Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_03 13 1984subEi LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD MARCH 13, 1984 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of Quorum. A Quorum was present being 11 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting. The minutes were approved. III. Members present: IV. Members absent: V. City Attorney present: John Schlereth David Jones Richard Massie Betty Sipes Jim Summerlin Ida Boles William Ketcher Jerilyn Nicholson Bill Rector Dorothy Arnett John Clayton None. Hugh Brown r f i SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES March 13, 1984 Deferred Items: A. Yorktowne Apartments "PRD" B. East 7th Street Closure and Nichols Avenue Preliminary Plats: 1. The Ridge Subdivision 2. Cedar Branch Subdivision 3. Turley Subdivision 4. Otter Creek Community (Tract A -1) 5. Pleasant Valley 22nd Hole Planned Unit Development: 6. Captain D's Restaurant Site Plan Review 7. Parham View Place Preliminary /Site Plan Review 8. John Mattingly Furniture Site Plan Review 9. Claremore Court Site Plan Review 10. Stanton Court Site Plan Review Conditional Use Review: 11. Trinity Assembly of God (Z -4181) 12. Hinson Road Utility Station (Z -4186) 13. Holy Souls (Z -4184) 14. Mabelvale West Road Day -Care Center (Z -4185) Building Line Waiver: 15. Bonnette Building Line Waiver 16. Lot 1, Marcus Addition Building Line Waiver March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: Yorktowne Apartments Long Form " P RD" LOCATION: NW Corner of Rodney Parham and West Capitol DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: John A. Rees Company Steve Sharp /Sewell Architects Investment Properties 10020 Rodney Parham, Suite C 13401 Beckenham Drive Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR 72212 Phone: 374 -9219 Phone: 224 -0432 AREA: 6.6 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "MF- 24 "/ 110 -3" PROPOSED USES: Multifamily apartments A. Site History A previous proposal for a multifamily development of nine fourplexes was approved by the Commission in mid -1983. During that time, it was pointed out that the City had a drainage project which would require the purchase or condemnation of 25' to 30' along the western edge of this property. B. Development Objectives 1. The enhancement of the area by the construction of luxury apartments and the provision of convenient, enjoyable living conditions to many families in Little Rock. 2. The creation of a New England look and mood by the construction of a Williamsburg -type appearance that would require a minimal amount of maintenance due to the use of all brick. 3. To help satisfy the overwhelming demand in the City for one - bedroom units by providing a choice of styles and more of this type of unit. 4. To begin construction around April or May of 1984, with the construction period lasting six to nine months. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued C. Development Proposal 1. The construction of a 178 unit apartment complex on 6.6 acres. 2. Development Schedule Unit Type Unit No. Unit Size One - Bedroom Flat 60 Units 500 sq. ft. One - Bedroom Town House 60 Units 640 sq. ft. Two - Bedroom 58 Units 1000 sq. ft. 3. Parking - 285 spaces 4. Amenities are to include a swimming pool, laundry room to service the smaller one - bedroom units, and office and recreation room. The units will be carpeted with the provision of refrigerators, washer /dryer connections, electric stoves, ovens and disposals. D. Engineering Comments 1. Dedicate right -of -way and improve 5th Street to residential street standards. 2. Close the drives for Rodney Parham by installing curb /gutter. 3. The 30' drainage structure previously planned on the western boundary of this project is no longer needed. 4. Submit internal drainage plan for this development. E. Analysis Staff is not opposed to the proposal presented. Since this is a Long Form PUD, the applicant must provide added information relative to floor plans, elevations and cross sections, building to land and open space ratios. Landscaping must meet City requirements. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant submitted a revised plan that provided a fire lane and reduced the parking spaces to 274. Staff pointed out that the applicant should try and modify this plan since the new fire lane intruded into an area that should provide a buffer between the single family area. He was told that the cause of some of his problems with the drives was because of denseness. He was advised to look at density. Several questions were raised about reported soil problems. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 13 -84) The applicant was present. A revised plan was submitted, which provided turnaround as requested by the Fire Department, a 30' buffer area on the west, and a reduction to 172 units. Staff stated that it was still concerned with the density of the project and would not support a density exceeding "MF -24." Several property owners from the neighborhood were in attendance. Mr. James Huntsman of 7900 West 5th submitted a petition from people in Sunnymeade. Two requests were made: (1) The 6' concrete wall without openings along the rear of the Sunnymeade property line, (2) Lots to face the east away from the homes. Mr. Gary Smith of 409 Sunnymeade, Mr. Martin Abels of 415 Sunnymeade, and Mr. H.R. Copeland of 307 Sunnymeade expressed concerns about drainage. They basically felt that drainage problems were worsened with development in the area and that the concrete wall would help contain the flow. The applicant agreed to provide the wall and reduce the units to "MF -25." The Commission informed the applicant that the eastern portion of the site plan should be redesigned since the parking area did not appear to be well arranged relative to the location of units. They felt that this was due to the denseness of the project and recommended that he reduce it to "MF -24." Finally, a motion to approve the site plan with a maximum of 158 units ( "MF -24 "), subject to redesigning of the project so it does not adversely affect the drainage problem to the west and that all lights are shielded so as not to shine west. