pc_09 10 1985subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
SEPTEMBER 10, 1985
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 10 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the previous meeting were read and
approved.
III. Members Present: Commissioner J. Summerlin
Commissioner J. Schlereth
Commissioner R. Massie
Commissioner B. Sipes
Chairman Jerilyn Nicholson
Commissioner W. Rector
Commissioner W. Ketcher
Commissioner D. Arnett
Commissioner J.D. Jones
Commissioner J. Clayton
IV. Members Absent: Ida Boles
V. City Attorney
Present: Pat Benton
SUM M ARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
SEPTEMBER 10, 1985
Deferred Items:
A.Pleasant Valley Park Retirement Center "Long-Form PRD"(Z-4482)
B.Country Club Co rporation "Short-Form PCD" (Z-4479)
Preliminary Plats/Replats:
1.Bonnette Addition, Lot 1
2.Burrow -Graham Commercial Subdivision
3.Hickory Creek Preliminary
3-A. Hickory Creek "PRD" Rezoning (Z-3754-E)
Preliminary/Site Plan Review:
4.Ashley Square Shopping Center
Planned Unit Development:
5.Seamon "Short-Form PRD" (Z-4522)
6.Majik Market -Highway 10 "Short-Form PCD" (Z-4483)
7.Barn Bedroom "Short-Form PCD" (Z-4484)
Site Plan Review:
8.West Baseline Road Apartments
9.Countrywood Two
10.Village Green Apartments
11.I-430/630 Central Shopping Center
12.Arkansas Medical Society Building (Z-3689-E)
Conditional Use/Site Plan Review:
13.Shackleford Road (Z-3901-A)
Conditional Use Permit
14.Riley Drive (Z-3021-C)
15. Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind (Z-4526)
16.Goody ear (Z-4527)
Building Line Waiver
17.Shell Super-Stop
18.B and S Rental (Lot 9 -Towne Oaks )
19.Lot 2, Langston Acres
20.Wendy's Old-Fashioned Ham burgers - Cantrell Road
21.Wendy's Old-Fashioned Ham burgers - Rodney Parham
Right-of-W ay Abandonment
22.Alley Closure -Alley and Block 341, Cherry'sSubdivision
Other Matters
23.Pleasant Hills Total Living Community - Re vised SitePlan
24.Capitol and Valmar Street Re vised - Conditional UsePermit
Subdivision
25.Kelton Brown Tri-Party Default
26.Floyd Fulkerson - Hinson Road Improvements
27.Jim Brown Replat
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME: Pleasant Valley Park
Retirement Center "Long-Form
PCD" (Z-4482)
LOCATION: 10 acre tract on Hinson Loop/
Rainwood Road and 2.5 acre
tract north of 10 acre tract,
approx. 300' east of Napa Valley
Drive
DEVELOPER:
Ewing Health Systems, Inc.
12115 Hinson Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
Phone: 224-0207
ENGINEER:
Manes, Castin, Massie
and McGetrick, Inc.
2501 Willow Street
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Phone: 758-1360
AREA: 12.5 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: Existing - "MF-12" (10 acres)
"O-2" (2.5 acres)
Proposed - "PRD"
PROPOSED USE: Retirement Village (residential cottages,
apartments and convalescent center)
A. Development Rationale
1. To provide a comprehensive continuing care
retirement community serving the residential
health care needs of the elderly.
2. To develop the southern portion of the site as
multifamily detached dwelling units.
B. Proposal
1. Quantitative Data:
Parcel Growth Area ......... 12.435 Acres
Street Right -of -Way ........ .455 Acres
Setbacks ................... 1.156 Acres
Retirement Housing Area .... 3.462 Acres
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
2.Development Schedule
(a)Phase I (Multifamily Detached Dwelling Units)
84 Units Located in 21 Detached Structures
Each Structure Contains 4 Dwelling Units
Bldg. Qty. Sq. Ft. Bldg. Coverage
Use
1-BR Units at 12 9,000 9,000
750 sq. ft.
2 BR Units at 72 68,400 68,400
750 sq. ft.
Carports at 84 18,060 18,060
215 sq. ft.
All Single Family
(b)Phase II
Bldg. Qty. Sq. Ft. Bldg.
Use Coverage
( i ) Common Facilities 1 6,800 6,800
Food Preparation
Dining
Single Story
(ii) Health Care Center 1 51,500 12,750
Total of 120 beds
of nursing care.
(These are divided into 96 two-bed units and 24 private bed units.)
Support Services
4-Stories
(iii) 1 60,000 10,000
Apt. Towers
53 Units with
39 1-BR Units and
14 2-BR Units
Support Services
4-Stories
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
(c)Phase III
Bldg. Bldg.
Use Qty. Sq. Ft. Coverage
( i ) Apt. Towers 1 57,950 7,950
(Total of 53 apartments with 39 one-bedroom units and
14 two-bedroom units.)
Support Services
6-Stories
(ii) 4 3,000 3,000
Multifamily
Detached
1-BR Units at
750 sq. ft.
2-BR Units at 12 11,400 11,400
950 sq. ft.
Carports at 16 3.440 3.440
215 sq. ft.
Total 289,059 150,800
3. Land scaping/Open Space -Includes greenbelt
pedestrian path along both sides of collector
street. Interior atriums in each unit for private
use. Public open space has been maintained around
each multifamily detached dwelling unit and
combined into a major open space centrally located
landsape pedestrian path.
Open Space
Private Space •••••••••••••••••••• 195 Acres
Common Space •••••••••••••••••••• 8,973 Acres
Total 9.168 Acres
4. Development Schedule
Phase I - Construction begins Ch ristmas of 1985.
Units constructed at market absorption rate.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
Phase II -Constr uction begins in summer of 1986,
completed in late 1987.
Phase III -Construction begins in late fall 1987,
units constructed at market absor ption rate.
C. Engineering Comments
(1) Dedicate right-of-way and imp rove Rainwood Road to
collector standards.
(2) Submit internal drainage and detention plan.
D. Analysis
Staff was very much prohibited in its review of the
item due the applicant's failure to comply with the
site plan submission requirements as stated in the
Zoning Ordinance. The site plan ne eds to be properly
detailed. Staff is also concerned that the plan
appears to be quite dense.
E. Staff Recommendation
Staff defers recommendation until further information
is received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee reviewed the item. The applicant submitted a
more detailed site plan. The issues were identified as
involving: (1) the proposed access/turning lane to
Hinson Road: (2) a 6-foot fence and lands caped buffer on the
west adjacent to the abutting residential: and (3)
development on the various portions of the plan and how each
relates to the density allowed in "MF-12" and "O-2."
Water Works -The ea sement should be designated to be also
for utilities. On-site fire line and hy drants will be
required. Pro-rata charge applies.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Nooner, was present. There were no
objectors in attendance. The staff offered a specific
recommendation on the application as follows: (1) that the
10 acre "MF-12" site be limited to that density with no
multistory buildings, (2) that the "O2" site be limited to
one multistory apartment building, 52 units total and the
nursing home /restaurant annex, (3) that the basic design
concept be retained. However, Mr. Bob Wickard, a nearby
owner and developer, offered concerns about the project and
his brief notice of the proposal. Mr. Nooner made a brief
presentation and responded to the staff density analysis and
recommendations. A general discussion followed resulting in
a motion to defer the request to August 13, 1985. The
motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-13-85)
The applicant requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion to this
effect was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8-29-85)
The applicant was present, but stated that no further
amendments had been made to the plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-10-85)
Mr. Denny Nooner represented Ewing Health Systems, Inc.
Updated statistics were submitted. Staff explained that
they were still favorable to the developmental concept, but
opposed to the overuse, multiple density and over density of
the project on the land. Staff pointed out that the issues
specifically involved the double use of the "O-2" parcel by
apartments in the nursing home, not the density of the
nursing home. Staff recommended that the "O-2" be limited
to only multi-story, apartment and that the high -rise
building be eliminated from the "MF-12," and that
multifamily be the use on the "MF-12" portion of the tract.
Mr. Nooner felt that removal of the concept used, would
prohibit the whole project. He explained that the
comprehensive plan for the project involved the entry of
residents at age 72 in the cottages. As time progressed and
these residents got older, they would move from the cottages
to the high rises based on their physical abilities.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
Several neighboring property owners were present.
