 foot street.
4. Curve radius scale of 100 feet - ordinance required
for 150.
E. Staff Recommendation
Deferral, due to plat deficiencies. The Applicant
should delete the small lots.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW
A revised plan was submitted. It consisted of two
phases with two lots. Staff gave its support to the
plat and request for deferral of street improvements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters & Associates represented the
Applicant. Staff recommended approval of the revised plan
for a 2-lot subdivision and the request for the phasing of
the improvements as the lots are developed.
Ms. Jane Coulter, an abutting property-owner, requested
information on: (1) grading and tree disturbance on the
south side of the site, (2) traffic control out of the
driveway, (3) sewer from Hinson Road.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
Mr. White explained that many of her concerns would be
addressed when the site plan was approved and a sewer
easement ran through Lot 2.
A motion for approval of the plat and waiver was made and
passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 4 absent.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME: Charles Valley Court
LOCATION: Huron Lane
DEVELOPER:
Rector - Phillips- Morse, Inc
1501 N. University
Little Rock, AR 72217
Phone: 664-7807
ENGINEER:
White /Daters &
Associates, Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 3.89 acres NO. OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW ST.: 300
ZONING: "O-3"
PROPOSED USE: Office
VARIANCES REQUESTED: 27 foot pavement and 50 foot of
right-of-way
A. Proposal /Request
1. To plat 3.89 acres and 300 feet of new street into
five lots for office use, with the exception of a
50 foot strip on the south which is zoned for
single family.
2. Waiver of 27 foot pavement and 50 foot right-of-
way.
3. Submit Bill of Assurance.
S. Existing Conditions
This site is covered with mature trees and vegetation.
It is abutted on the east by a postal facility and on
the south and west by single family development. A
green space that is currently zoned "R-2" comprises
50 feet of the southern most boundary of the property.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 (Continued,
C. Issue /Legal /Technical / Design
1. Explain waiver requests.
2. Address neighborhood concern regarding the removal
of trees in the buffer area.
D. Engineering Comments
1. No drainage data shown.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the plat, subject to comments made. Denial
of the waiver.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Applicant agreed to provide sidewalks, but still desired
a waiver of the street standards. He was asked to indicate
the buffer on the plat and provide added dimensions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION; (July 12, 1988)
Mr. Bill Hastings of Rector - Phillips - Morse and Mr. Joe White
of White-Daters & Associates represented the Applicant. The
Applicant amended the plat eliminating the request for
waivers. Staff recommended approval of the amended plat.
Two concerned residents from the neighborhood were in
attendance. Mrs. Mary Zehr read a statement from the Board
of the Walnut Valley Home Owners Association, which
represented 450 home owners. They were concerned with the
development because of: (1) the adverse impact of the
pattern of development in Charles Valley on Huron Lane;
(2) it left the home owners with an unobstructed view of
strip commercial (on Huron Lane), an on-going noise and
disturbances from the abutting U. S. Post Office. They
requested that an "adequate, functional buffer of
undisturbed, natural vegetation" be designated in the 50
foot buffer area, so as to fulfill the intended purpose of
this "R-2" zoning. She also submitted a statement from the
home owners of Walnut Valley who reside on Old Charter
Court. They expressed concerns about the past and present
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 (Continued)
conditions on the Post Office site. They felt that they had
been adversely affected by the pattern of development on
Huron Lane and noise from the Post Office. They requested a
buffer that was sufficient to be a visual barrier and serve
as a noise abatement measure.
Staff explained that a 50 foot "R-2" strip is located on the
south of the site and a 15 foot buffer is proposed on the
west. Mrs. Zehr was concerned that this strip could be
bulldozed or excavated.
Ms. Marlene McHaffy of 1220 Old Charter affirmed Mrs. Zehr's
comments. She explained that she contacted Mr. Hastings by
letter, asking him to declare the "R-2" buffer as
undisturbed. She had not received a reply. Ms. McHaffy was
deeply concerned that she did not have anything that was
legally binding that would insure that the buffer would be
undisturbed; since the buffer on the Post Office site was
previously denuded of trees even after the Developer had
promised to maintain the area as a buffer area.
The Commission considered requiring the Applicant to rezone
the 50 foot strip to "OS" and asked Mr. Hastings to state
that he would not oppose rezoning the "R-2" strip to "OS."