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Since the applicant was not present, there was no review on the item. Water Works has reported that: (1) This proposal needs proper road dedication; on Fifth Street one -half of a 50 -foot right -of -way and on Rodney Parham one -half of an 80 -foot right -of -way. (2) A 5 -foot easement is required adjoining the north right -of -way of Fifth Street. (3) A 15 -foot easement is required adjoining the west right -of -way of Rodney Parham. (4) A 15 -foot easement is required of on -site facilities. An acreage charge of $150 per acre will be assessed on water connection. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were objectors from the neighborhood in attendance. Staff reported that the Fire Department had requested a cul -de -sac or street exit on the long north /south drive. The applicant stated objections to complying with this since it would reduce the size of the building on the north. Approximately five persons spoke. Among the speakers were (1) a gentleman for 7809 Apache Road, who objected to the possibility of increased traffic and crime; (2) the resident, who resides on the corner of Apache and Cunningham Lake, who complained of a drainage problem due to the spillover from Cunningham Lake and possible traffic problems and crime; (3) Mr. Gary Smith of 409 Sunnymeade, who was concerned about drainage, litter and traffic problems; and (4) Mr. Ed Brown of 3015 Rodney Parham, who opposed the use because of the traffic to be generated. A female resident was concerned about drainage problems. Other concerns expressed involved adequate buffering. Since the applicant was not present at the Subdivision Committee meeting, the Commission decided to send the proposal back to that Committee, with instructions for members to look at the fire comments, possibility of reducing the density, added buffers and drainage problems. The motion for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant submitted a revised plan that provided a fire lane and reduced the parking spaces to 274. Staff pointed out that the applicant should try and modify this plan since the new fire lane intruded into an area that should provide a buffer between the single family area. He was told that the cause of some of his problems with the drives was because of denseness. He was advised to look at density. Several questions were raised about reported soil problems. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B NAME: East Seventh Street and Nichols Avenue Right -of -Way Abandonment LOCATION: The area of East 6th Street and East 7th Street lying East of Fletcher APPLICANT: Conestoga Wood Specialties, Inc. By: W. Christopher Barrier REQUEST: Abandon + 415' and join with the abutting property. STAFF REPORT This proposal is part of a reconstruction and reorganization of the former Wrape properties. A proposal has been submitted in preliminary form for Board of Adjustment variance review dealing with the location of a parking lot on most of the abutting properties to these closures. The street right -of -way involved is used only as interval part of the drives and parking for Conestoga. The right -of -way on both streets has not been used by the general public and in the conventional request would be reason enough for closure. We feel that given the many discussions we have held with this owner about redevelopment and negotiations with Mr. Hill in Human Resources concerning land swaps that an overview of this development is in order. We believe that this owner should submit to the Planning Commission an overall scheme for review and approval in order to provide some guidance for all future actions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Deferral for at least 60 days. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Staff reported that several unresolved problems involving Board of Adjustment issues, to acquisition of railroad spurs, replatting and a desire by Human Resources for land acquisition, have prompted the recommendation for deferral. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion was made to defer this item for 60 days. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (3 -1 -84) Staff reported that all the issues had been resolved. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: McHowe Company 1015 Louisiana P.O. Box 1539 Little Rock, AR 72203 Phone: 376 -6838 AREA: 20.46 acres ZONING: "PRD" PROPOSED USES: The Ridge Subdivision On Cantrell, North of Jackson Reservoir ENGINEER: Delbert Van Landingham 1015 Louisiana P.O. Box 1539 Little Rock, AR 72203 Phone: 376 -6838 NO. OF LOTS: 24 Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: FT. OF NEW ST.: 2,000 1. Street grade on Ridgeview Court. 2. Cul -de -sac waiver on Ridgeview Court. A. Site History During the mid to latter part of 1983, the Commission approved a PUD proposal on this site for condominium use. There was significant neighborhood involvement. B. Existing Conditions The land involved consists of rugged topography with lot slopes ranging from 8 percent to 39 percent. The property is tree - covered with a single family house being the sole existing structure. Areas zoned for or developed as single family abut the site. C. Development Proposal This is the proposal to develop 20.46 acres into 24 lots of single family use with access to be provided by a private street system of approximately 2,0001. The average size of lots is 30,450 square feet with the minimum size to be 23,000 square feet. Waivers are requested for cul -de -sac length and street grade. Ridgeview Court exceeds Ordinance requirements by 150' and a 17 percent grade is requested for a short section of this street if needed. The applicant does not feel March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued that depth to width variances are needed since average widths may be used in cul -de -sacs. D. Engineering Considerations 1. Access on to Cantrell Road to be discussed with City Engineers. 