HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_04 10 1984sub� T
f
1 t
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
APRIL 10, 1984
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum.
A Quorum was present being 8 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting.
The minutes were not approved.
III. Members Present: John Schlereth
David Jones
Betty Sipes
Jim Summerlin
William Ketcher
Bill Rector
Dorothy Arnett
John Clayton
IV. Members Absent: Richard Massie
Ida Boles
Jerilyn Nicholson
V. City Attorney Present: Carolyn Witherspoon
0
TENTATIVE SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
APRIL 10, 1984
Deferred Items:
A. Yorktowne Apartments (Z -4163)
Preliminary Plats:
1. River Subdivision
2. Northwest Territory (Revised)
3. 5300 S. University
3A. 53rd & University Building Line Waiver
Replats:
4. W.A. Jones, Lot Reduction
5. Harris Replat (Lots 11 and 12, Block 10, Riffel and
Rhoton's Forest Park Highlands Addition)
6. Shuffield Replat
Preliminary /Site Plan Review
7. I -430 Shopping Mall
Site Plan Review
8. University Shopping Center
9. Jones Site Plan Review
10. Lusk Site Plan Review
11. 1st American Site Plan Review
Planned Unit Development:
12. Healthy Lawns and Shrubs (Z- 3969 -A)
Conditional Use Permit:
13. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Z -4204)
Right -of -Way Abandonment
14. Florida Street Closure (Blk. 3, Riffel and Rhoton's
Forest Park)
Other Matters:
15. Snider Corporation - PCD Extension
16. Sandpiper Addition, Lot 56, Building Line Waiver
17. The Ridge Street Request
April 10, 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
r- 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.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
C. Development Proposal
1.
2.
3.
The construction of a 178 unit apartment complex
on 6.6 acres.
Development Schedule
Unit Type
One - Bedroom Flat
One - Bedroom Town House
Two - Bedroom
Parking - 285 spaces
Unit No. Unit Size
60 Units 500 sq. ft.
60 Units 640 sq. ft.
58 Units 1000 sq. ft.
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. Engineerin2 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.
April 10, 1984
t
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.
April 10, 1984
i
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.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (3- 29 -84)
The applicant was present. A revised plan was submitted by
the applicant. It reflected a rearrangement of buildings
and parking, a reduction in building sizes and number of
units. The proposed density is to be according to "MF -24"
with a total of 158 units and 237 parking spaces. The
Committee decided to pass the revised plan to the City
Board.
` April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Helen Pate
961 Garland Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 372 -1843
AREA: 22 acres
ZONING: "C- 3 " / "I -2"
River Subdivision
NW Corner of I -440 Interchange
and Fourche Dam Pike
T11/� T11TTT _
Allan Curry
hnnT TORMM.
Swaffar and Assoc., Architects
916 Garland Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
NO. OF LOTS: 9 FT. OF NEW ST.: 1,750
PROPOSED USES: Commercial /Office Park
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. 125' radius on Steamboat Harbor.
2. Cul -de -sac length - minor commercial street with no
sidewalks.
3. Street right -of =way of 50' along the Highway Department
right -of -way.
4. Cul -de -sac radius of 501.
5. Pavement width of 30' back of curb to back of curb.
6. Building setback.
A. Site History
None.
B. Existing Conditions
This property is bordered on the south by the I -440
Eastbelt Expressway, on the east by Fourche Dam Pike
and on the north by Griffin Road.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
C. Development Proposal
This is a request by the applicant to plat a tract of
21.68 acres into 9 lots for commercial use. Lots 1 -8
are zoned "C -3." Lot 9 is zoned "I -2." Several
variances have been requested. They include:
(1) No sidewalk since there will be no foot traffic
between buildings.
(2) Turn radius on streets to be 125'.
(3) 50' street right -of -way.
(4) Street pavement width to be 30' back to back of
curb.
(5) Cul -de -sac to be of 50' radius.
(6) Building setbacks to be 15' on two sides when
tracts have frontage on three sides.
Justification offered is based on the small size and
unusually shaped size of the site and the fact that the
new street fronts on the highway right -of -way along a
substantial portion of the property.
D. Engineering Considerations
1. Improve Fourche Dam Pike to industrial arterial
standards.