He reminded them that he was only asking for plat approval.
There was disagreement among the members as to whether or
not the City could initiate rezoning. It was decided that
due to the new subdivision policy, there could be no
conditions to approval.
Mr. Hastings gave his word that he has no intention of
cutting the trees, and he would consider placing in the Bill
of Assurance a statement that the buffer will not be
disturbed except for placement of the utilities. He would
have to confirm with his attorney before any such
restriction was placed in the document.
Finally, a motion for approval was made and passed by a vote
of: 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME: Westchester Subdivision
LOCATION: North side of Taylor Loop Road,
approximately 200 feet west of
Grissom Road, east of
Heatherbrae Subdivision
DEVELOPER:
Ridgelea Development Corp.
ENGINEER:
Pat C. McGetrick
APPLICANT:
Robert C. Lowe, Jr. and
Associates
10510 I-30, Suite 5
Little Rock, AR 72209
Phone: 562-7215
A. Proposal /Request
1. To plat 3.105 acres and .29 acres into 8 lots for
single family use.
2. Flood plain will be revised to remain within the
Creek channel to the north.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area that is presently
undergoing a significant amount of new single family
development. The 100 -Year Flood Plain bisects Lot #7.
South Fork Taylor Loop Creek abuts the plat on the
north.
C. Issue /Legal /Technical/ Design
1. Sidewalks are not apparent on previous phases. An
explanation from the Applicant is requested.
2. Explain whether City or Developer will build the
east one -half of Buckingham.
3. Sidewalks required on Taylor Loop Road and
Buckingham.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
1. Conflict in street name (Buckingham).
2. Preliminary drainage data is inadequate.
3. Flood plain data is confusing.
E. Staff Recommendation
Deferral, due to non - compliance of other phases of the
plat to Ordinance requirements. Staff recalls the
Applicant making a commitment to construct sidewalks
that were not done in the earlier phases of
construction. Since the Applicant was given a second
chance, staff is reluctant to support any more phases
until sidewalks are constructed. There are currently
no sidewalks within the Project, nor on Taylor Loop
Road.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW
City Engineering explained that Buckingham will be built in
its entirety. The City agreed that they would build a
sidewalk on the park side of the property. Staff was still
in favor deferring the proposal.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
Staff recommended approval, subject to construction of
sidewalks in previous phases or financial assurance for a
sidewalk construction in sixty days.
A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of:
7 ayes, 0 noes, and 4 absent.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME: Spears Revised PCD (Z-4451-B)
LOCATION: 12123 Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:
Jerry M. and Donna Spears
Robert and Diane Aguiar
12123 Kanis Road
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: 224-1992
ENGINEER:
Unlisted
AREA 150' x 330' NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST: 0
ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Office /warehouse
A. Proposal /Request
1. To revise an approved PCD by adding 5,000 square
feet for additional warehouse space, which will be
used in conjunction with a business forms
facility.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in a area mixed with commercial
and residential uses.
C. Issue /Legal /Technical /Design
1. Redesign parking to be more functional in the
northern most area.
2. Number of parking spaces should comply with the
standards for manufacturing uses. Ten more spaces
are required.
3. Show landscaping.
4. Site plan dimensions are required.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
None
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
Since the Applicant was not present, this item was not
reviewed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
Staff recommended Approval, subject to compliance with Staff
comments and submission of a revised site plan. A motion to
this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes,
0 noes, and 1 abseht.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME: Arkansas Modification Center, a
revised PID (Z-3201-B)
LOCATION: Bounded by East 11th and East
12th, Townsend and Harrington
DEVELOPER:
Arkansas Modification Center
11th and Harrington Streets
Little Rock, Arkansas
Phone: 372-1501
ENGINEER:
Garvin Garver
11th and Battery Streets
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 376-3633
AREA 1.19 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: PID
PROPOSED USE: Same as present
A. Proposal /Request
1. To revise an approved PID by the addition of two
portable buildings (47.8 feet by 13.9 feet and
23.9 feet by 11.9 feet) along the west line of the
property.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area that has residential to
the west, commercial in the north, and industrial on
the south.
C. Issue /LegaI /Technical /Design
1. Submit parking lay-out and numbers per type of
use.
2. Submit information on the use of the buildings.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
None.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to no more buildings on the site.