2. Drainage review will be made with street plans. E. Analysis Staff feels that this land is severe enough to warrant a detailed hillside analysis. A private street system is permissible, provided the plan stays within the dictates of the Ordinance. This type of access is desired in hillside areas, but the applicant should meet the specified physical improvements. He has requested waivers related to street grade and cul -de -sac length. Variances for pavement width and lot to depth ratios are needed. If approved, the previous PUD zoning must be rescinded back to "R -2." Due to previous neighborhood participation, staff advises notification of the property owners. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant clarified the issues, stating that adequate pavement width was proposed. He agreed to notify all property owners within 2001. Engineering reported that the waiver for street grade was alright since the Ordinance allows a 2 percent leeway. Staff reported that it would check the plat according to the hillside's requirements. Water Works require easements and Engineering asked for improvements. Other issues involved a request for cul -de -sac and lot depth waivers. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Staff reported that they were not in objection to the use of the property as single family, but suggested that the applicant adhere to ordinance requirements versus requesting waivers for cul -de -sac lengths and lot to depth ratios and privacy streets. Staff pointed out that it was not opposed to a private street system, but would like for it to be constructed according to public street standards. The project engineer reported that the cul -de -sac waiver was requested so that they could get the maximum use of the land, and that the private street system was due to plan for a guardhouse at the entry. An abutting neighbor, Mr. H.G. Colburn, made objections to the placement of the drive 15' from his bedroom. Another property owner expressed concerns of the placement of sewer lines might immensely effect the existing foliage. Finally, a motion for approval of the plat and waivers, subject to the provision of a screening device on the eastern boundary along the entrance was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Cedar Branch Addition NW Corner of Fairview Road (Corner of Fairview and proposed Pleasant Ridge) ENGINEER: Phillips Development Corp. Edward G. Smith & Associates 1421 University, N -335 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR Phone: 374 -1666 AREA: 6.2 acres NO. OF LOTS: 18 FT. OF NEW ST.: 800 ZONING: PROPOSED USES: Multifamily VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site History None. B. Existing Conditions The land involved is currently wooded with elevations of 540' to 5801. It is bordered on the north by single family zoning, on the west by a PUD, and on the east by Fairview Road, and on the south by proposed Pleasant Ridge Road (which is now under construction). The sole structure on the property is a yellow frame house. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to plat a tract of 6.2 acres into 18 lots for multifamily development. Access is to be provided by 800' of new streets. The applicant is planning to place 18 fourplex units on the property. No variances have been requested. D. Engineering Considerations 1. Improve Fairview Road to residential standards. 2. Clarify where Fairview Road is to be closed in relation to the development. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued E. Analysis Staff's concern with this project does not necessarily involve the layout, but the approach taken. The "MF -12" District was not designed to accommodate small -lot development due to the restriction against front yard parking and the fact that the densities do not yield an equitable return. The small lots will penalize the developer because of the loss of density. In this district, no more than eight functional structures can be built on the property as proposed. The plan also involves an excessive amount of street. The applicant should be aware that a previous street improvement district issue involved neighborhood suggestions to abandon Fairview and Woodland Heights Roads, so that through traffic from Rodney Parham would be discouraged. It is possible that the issue has not been resolved. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee reviewed the proposal. Staff explained its view that the calculation of the right -of -way and the gross density causes a problem as to the distribution of the units among the lots proposed. The issue was generally described as involving a theoretical density that doesn't lend itself to this type of development. The applicant pointed out that a precedent had been set for this. Staff pointed out that it did not want to repeat this, since it causes design constraints on individual lots, resulting in Board of Adjustment applications for variances from builders. By approving this proposal, the Commission would be approving a plan, which would automatically build into the process variance requests. Staff recommended a PUD approach or submission of site - specific plans. It was determined that the City Attorney should be consulted on the legality of whether or not to include right -of -way in the calculation of gross density. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff identified the issues as involving: (1) A density question of whether or not the applicant can do as proposed and count gross density in total ownership, applying that uniformly as he determines on the lots without respect for individual densities. (2) Whether the right -of -way, both internally and on the boundaries, can be included in the density count. Staff felt that the ordinance disallows this. The City Attorney reported that he felt the ordinance would allow you to include internal right -of -way, but not boundary right -of -way. He also stated that the Commission should not approve lots less than designated in the Zoning Ordinance. A lengthy discussion was held concerning the intent of the ordinance relative to allowable lot size and density in "MF -12." The applicant's attorney was of the opinion that there was a discrepancy between the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances relative to minimum lot sizes for plats. He was informed that the Subdivision Ordinance has a provision whereas the lot sizes and setbacks were subject to the Zoning Ordinance in the City. Staff pointed out that it was trying to avoid a transfer of development rights and a need for Board of Adjustment variances. Finally, a motion was made and passed for approval, subject to the filing of a PUD /plat specifying setbacks, maximum number of units per lot and not specifying the exact size and precise location of building units. The motion passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 NAME: LOCATION: —ncsnr ^r nn Turley Subdivision NW Corner of 24th & Walker Charles R. Turley Sam Davis Engineers 3024 Longcoy Street 5301 W. 8th Little Rock, AR 72204 Little Rock, AR 72204 AREA: .625 acres ZONING: "R -4" Phone: 664 -0324 NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. OF NEW ST.: 305 PROPOSED USES: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site History None. B. Existing Conditions This property is located in an area composed of mixed residential uses. Currently, on the site are two structures. One involves a frame house, the other is brick, and they have recently been moved to the site. Street improvements are needed. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to plat a tract of .625 acres into two lots for duplex use. 300' of street dedication is proposed. The developer is in the process of having water service extended to the property and is agreeable to installing curb /gutter and widening Walker Street to 27'. D. Engineering Considerations 1. Dedicate right -of -way for a residential street on West 24th Street and Walker Street. 2. Improve Walker Street to residential street standards. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued E. Analysis Staff has found that Lot 2 does not meet the minimum lot width for the "R -4" zoning district. The lot line can be shifted 70' to meet what is required. The applicant has agreed to improve Walker Street and provide dedication as requested by the City Engineer. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Engineering pointed out that the applicant was not going to build 24th Street but would dedicate it. The Committee passed this to the Commission subject to a rezoning to "R -2" Single Family. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. A motion for approval was made and passed, subject to down zoning of the property to single family. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Rock Venture 209 W. 2nd Little Rock, AR Phone: 375 -4404 AREA: 3.25 acres ZONING: "MF -24" Otter Creek Community (Tract A -1) On Quail Run, approximately 350' from intersection with Otter Creek Parkway ENGINEER: The Hodges Firm 209 W. 2nd Little Rock, AR Phone: 375 -4404 NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 PROPOSED USES: Church VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site History The overall preliminary development plan on the subdivision has previously received approval. This site was designated for multifamily development at 24 units per acre. B. Existing Conditions This property is located in the Otter Creek Subdivision on Quail Run, approximately 300' from the intersection with Otter Creek Parkway. It is adjacent to a single family area and is directly across the street from a newly constructed church. The land is currently covered with an abundance of mature trees. Street improvements are in place. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to plat a tract of 3.255 acres into one lot for future use as a church. The buyers currently do not have any specific plans for the structural aspect of the plan. No variances have been requested. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued D. Engineering Considerations None. E. Analysis Staff has not found any significant problems with the proposal. However, the plan does not show any building lines. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He was advised that the conditional use would be needed when the structure is built. 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. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 NAME: Pleasant Valley 22nd Hole Subdivision LOCATION: On South side of Eldorado, approx. 2200' west of intersection of Eldorado and Valley Club Circle DRVF.T.nPRR - Fred Hunt Dev. Corp. AREA: 2.52 acres ZONING: "R -4" PROPOSED USES: PMnTMRRP- James L. Butler 222 Louise Street North Little Rock, AR Phone: 753 -4965 NO. OF LOTS: 6 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 42.