pc_08 13 1985subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
AUGUST 13, 1985
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being nine in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the previous meeting were read and
approved.
III. Members Present: William Ketcher, Acting Chairman
Ida Boles
David Jones
John Schlereth
Dorothy Arnett
Betty Sipes
Jim Summerlin
Bill Rector, Jr.
John Clayton
IV. Members Absent: Richard Massie
Jerilyn Nicholson, Chairman
V. City Attorney: Pat Benton
Mark Stodola
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME: Fields "Short-Form PCD"
(Z-4475)
LOCATION: 13,830 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Leon T. Fields
7324 Rockwood Road
Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone: 663-5314
ENGINEER:
Mehlburger, Tanner & Assoc.
2nd at Izard Streets
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 375 -5331
AREA: 1.73 acres NO. OF LOTS: 16 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R-2" to "PCD"
PROPOSED USE: Commercial /Restaurant
A. Site History
This site is located in an older subdivision to the
west of the City entitled Pankey Addition. Recently,
the owner was mistakenly issued a remodeling permit for
$5,000 for the abandoned building on the site, which
was used for commercial at one time. The land is
currently zoned for "R-2" Single Family.
The existing building was constructed in the early
1930's and was always used as some type of commercial
structure. Past uses include a doctor's office, beer
joint, barbecue and beer, drug store and medical
laboratory. The building was condemned in 1982. The
current owner bought the structure in 1984.
B. Proposal
1. The use of an existing, one-story rock and frame
structure of approximately 1,650 square feet for a
barbecue restaurant.
2. The provision of 16 parking spaces.
C. Engineering Comments
1. Dedicate right-of-way on Highway 10 to arterial
standards; 50' of right-of-way is required.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
2. Clarify encroachment into right-of-way of
Highway 10 and parking encroachment into street
right-of-way.
3. Roadway improvements to be discussed at Committee
meeting.
4. Parking plan to be approved by the Traffic
Engineer.
D. Analysis
From a land use point of view, staff has no choice but
to recommend denial of the plan due to its conflict
with the Suburban Plan, which recommends single family
zoning in this area; however, staff defers
consideration of the usual policy on hardship cases to
the Planning Commission or City Board. This may
possibly be considered a hardship since the applicant
received a $5,000 remodeling permit by the City.
Staff has other concerns /requests, which include:
(1) Removal of the porch from the right-of-way.
(2) Expansion of parking lot into City right-of-way
and 5' over into neighboring property owner's
land.
(3) In-lieu contribution in front of site.
(4) Closing of Wells Street.
(5) Replatting of various lots and ownerships.
(6) Indication of additional area designed for
restaurant on site plan.
(7) Withhold requirements to plat Josephine and Arnold
until further development occurs.
E. Staff Recommendation
(1) Denial of land use based on Surburban Plan;
(2) Deferral of hardship policy to Planning Commission
or Board.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant and his attorney were present. The applicant
agreed to remove the porch from the right-of-way, provide
in-lieu contribution for the area in front of the site and
to close Wells Street if the abutting property owner agrees.
He explained that his tenants mistakenly expanded the
parking lot over into the City's right-of-way and he would
try to clear the issue up.
Some discussion concerned whether or not to replat the
entire ownership or just a portion with the restaurant.
Some committee members expressed concern over allowing
commercial on all the property. Others felt that the PUD
process required specifics on all the property. A
suggestion was made to phase the application. Nothing was
resolved.
Some members felt that the site plan couldn't be approved
without the closing of the streets, others felt that it
could be a condition of the approval. It was pointed out
that if they weren't closed, the streets would have to be
improved.
Engineering indicated that the encroachment of the building
into the right-of-way could possibly be granted
nonconforming status. The applicant was asked to provide a
revised plan showing the addition to the building and the
removal of the parking spaces and porch in the right-of-way.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Prior to the discussion of this matter, a general discussion
was held between Mr. Brad Walker, attorney for Mr. Fields,
the Planning Commission members, staff and the City
Attorney. This discussion centered on the merits of hearing
the case simply on the basis of a land use issue or on
hearing all of the details of the history of the case. This
discussion resulted in a decision to hear all of the
information which could be offered. Mr. Roy Beard of the
Public Works Department made a presentation at the request
of the Commission offering the full details of the building
permit history. He also discussed the involvement of
various staff members in the review process.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
Mark Stodola, the City Attorney, then offered comments
concerning his involvement and contacts with Mr. Fields with
respect to the nonconforming status of the property and
activities which have occurred on these premises in the
past.
Mr. Brad Walker, attorney for Mr. Fields, then presented the
application offering arguments in support of Mr. Fields'
position on hardships. Mr. Walker responded to questions
from the Planning Commission on the status of the property
as a nonconforming use. Mr. Fields then offered comments
concerning his approach to obtaining the permit. He also
gave a site history indicating names and dates as well as
products sold. He discussed the removal of prior commercial
product contents from the building shortly before he
purchased the land. He offered comments concerning his
discussions with the various inspectors about repairs to the
building. He stated that he had on no occasion requested a
privilege license from Mr. Scott's office. When asked by a
commissioner, Mr. Fields stated that he did not check the
zoning of this property prior to his purchase. He thought
that it was zoned commercial.
A general discussion then followed involving issues attached
to the permit records, the various permits that were
allegedly issued and the ability of the Commission to
determine whether the nonconformity was revived through the
actions of the City by issuance of permits. Mr. Roy Beard
responded to this by stating that only one building permit
was issued beyond the initial permit and this was for a
bathroom containing eight fixtures and a water heater.
Brad Walker presented further comments about the history of
the Pankey community and the nonconforming status of many
uses along this section of Highway 10.
Jim Lawson of the Planning staff offered a response to
several questions concerning the area land use plan and
relationships of that plan to the Pankey community. A
general discussion was held concerning relationships of the
subject site and existing zoned commercial within the area
as well as the potential for rezoning existing
nonconformities scattered along Highway 10.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
A determination was then made by polling the audience as to
the number of persons present in support of Mr. Fields'
application. There were 10 persons identified in support.
In addition, three persons identified themselves as being
opposed to the issue.
Mr. Fields then offered a survey of Highway 10 businesses
for a substantial length of Highway 10 in support of his
proposal. Mr. Walker, his attorney, offered four pages of
signatures of support and offered objection to the land use
plan approaches to establishment of zoning lines.
Mr. Jim Threet, an abutting owner representative, stated his
support of Mr. Fields' application. Mr. Harold Flowers, an
attorney and minister and resident of the area, stated his
objections to the use and conversion, especially with
respect to the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages.
Ms. Saugey, an owner and business operator in the area,
spoke on the issue of spot and strip zoning of Highway 10
and the need for maintaining the land use plan. She opposed
the application. Bob Lane of the Public Works Department
offered, at the request of the Commission, an update on the
Highway 10 widening project especially with respect to the
subject site. Mr. Lloyd Vaught, an owner and President of
the Highway 10 Association, commented on the application
from the view of his Association. He offered a description
of the premises before Mr. Fields purchased the lots and the
improvements which have been made.
Mr. Jeffries, a nearby neighbor, offered objection to the
sale of beer on the premises and traffic concerns within the
area. Mr. Orange Brady, representing the Sims Brothers, the
prospective operators of the restaurant, spoke on the
position of the Sims.