2. Discuss street improvements with City Engineers.
3. Steamboat Avenue should be built to collector
street standards. Inform whether or not this is
to be a public street. The street name should not
be avenue since it is to be a cul -de -sac.
E. Analysis
Several issues for discussion have been found. Five of
the variances refer to the streets. The applicant
should build the streets to collector standards which
require a sidewalk on one side, a minimum of 60' of
right -of -way, 36' pavement, and a minimum 300' radius.
A waiver for the cul -de -sac radius is not needed. As
for building setbacks, the applicant should comply with
the "C -3" zoning district or provide justification for
his request. A waiver is needed for cul -de -sac length
appears to exceed the minimum of 7501.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
Staff requests that the developer find out whether or
not Griffin is a dedicated street. If so, Lot 1 needs
to reflect the proper curb radius.
Another issue for discussion revolves around whether or
not this cul -de -sac should be extended.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The requested variances were
discussed. It was decided that variances:
#1 - Would be required of the applicant.
#2 - Applicant is to meet with Engineering to decide on
radius.
#3 - A 50 -foot right -of -way could be provided only along
the freeway.
#4 &5 - Were no longer issues since the applicant has been
required by the Commission to build street to
collector standards.
#6 - No longer an issue.
The applicant was also asked to clarify the status of
Griffin Street and provide easements for Water Works.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors.
Engineering reported that a 150 -foot radius was decided
upon, and no further information on Griffin could be
obtained. A motion was made for approval, subject to the
submission of three copies of a preliminary revised plat
according to agreement made with the City engineers. The
motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
'April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME:
Northwest Territory (Revised)
LOCATION: NE Corner of Highway 10 and
Highway 300
DEVELOPER: ENrTNF_.ER:
Kelton Brown, Jr. Edward G. Smith and Associates
12015 Hinson Road 401 Victory
Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 225 -0627 Phone: 374 -1666
AREA: 49.6 acres NO. OF LOTS: 24 FT. OF NEW ST.: 4,100
ZONING: Outside City
PROPOSED USES: Residential
A. Site History
A previous request for preliminary plat approval on
this site was passed by the Commission on September 15,
1981. The plan requested that 41.8 acres be developed
into 10 lots ranging from 2.5 acres. The motion for
approval was conditioned on certification from the
State Health Department that the land is suitable for
septic tanks.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located outside the City in an area that
is rural in character. The topography appears to be
steep in areas with elevation ranging from 320' to
560'.
C. Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing to develop a tract of 49.6
acres into 24 lots for single family development. The
amount of new street proposed is 41001. Access will be
from two curb cuts on Highway 10 and Highway 300. Two
internal streets are proposed. Tracts A and B are
designated for future development.
D. Engineering Considerations
1. Improve Shinnal Mountain Drive to minor arterial
standards.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
2. Discuss details for the intersection of Shinnal
Mountain Drive and Highway 300 with City
Engineers. AHTD must approve access onto
Highways 10 and 300.
3. Improve Highways 10 and 300 to arterial standards;
dedicate right -of -way along both routes as
required by the Master Street Plan.
4. Request future plan for the extension of Northwest
Court.
E. Analysis
Staff is favorable to the development concept; however,
the applicant must explain the plans to extend
Northwest Court.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. Water Works reported that they
could not serve above elevation 4401. Staff mentioned that
there was a question relative to the availability of sewer
service on the previous proposal. Mr. Joe White, Project
Engineer, informed the Committee that the project would not
require water or sewer service from the City of Little Rock.
He explained that Northwest Court would be a cul -de -sac in a
future phase, access to both state highways have been
approved by A.H.T.D., and that even though rural standards
are currently proposed, Shinnal Mountain Drive will be
constructed to minor arterial standards upon development of
Tract A.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Joe White represented the applicant. A request for a
30 -day deferral was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and
4 absent.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Mr. Ray B. Thomas
#21 Pinnacle
Little Rock, AR 72205
5300 S. University
On University immediately
west of 53rd Street and
S. University
ENGINEER:
Summerlin and Associates
1609 Broadway
Little Rock, AR
AREA: 26 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C- 3 " / "C -4"
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
A. Site History
None.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in a mixed commercial area, with
frontage on a principal arterial. A frame commercial
building is located on the site and much of the land is
located within the floodway. The southern part of the
property has been denuded of all vegetation due to site
grading activity. The base map indicates that both
54th and 63rd Streets cross the property. A 20' access
easement is shown on the south.