Ms. Shirley Merrit of 1811 Napa Valley and Mr. Ray Rainey of
1801 Napa Valley Drive were in attendance. Ms. Merrit was
concerned about adequate buses and screening and the
negative impact of high -rise buildings. Mr. Rainey
requested information on the nature of the fence.
Other residents were from the Pleasant Valley Subdivision.
Mr. C.R. Warner of 559 Valley Club Circle stated opposing
views on the intrusion of a high-rises in the area and
stated concerns about traffic since a number of employees
would also be involved. Dr. William L. Casey of 539 Valley
Club Circle requested continuance of one-story commercial,
and Mr. George Plastiras of 545 Valley Club Club Circle was
also concerned about the height.
Mr. Nooner felt that the high rises wouldn't be visible to
the residents at all. He also felt that the use of the
"PUD" review process allowed examination of the total
concept, which makes the project less dense that it would be
if rezoned only. Finally, a motion for approval was made
and passed by a vote 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and
1 abstention.
FLOOR BUILDING
BUILDING USE QTY. AREA COVERAGE
PHASE I Multi-Family Detached
Dwelling Units
l BR units at 719 sq. ft./each 20 14,380 14,380
2 BR units at 1,095 sq. ft./each 60 65,700 65,060
80 80,080 80,080
PHASE I Apartment Tower 1 55,762 11,218
Total of 48 Apartments. These
are divided into 32 1-bedroom
units and 16 2-bedroom units.
*Support services
Five Stories
PHASE II Health care center 1 44,020 11,636
Total of 120 beds of nursing
care. These are divided into 96
2-bed units and 24 private bed
units.
*Support Services
Four stories.
FLOOR BUILDING
BUILDING USE QTY. AREA COVERAGE
PHASE III Multi-Family Detached
Dwelling Units
l BR units at 719 sg. ft./each 4 2,876 2,876
2 BR units at 1,095 sq. ft./each 8 8,760 8,760
12 11,636 11,636
PHASE III Apartment Tower 1 55,762 11,218
Total of 46 apartments. These
are divided into 32 1-bedroom units
and 16 2-bedroom units.
*Support services.
Five stories.
TOTAL 247,260 125,788
Total Cottages 92 units
Total Apartments 96 units
Nursing Home Beds 120 units
*Support services include the following for use of on-site residents only:
Nursing Clinic
Gift Shop
Beauty/Barber Shop
Mailroom Administrative Offies
Reading Room
Activity Room
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME: Country Club Corporate Center
"Short-Form PCD" (Z-4479)
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
The Linkous Co.
12115 Hinson Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
Phone: 224-1234
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith & Associates
401 S. Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 4.54 acres NO. OF LOTS: 9 FT. NEW ST.: 330
ZONING: "R-2" to "PCD"
PROPOSED USE: Office
The applicant requested that this item be deferred for 30
days.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-10-85)
The Planning Commission responded to this owner's request by
deferring the matter to August 13, 1985. The motion to
defer was passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
A. Site History
A portion of this site has been considered by the
Commission for an office development in the past.
B. Developmental Concept
1. To provide a high quality, aesthetically
coordinated professional office setting for
owner /tenants.
2. To achieve the high quality implied by the "O-2"
zoning while addressing a market which requires
lot sizes smaller than two acres.
C. Proposal
1. The construction of nine office buildings on
approximately 5.0 acres.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
2. Project Data
Building Size Height
1 10,200 sq. ft. 2 -Story
2 10,220 sq. ft. 2 -Story
3 9,600 sq. ft. 2 -Story
4 9,600 sq. ft. 2 -Story
5 4,800 sq. ft. 2 -Story
6 4,800 sq. ft. 2 -Story
7 7,200 sq. ft. 2 -Story
8 7,200 sq. ft. 2 -Story
9 5,600 sq. ft. 2 -Story
Total 69,200 sq. ft.
3. Project Features /Amenities
a. Improve Hinson Road to City specifications.
This includes paving an additional lane and
adding improvement such as gutters as
sidewalks.
b. Heavily landscaped private street: The main
access to each lot will be by a 27' street in
a 45' right-of-way. A 25' landscape setback
will be required from the right-of-way. No
parking will be allowed in the setback.
C. Parking courts: Parking for each lot will be
accommodated in parking courts which will be
shielded from the street.
d. Common Material and Colors: A palette of
materials and colors will be selected from
which all buildings will be constructed.
e. Sidewalls: The building walls will extend
onto the site to unify the various
buildings into a coordinated whole.
f. The continuance of a pattern of sloped roofs
that has been established by developments to
the east and west.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
None at this time.
E. Analysis
No problems of significance have been found. Parking
exceeds the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. Engineering pointed out that the
27' street was acceptable, even though a 36' street is
usually required in a commercial office subdivision. The
applicant agreed to restrict the uses to "O-2" only.
Engineering agreed to examine the relationship between
Greenbriar Drive to the north and Country Club Circle.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant and his architect were present. Several
concerned residents of the neighborhood were also in
attendance. Their spokesperson was Mr. George Plastiras of
545 Valley Club Circle and the Pleasant Valley Property
Owners Association. He requested deferral based on several
concerns: (1) The neighborhood was not knowledgeable enough
about the project to ask questions. (2) Existing water
problems in the neighborhood which could worsen.
(3) Unfamiliarity with the proposed drainage plan.
(4) Invasion of privacy from proposed two -story buildings.
(5) Orientation of lighting and drives. (6) That setbacks
be 50' or 70' as currently exist along Hinson Road.
(7) Adequacy of screening.
The applicant's architect explained the right-of-way would
be dedicated for the construction of Hinson as an 80'
street, the drainage would be approved by the City's
engineers and that the building orientation could be
modified and the drives could be internalized. A motion
for a 30-day deferral was made and passed by vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8-29-85)
Mr. Mike McQueen, the architect, reported that the owner was
still trying to resolve the various issues regarding
drainage, parking, setbacks and screening with the
neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for withdrawal was made by the applicant. The motion passed
by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - File 589
NAME: Bonnette Addition, Lot 1
Preliminary/Final
LOCATION: West side of Sardis Road, 1/2
mile south of Alexander Road
DEVELOPER:
Floyd B. and Katherine
Bonnette III
6701 Geyer Springs Road
Little Rock, AR 72209
ENGINEER:
Sam Davis
5301 W. 8th Street
Little Rock, AR 72204
Phone: 664-0324
AREA: 10.008 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Wa iver fr om 5-acre maximum requirement
for combined preliminary/final.
A.Site History
None.
B.Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area that is rural in
character and composed mainly of single family homes.
C. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 10.008 acres into one lot
for single family development. A waiver of the
five-acre limit on combinedpreliminary/finals isrequested.
D. Engineering Comments
None
E. Analysis
Staff has no problem with the submission or the waiver
request.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. He agreed to add the appropriate
building lines.
Sewer Comments - No sewer available; nearest main appears to
be approximately 3,000' away.
Water Main - An 8 -inch water main extension will be required
to serve this property.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - File No. 590
NAME: Burrow - Graham
Commercial Subdivision
LOCATION: Located approx. 1500' east of
the intersection of Napa
Valley and Mara Lynn Road
DEVELOPER:
Bill Rector
1501 N. University
Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone: 664-7807
ENGINEER:
Mehlburger, Tanner & Assoc. Inc.
201 S. Izard
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 375-5321
AREA: 11.2 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW ST.: 200'
Collector
900'
Arterial
ZONING: "C-3"
PROPOSED USE: Commercial
A. Site History
None.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area where there is a
mixture of multifamily and single family uses. The
land is vacant with elevations ranging from 410'
through 460'.
C. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 11.2 acres into two
commercial uses. This plat will dedicate the
right -of -way necessary to build the north half of the
Bowman Road extension. New streets include 200' as a
collector and 900' as an arterial. The applicant has
stated that detention storage for this plat will be
accommodated on each lot as it is developed. The total
anticipated storage volume for each tract is 0.5 acre
feet, approximately. Also, Tract "A" is reserved as an
unbuildable tract for signage and landscaping. No
facility will be constructed on it for public or
private use.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
None.
E. Analysis
The plan should be revised to reflect the appropriate
building lines. A street abandonment petition should
be filed for the existing portion of Mara Lynn. Staff
is concerned by the applicant's plans for Tract "A."