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site History This site is currently a part of the Pleasant Valley Country Club's golf course. B. Existing Conditions This proposal is located in a single family area. It abuts the Pleasant Valley Golf Course on the south and Eldorado Drive on the north. Elevations range from 405' on the extreme southwest to 470' on the northeast. Existing vegetation consists of trees and varied underbrush. Sanitary sewer mains cross the site near the east and west ends. C. Development Proposal This application involves the platting of a 2.52 acre tract into six lots for single family use. The average lot size is 117' x 155' and the minimum 110' x 155.' March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued D. Engineering Considerations None. E. Analysis Staff questions the buildable nature of Lot 6 due to the existing sewer mains. The applicant should demonstrate its utility. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was not present. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion for approval, subject to down zoning of the property was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 NAME: Captain D's PCD (Z -4187) LOCATION: NW Corner of Palm and Markham DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Shoney, Inc. Summerlin & Associates 7509 Cantrell, Suite 101 1609 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR Phone: 664 -0499 AREA: .48 acres NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: PROPOSED USES: Commercial VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. STAFF REPORT The applicant has requested deferral of this item to next month's agenda, so that the proposal can be revised. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion of approval of the request for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 NAME: Parham View Addition Preliminary Plat Site Plan Review LOCATION: South Side of W. 5th Street 150' West of Rodney Parham Road Chester D. Phillips Finley Williams 1421 N. University /N -335 210 S. Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 666 -9629 AREA: 1.4 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R -5" PROPOSED USES: Multifamily PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 CENSUS TRACT: 21.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site History None. B. Proposal: 1. The construction of 36 units and 4 buildings on 1.4 acres. 2. Development Scheme: No. of Units Unit Type Unit Size 16 One - Bedroom Not Provided 20 Two - Bedroom Not Provided 36 Total Units 3. Parking - 54 spaces March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued C. Engineering Considerations 1. Improve West 5th Street to residential street standards; dedicate right -of -way for residential street. D. Analysis No problems of significance were found. Evidence was presented which stated that the property is not within the Special Flood Hazard Area, so flood insurance is not required. The site plan needs to be properly dimensioned reflecting proper building setbacks, distances between buildings and property lines. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The Committee reviewed the application and passed it to the Commission, subject to improvements mentioned and staff's comments. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: John Mattingly P.O. Box 5512 Little Rock, AR Phone: 666 -5407 AREA: 3.9 acres ZONING: "C -3" John Mattingly Site Plan Review SE Corner of 65th and Wakefield Drive PMnTMVVD- Porter - Crawford Co., Inc. P.O. Box 5512 Brady Station Little Rock, AR 72215 Phone: 666 -5407 NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 PROPOSED USES: Commercial A. Site History A Board of Adjustment variance was granted for Building C in the past year. B. Proposal: 1. The construction of two buildings and the use of four existing buildings on 3.9 acres for a commercial multiple building site. 2. Development Scheme: Bldg. Type Size A (Existing) 3 Leasing Spaces 3,750 sq. ft. B (Existing) Brake Repair Shop 2,480 sq. ft. C (Existing) Mattingly Furniture 6,000 sq. ft. D (Existing) Car Wash 1,000 sq. ft. E (Proposed) Furniture Shop 8,400 sq. ft. F (Proposed) Lease Building 5,000 sq. ft. 3. Provision of 68 Parking Spaces C. Engineering Considerations 1. Repair and replace curb /gutter along Wakefield Drive. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued 2. Discuss the need for the total number of driveways along 65th Street with the City Traffic Engineer at 371 -4858. D. Analysis The major issue to be resolved involves the establishment of an interior circulation system. Staff feels that the site plan should be revised to permanently fix the service drives. A plat should be submitted dedicating the drive throughout the center and off Wakefield as a 20' easement between Buildings A and B and a 45' service easement on the remainder of the property. A 45' service drive should also be platted from 65th Street to intersect with this drive. The second and third curb cuts from the east on 65th should be combined and the fourth should be omitted to provide for the 45' drive described above. Street repairs are needed along Wakefield. All parking and landscaping shall meet Ordinance requirements. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. F. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant was present. Staff presented its recommendation for revising the site plan. The applicant agreed to conform with the suggestions. He was advised to get with Engineering before the meeting to work on the interior circulation. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The revised plan was submitted, which was basically in accordance with the staff's suggestions, with the exception of the provision of interior curbing. The applicant agreed to revise the plan to show interior curbing. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 NAME: Claremore Court LOCATION: Approx. 