Ms. Saugey then offered rebuttal to information that had
been offered relative to the permits issued. She stated
that additional work had been accomplished since the City
Attorney's notice to Mr. Fields. Barbara Dutton, a resident
of the area, opposed commercialization of the Pankey area.
Kramer Story, a resident, opposed commercialization of the
site.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
Brad Walker, the attorney for Mr. Fields, offered a rebuttal
statement to those comments offered by neighbors and
opponents of the project. A procedural motion was then made
to vote on calling the issue for a vote. The Commission
voted 5 ayes, 3 noes, 3 absent to reject the call. The
matter remained on the floor for action due to absence of an
affirmative vote.
Additional discussion occurred during which the Commission
requested that they provide additional information on plan
detail included in the staff write-up.
Staff members of Planning and Public Works updated the
matter for the Commission giving specifics on right -of -way,
in -lieu street contribution, platting and street
abandonment.
A general discussion of these requirements followed. A
question was then raised as to the vote on the procedural
matter placed before the Commission.
The City Attorney clarified the bylaws on the procedure to
indicate that the motion had indeed passed by a simple
majority of those present.
The Chairman stated that the motion had been called and
asked if additional discussion was needed. None being
evidenced, the motion was voted upon to approve the PUD as
placed before the Planning Commission on the revised plan.
The application failed to receive an affirmative 6 votes;
therefore, the bylaw rule for automatic deferral applies.
The issue will be reheard August 13, 1985. The issue will
be listed first on that agenda.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (7-25-85)
There was no further review of the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-13-85)
The applicant and his attorney were in attendance. Both
supporters and objectors from the neighborhood were in
attendance. Staff reported that its recommendation remained
the same and that a revised plan had been submitted,
correcting some technicalities, but not the removal of the
porch from the right-of-way. Staff requested that this be
removed. The applicant agreed.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
An attorney for Sim's Barbecue was present. He explained
that his clients had already spent a considerable sum of
money on the project and that it would create a hardship for
them if the item was denied.
Other spokespersons included: (1) Mr. George Wimberly - who
spoke of his familiarity with the use of the property as a
retail pharmacy; (2) Dr. Al Flowers - a lawyer and preacher
residing in the community who requested that the item be
deferred until a neighborhood plan is agreed upon;
(3) Ms. Saugey - a property owner in the neighborhood who
spoke again commercial zoning and stated "if there was any
hardship, it was between Mr. Fields and Sim's Barbecue and
not between Mr. Fields and the City;" (4) Ms. Barbara
Douglas - President of the Pankey Neighborhood Improvement
Association /CDBG Committee who gave an account of various
meetings and stated the consensus of the groups was for
maintaining the area as residential with some modifications
to the Land Use Plan; and (5) Mrs. Zilie Wilkins.
There was discussion of an upcoming meeting on August 19th
with City officials to discuss the specifics of the Pankey
Land Use Plan. Some Commissioners felt that the meeting
could be important to the resolution of the issues. Other
Commissioners argued against delaying the item and some
expressed confusion as to how to vote.
Another minister recently assigned to the area, requested a
deferral since it was obvious that the neighborhood was
divided in their position. A show of hands revealed that 21
ware present in support of the item and 10 in opposition.
Finally, a motion for approval was made. The motion failed
to pass. The vote was 3 ayes, 4 noes and 2 abstentions.
The reasons for denial were: (1) nonconformance with the
City's Suburban Land Use Plan; (2) a feeling among
Commissioners that the hardship issue was self-imposed; and
(3) potential negative effects of strip zoning along
Highway 10.
August 13, 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.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
2. Proiect 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. Proiect 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.
August 13, 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.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C
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
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - 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. Use Qty. Sq. Ft. Bldg.
Coverage
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. Use Qty. Sq. Ft.Bldg.
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
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
(c) Phase III
Bldg. Use Qty. Sq. Ft. Bldg.
Coverage
(i) 1 57,950 7,950
Apt. Towers
(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. Landscaping /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 Christmas of 1985.
Units constructed at market absorption rate.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
Phase II - Construction begins in summer of 1986,
completed in "late 1987.
Phase III - Construction begins in late fall 1987,
units constructed at market absorption rate.
C. Engineering Comments
(1) Dedicate right-of-way and improve 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 needs 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 landscaped 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 easement should be designated to be also
for utilities. On -site fire line and hydrants will be
required. Pro -rata charge applies.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - 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 "02" 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.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D
NAME: Barton Street
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4481)
LOCATION: The NE Corner of the
Intersection of Barton Street
and the Missouri Pacific RR
OWNER /APPLICANT: Brent Baber
PROPOSAL:
To construct three duplexes (1,632 square feet each
building) on three separate lots and 12 paved parking spaces
on land that is zoned "R-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site is located at the end of a residential street
(Barton Street). It slopes substantially downward from
Barton Street toward the railroad tracks.
2. Compatibility with Neiqhborhood
This proposal has the potential to be compatible with
the surrounding area. This site is adjacent to the
Missouri Pacific Railroad on the south and east.
Single family uses lie to the north and west. The
Woodruff Neighborhood Plan allows for duplex
development on in-fill or vacant lots. The Woodruff
Neighborhood Committee has some reservations about
two -story structures such as those located at the
northeast corner of Valentine and 7th Street.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
The applicant is proposing one 12.5-foot access drive
to Barton Street with 12 paved parking spaces to be
located in the rear of the structures.
4. Screeninq and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff is generally supportive of this proposal.
The staff's support is subject to any concerns the
Woodruff Neighborhood Committee may have to the
duplexes being two-story.
The Fire Department has expressed concern over the
width of the proposed access drive. The department
needs at least one 20-foot access drive and preferably
two 20-foot access drives. The Fire Department can
accept one 20-foot access drive provided there is an
area (50 feet in radius) for an adequate turnaround.
The staff feels that the parking should be arranged
such that the parking stalls or spaces do not overlap
the lot lines. The applicant also needs to submit a
landscape plan. The staff would like a revised site
plan that incorporates corrective action for the Fire
Department requirements.
City Engineering Requirements:
Submit an internal drainage and detention plan.
6. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a landscape Plan; (2) submit a revised site plan that
addresses the Fire Department's needs as well as the
staff's concerns; and (3) an internal drainage and
detention plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. The applicant stated that he would make an
effort to revise the site plan to incorporate the Fire
Department's concerns.,
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A number of objectors were also
present. The applicant requested that deferral to the
August 13 Planning Commission meeting and stated that he had
not been able to complete a revised site plan. The
neighbors objected to the entire proposal and asked that the
Commission deny the proposal and also stated that the
applicant had not been cooperative. The Commission voted
3 ayes, 3 noes and 5 absent to defer this proposal. The
motion failed due to a lack of a majority vote. A new
motion to defer this application to the August 13 Planning
Commission meeting was made so that the applicant could meet
with the neighbors and submit the necessary site plans. The
Commission then voted 6 ayes, 0 noes and 5 absent to defer
this item to the August 13, 1985, Planning Commission
meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present.
applicant had submitted a letter
be withdrawn without prejudice.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The staff stated that the
requesting that this item
The applicant was not present. The staff stated that a
letter requesting withdrawal had been received. The
Planning Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent
to accept withdrawal of this item.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - File No. 128-K
NAME:
Longlea Subdivision
Phase 8A
LOCATION: West of Hinson Road, East End
of Pleasant Forest Drive
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Woodland, Inc. Edw. G. Smith and Associates
Birch-Brother, Inc. 401 Victory
8th Floor - Prospect Bldg. Little Rock, AR
Little Rock, AR Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 7 acres NO. OF LOTS: 15 FT. NEW ST.: 1,030
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Site Histor
This site was originally approved as a part of the
Pleasantview Subdivision.