Current Board policy does not allow freestanding
off-site signs on lots by themselves. This is
considered off-premise advertising.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Mr. Don Chambers represented the applicant. He agreed to
add the appropriate building lines.
Water Works - A 12-inch water main extension will be
required. Existing facilities may need to be relocated.
On -site fire lines and fire hydrants may be needed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes and 2 abstentions and 1 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - File No. 202 -C
NAME: Hickory Creek Preliminary
LOCATION: Approx. 800' west of Portland,
on the south side of Hinson
DEVELOPER:
Clint Boshears
Suite 264 - Prospect Bldg.
1501 N. Univ. Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone: 663-6366
ENGINEER:
Garver and Garver
12th and Battery
P.O. Box C -50
Little Rock, AR 72203-0050
Phone: 376-3633
AREA: 64.2 acres NO. OF LOTS: 87 FT. NEW ST.: 7,240'
ZONING: "PRD" to "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Private Street System
A. Site History
A few years ago, the Commission zoned this site "PRD"
for a condominium development. The applicant has since
received several extensions of the approval.
B. Existinq Conditions
This site is located in an area composed of single
family residences. The land is vacant with portions
lying in the floodway.
C. Development Proposal
This is a plan to subdivide 64.2 acres into 87 lots and
7,240' of new street. A private internal street system
is planned for all lots, except 85, 86 and 87. These
lots will be served from Hinson Road. A gate and
guardhouse will be located at the entrance to the
subdivision to limit access.
The 200' wide floodway will be developed into a lake
system. The lake will be excavated below the existing
stream flow line, and the water surface will be near
the elevation of the existing stream bed. The
subdivision will be developed in four phases.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
1. All floodway revisions shall be in accordance with
the City's Flood Hazard Prevention Ordinance and
FEMA requirements. Design shall be for 100-year
fully developed upstream conditions.
12 Detention is required.
3. Hinson Road alignment shall be as previously
agreed. See City Engineer for alignment.
E. Analysis
The plat should be revised to reflect appropriate
building lines. A private street system is acceptable
if a 45' public access easement is provided. The
applicant has asked to move the phase line between
Lots 12, 13, 74 and 75 so that it will be moved out of
the intersection. Also, please explain who will
maintain the private drive stubs in Phase IV.
The fronting of Lots 85-87 on an arterial street is
acceptable in this instance, since the applicant has no
choice. Evidence of the buildable nature of the lots
should be submitted when the alignment of Hinson Road
is worked out. Points of access should be restricted
to two curb cuts on a common lot line. Finally, the
applicant should make sure that the parcel near the
southwest corner of the project is not landlocked.
Building lines should be added.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The owner and his engineer were present. They explained
that: (1) the land-locked parcel was owned by Deltic Timber
and they had no desire for access; (2) a property owners
association will be responsible for maintenance and the Bill
of Assurance will set out provisions for use; and (3) a
revised plan reflecting on-site fire lines and building
lines would be submitted.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A revised plan was submitted.
During the agenda session, Mr. Joe White of Deltic Timber
Company, an abutting property owner, submitted a letter in
objection to the amount of private street proposed; however,
he was not against the project. He was concerned that there
were no through streets.
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3-A
NAME:
Hickory Creek "PRD" Rezoning
(Z-3754-E)
LOCATION: Approx. 800' west of Portland,
on the south side of Hinson Rd.
DEVELOPER:
Clint Boshears
Suite 264 - Prospect Bldg.
1501 N. Univ.
Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone: 663-6366
REQUEST: To rezone 64.2 acres from "PRD" to "R-2"
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(See Item 3 for details)
A motion for approval of the rezoning was made and passed by
a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - File No. 591
NAME: Ashley Square Shopping Center
Preliminary /Site Plan
LOCATION: NE Corner of Rodney Parham and
Reservoir Road
DEVELOPER:
Ashley Associates
2649 Pike Avenue
NLR, AR 72114
Phone: 758-7745
ENGINEER:
Robert D. Holloway, Inc.
200 Casey Drive
Maumelle, AR 72118
Phone: 851-3366
AREA: 11.93 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C-3"
PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center
A. Site History
Several projects on this site have been previously
approved by the Commission.
B. Proposal
1. Construction of a shopping center composed of
retail and one restaurant use on 11.93 acres.
2. Development according to the following site
statistics:
Provided
Structure Sq. Ft. Parking
Clothing Store 24,050 120
Dept. Store 30,000 150
L.L. 1-5 98,300 311
Totals 152,350 581
3. Landscaping/Screening - A privacy fence will
border the residential area to the east.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
4. Phvsical Improvements
(a) Additional property to accommodate a left
turn lane on Reservoir Road is dedicated on
the plat. On the site plan, it is indicated
as a 240' transition from the north all the
way to Rodney Parham Road.
(b) The development will have a substantial fill
on the west side of the Presbyterian
residential area and a substantial cut slope
on the north end of the property, which will
require proper slope protection and erosion
control as will be recommended in the final
design by the architect.
(c) Some in-lieu contributions for future
construction of Reservoir Road will be made
by a developer.
C. Engineering Comments
1. Street, driveway, etc., dimensions shall be shown
for review.
2. Dimensions for lane width shall be shown for
Reservoir.
3. Detention required.
4. Boundary street requirements for Reservoir Road.
5. Traffic Engineer needs to be furnished Engineering
data to determine if exit onto Rodney Parham has a
safe sight distance.
6. Fire Department must sign off on access and no
fire hydrants in back of building.
D. Analysis
This application involves the platting of unplatted
acreage with dedication of additional right-of-way and
site plan review of a multiple building site. In his
proposal, the applicant has outlined how he wishes to
develop the property. Due the physical nature of the
site, he has proposed a certain amount of grading and
site work. Also, there are plans for extensive street
improvements, along with one of the structures being a
restaurant which is a high traffic generator.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
Staff has a few concerns. The applicant has mentioned
verbally that he would like for the additional physical
improvements to be optional. Staff prefers that the
applicant make a commitment at this stage indicating
whether or not he plans to do the improvements. Also,
he needs to pinpoint which structure is to house a
restaurant. This would enable staff to check the
parking, even though it appears to be adequate. There
are no plans for buffering the multifamily to the
north. Staff recommends the usual requirement and that
the 6' fence be placed on top of the grade. Staff
suggests that notice be sent to neighboring property
owners. The Fire Chief must approve all drives.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant and his engineer were present. He explained
that development plans were not certain at this time so he
needed flexibility in designating the restaurant uses. He
felt that one or both of the smaller buildings on Reservoir
Road would be a restaurant. Since he met the parking
requirement, the Committee had no problem. He was advised
to meet with Engineering and work out an agreement on the
additional physical improvements and to notify property
owners in the area.
Water Works - A frontage charge of $2.50 per foot adjacent
to Reservoir Road and an acreage charge of $150 per acre
will apply. On -site fire lines and hydrants will be
required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors.
Mr. Mike Batie of the City Engineer's Office reported that
an agreement had been reached for improvements on Reservoir
Road. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - File No. 597
N1AMP-
Seamon "Short -Form PRD"
(Z -4522)
LOCATION: SW Corner of Farris and
Shadowlake
DEVELOPER:
Merlin Seamon
209 1/2 W. 2nd St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 372-6092
ENGINEER:
Merlin Seamon
209 1/2 W. 2nd Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 372-6092
AREA: 3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R-2" to "PRD"
PROPOSED USE: 8 Triplexes
A. Site Histor
This property has been platted as Lots 1-16, Block 4,
Gibralter Heights, less and except Lots 2 and 3, City
of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
B. Developmental Concept
1. The construction of rental units which will appeal
primarily to senior citizens and the handicapped;
however, tenants will not be limited to these
groups.
2. To develop the property at a density that would be
similar if developed as single family.
3. To design the units like single family residences
and the color as earth tones in order that they
blend into the wooded environment.
4. To preserve the natural beauty of the site.
C. Proposal
1. The construction of 22 units and 8 triplex
structures on three acres.
2. The replatting of 16 lots into one lot.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
3. Development Statistics
(a) Unit No. Unit Type
24 2
(b) Parking provided consists of 36 off-street
spaces.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Detention required.
2. One north /south street to be left open.
E. Analysis
The applicant needs to submit a site plan on a
certified survey and provide dimensions relating to the
structures, between the structures and between
structures and property lines.
There is an existing right-of-way through the property.