225' west of intersection of Claremore Dr. and Reservoir Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Norman Holcomb & Company Sam Davis P.O. Box 7244 5301 West 6th Little Rock, AR 72217 Little Rock, AR Phone: 227 -7534 Phone: 664 -0324 AREA: 3.55 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 200 ZONING: "MF -6" PROPOSED USES: Condos A. Site History None. B. Proposal 1. The construction of 16 units on 3.55 acres for condominium use. 2. Development Scheme: Unit Type Unit No. Unit Size Two - Bedroom 16 1700 sq. ft. 3. Each unit will have a double garage. 4. A planting area and 6' privacy fence is proposed for a portion of the southern boundary. 5. A 25' dedication of right -of -way is proposed. E. Engineering Considerations 1. Construct one -half street improvement on Claremore Drive to residential standards. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued D. Analysis The proposed multifamily project is almost entirely surrounded by single family development. It is advisable that notification be given. The site plan shows a 5' setback adjacent to Lots 42 -45 in Echo Valley Park Addition. Buffers between single family and multifamily developments must be at least 25', except where drives are proposed into a 40' area. Staff feels that a cross - section through the site at this location will provide more information indicating the building to land relationship. More clarification is needed as to the nature of Claremore Drive. A plat should be submitted, indicating abutting ownerships and providing insight as to where the road ends. The appropriate dedication as determined by the City Engineer should be shown. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee reviewed the application and required that the applicant should notify only those property owners bordering Claremore, submit a plat giving more information on the source, dedication and abutting owners of Claremore, and conform to the setback requirements. The applicant explained that the setbacks were the result of the grades. It was pointed out by Engineering that the Traffic Department was concerned about the continuation of Claremore and the resulting intersection. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Staff reported that the only remaining issue involved the exact location of improvements in the right -of -way and the amount of right -of -way to be dedicated. Mr. Herbert Rule represented the developer and requested modification of the plat so that the entrance road would be developed as a 22 -foot street with concrete headers, since they discovered some dedicated right -of -way to the south of the property line instead of the originally proposed 13 1/2 -foot street. Engineering agreed to this if there was no drainage problems. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued A resident currently residing on Claremore requested that an additional 25' (left by a relative, but not reflected in the City's records) south of the 22' described by Mr. Rule be used to develop a larger street. He was informed that what the applicant was proposing was within ordinance requirements. A motion for approval as amended was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 NAME: Stanton Court Site Plan Review LOCATION: East End of Ohio Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Norman Holcomb Sam Davis P.O. Box 7244 5301 West 6th Little Rock, AR 72217 Little Rock, AR Phone: 227 -7534 Phone: 664 -0324 AREA: 1.3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 6 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R -5" PROPOSED USES: Condominiums A. Site History None. B. Proposal: 1. The construction of 12 units on 1.3 acres for condominium use. 2. Development Scheme: Unit Type Unit No. Unit Size 2- Bedroom /2 -Bath 12 1200 sq. ft. 3. Parking will be provided by 31 spaces. 4. The 6' cedar privacy fence will be provided on the north, south and west sides. 5. Perimeter treatment consists of various plantings on the east and west sides of the property. C. Engineering Considerations A drainage plan is needed. D. Analysis Staff is favorable to the proposed design. There have been previous drainage concerns with the property that may be needed to be resolved with this filing. A replat should be filed, reducing the 6 lots to 1. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued Since the proposal incorporates the use of public right -of -way, the applicant will need to file a street closure petition. Ideally, it should be concurrent with this application. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The issues were identified as involving the closure of a portion of Florida Street, possible neighborhood participation regarding street and parking and a water easement problem through the middle of the site. The applicant was advised to notify the Smiths and the abutting Montessori School and to work out an agreement with Water Works. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion for approval, subject to closure of Florida Street, was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 NAME: LOCATION: OWNER /APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: Trinity Assembly God Conditional Use (Z -4181) The NW Corner of the Intersection of Rodney Parham Road and State Highway #10 Trinity Assembly of God/ Raymond Branton To construct a church, in two phases, on 7.7 acres of land that is zoned "R -2." Phase I is to contain a 12,000 square foot worship and 114 parking spaces. Phase II will contain a 31,816 square foot education /administration building and the balance of the parking (16 spaces). ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS 1. Site Location 2. 