B. Existing Conditions
The land involved is currently undeveloped and the
general area consists of single family development.
C. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting to replat seven acres into
15 lots and 1,030 feet of new street for single family
use. The application also involves a request that
Coquinta Court be built according to minor residential
street standards of 24' with 45' pavement.
D. Engineering Comments
Stormwater detention required.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
E. Analysis
The applicant requests for modification of the approved
Pleasantview Subdivision involves an increase in lot
sizes and a minor residential street standard. Staff
felt that Commission review was needed for approval of
the street. Staff is favorable to the request, but ask
that the applicant indicate the desired building
lines.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
G. Subdivision Committee Review
It was determined that a waiver was not required for
the street since it is requested that the item not be
sent to the Commission since there were no issues. The
Committee agreed to the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - File No. 380-A
NAME: Troy's Addition Preliminary
LOCATION: 6512 Mabelvale Cutoff
DEVELOPER:
Troy and Kitty Braswell
and Joe Cotter
ENGINEER:
Richardson Engineers
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664-0003
AREA: 12.54 acres NO. OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW ST.: 700
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Site History
A PUD proposal for multifamily use on this site was
recently denied by the Commission after intense
neighborhood opposition.
B. Existing Conditions
The land involved is flat and grass covered. The only
existing use consists of a roller rink.
C. Development Proposal
This is a request to subdivide 12.54 acres into six
lots and 700 feet of new street. The lots will be used
for single family use and average about two acres in
size.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Boundary street improvement on Mabelvale Cut-Off,
arterial requirements.
2. Stormwater detention required.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
E. Analysis
No major issues have been found; however, the applicant
is advised to comply with the preliminary submission
requirements by providing source of title information,
submitting a preliminary Bill of Assurance and naming
the proposed cul-de-sac. If there are any abutting
tracts of 2.5 acres or greater, notices are required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to conform with staff's
recommendations.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Neighboring property owners were
in attendance. They questioned the intentions of the
developer on Lot 6. He stated that he intended to develop
single family. A motion for approval was made and passed by
a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - File No. 583
NAME: Gevatoski Replat
LOCATION: 6725 Graceland Drive
DEVELOPER:
Dorothy and Frank Gevatoski
5701 Larch Place
Little Rock, AR 72209
Phone: 565-9291
ENGINEER:
Dillinger, Inc.
P.O. Box 9425
Little Rock, AR 72203
AREA: .4 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING:
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
VARIANCES: Waiver of Street Improvements
A. Site History
None.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area which is mainly
composed of single family homes.
C. Development Proposal
This is a request to replat .4 acres into two lots for
single family development. A waiver of street
improvements is requested.
D. Engineering Comments
A rural street section with a parallel ditch is
requested due to a precedent with church parking and
paving.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
E. Analysis
The main issue involves the applicant's request for a
waiver of street improvements. When a nearby church
came in for a conditional use review, full street
improvements were not required, so staff feels that a
reduced standard of improvement is acceptable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicants were in attendance. Engineering explained
that improvements would include an overlay on the street.
The applicant agreed to comply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A motion for approval was made
and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - File No. 10-N
NAME: Garner Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Huron Lane, 1/2 Block West of
Innwood Circle
DEVELOPER:
Jim Garner Constr. Co.
11125 Arcade Drive
Suite "E"
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 225-1127
ENGINEER:
Ed Smith and Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: .72 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C-3"
PROPOSED USE: Office /Retail Mix
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Site History
This site was platted as Lot 34, Charles Valley
Subdivision.
B. Existing Conditions
The land involved is apparently vacant. The dominant
uses in the area consist of office and some retail.
All street improvements are currently in place, except
for sidewalks.
C. Development Proposal
This is a request to place two detached brick buildings
on one lot. The proposed uses are office and retail.
The amount of building area consists of 8,160 square
feet. Parking spaces proposed include 40.
D. Engineering Comments
Sidewalk and detention required.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
E. Analysis
This submission involves the site plan review of a
multiple building site. The only request from staff is
that the applicant provide some indication as to how
many square feet will be involved in each use proposed.
It appears that adequate parking is proposed, but this
information is needed so that it can be confirmed.
Some indication of landscaping and perimeter treatment
should be submitted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to: (1) sidewalks and detention;
(2) breakdown of proposed uses by square feet; and
(3) landscaping plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant responded to staff's concerns indicating that
retail is proposed for all businesses within the shopping
center. Sidewalk /detention and landscaping requirements
would be met.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A motion for approval was made
and passed by: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - File No. 581
NAME: Colony South Shopping Center
Site Plan Review /Building Line
Waiver
LOCATION: Northwest Intersection of
Base Line and Geyer Springs
DEVELOPER:
Doyle Rogers Co.
Suite 1510
111 Center Street
Little Rock, AR 72201-2413
Phone: 375-1662
ENGINEER:
Robinson, Wassell
8500 West Markham
Little Rock, AR
AREA: 11.9 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C-3"
PROPOSED USE: Commercial Shopping Center /Restaurant
REQUEST: Site plan review of multiple building site and
modem cation of a 40' building line to 251.
A. Site History
This site is now occupied by a commercial shopping
center.
B. Proposal
1. The expansion of the commercial shopping center on
11.9 acres.
2. Existing uses
Required
a. Office Size Parking
First Federal 1,836 sq.ft. 4.59
Century 21 1,488 sq.ft. 3.72
3,324 sq.ft. 8.31
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
Required
b. Restaurant Size Parking
Mr. Gatti's 2,800 sq.ft. 28
C. Commercial
Alco 6,504 sq.ft. 188.3
Kroger 51,776 sq.ft. 151.3
National Video 1,762 sq.ft. 5.9
Gift Box 1,950 sq.ft. 6.5
Texas St. Optical 1,170 sq.ft. 3.9
Shoe Outlet 3,575 sq.ft. 11.9
Unleased 1,971 sq.ft. 6.6
Unleased 1,220 sq.ft. 4.1
129,928 sq.ft.
d. Personal Services
Jim's Haircuts 600 sq.ft. 3
Total Existing Sq.ft. 136,652 sq.ft.
Total Required Parking 381.5
3. Proposed Uses
a. Restaurant
Rax 3,400 sq.ft. 34
b. Commercial
Alco Addition 10,857 sq.ft. 24
Total Sq.ft. Proposed 14,257 sq.ft.
Total Proposed Parking 56
GRAND TOTAL 157,990 sq.ft.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
4. Reduction of a 40-foot building line to 25 feet.
C. Engineering Comments
(a) Stormwater detention required for any building
improvement.
(b) Traffic comments to be provided at meeting.