Streets are to be abandoned according to the Gibralter
Heights Plan. A one lot final replat will be required
because of the reduction in lots and right-of-way
abandoment. The applicant is asked to reconsider the
design of those stalls backing into the internal drive.
A 6' board fence and appropriate screening will be
required where adjacent to residential zoning.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to submit a revised plan with added
dimensions. He explained that the stalls were designed as
they were since the internal drive was not a public street.
Staff still felt that a safety factor was involved,
especially at the entrance to the project. The applicant
was asked to meet with the fire chief regarding their
request of a larger cul-de-sac radius.
Water Works - On-site fire lines and fire hydrants may be
required.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present but had sent a letter to the
staff requesting a 30-day deferral. Staff reported that the
letter was sent within the required time period. Several
residents of the neighborhood were in attendance. They were
concerned about the applicant's proposal to close Farris
Street. Mr. Roy Jones stated that the street was physically
unopened but provided access to land that he owned.
A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - File No. 598
NAME: Majik Market - Highway 10
"Short -Form PCD" (Z-4483)
LOCATION: South of Highway 10 at
Southridge
DEVELOPER:
Munford, Inc.
324 W. Pershing
NLR, AR 72214
APPLICANT:
H. Bradley Walker
Phone: 371-0808, 666-4316
ENGINEER:
Mehlburger and Associates
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 375-5331
AREA: NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R-2" to "PCD"
PROPOSED USE: Convenience Store
A. Subdivision Committee Review
At the Subdivision Committee meeting, the chairman
asked that a revised write-up be done on this item in a
fashion similar to that used if the item was a proposed
project. The revised review is as follows. Also, the
applicant mentioned the possibility of in-lieu
contributions on Highway 10.
B. Site History
This site was annexed to the City on May 2, 1978, with
the existing use in place. There has been only a
single request for rezoning the parcel to "C-3," which
was ultimately rejected by the City Board. The
applicant was Mr. Lou Schickel.
C. Existinq Conditions
The property fronts on Highway 10, which is a principal
arterial requiring 100' of right-of-way and potential
dedication from the site. Access to the site may be
effected by the location of the property at a high
volume intersection, which is projected for a traffic
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
signal. The existing curb cuts present a conflict with
signalization. The Suburban Plan indicates
neighborhood commercial at this location.
Physically, the tract forms a unique configuration that
abuts a hill mass to the south. It is estimated that
30 percent of the land is unbuildable due to grade.
D. Development Proposal
This is a request for "PCD" approval of an addition to
a nonconforming use. The applicant has constructed a
new canopy and gasoline pumps on an existing island at
a convenient store that is located on an "R-2" single
family site. They are located in an area established
by a 40-foot building line. The canopy is located
approximately 14 feet from the street, and the island
is set back by 23.5 feet.
E. Enqineerinq Comments
No adverse comments. The applicant should specify
plans for street improvements on Highway 10.
F. Analysis
Planning Commission review was prompted by several
events. Initially, the applicant /owner proceeded
without proper approvals to remove the existing tanks,
pumps and canopy on the site. In the course of
relocating these elements, the circumstances were
brought to the attention of building permits. Over a
period of two weeks, the owner and his attorney were
advised of appropriate remedies that should proceed
completion of the work. The owner and the contractor
proceeded to finalize the erection of the pumps and
canopy in spite of being directed to stop work. After
completion, a period of two weeks passed before a
request for a Planned Commercial District "PCD" was
filed. The choice of a PUD was made by the Attorney
for the owner.
It has been noted that the site has unique
topographical features that restrict the buildable
areas so that options are very limited as to where the
structure and related parking can be located. For this
reason, staff feels that if the circumstances were
different and if a proposal of this nature was
presented on raw land, the use of the site for the
existing use would be discouraged. On the other hand,
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
since the existing structure has been on the property
since incorporation into the City, staff would have
taken the design constraints into consideration if
approached about the additions to the existing use.
Other than physical features, several other problems
have been found. Traffic flow to the site and within
the project does not present an ideal situation. The
location of the curbs is such that there is a straight
shot into the Highway 10 and Walton Heights
intersection. Internally, there is a conflict between
some existing parking spaces and the proposed pump
island which restricts maneuvering space. The canopy
is located in the building setback area.
Staff feels that more maneuvering space is needed
within the site and that the intersection conflicts
need to be minimized. The design needs to be reviewed
and the reyised plan should be approved by the Traffic
Engineer. Staff would suggest as possible solutions:
(1) shifting the easternmost curb cut at least 30' to
the east; (2) shifting the pump island to the east,
reducing the size of the canopy and moving it to within
15' of the front property line; (3) revising layout of
parking spaces at the southeasterly property line; and
(4) requiring a final plat for permanent location of
curb cuts and dedication of right-of-way.
G. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to the above comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was represented by attorney Bradley Walker.
There were no objectors. Staff stated its suggestions for
revision (see analysis).
Mr. Jim Hathcock gave an overview of the events leading to
the filing of this application. He explained that the
building permit application indicated remodeling with no
exterior work; therefore, his staff was unaware that
expansion of the canopy and pumps was intended. Mr. Walker
explained that his client had no dishonest intentions, and
there was a breakdown in communication between the building
permits clerk and the representative of the construction
company. He explained further that in the process of
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
working out the present problems, the applicant had lost its
nonconforming status, so a PCD was the only way to alleviate
the problem. He felt that it was a hardship on this
applicant to remove the pumps. He also had problems with
the right-of-way dedication since the State Highway
Department had no plans for the land to be dedicated.
Mr. Walker also took consent to the dedication if his client
would be allowed to keep the use of the island and pumps.
Finally, a motion for approval of the existing plan was made
and passed, subject to: (1) the right-of-way agreement,
(2) in-lieu contribution and (3) one-lot final plat. The
vote was: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - File No. 592
NAME: The Barn Bedroom "Short-Form
PCD" (Z-4484)
LOCATION: 9812 I-30
DEVELOPER:
George Irwin /C.J. Callamen
c/o 1700 S. Spring
Little Rock, AR 72206
Phone: 375-4249
ARCHITECT:
John D. Jarvad
1700 S. Spring
Little Rock, AR 72206
Phone: 375-4241
AREA: .74 acre NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R-2" to "PCD"
PROPOSED USE: Industrial /Commercial
A. Site History
This area has been annexed to the City in recent years.
B. Proposal
1. The extension of an existing store approximately
14' and the addition of a 50' x 40' warehouse.
2. Development will be as follows:
Existing Store ............... 5,680 sq. ft.
New Store Addition ............ 1,400 sq. ft.
Total Retail 7,080 sq. ft.
Existing Warehouse ........4,000 sq. ft.
New Warehouse .... ............ 2,000 sq. ft.
Total Warehouse 6,000 sq. ft.
3. Proposed parking is for 31 cars.
C. Engineering Comments
None.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
D. Analysis
This application has been submitted for "PCD" review
because of the applicant's desire to have a mixture of
commercial and industrial uses on the site. There is
currently no other zoning district to accommodate this.
There has been a mixture of these two uses on the site,
but they have been nonconforming.
The store addition appears to have eliminated existing
parking spaces. Only 31 spaces are proposed, though
the requirement is for 32. The applicant should revise
a site plan and add an additional parking space and a
dimension on the rear setback.
Staff requests that Engineering check the drainage
proposal on the west of the site and Traffic provide
comments concerning the three parking stalls near the
easternmost entrance which back into a drive.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The main issue discussed involved the location of three
parking stalls at the entrance. The applicant was advised
to meet with Engineering and resolve the issues. He was
also asked to identify a use group for future land uses of
the project.
Water Works - This property is now shared by a private line.
Eire protection is inadequate at the present time. An
8-inch water main extension is required to provide adequate
fire protection.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A revised plan was submitted
which addressed the concerns of the Traffic Department, but
eliminated two more parking spaces. Staff recommended
approval of the plan, subject to conformance with the
parking requirements. A motion was made and passed for
approval of the revised plan as is, subject to: (1) no food
service establishment, and (2) use is restricted to "C-3"
and "I-2." The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes
and 3 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - File No. 593
NAME: West Baseline Road Apts.
Site Plan Review
LOCATION: West Baseline Road, 3/10 mile
west of Stagecoach Road
(Highway 5)
DEVELOPER:
Systems Mgmt. Dev. Corp.