C. Development Proposal
The applicant is requested to plat this tract of 26
acres into two lots so that one may be sold. No
variances are requested.
D. Engineering Considerations
Floodway /Floodplain Ordinance will apply to this
property.
E. Analysis
Staff is basically favorable to the request. The
applicant should be aware of the prescriptive
right -of -way on the property (54th Street). The main
issue for discussion is whether or not the applicant
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
should be required to dedicate and build the 20' access
easement shown. There are currently single family uses
abutting the easement.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The issue was identified as whether or not the applicant
should be required to dedicate and build a 20 -foot access
easement that currently serves neighboring single family
residences. The applicant stated that he did not want to be
responsible for these improvements; however, the easement
would be paved since it's on his property. Water Works
requested that the easement be noted as a utility and access
easement and informed the applicant that he would have to
pay the cost to remove a water line through the easement
(Summerlin abstained).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Jim Erwin represented the developer, Mr. Ray Thomas. A
motion was made and passed for approval, subject to the
submission of three copies of a revised preliminary
eliminating the 20 -foot easement. The vote was: 6 ayes,
0 noes, 4 absent and 1 abstention (Summerlin abstained).
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3A
NAME:
53rd and University
Building Line Waiver
LOCATION: On University, immediately
west of 53rd and University
APPLICANT: Summerlin and Associates
REQUEST:
To allow a 25' building line instead of 45' setback on that
portion zoned "C -4."
STAFF RRPnRT!
The applicant is requesting that Lot 1, which is the only
portion of the tract with "C -4" zoning, have a 25' building
line instead of the 45' usually required. Staff has no
objections to the granting of the waiver since it will not
be out of character with the existing structures along
University.
STAFF RECOMMENDAITON:
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The Committee reviewed the
application and passed it to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A motion for approval was made
and passed by a vote of: 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent and
1 abstention ( Summerlin abstained).
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME:
W.A. Jones Lot Reduction
LOCATION: I -30, East of County Line Road
APPLICANT: W.A. Jones
Route 3
Alexander, AR
REQUEST:
To remove a lot from an approved subdivision and reduce it
back to acreage.
STAFF RPP()RT
On September 18, 1964, a court order was filed, by the
applicant, at the County Courthouse that reduced to acreage
Lots 2 -25 of Kaywood Acres Subdivision, thereby returning it
to a metes and bounds legal description. This request is
for the reduction of Lot 1 to acreage also. The procedure
involves: (a) Planning Commission review, (b) City Board
review, (c) ordinance drafted by the City Atorney and
(d) the filing of the petition at the Courthouse.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. After staff's explanation of
the application, the Committee decided to pass this to the
Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A motion for approval was made
and passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
a
' April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
William P. Harris, Jr.
5804 Young Road
Little Rock, AR 72209
AREA: .344 acres
ZONING:
Harris Site Plan Review
SE Corner of George St. and
Missouri Avenue
71DDT T('7%WTT.
Truman Ball
Phone: 562 -2000
ENGINEER:
Brooks and Curry
P.O. Box 897
North Little Rock, AR 72115
Phone: 372 -2131
NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Setback variances on existing house on the north.
2. Waiver of street improvements on Georgia.
A. Site History
None.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located at the corner of Georgia Street
and Missouri Avenue, in a neighborhood consisting of
mixed residential uses. The structures on -site include
a one -story brick and frame residence and an old frame
garage.
C. Development Proposal
This is a request by the applicant to replat the
southern portion of what is currently Lots 11 and 12,
Block 10, Riffel and Rhoton's Forest Park Highlands
Addition to the City into a separate lot. A small
house will be built on the southern portion with access
to be from Georgia Street. The frame garage will be
torn down.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
D. Engineering Considerations
None.