D. Analysis
Preliminary review indicates that about 439.5 parking
spaces are required. Staff supports the request for
modification of the building line from the central
drive to the west property line only. Since this
property was platted, the ordinance has been changed to
require a 25-foot setback only. The usual one-lot
final plat and Bill of Assurance will be required to
place the modification on record at the Courthouse.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Engineering gave its support to the proposed circulation
pattern and applicant agreed to modify the building line
only in the area of the proposed restaurant.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - File No. 584
NAME:
Country Square Preliminary/
Site Plan Review
LOCATION: North Side of Highway 10 and
Taylor Loop Road
DEVELOPER:
Springhart, Inc.
Highway 10, Country Store
Little Rock, AR
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 2.75 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C-3"
PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center
A. Site Histo
The Commission recently approved this site for rezoning
from "R-2" Single Family to "C-3" Commercial.
B. Proposal
1. The construction of a commercial shopping center
on 2.75 acres.
2. Construction of 27,940 square feet to be used as
building area.
3. Parking will consist of 137 total spaces,
including six handicapped spaces.
C. Engineering Comments
1. In -lieu required for boundary street improvements.
2. Stormwater detention required.
3. Traffic engineer needs information as to alignment
of access with Taylor Loop Road.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
4. Development needs to provide pipe-stem access
(driveway to be extended for a minimum of 100 feet
into property without cross streets).
D. Analysis
The applicant needs to provide information regarding
the proposed uses of each unit and how they relate to
size if other uses besides retail are planned. Since
there are residential zonings on the north, east and
west sides, a 6-foot fence and 40-foot landscaped
buffer is required. The site plan should reflect the
on -site fire system and trash pickup areas /dumpsters
and how they will be screened.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. He requested a waiver of the
buffer requirement. Staff modified its position by
suggesting that the buffer requirement be eliminated on the
east side of the project. It would, however, still apply on
the west and north sides. The applicant agreed to meet with
Water Works and the Traffic Engineer before the next
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. He submitted a new site plan
modifying the waiver request from 40' to 25'. Several
persons from the neighborhood were present. Ms. Saugey
stated that she was in support of the previous rezoning of
this property to "C-3" for development of a country store,
but now the store had blossomed into 22 shops. She was not
in opposition, but concerned that this was the first
commercial development on Highway 10 and that the
thoroughfare may end up looking like Rodney Parham Road.
She asked that the applicant adhere to all landscaping and
setbacks. Another resident who resides at 14196 Cantrell
Road stated his preference for a grocery store versus a
shopping center. Some Commissioners expressed unhappiness
about the fact that a busload of persons had cone down for
the original rezonings, and they had been told that the site
would be used for a country store. Now, it was proposed for
a shopping center and needed waivers.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
The applicant explained that the adjourning property owners
didn't care about the setbacks, and he felt that they would
eventually zone their property "C -3" also. Finally, a
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 6 ayes,
1 no, 2 absent and 2 abstentions.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - File No. 185-E
NAME: Tract 77, Little Rock Industrial
District, Site Plan Review
LOCATION: 150' South of 65th Street,
East Side of Murray Street
DEVELOPER:
Putnam Realty, Inc.
Suite 1820
Union National Bank Bldg.
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 376-3616
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: .68 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "I-2"
PROPOSED USE: Industrial
A. Site History
The Commission has previously denied rezoning and PUD
requests on this site. The PUD was denied due to the
creation of a lot width that was inadequate for "I-3."
B. Proposal
1. The construction of a building of 4,800 square
feet to be used for light manufacturing.
2. Maintenance of an existing one story building of
4,080 square feet.
3. Parking consists of 10 spaces.
C. Enqineerinq Comments
Detention required on-site.
D. Analysis
The site plan needs to reflect a building line. The
applicant should specify the type of existing use. The
proposed structure requires eight parking spaces.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments made.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was instructed to meet with staff before the
meeting regarding the location of additional parking spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval of the revised plan was made and
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - File No. 582
NAME: Chelsea Square - Revised PRD
LOCATION: 211 Hinson Road
APPLICANT: Reagan-Cone Constr. Co.
P.O. Box 5412
Little Rock, AR 72215
Rocky Reagan - Phone: 225-9363
Richard Cone - Phone: 227-7063
REQUEST: To revise the location of two buildings on an
approved site plan.
STAFF REPORT:
The applicant is requesting that he be allowed to revise a
site plan to allow for the separation of structures which
were previously approved as detached units.
At the Subdivision Committee Meeting, the applicant was
asked to notify the abutting property - owner to the north
of the building currently being constructed only have a ten
foot setback.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
TtPm Mn- 9
NAME: Lee Stephens - Site Plan Review
(Z- 4431 -B)
LOCATION: The North Side of State
Highway 10 West of the Pankey
Community (14,900 Cantrell Rd.)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Lee Stevens /David Henry
PROPOSAL:
To rezone 2+ acres from "R-2" to "O-2" and to convert an
existing 1500 square foot single family structure to an
office use.
STAFF ANALYSIS
This property is adjacent to single family uses to the west
and vacant land to the north. Commercial uses lie to the
south and east. The proposed site plan meets ordinance
requirements in regard to parking and minimum site area.
The proposal contains a 6-foot opaque screening fence on the
north, east and south property line. The site plan is,
however, deficient in two respects. The plan should be
revised to incorporate all of the property. Secondly, the
site plan should include a 25-foot landscaped strip parallel
to State Highway No. 10. Finally, the Fire Department
requests a 20 -foot access drive rather than the 18-foot
access drive as shown.
CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
(1) An in -lieu contribution is required for boundary street
improvements on State Highway No. 10; (2) dedicate
right-of-way on State Highway No. 10; and (3) submit
stormwater detention plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a
revised site plan that includes the entirety of the
property, a 25-foot landscaped buffer parallel to State
Highway No. 10, and a 20-foot access drive; (2) meet City
Engineering requirements No. 1, 2, and 3.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The staff stated that its
recommendation of the site plan approval did not constitute
an endorsement of the proposed rezoning. The Committee and
the applicant discussed the possibility of changing the
proposal to a PUD. The applicant then agreed to comply with
staff recommendations in regard to the site plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were two objectors
present. Ms. Saugey and Ms. Bonnie Cartland opposed the
rezoning and stated that the Suburban Development Plan
called for this property to remain single family.
Mr. David Henry spoke in behalf of the applicant and stated
that a nonconforming commercial use was located adjacent to
the east and that an office use on his property would act as
a buffer to the single family to the west. The Commission
then voted on Z-4431-A and Z-4431-B (site plan). The vote
was to deny these proposals by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2
absent and 2 abstentions (Rector, Summerlin).
August 13, 1985
Item No. 9A - Z-4431-A
Owner: Al Deaver & A.C. Freeman
Applicant: Lee Stephens by David Henry
Location: 14,900 Cantrell Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family
to "O-2" Office and Institutional
Purpose: Office
Size: 2.0 acres ±
Existing Use: Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
South - Single Family and Commercial,
Zoned "R-2" and "C-3"
East - Commercial, Zoned "R-2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone the property in question to
"O-2." The proposed use is a real estate appraisal
office with four employees. The "O-2" district is a
site plan review district and the required site plan
for 14,900 Cantrell Road is on this agenda for Planning
Commission consideration and approval. The proposal is
to utilize the existing structure with some minor
changes, and to provide the necessary parking and
landscaping. Because of the type of use being
proposed, traffic generated by the office will be
fairly light. This section of Highway 10 from Pinnacle
Valley Road to the west is made up of residential and
nonresidential uses which include a church, landscaping
business and a food store. The majority of the
nonresidential uses along this segment of Highway 10
are nonconforming with the exception of the food store
east of Taylor Loop Road and the antique store west of
Taylor Loop Road. Those two locations are zoned
"C-3. "
2. The site is flat and occupied by single family
residents with a barn.