12115 Hinson Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
Phone: 225-9407
ENGINEER:
Canino, Maune, McQueen, Arch.
12115 Hinson Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
Phone: 227-7777
AREA: 15.07 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "MF-12"
PROPOSED USE: Multifamily
A. Site History
During rezoning of the property to "MF-12," a 30' strip
of land consisting of 958.75' or .66 acres was
dedicated.
B. Proposal
1. Construction of 184 two - bedroom apartment units
and a clubhouse on 15.73 acres.
2. Development Statistics:
Phases No. of Units Area /Sq.Ft.
1 32 25,088
2 32 25,088
3 32 25,088
4 56 43,904
5 32 25,088
Clubhouse 2,000
Total 146,256
3. Parking will consist of 374 parking spaces.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
4. Physical Improvements - "Significant" drainage and
street improvements will be provided along
Baseline Road. They will be phased accordingly.
Phase I - East end of property 336'
Phase V - Along Baseline 622.75'
5. Landscaping will be in accordance with the
Little Rock Landscape Ordinance.
C. Engineering Comments
1. Boundary street improvements, including drainage.
2. Detention required.
3. Five lanes at major street entrance. Plans must
be coordinated and approved by Traffic Engineer.
4. Collector standards on east side of property.
D. Analysis
The applicant has pointed out that he plans to
construct four less units than ordinarily allowed in an
"MF-12" zone. Also, he has provided about 98 more
parking spaces than required. Staff is requesting that
the site plan be revised to indicate structural
dimensions, distances between all structures, distances
from structures to the property line, the height of the
buildings and the dimension of the internal drive.
Usually, a 45' easement is required. The Fire
Department must approve the on -site fire line system
and its location. Traffic must approve of the six
stalls in Phase IV that back into the drive. A 6'
fence and a 40' buffer strip is required adjacent to
areas zoned for single family.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee's main concern was the applicant's plans for
phasing and its relationship to the required improvements.
They considered it unusual to have five phases on the site
plan and unacceptable to defer the bulk of the street
improvements to the last phase. It was felt that if for
some reason the development was not completed, the street
improvements might not be completed either. Also, staff was
concerned that Phase V was over five acres, which means that
it can be sold off without platting. The applicant
contended that the economics of the project determined the
phasing. He was asked to: (1) provide a 45-foot access
easement through the project; (2) readdress the phasing;
(3) meeting with Engineering about the five lanes at the
entrance; and (4) submit a preliminary sketch of the entire
ownership.
Water Works - A 12" water main extension will be required
from Wimbledon Loop. On -site fire lines and hydrants will
be required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Mike McQueen, was present. He agreed to
build a 6-foot fence, but for economic reasons, he wanted to
dedicate right-of-way of the collector and build in to the
point of intersection until the property to the rear is
developed. He also requested to install a fence in two
phases as construction is done. He felt that the road
wouldn't be used until the 22 acres at the rear was
developed. The issue was discussed and a motion was made
for approval of the application as filed, subject to
dedication of right-of-way only, with construction of fence
in two phases. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - File No. 116-E
NAME: Countrywood II - Site Plan
Review
LOCATION: West side of Napa Valley,
north of Ridge Haven
DEVELOPER:
Bob Wickard
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 10 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "MF-12"
PROPOSED USE: Condominium
A. Proposal
1. The construction of a condominium project on 10
acres.
2. Project Statistics
No. of Units ......... 39 1-story with dbl. garage
Size of Units ........ 1600 to 220
Units per Acre ....... 4.5
B. Engineering Comments
1. No adverse comments.
2. 45' minimum right-of-way.
C. Analysis
The submission appears to propose zero lot line units,
which can only be accomplished by a PUD. It is also a
departure from the original Countrywood concept. The
site plan is also deficient, and there appears an
excessive amount of streets and alleys.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
Staff views this as an inadequate filing and suggests a
meeting with the developer to discuss the project.
Staff has too many concerns about the project to offer
a definitive recommendation. The submission appears
premature.
D. Staff Recommendation
Staff reserves comment until further information is
received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
There was some confusion over the proposed concept for
development. The possibility of a PUD was discussed. The
applicant asked to get with staff before the meeting.
Water Works - On-site fire lines and hydrants will be
required.
Fire Department - Need a minimum of 20' street width, not
able to maneuver fire equipment or no place to turnaround.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Staff had received a plan from
the applicant, but had problems with design and density of
the project. Mr. Joe White who represented the applicant
submitted a revised plan. The plan was discussed, and a
motion was made for approval, subject to approval by the
Fire Chief. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and
1 abstention.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - File No. 595
NAME: Village Green Apts. - Site
Plan Review
LOCATION: Located on the east side of
N. Chicot, approx. 100' north
of I-30
DEVELOPER:
Mr. Leon E. McCasland
7300 NW 23rd Street
Bethany, OK 73008
ENGINEER:
Mehlburger, Tanner and Assoc.
P.O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 375-5331
AREA: 10.322 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "MF-18"
PROPOSED USE: Apartments
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Privacy Fence in the Buffer Area
A. Site History
This property was a part of the Orbit Valve subdivision
plat approved last year and also was the subject of a
recent rezoning action.
B. Proposal
1. The construction of an apartment project on 10.322
acres.
2. Variance - Location of privacy fence in the buffer
area at the northwest corner of the property where
8.42' of single family land abuts the property.
The reason is to avoid placing such a short
section of fence at this corner. A cluster of
evergreen trees and screening shrub masses are
proposed for buffering at this location.
3. Building Setbacks - A minimum building line of 10'
established along side yards so that the required
setback should be equal to the adjacent building
height (approximately 8.75').
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
4. Development Statistics
Total No. of Units ............. 172
Total Gross Bldg. Area ......... 128,269 sq. ft.
Net Living Area ................ 110,632 sq. ft.
Property Area .................. 10,322 acres
Property Area Less ROW ......... 10.022 acres
Density ....17.16 units
per acre
Total Parking .................. 287 spaces
5. Bldg. Square Footage Breakdown
Bldg. Unit
No. No. Type Sq. Ft.
1 7 2- Bedroom 6,011
2 8 2- Bedroom 6,870
3 8 2- Bedroom 8,870
4 12 1- Bedroom 7,766
5 12 1- Bedroom 7,766
6 8 2- Bedroom 6,870
7 8 2- Bedroom 6,870
8 8 2- Bedroom 6,670
9 8 2- Bedroom 6,870
10 12 1- Bedroom 7,766
11 12 1- Bedroom 7,766
12 12 1- Bedroom 7,766
13 6 2- Bedroom 6,888 (total)
1 Clubhouse /Office
14 6 2- Bedroom 5,152
15 8 2- Bedroom 6,870
16 12 1- Bedroom 7,766
17 12 1- Bedroom 7,766
18 12 1- Bedroom 7,766
C. Engineering Comments
None at this time.
D. Analysis
Staff has several problems with the request. Our first
concern relates to the design and density of the
project. In his design, the developer has sacrificed
livability for density. It is suggested that he build
a little more variety into the design, and provide some
breaks into the long linear drives, which as proposed,
will serve to encourage internal speeding. The
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
southwest corner of the site is too densely developed
and there appears to be an excess of sidewalk.
Explain.
There is an intrusion into the 25' buffer area by
parking and sidewalks. The applicant is asked to
revise this area and provide no intrusions into the
area by physical improvements. Also, "MF-18" disallows
parking in the front yard setback. It is very
important that the Fire Department sign off on this
plan and Engineering should comment on the potential of
two access points with Mabelvale Pike. There may also
be a name conflict.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denial of the submitted plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was represented by Mr. Robert Brown of
Mehlburger, who agreed to address the points raised and meet
with staff before the public hearing. He was asked to get
the Fire Chief's approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
revised plan was submitted. A motion for approval was made
and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - File No. 596
NAME: Mills (I-630) Central Shopping
Center
LOCATION: East side of Shackleford Road
west and south of Westchase
Plaza
DEVELOPER:
J.D. Ashley, Sr.
2649 Pike Avenue
NLR, AR 72114
Phone: 758-5775
ENGINEER:
Edward F. Brueggem and
Richard Caulder
AREA: NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING:
PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center
A. Existing Conditions
1. The construction of a shopping center on
approximately 3 acres.
2. Development includes:
(a) Goodyear Store ............. 6,080 sq. ft.