F. Subdivison Committee Review
The issues as identified by Staff were discussed and
passed to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
7 ayes, 0 noes, and 4 absent.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME: Polk and Kavanaugh short form
PCD No. 2 (Z-5004-A)
DEVELOPER:
Ben McMinn
P. O. Box 2438
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 372-5007
ENGINEER:
Jerry Stowers
1516 W. Third Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 21,000 sq. ft. NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Office
A. Proposal /Request
1. To construct a two-story office building with
5,040 square feet and 18 parking spaces on 21,000
square feet of land.
2. To provide a driveway from Polk Street for
entrance into the property and an exit on
Kavanaugh.
3. To heavily landscape the southern and eastern
portions of the property.
4. To preserve as many existing trees as possible.
5. To proceed as quickly as possible with the razing
of the two existing buildings and construction of
the new office building.
B. Issue/Legal/Technical/Design
None
C. Engineering Comments
None
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, due to: (1) compatibility with surrounding
neighborhood of uses like the Post Office and grocery
store, and (2) unlikely to cause strip development
since side of houses face Kavanaugh.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
The Staff recommended approval, subject to: (1) elimination
of driveway to Kavanaugh, (2) six foot fence on south and
east sides, (3) minimum disturbance of trees, (4) Staff
approval of the parking plan, (5) amendment of the Land Use
Plan to office.
Attorney Ben McMinn, the Applicant, stated a preference for
constructing the driveways as proposed, but stated his
agreement with any conditions of approval.
Mr. Don Barnes represented the neighborhood. He felt that
this proposal, which eliminated the drive-in was still in
violation of the Land Use Plan. It is consistent with uses
in the area, but only on the west. He was opposed to the
idea of Kavanaugh being stripped out and felt approval of
this plan would be the first step toward that end. Mr.
Barnes requested a deferral until August, and suggested that
if the Plan was approved, the neighborhood should have input
into the landscaping. Objections to the Plan were also
stated by residents of 1900 N. Tyler.
A motion for approval was made and passed, subject to Staff
approval of: (1) the parking plan; (2) elimination of drive
to Kavanaugh; and (3) minimal disturbance to trees The vote
was 7 ayes, 1 no, and 3 absent.
A motion to amend the Land Use Plan to office was made and
passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 1 no, and 3 absent.
July 12, 1988
Item No. 10
NAME: Shelter Site Plan Review (Z-
3689-D)
LOCATION: The east side of Corporate Hill
Drive, approximately 1250 feet
south of West Markham Street
( #9 Corporate Hill Drive)
OWNER /APPL I CANT : Shelter Insurance
Companies /Frank Blair of
Townley - Williams -Blair
Architects
PROPOSAL:
To construct a two story 24,898 office building and 106
parking spaces on 5.16 acres of land that is zoned "O-2."
ANALYSIS:
The proposed site plan meets ordinance requirements with the
exception of a 25 feet landscape strip that should be shown
adjacent to Corporate Hill Drive.
CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS:
Meet detention and excavation ordinance requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval provided the applicant: (1) submits a revised site
plan that contains a 25 feet landscaped strip adjacent to
Corporate Hill Drive; and (2) agrees to comply with
detention and excavation ordinance requirements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The Water Works commented
that on -site fire protection may be required.
July 12, 1988
tem No. 10 Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
The Applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent to approved the
application subject to the applicant agreeing to construct
an on-site fire hydrant.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME: Pleasant Valley Country Club
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-2050-A)
LOCATION: Southwest of the intersection
of Fairway Drive and Valley
Club Circle ( #1 Pleasant Valley
Drive).
OWNER /APPLICANT: Pleasant Valley Country
Club /Joe White
PROPOSAL:
To construct an air structure (green on the ends and white
on the top) over four tennis courts (120 feet by 240 feet by
40 feet in height) to be in place from October 1st through
April 1st on existing tennis courts located on the Country
Club on land that is zoned "R-4."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (Valley Club Circle).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is abutted to the south and west by the
existing country club facilities, to the north by
single family, and to the west by vacant country club
land and Valley Club Circle. The proposed 40 feet
(height) unit has a potential to visually impinge upon
the single family property located to the north. The
staff feels that due to the type structure, its height
and its close proximity to the adjacent single family,
an adverse impact would result.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
Access is taken from Valley Club Circle and the
existing parking is provided for the country club use.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 (Continued)
4. Screening and Buffers
A stand of trees exists adjacent to the tennis courts
on both the north and the east.