August 13, 1985
Item No. 9-A - Continued
3. State Highway No. 10 (Cantrell Road) is classified as a
major arterial on the Master Street Plan. Dedication
of additional right-of-way will be required because the
existing right-of-way is deficient. The recommended
right-of-way for Highway 10 is 100 feet or 50 feet from
the centerline of the road.
4. No adverse comments have been received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues associated with this request.
6. In April 1985, an attempt was made to rezone the tract
to "C-3." The staff recommended denial of the "C-3"
rezoning. During the Planning Commission public
hearing, the applicant amended the request to "O-3."
The amended application to "O-3" was denied by the
Planning Commission. The issue was never appealed to
the City Board of Directors. The neighborhood's
position regarding nonresidential rezoning in the area
has been well documented over the years. Property was
annexed into the City in 1979.
7. The Suburban Development Plan does not identify the
location for any type of nonresidential use and staff
does not support the "O-2" request based on the plan.
In November 1984, the City Board of Directors amended
the Suburban Development Plan to designate the
intersection of Taylor Loop and Highway 10 for
commercial uses. The property in question is just west
of the commercial line now shown on the Suburban
Development Plan. There was no provision made for a
"step down approach" to zoning at this location. The
staff's position is that the existing line for
nonresidential uses should be maintained because
rezoning property beyond the identified commercial area
will then make it difficult to draw lines in the
future. The approval of this request could establish
precedent for rezoning other sites east and west of
Taylor Loop.
NOTE: There is a bylaw issue attendant to this request
that should be resolved prior to the Planning
Commission taking action on the rezoning. The
issue is one of reapplication because of the
previous application being filed in April 1985.
The bylaw provision for reapplication is:
August 13, 1985
Item No. 9-A - Continued
"Except for cause and with unanimous consent of
all members present at a regular meeting no
application for rezoning of property shall be
considered if a former application embracing the
same property or portion thereof has been denied
by the Commission within a period of 12 months
preceeding the application. If the Commission
decides to rehear a case it will require a new
fee, legal ad, notice, etc., as required for new
application."
The fee has been paid and the necessary legal ad has been
published.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends denial of the "O-2" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were two objectors
present. Ms. Saugey and Ms. Bonnie Cartland opposed the
rezoning and stated that the Suburban Development Plan
called for this property to remain single family.
Mr. David Henry spoke in behalf of the applicant and stated
that a nonconforming commercial use was located adjacent to
the east and that an office use on his property would act as
a buffer to the single family to the west. The Commission
then voted on Z-4431-A and Z-4431-B (site plan). The vote
was to deny these proposals by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2
absent and 2 abstentions (Rector, Summerlin).
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - File No. 125-B
NAME: Tall Timber West "Revised PRD"
(Z-3640-B)
LOCATION: Highway 5 at Timberland Drive
APPLICANT:
Byron L. Magness
Magness, Inc.
4023 Shackleford Road
Little Rock, AR 72204
Phone: 224-4100
ENGINEER:
Bob Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664-0003
REQUEST: Revision of an Approved PRD
STAFF REPORT
Phases 1 and 2 of the Tall Timber West "PRD" was approved by
the Commission on September 14, 1982. The plan involved the
construction of 11 lots on 1.92 acres. The concept included
development of attached single family structures of 800
square feet each and one single family unit on a separate
lot. The plan was to incorporate "passive solar concepts"
and appeal to the $35,000 to $45,000 market.
The current and new owner of the existing development began
construction of a building footprint other than that which
was originally approved. Building permits had been issued
and construction started on about half of the unit when it
was discovered that the units differed from the original
plan. There is also an existing octagon duplex on the site
that Mr. Magness is managing, but is owned by Pulaski
Mortgage.
The request before the Commission is for a revision of the
PUD to allow for buildings with 590 square feet as currently
being constructed. The applicant also wants to abandon the
ownership concept and provide rental units.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff recommends that the neighborhood be notified since the
original approval included owner - occupied units, instead of
the rental units now proposed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments made.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Mr. Bob Richardson represented the developer. He stated
that the units would remain individually owned. Staff
requested that Pulaski Mortgage participate since it is also
owner of a structure within the plat boundaries. The
applicant was asked to comply with the notification
requirements for a PUD.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Staff reported that there was
untimely notice. Ms. Carolyn Briggs, an abutting property
owner, requested deferral of the project due to inadequate
knowledge of the project and the need for more time in order
that she may get together with her neighbors.
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - File No. 377-A
NAME: Forest Trails (Aldersgate and
Kanis Apts. "Revised PRD ")
LOCATION: I-430 and Kanis
APPLICANT /ENGINEER: Bob Richardson
1717 Rebsame Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664-0003
REQUEST: Revision of an Approved PRD
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request to revise an approved PRD project. The
revisions include:
1. A reduction from 350 apartment units to 322.
2. Moving of a recreation area and swimming pool to a more
central location with parking.
3. The addition of one curb cut.
4. Changing building and parking layout.
5. Parking spaces numbering 502.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. Boundary street improvements and right-of-way,
Aldersgate and Kanis.
2. City Engineer requests developer to shift Aldersgate
Road to east for better sight distance.
3. Stormwater detention and erosion control required.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff is favorable to the request, since it represents an
improvement over the previous plan. The applicant has
reduced the density of units and incorporated our original
suggestion for relocating the recreation /swimming area. We
are requesting that the applicant provide more dimensions on
the site plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments made.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that a revised site plan was being
sent from out of town and it had not yet arrived. He
promised to submit it to the staff before the public
hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval of the revised plan was made and
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME: Little Rock Racquet Club
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-1840-A)
LOCATION: The Southwest Corner of the
Intersection of Huntington and
Foxcroft Roads
( #1 Huntington Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Little Rock Racquet Club/
Edward G. Smith
PROPOSAL:
To construct an enclosure (126' x 250') of four existing
tennis courts and an enclosure (220' x 1401) of an existing
swimming pool located on 10.3+ acres of land that is zoned
"R-4."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The intersection of a collector street ( Foxcroft Road)
and a residential street (Huntington Road).
2. Compatability with Neighborhood
The adjacent uses are single family on the south, east,
and west. A multifamily use lies to the north. This
property acts as a buffer from the commercial and
multifamily uses to the north. It is a well integrated
part of the residential community.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
One 27-foot drive provides access to the site. The
site currently contains 80 paved parking spaces. An
additional 53 spaces are provided for overflow parking
north of the swimming pool.
4. Screening and Buffers
The existing site is heavily wooded adjacent to the
single family uses.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
5. Analysis
This use is compatible with the surrounding area. The
site meets ordinance parking requirements.