3. The site is located on the tree - covered downslope at the intersection of two arterial streets. Compatibility with Neighborhood This site is shown on the Suburban Development Plan as single family attached (6 -12 units per acre). The adjacent uses are primarily vacant and large lot single family. This proposal contains a relatively small amount of structural involvement on 7.7 acres. This proposal would be compatible with the surrounding area. On -Site Drives and Parking This proposal contains two access drives to State Highway No. 10 and 131 paved parking spaces. Phase I will contain the two access drives and 114 parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers The site is tree - covered. The applicant is proposing landscape as per City Landscape Ordinance. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued 5. Analysis The staff views this proposal as a desirable land use for the area. The proposal meets parking and landscape requirements. The applicant does, however, need to submit a revised site plan to better illustrate the phasing of the parking plan. In addition, the staff feels that the eastern access should be revised to take access from the park access road rather than Highway No. 10. Staff feels that the proposed access alignment would be detrimental to proper traffic circulation. The applicant also needs to work with the City Engineer on possible in -lieu contributions on improvements to State Highway No. 10. Finally, the staff feels that the northernmost portion of the property should remain undeveloped due to its steep slope and asethetic desirability. 6. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) File a revised site plan to better define the phasing of the parking plan and to relocate the eastern access to the park access road; (2) Work out an agreement with the City Engineer on improvements to State Highway No. 10; (3) Make a commitment which would require the developer not to develop the remainder of the property lying north of the proposed parking area. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to submit a revised site plan. The City Engineer stated that full improvements might be required. The applicant agreed to meet with the City Engineer to work out the Highway 10 improvements issue as well as the easternmost access. The applicant also agreed to limit on -site development to the northernmost parking area except in the northeast corner of the property where the ridge begins to slope downward to the north. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present as were two objectors. The applicant presented a revised site plan. The applicant also agreed to limit all development to the south portion of the property (parking lot south). A lengthy discussion ensued concerning the improvements to State Highway No. 10. The applicant plead hardship and requested that any in -lieu contributions or improvements to Highway No. 10 be tied to Phase II of the project. The City Engineer stated that this was in keeping with past policy. A motion was made to require the applicant to make payment of in -lieu contributions or construct improvements on Highway No. 10 at the time of a building permit for Phase II of the project unless the State Highway Department began the improvements project on Highway No. 10 prior to the applicant's construction of Phase II, in which case the applicant would be required to make in -lieu contributions or construct State Highway No. 10. The Commission requested a letter from the applicant agreeing to these terms. The Commission then voted 6 ayes, 5 noes and 0 absent to approve the application based on the previous conditions. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 NAME: LOCATION: OWNER /APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: Hinson Road Utility Station Conditional Use (Z -4186) Approx. 500' southeast of the Intersection of Hinson Road and Flynn Street Western Little Rock Company/ Allen F. Saunders To construct a drive and a 9' x 13' concrete remote terminal station on land that is zoned "R -2." 1. Site Location 2. 3. 4. 5. A tree covered lot adjacent to Hinson Road. Compatibility with Neighborhood The area is.as yet mostly undeveloped. Some single family does, however, exist in the general vicinity. This project is compatible with the surrounding area. On -Site Drives and Parking The proposal includes one drive on Hinson Road that leads to an enclosed parking and turnaround area. Screening and Buffers The applicant has proposed a Landscape Plan that includes a 6' privacy fence that surrounds the building area. Analysis The staff sees no adverse impact to the surrounding area. The project will be well landscaped and screened. Staff feels that the applicant should make a commitment to build a concrete drive apron to meet the new alignment of the proposed Hinson Road improvement. 6. Staff Recommendation Approval as filed, provided that the applicant agrees to commit to construct a concrete drive apron to meet the proposed Hinson Road improvement. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent to approve the application as recommended by staff. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 NAME: Holy Souls Conditional Use (Z -4184) LOCATION: 1003 N. Tyler OWNER /APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: Catholic Diocese of Little Rock/ Larry Jacimore To revise the previously approved site plan by reducing the approved 37,000 square foot multi -use facility to 21,500 square feet and adding a 5,500 square foot meeting /education building to an existing church building, on land that is zoned "R -2." 1. Site Location This site is located in a residential area. One small commercial use is located adjacent to the school property on the west. 2. Compatibility with the Neighborhood The recent conditional use approval on this site enhanced the compatibility of the church to the surrounding area by providing additional paved parking. The current proposal can also be considered an improvement in that the height of the multi -use facility is to be reduced. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking Access drives serve this site from Harrison, Tyler, "I" and "H" Streets. The applicant's proposal includes provisions for 122 paved parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers As approved on the original conditional use permit. 5. Analysis The staff supports this proposal. No adverse impact is expected to the surrounding area. Parking and landscape plans meet Ordinance requirements. *Note approval of this site plan in no way absolves the applicant of previous commitments. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued 6. Staff Recommendation Approval as filed in accordance with the previously approved requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There was one objector present. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent to approve the application as recommended by staff. I � March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 NAME: Mabelvale West Road Day -Care Center, Conditional Use (Z -4185) LOCATION: 10204 Mabelvale West Road OWNER /APPLICANT: Charlene Boykin PROPOSAL: To convert an existing single family structure (enclose carport) to a day -care center with a capacity of 30 children on land that is zoned "R -2." 1. Site Location This site is located on a minor arterial in a mixed used area. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This area consists of commercial uses on the south side of Mabelvale West Road and scattered single family uses elsewhere. The Suburban Development Plan shows this area as commercial (strip development district). The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The applicant is proposing the use of an existing asphalt drive as access to Mabelvale West Road. The applicant is also proposing an additional future access on the west property line. Additionally, the applicant is proposing six paved parking spaces. 4. Screeninq and Buffers The applicant is proposing to retain the existing trees and shrubs in addition to the construction of a fence surrounding the rear yard. 5. Analysis The staff feels that this proposal is compatible with the Suburban Development Plan. No adverse impact is expected to the surrounding area. The proposed parking arrangement does not meet City standards. The applicant needs to dedicate additional right -of -way on Mabelvale West Road to meet minor arterial standards, which will require a revised parking design. A number of spaces are adequate, but the design is not. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 - Continued 6. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends approval provided that the applicant agree to: (1) Dedicate additional right -of -way on Mabelvale West Road to meet minor arterial standards; (2) Submit a revised parking plan to the City Engineer that meets Ordinance requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The staff reported that the conditions of approval had been met. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent to approve the application as recommended by staff. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 NAME: Bonnette Building Line Waiver (Lot 1, Sonic Addition) LOCATION: NE Corner of Geyer Springs and Big Oak Lane APPLICANT: Dr. Floyd Bonnette A. Site History The site has been previously used as a drive -in restaurant. B. Existing Conditions The site is located in a predominantly commercial area. An abandoned building is currently on the property with two existing curb cuts on Geyer Springs, which are characteristic of drive -in restaurants. An upholstery business at the rear of the site is built all the way to the right -of -way for Big Oak Lane. C. Development Proposal The applicant is requesting that he be allowed to encroach 14' over a 40' platted building line. The objective is to build a medical clinic. D. Engineering Considerations Improvements are in place; a driveway plan for new proposal is requested. E. Analysis Staff is not opposed to the requested waiver since 25' is what is required in "C -3" zoning district. Bill of Assurance requirements will still have to be satisfied. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee reviewed the application and informed the applicant that a final replat would be needed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. A motion for approval was made and passed, subject to the filing of a one lot replat. The vote: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 NAME: Lot 1, Marcus Addition Building Line Waiver LOCATION: SW Corner at Markham and I -430 APPLICANT: Steve Bonds STAFF REPORT: This is a proposal to encroach upon a platted building line 71. A motel structure is planned. The site abuts the proposed site of another motel. If approved, the Bill of Assurance requirements will have to be met. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral until further information is received from applicant regarding participation of others in the Bill of Assurance amendment. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant requested that this item be withdrawn. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 NAME: Munsey Products Amended Site Plan Review APPLICANT: Robert Richardson OWNER: Munsey Products LOCATION: 8507 I -30 STAFF REPORT: This is an amendment to a recently approved site plan that reflects the purchase of 1.56 acres to the east. The purchase was a result of a request by the staff that Munsey acquire additional lands. The additional acreage allows 51,000 more square feet of buildable area and associated parking. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. z 0 H H 0 0 2 F--I a r N o � ca w w w � a �D w w E-t � H O lqlq Y ] w H �i Q 2 C Ur H Q Cf] z H 0 N N N r--I N O N .-1 cc r-1 N G4 aj 4J •� U) U] O 0 4-1 G U 4 v o a U U C4 sYi G KC 71) _ r7 m ro U z H E-4 U) m H z w ul 8 W z U w 9-t I r. i March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Z Date � cr tar Y C man