5. AnaIysis
The staff has reservations about the compatibility of
the proposed air dome (see note #2). The staff feels
that the dome would be detrimental to the aesthetics of
the adjacent single family area on the north. The
staff also questions the possible noise created by the
air unit (the applicant has stated that the air blower
unit would be located on the south or west side of the
dome and would create about the same noise level as a
vertical air conditioning unit). In addition, this
request would entail the granting of a 5 feet height
variance (35 feet allowed in "R-4 ") which the staff
feels is the most unappealing aspect of the project.
Finally, the Fire Department needs additional
information regarding the composition of the structure.
6. Citv Ennineer Comments
None
7. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Applicant was present. Three objectors were also
present. The applicant was informed that the issue was land
use and could not be decided until reviewed by the full
Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
The Applicant was present as were eight objectors. The
Staff stated that they had received a revised proposal that
consisted of two 120' x 120' x 40' (height) air domes that
would be constructed on the courts to the south of the
original proposal. The Staff further stated that the new
July 12, 1988
Item No. 11 (Continued)
proposal would be about six feet lower in elevation and 180'
from the nearest single family property line and,
subsequently, recommended approval of the revised proposal
provided that the air blower be located on the south or west
side of the proposed structures. Mr. Darol Bell, Margaret
Cornett, Nanette Camferdam, Gary Jones, Judy Friend and Troy
Burns presented petitions of opposition and spoke against
the proposal. The objectors stated that the domes would be
visible and unsightly and would reduce their property
values. They also stated that they were opposed as home
owners as well as club members, and that the entire club
membership had not approved the proposal. Mr. Jim
Russenberger, representing the proposal for Pleasant Valley
County Club, stated that the Directors had approved a
resolution but that a vote by the entire membership had not
yet been taken. Mr. Joe White, agent for the applicant,
stated that the structure would be constructed of fire
retardant material. The Commission members stated that they
felt that the entire Pleasant Valley County Club membership
should vote on the issue prior to Planning Commission
action. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 0 noes,
1 abstention (Perkins) and 3 absent to defer the Item until
the August 23, 1988 Planning Commission meeting.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME: Markham United Methodist Church
Conditional Use Permit (Z-5040)
LOCATION: The northeast corner of West
Markham Street and Ellis Drive
(9820 W. Markham Street)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Markham United Methodist
Church /David W. Kennedy
PROPOSAL:
To obtain a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a temporary
wood frame classroom building (1,280 square feet) and a
daycare (50-capacity) and a master site plan that includes
future construction of two -story classrooms (13,820 square
feet), a new sanctuary (6,210 square feet - 500 capacity), a
chapel (3,904 square feet) and 82 parking spaces on 2.72 +/-
acres of land that is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to an arterial (West Markham Street) and a
residential street (Ellis Drive).
2. CompatibiIity with Neighborhood
This site is abutted by commercial to the south,
office /commercial to the east, multifamily to the west,
and single family to the north. The church use is
existing and is surrounded on three sides by high -
density uses. A drainage ditch located on the north
should help buffer this site from the single family.
The use is compatible with the surrounding area.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No 12 (Continued)
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
The site contains four access points (two on West
Markham Street and two on Ellis Drive). The site also
contains 69 paved parking spaces with an additional
82 paved parking spaces proposed.
4. Screenina and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use existing trees and
landscaping as well as committing to meet all future
city landscape requirements.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed use is compatible
with the surrounding area. The applicant does need,
however, to submit a revised site plan that shows the
dimensions of all the buildings (existing and proposed)
and their setbacks from each other and the property
lines. The applicant also needs to show the existing
playground and future playground area. Finally, the
applicant will be required to provide a permanent
foundation for the temporary building and to construct
the future parking areas (at least a total of 100
parking spaces) at the time the new sanctuary is
constructed.
6. City. Engineer Comments
Meet detention and excavation ordinance requirements.