6. City Engineering Comments
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The staff stated that there was
a private 6" sewer line under the proposed pool building and
that the Sewer Department had requested that it be relocated
or that construction proceed with caution. The staff also
stated that the Water Department required an on-site fire
hydrant. There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
staff stated that the applicant had submitted a revised site
plan that was acceptable. The Commission then voted 8 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Summerlin) to approve the
application as recommended by staff and reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME: Christ the King Catholic Church
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-3836-A)
LOCATION: Between Woodland Heights Road
and North Rodney Parham Road
(4000 North Rodney Parham Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Catholic Diocese of Arkansas/
Canino, Maune, McQueen, Inc.
To amend a previously approved conditional use permit which
will allow the construction of a two-story 23,000 square
foot elementary school and an 11,000 square foot
multipurpose building on land that is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to an arterial street (Rodney Parham Road) and
a residential street (Woodland Heights Road).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The church use is an existing use. Office uses are
adjacent to the south and east. Single family uses lie
to the north and west. This site is compatible with
the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parki
This site has four existing access drives (3 from
Rodney Parham Road and 1 from Woodland Heights Road).
There are 230 existing parking spaces with an
additional 67 spaces under construction.
4. Screeninq and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
5. Analysis
The current site plan is not complete. The applicant
needs to submit a revised site plan that includes
landscaping, the dimensions of all structures (both
existing and proposed) and drives. The current
proposal replaces three former proposed structures with
two structures. Improvements to Woodland Heights Road
were to be required at the time of the applicant's next
building permit or request. The applicant has
fulfilled all past requirements.
6. City Engineering Comments
(1) Improve boundary street (Woodland Heights) the
entire distance along the north property line;
(2) discuss sidewalk requirements - probably needed
on both north and west streets due to the elementary
school location; and (3) submit drainage and detention
plans.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a
revised site plan which includes landscaping and dimensions
of structures and drives; (2) comply with Engineering
comments Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The staff stated that an on-site
fire hydrant would be required. The applicant agreed to
comply with all staff recommendations with the exception of
the sidewalk issue and street improvements to Woodland
Heights Road. The applicant stated that they would like to
phase the development and include the street improvements to
Woodland Heights Road in Phase II (construction of the
second proposed structure). The sidewalk issue was
discussed but not resolved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors
present. The staff stated that the applicant had submittted
a revised site plan but that it lacked dimensions on both
existing and proposed structures. Staff also stated that
the applicant planned for three phases and was requesting
that the improvements on Woodland Heights be required after
Phase III was completed. The applicant agreed to submit
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
a revised site plan. The staff stated that the improvements
to Woodland Heights were to be required at issuance of the
next building permit according to the originally approved
Conditional Use Permit. The Commission then voted 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent to approve this application as
recommended by staff and reviewed by the Subdivision
Committee which included the requirement of the construction
of the sidewalk and Woodland Heights Road at the issuance of
the next building permit.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME: Base Line Conditional Use Permit
(Z-3549-A)
LOCATION: The Northwest Corner of Base
Line Road and Verbena Drive
(6600 Base Line Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Michael Eades /Glynn Reynolds
PROPOSAL:
To construct a muffler and auto repair shop (5,000 square
feet) on .40+ acres of land that is zoned "C-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The intersection of an arterial (Base Line Road) and a
residential street (Verbena).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is adjacent to single family on the north
and west. Vacant property lies across Base Line Road
to the south and an office use is adjacent to the east.
An auto repair and muffler shop is a "C-4" by right
use. This location is not suitable (even
conditionally) for the proposed use. The site would be
better suited for light retail or office uses.
3. On-Site Drives and Parki
The applicant is proposing three access drives (two
from Base Line, one from Verbena). The plan also calls
for 22 paved parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff views this site as inappropriate for the
proposed use. A muffler shop with auto repair is not
compatible with the surrounding area. The site plan is
deficient due to a lack of dimensions on the building
and drives and a lack of screening and /or landscaping
plan.
6. City Engineering Comments
(1) Improve Base Line Road to arterial standards (5
lanes); (2) construct a sidewalk for the full width of
the property along Base Line Road; and (3) submit
detention plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denial.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The City Engineer stated that
only one access drive would be allowed on Baseline Road and
that it should be located away from the intersection of
Verbena and Baseline. The applicant agreed to submit a
revised site plan that would incorporate staff
recommendations. The applicant objected to the staff
recommendation of denial. The staff stated that the "C-3"
zoning was a part of a zoning conversion adjustment and that
a "C-3" zoning designation would not be supported today.
The applicant stated that there were "C-4" uses all along
Baseline Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were 11 objectors
present. A petition containing 29 signatures in opposition
was also presented. The applicant stated that a service
station could be built in "C-3" and that his business was
clean. The neighborhood reiterated the opposition to the
proposal and asked how the property ever came to be zoned
"C-3." The staff stated that the "C-3" zoning was part of a
"conversion adjustment" that occurred after the City adopted
a new Zoning Ordinance. The Commission asked the staff to
report back to the Commission on how this property came to
be zoned "C-3." The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 0 noes
and 4 absent to deny this application.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15
NAME: Cantrell Road Day-Care
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4493)
LOCATION: The Southeast Corner of
Cantrell Road and Taylor St.
(5521 Cantrell Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Warren and Polly W. Baldwin/
J. Patrick Baldwin
PROPOSAL
To convert an existing 1450 square foot single family
structure to a preschool facility (20, capacity) on a lot
that is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The intersection of an arterial (Cantrell Road) and a
residential street (Taylor).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is surrounded by single family on three
sides and commercial on the north side of Cantrell.
The use is compatible but the site is not. Taylor
Street is a one-way street south and room for
maneuvering to drop off children is not adequate.
This, in addition to heavy traffic flow on Cantrell,
could possibly pose serious safety problems.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
The applicant is proposing four parking spaces with one
access drive on Taylor Street.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing a privacy fence on the south
and east property lines. Landscaping is also proposed.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
5. Analysis
The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding
area. Heavy commercial development lies to the north
across Cantrell Road. Staff has concerns about the
site itself. Taylor Street is one -way south off
Cantrell Road and provides access to this site. The
site configuration along with the close proximity to
Cantrell Road and the lack of an appropriate drop off
area for children are causes for concern. Staff does
not feel that the proposed site is suitable for a
day-care center.
6. City Engineering Comments
(1) Improve North Taylor Street to residential street
standards for the length of the property; and
(2) traffic comments to be forthcoming.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denial.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and stated that the proposal was a
preschool and not a day-care center. The City Engineer
stated that the design was unacceptable because it would
encourage backing into the street and did not include an
area for a drop-off. The applicant stated that this was a
good site for a preschool. The staff suggested that the
applicant redesign its parking and possibly procure an
agreement with Krogers for off-site parking. The applicant
stated that they would make an effort.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. The staff stated that the
applicant had submitted a letter requesting withdrawal. The
Planning Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent
to accept withdrawal of this item.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
NAME: West 11th Duplex - Conditional
Use Permit (Z-4505)
LOCATION: The north side of West 11th
Street just west of Peyton St.
(4408 West 11th Street)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Don H. and Anna M. Thomas
PROPOSAL:
To convert an existing 1400 square foot single family
structure to a duplex.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (West 11th Street).