E. Analysis
Staff has no objections to the request; however,
Commission review is needed due to the need for
right -of -way dedication and the resulting nonconformity
on the northern portion of the lot. The new lot will
cause the existing structure's rear yard to vary from
Ordinance requirements of 251.
F. Staff Recommendation
Staff reserves comment at this time.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. Staff reported that no
dedication would be required. It was also explained to the
Committee that this lot recombination would usually require
staff approval only; however, in this instance, the
nonconforming setback from Georgia Street was created, which
necessitates review by the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. No one objected. A motion for
approval was made and passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes
and 4 absent.
1�pril 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME:
Shuffield Replat
LOCATION: North End of Ash (821 and
823 N. Ash)
DEVELOPER: FNGTNFFR:
Elvin Shuffield, Jr. Finley Williams
1075 Union National Bldg. 210 S. Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 376 -4432 Phone: 376 -3505
AREA: .413 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. 14' rear setback to accommodate deck.
2. 20' easement across the westernmost lot for access to
the easternmost lot.
A. Site History
The applicant recently submitted a proposal (Ash Place
PRD) for condominiums on this site. The neighborhood
offered objections based on the use, density and
traffic. The Commission denied the application.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located on a wodded parcel of land in what
is generally a single family area. Allsopp Park abuts
the property on the north and North Ash Street abuts
its southwestern corner. A portion of Ash Street that
has been closed by City Ordinance No. 13,745 makes up
the western boundary and an alley which has been closed
by City Resolution No. 1927 makes up the eastern
boundary of the property.
C. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting that he be allowed to
replat two lots which are currently oriented east /west
to a north /south orientation so that two single family
homes can be constructed so that the occupants can
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
enjoy the view and aesthetic values of the park which
is adjacent to the property. A request for
encroachment into a 14' rear building line is requested
to accommodate the decks overlooking the park.
Justification is based on the applicant's feeling that
the adjoining property owners will not be adversely
impacted due to the abutting park on the rear.
The lots are presently platted as 50' x 140' with a
total area of 7,000 square feet each. The
incorporation of the enclosed street and alley adds
about 40' in depth. A 20' easement is proposed across
the front of the westernmost lot for access to the
other lot.
D. Engineering Considerations
None.
E. Analysis
No problems have been found. Staff has no objections
to the setback waiver since it is adjacent to the
naturally wooded area of the park.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval as requested.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The variances were discussed.
Mr. Shuffield explained that he would have to cut 4' into
the City's right -of -way adjacent to the neighbor on the
southeast property and would provide him with an apron. The
concensus of the group was that the applicant had a right to
access his property and this appeared to be a reasonable
means. Water Works informed the developer that a 2" water
main extension would be needed in -lieu of a service line,
since there was no street frontage. The Committee requested
that the two neighbors immediately adjacent to the project
be notified.
r
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Two neighbors, Mr. John D. Toney
Jr. (819 North Ash) and Mr. Bill Rath (816 North Ash) were
there in opposition. Mr. Toney requested that the item be
resubmitted as a PUD so that the neighbors could be
involved. Mr. Rath pointed out that the traffic and
entrance problems still had not be solved. A motion for
approval was made and passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes
and 4 absent.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
NAME:
LOCATION:
TN"T7"r r%-" - _
Rector Phillips Morse
Prospect Bldg.
1501 N. University
Little Rock, AR
I -430 Shopping Mall
Preliminary /Site Plan
NE Corner of Colonel Glenn
and Bowman Road
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 374 -1666
AREA: 13 acres NO. OF r
ZONING: "C -2"
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
OTS. 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
A. Site History
None.
B. Proposal
(1) Gross Site ................... 13 acres
(2) Landscaped Open Space........ 3.6 acres
(3) Bldg. Total Gross Sq. Ft..... 121,767 sq. ft.
(4) Total Net Leasable Sq. Ft.... 101,540 sq. ft.
(5) Paved Area ................... 297,079 sq. ft.
(6) Parking:
Regular ...................... 475 spaces
Handicapped .................. 18 spaces
Employee ..................... 32 spaces
Total 525 spaces
C. Engineering Considerations
1. Improve Bowman Road to include one -half of a
five -lane pavement section for the full length of
this project; dedicate right -of -way for minor
arterial.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
2. Improve Colonel Glenn to five -lane arterial
standards; dedicate right -of -way for minor
arterial.