7. Staff Recommendation:
Approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a revised site plan as outlined in the Analysis
section; (2) provide a permanent foundation for the
temporary classroom building; (3) construct the
necessary parking at the time of the construction of
the new sanctuary; and (4) meet detention and
excavation ordinance requirements.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 (Continued)
SUBDIVISON COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. The applicant also informed the Water
Works representative that no construction would occur over
the existing 42" water main.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(July 12, 1988)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstention (Perkins) and
1 absent to approve the application as recommended by the
Staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and agreed to
by the applicant.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
tem No. 13
NAME: Williams Daycare Conditional
Use Permit (Z-5041)
LOCATION: The north side of Trenton Lane
approximately 250 feet west of
Republic Lane (5716 Trenton
Lane)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Johnnie and Jean Williams
PROPOSAL:
To continue to live in and to convert a 1,666 +/- square
feet structure to a daycare center with a capacity of
14 children on 0.21 +/- acres of land that is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (Trenton Lane).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is abutted on three sides by single family
uses and by multifamily located to the north (the
multifamily use is separated from this use by a large
drainage ditch). The proposed site does not appear to
be adequate to accommodate 14 children without having
an adverse impact on the surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
The applicant is proposing to use an existing driveway.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use the existing fence,
shrubs, and trees as landscaping.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 (Continued)
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the site is not adequate to
accommodate 14 children without having an adverse
impact on the surrounding area. In addition, an
increase in traffic would likely result. Finally, a
lack of parking and a drop -off area would adversely
affect the traffic situation in the neighborhood.
6. City Engineer Comments
Parking and drop-off area are not provided.
7. Staff Recommendation
Denial of the proposed 14-child daycare center.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and was informed that the issue
was land use and that it could not be decided except by the
full Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission asked the Staff what kind of proposal they could
support on this site. The Staff stated that they could
support a capacity of less than ten children if the
applicant paved the drive /parking area to 18' in width and
20' in depth. A short discussion ensued. The Commission
then votes 6 ayes, 2 noes and 3 absent to approve the
application for 14 children subject to the applicant paving
the parking as outlined by the Staff.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME: The Church of the Lord Jesus
Christ House of Prayer
Conditional Use Permit (Z-5042)
LOCATION: The southeast corner of Loren
and East 9th Streets.
OWNER /APPLICANT: Ronald and Linda Jenkins
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 3,200 square feet church building
(130-capacity) and 10 parking spaces on 0.32 +/- acres of
land that is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a collector street (East 9th Street) and a
residential street (Loren Street) [see City Engineer
Comment note #6].
2. Compatibility with Neiahborhood
This site is abutted by single family to the south and
east, vacant land to the west, and vacant land and
single family located to the north across East 9th
Street. This particular proposal is not compatible
with the surrounding area (see note #5, Analysis). A
church use properly sited would be, however, with the
surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
The proposal contains 10 parking spaces with the access
to be taken from an alley way (appears to be legally
open but is not physically open).
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 (Continued)
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to meet all city codes.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the use is compatible but not this
particular proposal. The proposal would be a gross
over-building of the site. Ordinance requirements for
a church with a capacity of 130 would require
26 parking spaces. It is obvious that the current
proposal cannot adequately park the proposed 10 cars.
Also, the alley would have to be constructed to provide
access.
6 City Engineer Comments
East 9th Street is collector street under the current
Master Street Plan but will be deleted (changed to
East 10th Street) by the Master Street Plan Amendment
that is awaiting Board of Directors action.
7. Staff Recommendation
The staff supports the proposed use but cannot support
the proposed plan. The staff recommends denial of the
existing proposal.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The Water Works
representative stated that a $150 per acre charge may apply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(July 12, 1988)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors.
The Staff stated that the applicant had not supplied the
necessary notice information and reiterated its recommended
denial. The Commission then voted 8 noes and 3 absent to
deny the application.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18
NAME: Jeff and Tracy Thompson request
LOCATION: 12602 Brown Road, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72206
REQUEST: Waiver of all subdivision
regulations
STAFF REPORT:
This request was prompted by a recent denial of water
service due to illegal subdivision of the land.
The Applicants have submitted the following history of
events. Approximately ten years ago, Mr. Thompson and his
brother jointly purchased a one acre tract of land with
frontage on Brown Road, which is outside the City limits.
When his brother built his home in 1983, he was required by
the bank that advanced the construction loan to have the one
acre tract divided in half so that his one -half acre could
be mortgaged. A survey was performed and the one acre tract
was divided in two one-half acre tracts, with each brother
receiving a warranty deed for one-half acre.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Reserved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW
The Commission discussed the proposal at length. The
Applicants were told to be present on July 12, 1988. The
issues would go to the City Board for resolution.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
The Applicants were present. The Commission discussed this
request. The general feeling was that some policy should be
established to deal with similar hardship cases, since more
were expected due to extension of the Extraterritorial
jurisdiction in April.