2. Compatibilitv with Neiqhborhood
The property is surrounded by single family uses on
three sides. A duplex and triplex use is located to
the east. The existing housing structure is not in
good condition. The applicant is proposing to renovate
it. The proposed use is compatible with the
surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parkin
The applicant is proposing one access drive from
West 11th Street and four parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
A landscape plan has been submitted.
5. Analysis
The applicant's proposal meets City ordinance
requirements. The only concern staff has is the narrow
access drive (eight feet).
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
6. City Engineering Comments
(1) Access to the rear of the property is questionable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. There was no discussion on
this item.
PLANNING COMMISION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The staff stated that one letter
of opposition was received from Mrs. E.E. Poe. There were
no objectors present. A brief discussion ensued. The
applicant stated that he simply forgot the Subdivision
Committee meeting. He was advised that he should attend
future Subdivision Committee meetings. He stated that he
would. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4
absent to approve this application as filed.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
NAME: Chicot Road Day Care Center
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4507)
LOCATION: The Southeast Corner of Melford
and Chicot Roads (10,201 Chicot
Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: W.E. and Gertrude Ralls /Diane
Fallis
PROPOSAL:
To convert an existing 1225 square foot single family
structure to a day-care center (35 capacity) by enclosing a
407 square foot carport (1,632 square feet total) on .45+
acres of land that is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to an arterial street ( Chicot Road) on the
west and a residential street (Melford Road) to the
north.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
Single family uses exist on the north and east. A
commercial center exists on the west with vacant
property on the south. The proposed use is compatible
with the surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
The proposal contains one ingress and one egress to
Melford Drive. Seven parking spaces are also proposed.
4. Screeninq and Buffers
A landscape plan has been submitted.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
5. Analysis
The proposal is compatible with the surrounding area.
The size of this lot allows for a greater flexibility
and development of the site. Staff does not have any
concerns regarding this proposal.
6. City Engineering Comments
(1) Improvement of Melford Road to residential
standards is required for the length of the
development; (2) a sidewalk is required on Chicot Road;
and (3) the applicant needs to submit a revised
circulation and parking plan to the City traffic
engineer.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to the applicant agreeing to comply with
City engineering requirements Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with all
staff recommendations except street improvements on Melford
Road. A discussion ensued over the cost of street
improvements to Melford Road. The City Engineer stated that
the drainage and street work would likely be quite
expensive. The applicant stated that they would like to
request a waiver of street improvements on Melford Road.
The Committee suggested that the applicant solicit a general
cost estimate of the required improvements to better serve
their request of the waiver.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
staff advised the Commission that the applicant had
submitted a revised site plan that was acceptable. The
staff also stated that the applicant had submitted a letter
requesting that improvements to Melford Road be waived. The
letter stated that a licensed contractor had estimated
improvement costs to Melford Road at $30,000. The City
Engineer stated that estimate seemed too high. A brief
discussion ensued. The applicant stated he would build the
sidewalk on Chicot Road. The Commission then voted 7 ayes,
0 noes, 3 absent, 1 abstention (Jones) to approve the
application as recommended by staff, reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee, and agreed to by the applicant.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Other Matters /Street Abandoment
NAME: Alley in Block 29, Lincoln
Park Addition
LOCATION: West 90 feet of the 10-foot
alley running west off
North Taylor Street - This alley
lies approximately one-half
block north of Lee Street.
OWNER /APPLICANT: Matthew Holody
REQUEST:
To abandon the existing dedication and join with the
abutting lots.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right-of-Way
None evidenced at this writing for utility easements.
However, drainage easement rights should be protected
due to a large ditch in this block.
2. Master Street Plan
No involvement at this location.
3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adiacent Streets
The abutting rights-of-way are appropriate at this
time.
4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
This alley has not been used as a public thoroughfare
since platting. It is encroached upon by a large
drainage easement and is unuseable.
5. Development Potential
This right-of-way has potential only as additional yard
space for the adjacent small lot single family
development.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
No adverse effects will be experienced by this
abandonment. The adjacent land uses are primarily
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Continued
single family with a scattering of duplexes. Most lots
are developed at this time as residential.
7. Neiqhborhood Position
None has been expressed at this writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
No adverse effects should be experienced if easement
rights are retained for utilities and drainage.
9. Reversionary Rights
The petitioner will receive the entire right-of-way
inasmuch as he owns the developing lots on both sides.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This petition is the result of a lot recombination whereby
this petitioner combined 30-foot platted lots into 40-foot
and larger lots in order to build new single family
structures. The alley abandonment will allow additional
yard spaces for these small lots and increase livability.
The staff recommends approval of the abandonment subject to
retaining the standard easement and drainage clause within
the ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-13-85)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the City Board
that the alley be abandoned as recommended by the staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19
NAME: Woodland Hills - Bill of
Assurance Amendment
LOCATION: Mara Lynn Drive
APPLICANT: Danny Thomas
REQUEST: Revision of an "The Woodland Hills PRD" Bill of
Assurance
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request for two amendments to the Woodland Hills
Bill of Assurance. Currently, Lot 51 through 61, Block 3,
are restricted to a single building with two units and a
common wall, and there is also a provision requiring six
additional "paired units" on other platted lots. The
applicant is now asking to allow paired units on any two
contiguous lots, but not to require paired units on any part
of the development.
This restriction was based on the developer agreeing to
provide paired units on lots backing up to existing paired
units in Phase 1. The lots in Phase 2 have been sold to Fox
and Jacobs subject to the removal of this requirement. They
are constructing single family detached homes on each lot
with a minimum 5-foot sideyard.
The other amendment requested is for removal of the
restriction preventing front entry garages.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was represented by his attorney, Mr. Chris
Barrier. Mr. Barrier briefly explained the proposal to the
Committee. No issues were found.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Danny Thomas, and his attorney, Mr. Chris
Barrier, were in attendance. Mr. Barrier explained the
request and stated that the developer desired an option to
construct paired units or conventional housing and the
removal of the prohibition against garages on the front.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Continued
Several members of the existing development were present.
They strongly objected to the changes since it was felt that
this was a departure from the concept that they bought.
Mr. Wayne Dawson, one of the original homeowners, felt that
the new and smaller, single family, detached units to be
constructed would adversely affect the original paired
single family structures. He referred to a brochure about
the project that advertised the attached structures. Other
persons that echoed similar concerns were Mr. Zach Baer and
Ms. Mary Ann Jones. They were also concerned about the
smaller homes abutting their homes.
Finally, a motion was made for approval, subject to 10 lots
backing up to Phase 1 being retained as duplex lots or
replatted into 60' lots and the rest as traditional single
family with standard setbacks. The motion was approved by a
vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 abstention.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20
NAME: Bernard and Marzella Ray
Illegal Lot Transfer Review
LOCATION: 1802 S. Elm
Little Rock, AR
REQUEST: Planning Commission guidance on illegal lot
transfer /ownership.
STAFF REPORT:
The applicants are requesting Planning Commission guidance
as to their current predicament. Recently, they bought the
one-story frame home shown on the sketch from Mr. Calvin
Muldrow. They hired a surveyor who split the lots into two
parcels so that Mr. Muldrow's home would be on the lot
facing South Elm and theirs would face 18th Street. They
have now found out that the house has been condemned and
electricity can't be provided. Furthermore, both lots have
been made nonconforming with widths and depths of 35' and
75'.