3. A detailed plan for the intersection of Colonel
Glenn and Bowman Roads to be included in the
submission of engineering plans for street
improvements.
4. Street improvements on Colonel Glenn Road should
extend eastward to include the adjacent
development; clarify driveway location on the east
side of Colonel Glenn.
C. Analysis
Staff is favorable to the developmental concept, but
would like to make sure during this review that the
drives proposed in this plan are coordinated with the
recently approved Colonel Glenn preliminary site plan
which abuts this property. This plan does not show any
access to the future building. Staff is requesting
that this access be internal and not external.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant submitted a revised plan which addressed
staff's concern about access to the future building. He
stated that there was no problem with complying with
Engineering's requests 1 -3.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors.
Engineering reported that #4 of their comments should be
deleted. A motion for approval was made and passed by a
vote of: 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 abstention (Rector
abstained).
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
l
NAME: University Shopping Center
LOCATION: 5820 Asher
nPX7PT.ODF'D . W"'1 r "W V n .
Tate Roberts Sam Davis
Roberts Constr. Co. 8501 W. 8th
2701 W. 7th Street Little Rock, AR
Little Rock, AR Phone: 664 -0324
Phone: 374 -4000
AREA: 22.58 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: 11C -3"
PROPOSED USES: Retail
A. Site History
None pertinent to this proposal.
B. Proposal
1. To maintain the existing square footage of
commercial floor space and parking
spaces.
2. To construct the following:
Bldg. Type
Size
Proposed Bldg. 1 -Story
9,157 sq.
ft.
Proposed Bldg. 2 -Story
12,000 sq.
ft.
Proposed Mini -Mall 2 -Story
15,337 sq.
ft.
3. Building Site Info:
A. Total Area .................
983,643 sq.
ft.
(pprox.
22.58 acres)
B. Total Bldg. Area...........
247,652 sq.
ft.
C. Total Parking Spaces.......
1,132
C. Engineering Considerations
Request that developers discuss overall
traffic
circulation with City Engineer prior to
Planning
Commission meeting.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
D. Analysis
The applicant is requesting site plan review so that
three additional buildings can be constructed. The
mini -mall, which will be comprised of 15,337 square
feet of retail sales and office area will be built
immediately. Building construction will consist of
concrete floors and floor slabs on grade, steel
columns, beams and bar joists, brick and concrete
masonry walls, and a 10 -year built -up wall with vaulted
skylights over stairway. The other two buildings will
be constructed at a later date.
Staff has only a few concerns. Due to a few troubled
areas related to internal traffic flow, Engineering has
requested that the developer meet with them before the
public hearing. Two of the proposed buildings, which
are closest to the UALR entrance drive, are both
backing into the street. We recommend that the
buildings be shifted so as to provide enough space to
relocate the parking.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant's engineer, Sam Davis, was present. A phasing
scheme was decided upon with the City engineers. A motion
for approval was made, subject to compliance with agreement
made with Engineering relative to improvements and phasing.
A motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
-April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME: Jones Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Approx. 1000' East of
Intersection of Mabelvale
Cutoff and Chicot
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Edco Constr. Co. G.A. Denham
6420 Mabelvale Cutoff 718 West Markham
Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR
Phone: 568 -1197
AREA: .5 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C -3"
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Site History
A request for rezoning on this site was heard before
the Commission within the last year.
B. Proposal
1. The construction of the proposed building with
1800 square feet on a site of .5 acres for use as
a masonry storage space behind the existing
office.
2. No parking information submitted.
C. Engineering Considerations
Dedicate right -of -way and improve Mabelvale Cutoff to
minor arterial standards. In -lieu contribution may be
requested due to only 66' frontage on Mabelvale Cutoff.
Submit site plan to show driveways and parking.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
D. Analysis
Staff was inhibited in its review of the plan due to
its failure to indicate plans for access and parking.
Before the Planning Commission Committee meeting, a
proper site plan with the required setbacks, drives and
parking should be submitted. If approved, a one lot
final plat is required since right -of -way dedication is
requested.