After some discussion, it was decided that the minimum
waivers that could be granted were the application fees and
subdivision improvements. A one -lot plat with right-of-way
improvement easements was a must or there would be no need
to consider the proposal. Finally, a motion for denial of
the request was made and passed by a vote of: 7 ayes,
0 noes, and 4 absent. It was subject to Staff approving the
plat after the City Board meeting.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19
NAME: Charles and Kelley Nall
LOCATION: 11434 Oak Hill, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72206
Phone: 666-2962
REQUEST: Waiver of all subdivision
regulations.
STAFF REPORT:
This request was prompted by a recent denial of water
service due to illegal subdivision of the land.
Mrs. Nall was sold an acre of land by her father in August,
1987. In April, 1988, a form for a water meter was filled
out. On May 24, 1988, builders began construction on their
house. On June 1, 1988, they were informed that their
request for water had been denied.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Reserved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW
The Commission discussed the proposal at length. The
Applicants were told to be present on July 12, 1988. The
issues would go to the City Board for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
(July 12, 1988)
The Applicants were present. The Commission discussed this
request. The general feeling was that some policy should be
established to deal with similar hardship cases, since more
were expected due to extension of the Extraterritorial
jurisdiction in April.
July 12, 1988
Item No.19 (Continued)
After some discussion, it was decided that the minimum
waivers that could be granted were the application fees and
subdivision improvements. A one-lot plat with right-of-way
improvement easements was a must or there would be no need
to consider the proposal. Finally, a motion for denial of
the request was made and passed by a vote of: 7 ayes,
0 noes, and 4 absent. It was subject to Staff approving the
plat after the City Board meeting.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20
NAME: Woodland Heights Road PCD
(Z-3370)
LOCATION: Pleasant Forest Drive and
Woodland Heights Road
APPLICANT: Mike Berg /Rector - Phillips - Morse
1501 N. University
Little Rock, AR 72204
Phone: 664-7807
REQUEST: Revocation of an approved PCD
STAFF REPORT:
The Applicant is requesting to revoke a PCD that was
approved for a dance studio and office. At the time of the
Public Hearing, concern was expressed by the neighborhood
regarding traffic and buffers, and the uses proposed. The
Commission finally voted to approve the project, subject to
the property converting back to "O-3," (office) if the
dance studio went out of business.
The dance studio has gone out of business. The applicant
would now wish to use the property as offices for a small
computer company.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the revocation, subject to: (1) maintenance of
buffer area and fence on the west and on the south along
Pleasant Forest Drive, (2) retention of the vehicle access
prohibitions along Pleasant Forest.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(July 12, 1988)
A motion for approval of the revocation was made a passed,
subject to: (1) maintenance of buffer area and fence on the
west and on the south along Pleasant Forest Drive;
(2) retention of the vehicle access prohibitions along
Pleasant Forest. The motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes,
0 noes, and 4 absent.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 23
NAME: Chenal Golf Course Conditional
Use Permit (Z-5055)
LOCATION: East of Gordon Road and north
of Kanis Road.
OWNER /APPLICANT: Deltic Farm and Timber,
Inc. /Joe White
PROPOSAL:
To construct an 18 -hole golf course, two practice holes, a
driving range and seven lakes on 214.5933 +/- acres of land
that is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a proposed parkway.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The proposed golf course is an integral part of a
comprehensively planned development. At present all
adjacent property is vacant. The proposed golf course
is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The site will be provided access from the proposed
parkway. The parking layout and future buildings will
require an additional Conditional Use Permit.
4. Screening and Buffers
The proposed golf course will be landscaped by what is
left in the existing environment.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 23 (Continued)
5. Analysis
The proposed golf course is part of a unified planned
environment (see note #2). The staff perceives the use
as compatible with the surrounding area. The applicant
needs to be advised that all future buildings, parking
areas, tennis courts, etc. will require a Conditional
Use Permit.
6. City Engineer Comments
Meet detention and excavation ordinance requirements.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. He was informed that all future
buildings, tennis court, parking, etc. will require an
additional Conditional Use Permit. The applicant stated
that he understood.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent to approve
the application as recommended by the Staff, reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee, and agreed to by the applicant.