(b) 2 -Story Retail ............. 6,926 sq. ft.
(c) Restaurant ................. 7,087 sq. ft.
(d) Speciality Retail or
Restaurant .................. 6,540 sq. ft.
(e) Speciality Retail .......... 6,600 sq. ft.
(f) Specaility Retail .......... 1,360 sq. ft.
34,360 sq. ft.
3. Parking consists of 157 spaces.
September 10, 1965
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
B. Engineering Comments
1. Engineer's "as-built" plans should be provided
showing concrete drainage structure location. Add
steel steps at all access points.
2. Traffic Engineer must approve entrance on
Shackleford Road.
3. Indicate dumpster locations.
C. Analysis
The applicant should justify the location of the
building in the northeast corner over the drainage
structure. The plan should be revised to reflect no
building over the drainage structure unless certified
by a structural engineer and /or at least a 5' setback
from it. Parking is inadequate. The applicant must
make up his mind whether or not he wants one or two
restaurants so that a definitive figure on parking can
be reached. Staff asks for assurance from developer
that the 20' utility easement on the west side of
Goodyear will not become a drive. Traffic should
approve four-way crossing just inside the point of
entry.
There have been previous agreements regarding the
design of internal access and abutting properties.
Staff suggests continuation of the internal easement
parallel to Shackleford Road that was committed by a
Waffle House plat and elimination of the easement on
the liquor store lot physically as well as legally.
This will eliminate another access point to Markham.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant submitted a revised plan which reduced the
square footage and removed the structures from over the box
culvert and opened up the 20' easement to through traffic.
The reductions included the 6,600 square foot building to
6,142 square feet and the 6,540 square foot building to
6,000 square feet. In response to the comment about the
four-way crossing, the applicant offered to put four STOP
signs at that location.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
There was further discussion on the provision of easements
through the site. The applicant was asked to meet with the
owners of the Waffle House and the liquor store and discuss
an easement from the liquor store to Waffle House and from
Waffle House to the existing shopping center. Also, to
discuss with Henk Koornstra the location of the easement to
be parallel with Shackleford.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors.
Engineering reported that all problems had been resolved.
The applicant would design over the box culvert with
footings to the other side. Finally a motion for approval
of the revised plan was made and passed by a vote of:
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME:
Arkansas Medical Society Bldg.
(Z- 3689 -C) - Site Plan Review
LOCATION: West Side of Corporate Hill
South of Markham Street
OWNER /APPLICANT: Arkansas Medical Society Bldg.
Limited Partnership /Flake & Co.
PROPOSAL: To construct a three -story office building (41'
in height) (33,277 square feet) and 97 parking spaces on
2.35 acres of land that is zoned "O-2."
ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan. The site plan
meets all the Ordinance requirements. The staff foresees no
problem with the proposal.
CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
(1) Detention plans are required; and
(2) Sidewalks are required unless previously waived.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to City Engineer's comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with all
staff recommendations. There were no unresolved issues.
*The Water Department will require an acreage charge of $150
per acre.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The staff recommended approval
and stated that the City Engineer would address the sidewalk
issue. The City Engineer stated that the sidewalk was not
an issue. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 0 noes,
2 absent and 2 abstentions (Summerlin and Jones) to approve
the application as recommended by staff and reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME: Shackleford Road - Conditional
Use Permit /Site Plan Review
(Z-3901-A)
LOCATION: The east side of Shackleford
Road just south of Kanis Road
(1301 S. Shackleford Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Leo B. King /Burton Speights
Faucett and Company
PROPOSAL: To downzone 3.2 acres from "O-3" to "O-2" and to
construct a 96-unit residence /hotel (101 parking spaces).
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1. Site Location
This site is located in an area that is bounded by two
arterials (Shackleford Road, Kanis Road, and Interstate
430).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property lies in an area that is about to undergo
extensive development or redevelopment. Currently,
single family uses are adjacent to the north and south,
while the remainder of the adjacent property is vacant.
The I-430 District Plan calls for this area to be used
as major office. Properly developed, this proposal
will be compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
This proposal calls for one primary access (24 feet)
(Shackleford Road), one secondary access to Kaufman
Road, and 101 parking spaces.
4. Screeninq and Buffers
This proposal calls for landscaping on the south and
west property lines.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed use is compatible
with the surrounding area. The plan does, however,
need additional information. The site plan needs to be
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
revised to include the dimensions of the recreational
facilities, secondary access, parking area, etc. In
addition, the "O-2" zoning district requires a 25-foot
landscaped strip adjacent to the boundary streets. The
site plan should include a 25-foot landscaped area
adjacent to Kaufman Road. A screening fence should
also be included on the north and south property lines
to shield single family uses. Five additional parking
spaces are required to meet Ordinance requirements.
Finally, the applicant needs to provide phasing on the
site plan as requested [Phase I (80 units), Phase II
(16 units)] and label the uses of all the proposed
structures.
6. City Engineering Comments
(1) Discuss access and boundary street improvements on
Kaufman Road; (2) Engineering would support closing
Kaufman. If access to other parcels is required, a
crash gate for fire trucks is recommended on Kaufman
with no other access onto Kaufman; and (3) Detention
plans required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a
revised site plan to include all dimensions required, a
25-foot landscape buffer on Kaufman Road, screening fences
on the north and south property lines, phasing plan, five
additional parking spaces, and labeling of the uses;
(2) comply with City Engineering comments #1, 2 and 3.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. There were general discussions
about staff recommendations. There was some discussion
about the possible closure of Kaufman Road. The applicant
agreed to submit a revised site plan that would include what
the staff had recommended.
*(1) Southwestern Bell requires an easement. (2) The Little
Rock Fire Department requires a minimum 50-foot turn radius.
(3) The Little Rock Water Works will require a charge of $5
per foot and on -site fire lines and hydrants. (4) The
Little Rock Sewer Department states that this projects
exceeds 12.6 persons per acre and will require a
contribution to the Capital Improvement Fund.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The item was placed on the
consent agenda where the Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent to approve the application as recommended by staff
and reviewed by the Subdivision Committee.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME: Riley Drive - Conditional Use
Permit (Z-3021-C)
LOCATION: The south side of Riley Drive
just east of Barrow Road
OWNER /APPLICANT: Keller Estate /Jeff Davis, Jr.,
Block Realty Company
PROPOSAL: To construct a 132-unit (54 studios, 72
one - bedroom, and 6 two - bedroom) retirement apartments
(95,200 square feet total) (59 parking spaces) on 4.03 acres
of land that is zoned "O-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site is located adjacent to a collector (Riley
Drive).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is shown as multifamily on the Boyle Park
Plan. This site is abutted by multifamily on the east.
The remainder of the surrounding area is vacant. The
staff views the proposed use as being compatible with
the surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
This proposal contains one ingress /egress to Riley
Drive (25 feet) and 59 parking spaces.
4. Screeninq and Buffers
The proposal contains a landscape plan.
5. Analysis
The staff views this proposal as compatible to the
surrounding area. The staff does, however, question
the type of accessory uses to be included. The
applicant needs to outline all proposed accessory uses.
Finally, the proposed parking area is deficient.
Ordinance parking requirements require 66 paved parking
spaces. The applicant needs to submit a revised site
plan that includes the required parking.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
6. City Engineering Comments
Sidewalks are required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval provided the applicant agrees to:
(1) submit a revised site plan that includes the required
parking and sidewalks; and (2) submit information outlining
the proposed accessory uses.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to submit a revised
site plan that would include what the staff had recommended.
The applicant also stated that proposed facility would
contain a dining facility, and a barber and beauty shop.
The staff requested that the applicant submit a letter
outlining the accessory uses and the square footage required
by each. The applicant agreed to comply.
* (1) Southwestern Bell requires an easement. (2) The
Little Rock Water Works requires a $150 per acre charge.
(3) The Little Rock Sewer Department has stated that a sewer
main extension will be required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The item was placed on the
consent agenda where the Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent, 1 abstention (Summerlin) to approve the
application as recommended by staff and reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15
NAME: Arkansas Enterprises for the
Blind - Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4526)
LOCATION: The northwest corner of W. 30th
and Harrison Streets
(5300 W. 30th Street)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Arkansas Enterprises for the
Blind /Jim Cordell
PROPOSAL: To convert a single family structure to a bicycle
and small engine repair training facility on one lot that is
zoned "R-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to two residential streets (West 30th and
South Harrison Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding
area. The site is surrounded on all four sides by
single family uses. Small engine repair is first
allowed in a "C-2" district with a conditional use.
The Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan does show the block on
which this site is located as a future
public /quasi-public use. An extension of the existing
training facility might be acceptable, but the proposed
small engine repair would have a negative impact on the
surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
Access and parking are proposed from a 27' drive on
West 30th Street. The applicant is also proposing to
utilize their 68-space parking area on the north side
of this block. Pedestrian traffic from the school and
parking area would take access through the alley and a
gate on the west property line.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to construct a privacy fence
on the east and west property lines.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff has previously stated that small engine
repair is not compatible with the surrounding area (see
#2). If the property were used as proposed, no outside
storage of material would be allowed. In addition, the
Fire Department would have to sign off on the safety of
the structure.
6. City Enqineerinq Comments
(1) Boundary street improvements are required on both
30th Street and Harrison Street; (2) The Fire
Department must sign off on the use and structure; (3)
The walls need to be soundproofed; and (4) Show
parking.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denial.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. A lengthy discussion ensued as
to the appropriateness of the proposed use. The applicant
stated that he felt that a misunderstanding had occurred.
The applicant stated that the facility would employ two
instructors, contain seven students and be operated 8 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. He also stated that
the students would assemble and disassemble the motors for
training and that they would not accept work from the
public. Finally, the applicant stated that he would check
with the Fire Department, not allow outside storage and
properly screen the property.
* (1) The Little Rock Fire Department requires that the
applicant provide additional safeguards on the structure of
the proposed use.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. The staff stated that a
letter of withdrawal had been received. The Commission
voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent to accept the withdrawal of
this item.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
NAME: Goodyear - Conditional Use
Permit (Z-4527)
LOCATION: The east of Shackleford Road
just north of Markham Street
OWNER /APPLICANT: Mills 430, Joint Venture /J.D.
Ashley
PROPOSAL: To construct a 6,080 square foot auto parts,
repair, sales and service store on land that is zoned "C-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site is part of a shopping center that fronts on
an arterial street ( Shackleford Road).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The I-430 Plan shows this area to be a part of a
community shopping district. This site is surrounded
on three sides by commercial uses and an office to the
west. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding
area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
The Goodyear Store will take access from an existing
internal drive. Parking will be provided adjacent to
the structure.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed use is compatible
with the surrounding area. The applicant needs to
submit a landscape plan. The parking, access and
engineering comments on this item are contained in Item
#11 (I-430/630 Central Shopping Center).
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to the applicant agreeing to: (1) submit
a landscape plan; and (2) subject to parking, access and
engineering comments in Item #11 (I-430/630 Central Shopping
Center).
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and stated that landscaping had
been included on the site plan. The staff agreed and
responded that landscaping was not an issue. The applicant
also stated that no outside storage would be allowed.
* (1) The Little Rock Fire Department requires a minimum 50'
turn radius.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTOIN:
The applicant was present. The staff stated that there were
no unresolved issues with this application and recommended
approval as filed. The Commission then voted 9 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent to approve the application as recommended
by staff and reviewed by the Subdivision Committee.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - File No. 29-38
NAME: Shell Super Stop
LOCATION: 8000 Geyer Springs Road
APPLICANT:
Michael Sharp
M.A. Jones Constr. Co. Inc.
P.O. Box 3944
Batesville, AR 72501
Phone: 251-1969/793-2569
OWNER:
Coulson Oil Company
1434 Pike Avenue
North Little Rock, AR
Phone; 376-4222
REQUEST: To encroach 10' into an area established by a 25'
platted building line for the construction of an automatic
car wash.
A. Existing Conditions
This site is currently occupied by a convenience
store /gasoline service station. It is located in an
area that is heavily developed as commercial.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting to encroach 10' into an
area established by a 25' building line for the
construction of a car wash. The applicant states his
reason for the location is to provide a smooth traffic
pattern so that traffic may enter on the south drive,
off Geyer Springs, circle and line up around the
perimeter of the owner's property and exit on the north
drive to Geyer Springs. The layout will allow gasoline
and convenience store customers to have plenty of drive
room without interfering with car wash or street
traffic.
C. Enqineerinq Comments
Flow of traffic to be designed through car wash from
west to east to prevent blocking of driveway on Geyer
Springs.
D. Analysis
Staff supports the request; however, the location of
the Vacuum Station should be indicated so that its
relationship to the point of entry and the traffic flow
can be determined.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed by the Committee and passed to the
Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval, subject to staff's comments was made
and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - File No. G-29-39
NAME: B and S Rental - Building Line
Waiver (Lot 9 - Towne Oaks)
LOCATION: 9301 Treasure Hill Road
APPLICANT:
H.M. Smith
6014 Forbing Road
Little Rock, AR 72209
Phone: 565-7516
REQUEST: To replat a 40' building to 20'
A. Existinq Conditions
This site is located in an area comprised of commercial
and multifamily uses.
B. Development Proposal
This is a proposal by the applicant to replat an
existing 40' building line to 20' to facilitate an
addition to the building.
C. Engineering Comments
None.
D. Analysis
Staff will support a reduction in the easternmost
building line only if a 25' building line is platted on
the west, and there is no further request for
expansion of the site. Any further additions will
cause the site to be overbuilt. On the plan submitted,
the applicant has labeled an easement as a building
line.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed by the Committee. The applicant
stated that there were no further plans for expansion.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval, subject to comments made was passed by
a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - File No. G-29-40
NAME: Langston Acres - Building Line
Waiver
LOCATION: NE Corner of Warren Road and
Yarberry Lane
APPLICANT:
Delbert S. Plante, Jr.
GNP Enterprises
10018 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72205
REQUEST: To encroach 5' into an area established by a 25'
building line.
A. Site History
This site is part of an "R7-A" Manufactured Subdivision
approved by the Commission.
B. Existing Conditions
The land is flat and located in an area composed of
single family homes. This is the first and only home
constructed thus far. A concrete pad exists on the
south side of the house.
C. Development Proposal
This is a request to encroach 5' into an area
established by a 25' building setback for construction
of a carport on the south side of the house. The
applicant desires access from the carport to Yarberry
Lane.
D. Enqineerinq Comments
None.
E. Analysis
A one lot final replat is required. The applicant is
asked to place a statement on the plat and Bill of
Assurance that the carport is to be an open structure.
f. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed by the Committee and passed to the
Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval, subject to comments made was passed
by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 - File No. G-29-41
NAME: Wendy's Old- Fashioned Hamburgers
- Cantrell Road - Building Line
Waiver
LOCATION: 7312 Cantrell
APPLICANT:
Wendy's of Little Rock
201 W. Broadway, Suite G
NLR, AR 72114
Phone: 372-2000
REQUEST: To encroach 10' into a 40' building setback area.
A. Existing Conditions
This site is located along a major arterial and in an
area heavily developed by commercial uses.
B. Development Proposal
This is a request to build a dining room addition that
will encroach 10' into a 40' platted building line.
C. Engineering Comments
None.
D. Analysis
Staff has no problems with the request. A one lot
final plat and Bill of Assurance are to be filed.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed by the Committee and passed to the
Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval, subject to comments made was passed
by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21 - File No. G-29-42
NAME: Wendy's Old-Fashioned Hamburgers
LOCATION: 11,319 Rodney Parham
APPLICANT:
Wendy's of Little Rock
201 W. Broadway, Suite G
NLR, AR 72114
Phone: 372-2000
REQUEST: To encroach into an area established by a 40'
building line.
A. Existinq Conditions
This site is located in an area that consists of
commercial uses.
B. Development Proposal
This is a request to encroach 10' into an area
established by a 40' building line for a dining room
addition.
C. Engineering Comments
None.
D. Analysis
Staff has no problems with the request. A one lot
final and Bill of Assurance are required.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed by the Committee and passed to the
Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval, subject to comments made was passed
by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22 - Other Matters /Street Abandonment
NAME: The north /south alley in
Block 341 of Cherry's
Subdivision of Original City
LOCATION: Lying in the block between
Victory Street and Cove Street
and north of W. 3rd
OWNER /APPLICANT: Claude Carpenter
By: Bill McClard
REQUEST: To abandon the existing dedicated right-of-way and
join with adjacent ownerships.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for This Right-of-Way
None.
2. Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this
right-of-way.
3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adiacent Streets
All of the adjacent rights-of-way are dedicated at the
public need standard.
4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
The land area has a slight or gentle grade falling to
the north toward West 2nd Street. The property
involved in this block contains commercial parking
lots, an engineering firm and a restaurant. A single
residential user exists fronting onto the Cove Street
frontage to the west of the abandonment.
5. Development Potential
This right-of-way being unopened at present has no
usage except as a part of the adjoining commercial
properties.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22 - Continued
6. Effect on Neighborhood Land Use
The existing use of this block is primarily
nonresidential. No adverse effects are expected. The
alley as dedicated apparently has never been utilized
as a conventional alley. It is currently overlaid by
asphalt in some areas and undergrowth of brush and
trees in other areas.
7. Neighborhood Position
None expressed at this writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
None expressed at this writing. The only concerns are
those which have been developed by the Planning staff
in the course of its review which indicate a
requirement for retention of the standard utility
and /or drainage easement.
9. Reversionary Rights
The right-of-way will be equally distributed to
abutting owners based on the dimension of the
dedication as platted, each owner receiving
approximately one -half.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of this
right-of-way subject to the retention of any needed
easements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
The Commission discussed the matter briefly followed by a
motion to recommend approval of the abandonment as
recommended by the staff. The vote - 10 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 23
NAME: Pleasant Hills Total Living
Community - Revised Site Plan
Review
REQUEST: To revise an approved site plan.
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request for permission to operate a beauty and
barber shop inside a retirement village. The applicant has
had difficulty obtaining building permits. The site plan
for the development was approved by the Commission in 1982.
Staff has no problems with the request. The applicant is
asked to document other uses desired at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The request was reviewed by the Committee. The applicant
stated that there are no plans for other uses within the
development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A motion for approval, subject
to comments made was passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24
NAME:
Capitol Avenue - Conditional
Use Permit (Z-4458)
LOCATION: The southwest corner of Valmar
and Capitol Streets
OWNER /APPLICANT: Leslie Carter /Bob Richardson
PROPOSAL: To receive approval for a revised site plan of a
previously approved conditional use permit (duplex).
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The staff stated that they did
not have any problems with the proposed revision.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The item was placed on the
consent agenda where the Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent to approve the application as reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 25 - Other Matters /Subdivision Enforcement
REQUEST: "Planning Commission review and discussion of a
tri-party agreement that is in default."
ISSUE: The issue involves Mr. Kelton Brown's project on
Hinson Road where he is in several months beyond completion
date of the agreement.
The staff requested a discussion for purposes of taking
action against the developer.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The staff offered a historical perspective of the issue at
hand identifying the following as important points:
(1) The tri-party agreement of record terminated as to the
completion date in March 1985.
(2) Shortly after that date, the developer was notified of
the City's concern for completion. The developer was
given several completion deadlines, the last being
August 19, 1985.
(3) After failing to meet the August 19th deadline, the
developer was directed to appear before the Planning
Commission for purposes of explaining his actions and
offering a termination date that was realistic.
The applicant was present and was accompanied by his
engineer, Mr. Robert Richardson. They informed the
Planning Commission that the project was almost complete,
that the base course had been inspected by the City and was
ready for application of asphalt. A general discussion of
the matter followed. Mr. Richardson was asked whether he
had a firm date for final completion. He offered
September 30th in order to finish the work and have the
project inspected and placed under the maintenance bond.
The Commission accepted this report, the projected
completion date and requested that staff follow up on the
matter.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 26 - Other Matters /Zoning Enforcement
REQUEST: "Planning Commission review and discussion of an
applicant's failure to comply with zoning conversions."
ISSUE: The applicant, Mr. Fulkerson received "MF-6" zoning
on a large tract in exchange for a certain covenants in a
recorded instrument. Those covenants generally provided for
Mr. Fulkerson's construction of 1/2 mile of Hinson Road to
arterial standards.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The staff offered an overview of this issue, including a
history of the zoning application, the street improvement
commitment and the several plats that have already been
completed abutting the street. The Commission was informed
that the requirements for the street were contained within a
record agreement with a specific date for initiation of
improvements and a requirement that the project be pursued
diligently until completed.
The staff and Mr. Williams, the project engineer, identified
several mitigating circumstances. These were conflicting
agreements with other projects and problems of completion of
certain testing procedures. The Commission discussed the
matter briefly. It was determined that the roadway plans
have been completed and approved by the Public Works
Department and that a start-up date is imminent. The
Commission directed staff to place this matter on the next
Planning Commission agenda for purposes of receiving a
report from Mr. Williams on a completion date. The item
will be placed on the scheduled Planning Commission agenda
for September 24, 1985.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 27
NAME: Jim Brown Replat
LOCATION: 16,505 Taylor Loop Road
DEVELOPER:
Jim Brown
8922 Fairhaven Road
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 255-9793
ENGINEER:
Environmental Technical Consult.
1510 S. Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: .5 acre NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET:
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area that is rural in
character and composed mainly of single family homes.
B. Development Proposal
This is a request to plat a parcel of .5 acre into two
lots for single family use. 2,820.96 sq. ft. of land
is dedicated for right-of-way.
C. Engineerinq Comments
None at this time.
D. Analysis
Staff has no major problems with the request. This
would have been a lot split handled by the staff if
there was no right-of-way dedication.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION.COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee reviewed the application and passed it to the
Commission. Engineering had no adverse comments.
September 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 27 - Continued
PLANNINq COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A motion for approval subject to
comments made was passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
DATE jEPTo / Q 8 S
,_
MEMBER A
J.Surmner1in V
J.Schlereth y
R.Massie �
B.Sipes ✓
J.Nicholson /
W.Rector v
w.Ketcher //
D.Arnett y
D.J. Jones //
I.Boles A-
J � Clayton t/
B I
✓ ✓
v V
✓V
v v
V v
✓t/
A i/
J/ y
//v
✓//
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
2.. ¾ 1. 4 5 " 7 g Cf -/0 I ( / 2.
✓✓ v ✓ v V v V v ✓AB
,,,,. ✓ J/ ✓-✓ ,/✓ ,,(V ,/ ✓
v' J/ ✓ t// A A A y t/ V
v J/ v ✓ ✓ V ✓t/v v //
v v' t/ ✓ (/ ( V J/' I/ . v
�
v / t/ ✓ ✓ ✓// t/ ✓ t/
v t/ ✓ I/ A � A· A· y A A
v' v ✓t/ t/ ✓✓ v J/ ✓ ✓
4B v' ✓ t/ ✓ t/ t/ % I""' t/ As----_L-------._
J/ V / /. ✓ ✓ v V J/ ✓v
✓AYE O NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
Sf4EET I {2
/3 14-JS Ito /7 /J /9 2.0
V 4t3 V ✓ v V ,__,.,,.
V v J/,/.✓ ,,_,..-L/" ,_,/
v ✓ � ✓ ---,,,,,,,,-----
y ✓v" J/ �-� ,,__,,,.. Y" ---
� t/ � ✓-,I.;""'" v--.?--"'
v-✓ � /i----� ,1.....--· �
v--✓ .� A L,,--�� ,:,.----
t,/" ✓� ✓ �l---' �£...--"'
L.---v I,.,-""" ✓ i----�-t-------
A r--L-------
,I/'"' V -v J-----� --
DATE �EPL io.·es
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
I
•
MEMBER 21 22 2."> 24-ZS ct: 27
J.�.--�1-f n -V'( I/ V--f 7 V
J • Schlereth Y v v-_. \ \ ...-
R.Massie y"' v--,,,,,,.. � / ) V"'
B • Si oes t/ t,-v' v--\ \ ...-
J • Nicholson t.-' I/' � (./ � WJ ✓
W.Rector v � v-.....--�h �
ITEM NUMBERS
W.Ketcher v t.--" v" _... � � v" ..
D.Arnett _ t-: � v--"' (J \) c/ ' -
D.J • Jones v I/' v--_-< � �
I I
I.· Bo 1 es A \ 1 A� \ \�.
)
s r
J; Clayton v 1,/' .v-� 1 t-o I
✓AYE <i'NAYE AABSENT �ABSTAIN
September 10, 1985
There being no further business before the Planning
Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 P.M.
Chairperson
Secretary
Date