Due to the inadequate lot sizes, staff refused to sign off
on the lot split. Upon site investigation, it was
discovered that 18th Street is a gravel road and both homes
are located approximately 3' from each other. The applicant
has asked to find out how long the house on West 18th has
been on the site since it does not appear to be that old.
The Commission is asked to provide guidance as to the
situation or to direct the City Attorney to pursue the
matter.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicants were not present, there was no review
of the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicants were not present. The Commission voted to
defer the item for 30 days to allow the applicants time to
contact the staff. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (6-27-85)
Since the applicants were not in attendance, there was no
further review of the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-9-85)
The applicant was not in attendance. The Planning
Commission chose not to discuss the request inasmuch as this
is the third meeting in which the applicant was absent. A
motion was made to withdraw the request from further
consideration. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0
noes and 3 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (7-25-85)
The applicant was present. The situation was explained to
the Committee. The Staff explained that the Commission had
the option of approving the inadequate lots or of asking the
City Attorney to pursue the matter. It was suggested that
the Commission send a resolution to the Surveyor expressing
displeasure with his participation in the matter.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21 - File No. 361-A
NAME: K-Mobile Home Park Extension
(Revised)
LOCATION: Approximately 800' East of
Alexander Road, South Side of
Highway 5
DEVELOPER:
W.A. Jones
#9 Don Drive
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 455-3316, 455-3480
ENGINEER:
Bickerstaff, Inc.
1809 West 35th Street
North Little Rock, AR 72118
AREA: 20.35 acres NO. Of LOTS: 136 FT. NEW ST.:
ZONING: "R-7"
PROPOSED USE: Mobile Homes
REQUEST: Revision of an Approved Mobile Home Park
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request to revise an approved plan for a mobile
home park: (a) increasing the spaces from 127 to 136,
(b) providing a stub out street instead of cul-de-sac on the
southeast part of the property, and (c) changing the access
to the playground.
The applicant should submit a properly dimensioned site plan
so that the specific technical requirements may be reviewed.
Typicals should also be reflected on this plan along with a
vicinity map and legal description. The lot sequence is
wrong since the submitted plan shows two lots with the
number 269.
The previous approval involved no storage spaces since extra
wide lots were provided. If the density is increased, then
the storage spaces will be needed. The applicant has stated
more lots were needed for proper drainage. Staff prefers
the original plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff reserves recommendation at this time.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The revised plan was submitted. Review was prohibited due
to the inadequacy of the site plan. The applicant was asked
to submit a detailed plan and submit evidence of approval
from AP &L on the 13th.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A revised plan and the utility
letters were submitted. A lengthy discussion was held.
Finally, a motion to approve the request was denied for the
following reasons: (1) unacceptable increase in density;
(2) location of lots in 50' right-of-way; (3) violation of
original agreement to provide slightly larger mobile lots in
exchange for a waiver of the common storage area usually
required; and (4) nonconformance to the previous plan
authorized. The motion also included the approval of one
revision to the original plan and a stub-out street on the
southeastern corner in lieu of the cul-de-sac that was
approved. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22
NAME: Boneless Ham Addition
Site Plan Review
LOCATION: 3200 Woodrow Street
APPLICANT: Smoky Hollow Foods
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request for site plan review of a multiple
building site. There are currently two buildings on site.
(1) Vehicle Maintenance Facility
Truck Maintenance .............5,130 square feet
(2) Main Building ....................123,790 square feet
Warehouse 34,382 sq. ft.
Production 80,188 sq. ft.
Office 9,220 sq. ft.
The applicant is requesting to add a third building of 6,000
square feet for use as a plant equipment maintenance
building.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was asked to submit a revised plan indicating
the setback in the area of the addition, and existing and
proposed parking.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 23 - Downtown Little Rock Streetscape Strat
The Downtown Streetscape Guidelines are before the Planning
Commission for their review and recommendation to the Board
of Directors. The guidelines were an outgrowth of a study
sponsored by the City Beautiful Commission at the request of
Sterling Cockrill of the Metrocentre Commission and various
downtown businessmen. The strategy was reviewed by the
Plans Committee on July 19, 1985. The meeting was attended
by committee members, staff, as well as Bill Gaskin of the
City Beautiful Commission and Don Wolfe of the Downtown
Partnership.
The Committee decided to endorse the strategy with the
deletion of the one percent project requirement for the arts
as well as the insertion of an additional paragraph which
states:
Further recognizing the public good inherent in an
attractive streetscape, the City should have a program
to match on a 50/50 basis, private dollars expended on
streetscape improvements within the public right-of-way
in both residential and commercial areas.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-13-85)
Acting Chairman Ketcher asked Mr. Greeson for staff comment.
Mr. Greeson said that Robert Atkinson would give the staff's
comments. Mr. Atkinson stated that staff would like to
delete item No. 3 and the last paragraph of item No. 7 of
the staff's addenda to the Downtown Little Rock Streetscape
Strategy. Commissioner Jones then moved that the Downtown
Little Rock Streetscape Strategy incorporating the staff's
addenda minus the above mentioned changes and those changes
by the Plans Committee be forwarded to the Board of
Directors with a unanimous recommendation of approval. He
further congratulated the staff and the City Beautiful
Commission for their efforts on this project. There being
no discussion, this motion was seconded and approved by a
vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24 - Consultant Selection - Extraterritorial Land
Use Plan and Annexation Study
A Consultant Selection Committee reviewed proposals
submitted by three-associations of firms and also
interviewed the firms. The Committee utilized a
predetermined objective evaluation criteria with a weighted
point system. The Committee voted unanimously to accept the
result of the method of selection, which was that the firm
of Manes, Castin, Massie & McGetrick in joint venture with
Garver and Garver, be selected. The members of the
Consultant Selection Committee were: Bob Hess, member of
the Board of Directors; David Jones, Planning Commission
member; Bob Lane, Director of Public Works; Gary Greeson,
Director, Office of Comprehensive Planning; and Jim Lawson,
Chief of Advanced Planning, Office of Comprehensive
Planning.
Staff Recommendation:
Endorsement of the selection of the firm Manes, Castin,
Massie & McGetrick, in joint venture with Garver and Garver,
to prepare the Extraterritoial Land Use Plan and Annexation
Study for the City of Little Rock.
-ZONING c
MEMBER
J.s
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Si es
J.Nicholson
w.Rector
w.Ketcher
D.Arnett
D.J. Jones
I.Boles
J � Clayton
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
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
·: : · · ZONING . -·' · SUBDIVISION -.
MEMBER l/9 J/'J ,;J,J �J_ '13 oW
.J. �innmr:>..-1-in ✓ I/ ✓ / / /
J.Schlereth ✓ I✓ �✓ I✓ / I/
R.Massie yf I.I I II
B.Sloes ✓ I✓ ✓ ✓✓
.A J.Nicholson I "
w.Rector ✓ I✓ I ✓ I/ -✓
w.Ketcher IA :✓ IA-I✓ fl !/
D.Arnett ,/ II / ✓ 1/ ·,1
0� J. Jones / ✓ I ./ ✓
• I / ✓ I ✓ ✓ '✓I. Bo_les
J� Cl_�yton fl-y II V Ir v
✓AYE . • NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
,
-/ I
'_ _)
August 13, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business, the meeting as adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Date
Secretary Chairman