July 12, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24
NAME: Casey Replat, Tracts 7- Asbury
Acres
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Kanis and
Asbury Roads
DEVELOPER:
Charles W. Casey
13814 Kanis Road
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: 227-7854
ENGINEER:
White /Daters and
Associates, Inc.
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA : 4.726 acres NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Off-site street improvements
A. Proposal /Request
1. To plat 4.726 acres into 3 lots for residential
use.
2. Waiver of street improvements due to extreme costs
relative to the three single family lots.
B. Issue /Legal /Technical /Design
1. Waiver of off-site street improvements.
2. Waiver of lot to depth ratio.
C. Engineering Comments
Will be provided at the meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of plat. Deferral of waiver requests to the City
Board.
July 12, 1988
Item No. 24 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
The Applicant was present. He requested a waiver of site
improvements due to hardship. After some discussion, it was
decided that the item should be approved, subject to the
deferral of street improvements until Lot 1 is developed.
Lot 3 would be Phase I. A motion to this effect was made
and passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 4 absent.
DATE �/fi
ZONING
MEMBER
W.Riddick, III
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
M.Miller
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
·(.J,UBDIVISI �
fr 6 C,, 0 6 F G-I ;r L 61.. 3 Cf
( ✓ ✓ v v y V V 0 v I< ✓v V
v V ,/ V v ✓V v v v V v V V
✓V v ✓ y ✓✓ J/ ,/ v v v V V
v /V V ✓ v V ,/ ,4 V V V v II
v v ✓ ✓ ✓✓ a/ V ✓ v v t../ J V
A-e ✓✓ v V v ✓ V AP V v t,/ V V
fr ,,+ k IA--If-/I-,f II-A-/r' tf tf Ir 11-
ft Ir ✓V ,/ ,4 Ir ✓✓ ✓,4-Ir a/. j II
,,,,,., V v',/ v ✓ ,/ ✓ t/ ✓✓ ✓v i/
A-. /}-II-.[/✓,/ v ./ ,1 It ,/ (/ ✓1-1-
,/ v v v ,/ v' ,)v ✓✓ v' J V ✓ a 7F /l J J VV"-1-t-r-'" A--� fr A,. /1 ,£J-rr-
YYli-t' � ()4 (,,·.�
� i
y V
V V
v I/
Y"' v
t/ . v
V ✓
II-If-
,A V.
V v
A· v'
✓j,/
1-1-a..
'Z Lr " 9-tof LI 1 1 �
t:Y V V y c..--V
V V j/y> v' J/
V t/ V V V ✓
I/ v V v V ✓
V V V v 1,/ ;/
✓✓ 0 V V v
II-,f II-II--II-fr
✓v A I,/ .f1 v
)/ I/ J/ V V v
J/ V -A I,/ -A v'
v' J/ v ;...,I M M
tJ-a..(l_4----/1 �
DATE 7/;efl/r;/
ZONING
MEMBER
W.Riddick, III
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
M.Miller
J.Nicholson
W.Rector
S._Leek
T·. Grace Jones
D.J. Jones
R.Collins
F.Perkins
. ✓AYE @NAYE-
-
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
<5UBDIVISIQN
13 I'/-IS' /6 I? Ir 19 ;?O
t/ V v l,/ J/ V v V'
1./ ) V l/ 1,/' V V v v
Q J/ V v V V V v
v V V v v V V v
I/ v' l,/ l..,,/ v ,/19 V
0 V L,;, v" V l/ V V
,4-111 Ir II-It-A-Ir It-
,t II t./ v It /1. fr V r v V V l/ V. V t/
A-,4 1/V � A-V,
T ,__ ✓V V I/ ✓ V t<It 8f1 ii� -Pt./1' AAOSENT ABSTAIN
J1 1X c9.3v V
� (..../" V16 {/ L,/
� � L--1-
-�A-�
I J� I/ Vft-11--·· if
� It-fr-i________..
F,;) v V ,_,_ t A-/r
I� \, V V
fl fl
-;)c/-
t,,,,/
�
/_,,,.-LI
L-
... 11-
z.,,,---'
II--
(t-
V
t.,..,--"
rt
I I I
t'.
July 12, 1988
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Date:
Chairman Secretary