E. Staff Recommendation
Staff reserves comment until submission of plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. A motion for a 30 -day
deferral was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and
4 absent.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME: Lusk Site Plan Review
LOCATION: 1415 Barrow
T)V17VT.(1DVD . cTTnvc vnn .
Bill Lusk Robert Holloway
7509 Cantrell 7509 Cantrell
Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR
Phone: 666 -5407 Phone: 666 -5407
AREA: 2.2157 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C -3"
PROPOSED USES: Offices
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Site History
Platting activity on the site has resulted in the
formation of three lots. An existing office building
is located on the northern portion of Lot 2.
B. Proposal
1. Development according to the following:
Bldg. 1 Bldg. 2
(Existing) (Proposed) Totals
Size: 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft.
Parking: 15 spaces 24 spaces 39 spaces
C. Engineering Considerations
1. New parking should comply with Zoning and
Landscaping Ordinances.
2. Discuss drainage plan with City Engineer's Office.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
D. Analysis
The proposed site plan fails to meet the 25' rear yard
setback required in "C -3" districts if the lines shown
on the plan indicate the actual lot lines. Due to the
fact that bulk and area requirements aren't supposed to
be waived under the site plan review process, staff is
requesting that the applicant plat the buildable area
of each structure. The Fire Department also has
submitted comments relative to the drives and parking
on the site.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The inadequate rear setback and
Fire Department requests were discussed. The applicant was
instructed to:
(1) Remove the lot line between Lots 2 and 3, or replat
Lot 2 to accommodate a 25 -foot setback.
(2) Meet with Fire Department concerning their requests.
(3) Meet with Water Works, who had expressed concerns about
access to Lot 3 relative to water services.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors.
Potential problems with later development of Lot 3 was
discussed with the applicant, Greg Crawford. A motion was
made for approval, subject to submission of a replat. The
vote was: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME: First American Site Plan Review
(Z- 3638 -B)
LOC_A_TION: NW Corner of the Intersection of
Shackleford Road and Financial
Centre Parkway
OWNER /APPLICANT: Multiple Owners /Gary Dean
PROPOSAL:
To rezone the property from "C -3" to "0 -2" and to construct
a six to nine -story office building not to exceed 120 feet
in height; and to construct a two -story parking deck all on
4.59 acres of land.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant has proposed 449 parking spaces and
landscaping which meet City ordinances. The proposed
structural coverage is about 7.8 percent of the site, while
paved area coverage is approximately 58.7 percent.
The staff has some question as to the exact location of the
proposed parking deck. A revised site plan should be
submitted delineating the parking deck and its relationship
to the building setback lines. The City Engineer has also
requested that an internal drainage plan be submitted, and
that the applicant agrees to meet with the City Engineer to
discuss the following concerns: traffic circulation;
location of the access drive on Shackleford Road; alignment
of the driveways on Financial Centre Parkway; and a possible
access to Hardin Road from the site. And finally, the
proposed siting of the building meets Ordinance requirements
for a structure up to 120 feet in height.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval provided that the applicant agrees
to: (1) submit a revised site plan delineating the proposed
parking deck; (2) submit an internal drainage plan; and
(3) meet with the City Engineer to discuss traffic
circulation, location of access drive on Shackleford Road,
the alignment of two drives on Financial Centre Parkway and
possible access to Hardin Road.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION:
The applicant was not present. The proposed rezoning of
this site has been deferred until the April 24 Planning
Commission meeting. The site plan review will be deferred
until the May 15, 1984, Planning Commission meeting.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. The Commission voted 7 ayes,
0 noes and 4 absent to defer this item to the May 15, 1984,
Planning Commission meeting.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME:
Healthy Lawns and Shrubs
(Z- 3969 -A)
LOCATION: 7919 W. 5th
DEVELOPER: SURVEYOR:
Stan McDaniel Troy Laha
CIO Frank Whitback P.O. Box 9003
Suite 1128, Savers Federal Little Rock, AR 72219
& Loan Bldg. Phone: 455 -2575
Capitol Ave. & Spring St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 2.82 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: Currently "R -2" - Proposed PCD
PROPOSED USES:
Nursery Stock Storage - Single Occupant
Use with No Customer Use
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Site History
On March 15, 1983, the Planning Commission denied a
request for PCD approval on this site. The issues
involved City interest in the area due to a desire to
control the floodplain and as a part of a proposed park
plan. The neighborhood objected to the proposal. The
Commission expressed concern that approval of this type
use in the area was an inappropriate use of the PUD
concept and constituted spot zoning.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting that he be allowed to
construct a 3200' metal building on that portion of the
property lying outside the floodway. The building will
be used as a greenhouse /nursery stock and equipment
storage facility for the property's sole user, Healthy
Lawns and Shrubs, Inc., which is a lawn maintenance and
landscaping operation. There will be no customer
traffic. Only four employees will be involved. The
area will be shielded from the single family area by a
green wall of shrubbery on West 5th Street. The
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
proposed building will set back 25' from the floodway
boundary. An easement on the property has been donated
to the City.
C. Engineering Considerations
Improve 5th Street to residential standards from
Sunnymeade to the east property line.
D. Analysis
This application represents a second attempt by the
applicant to get PCD approval on this site. The only
change since denial last year has been the location of
a proposed floodway easement boundary and the passage
of the Floodplain Ordinance, which allows development
in these areas if they have a 25' setback from the
floodway.
E. Staff Recommendation
Staff reserves comment at this time.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. He stated agreement with
Engineering's curb improvements request and with dedicating
11,000 square feet to the City for the Sunnymeade Drainage
Project. He also stated that he was not opposed to the
City's long -term intent to use part of the area as a park.
A point was made that ordinarily such a request would be
considered under the "C -4" zoning district. The question
was raised as to the appropriateness of "C -4" in the area.
Mr. Whitbeck, Attorney for the applicant, distinguished this
from "C -4" by indicating that there would be no vehicular or
customer involvement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant and his attorney were present. They requested
modification to the plan from 2.82 acres to 1.41 acres and
agreed to donate one -third acre to the Sunnymeade Drainage
Project. Several neighboring property owners both for and
against the project were in attendance. Staff reported that
one neighbor, Ms. Sarah Abeles, called in support for the
application based on her belief that it would upgrade the
area. Ms. Joyce Booth and Ms. Lucille Long both objected to
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
the project. They expressed concerns based on devaluation
of property. values, noise and air pollution, more drainage
problems and feared that a precedent for commercial zoning
would be set. They also submitted a petition from other
property owners in objection. Finally, a motion was made
and passed for approval, subject to: (1) restriction of
employees to six, (2) realignment of gravel drive,
(3) provision of a 6 -foot opaque green wall, (4) no on -site
sales, and (5) no signage. The vote was: 6 ayes, 2 noes
and 3 absent.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME:
Church of Jesus Christ of the
Latter Day Saints
Conditional Use Permit (Z -4204)
LOCATION: South Side of Quail Run Drive
approx. 600 feet SW of the
intersection of Otter Creek
Parkway
OWNER /APPLICANT: Rock Venture /Hodges Firm
Patrick McGetrick
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 24,800 square foot church building and 227
paved parking spaces on 3.25+ acres of land that is zoned
"MF -24."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The site is located on a vacate, flat, tree covered
parcel with frontage on Quail Run Drive (collector).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
Single family development begins immediately west of
this property. The remainder of the surrounding land
is vacant with the exception of a church which is
located north across Quail Run Drive. The Suburban
Development Plan calls for single family development.
A church use would be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The proposal contains two (25 -foot) access drives on
Quail Run Drive. The applicant is also proposing 227
paved parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant plans to meet all City Landscape
Ordinance requirements.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff feels that this proposal would not have an
adverse impact on the surrounding area. Since the
property is zoned "MF -24," a church use would be more
desirable. The applicant needs to submit a detailed
drainage plan to the City Engineer. The applicant also
needs to submit a landscape plan. Additionally, the
site plan shows what appears to be a shrine or tower
located on the front yard setback line. The applicant
needs to be advised that the tower is permissible but
shall not exceed 35 feet in height since variances are
not allowed as a part of the conditional use process.
6. Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends approval provided that the
applicant agrees to: (1) submit a detailed drainage
plan to the City Engineer; (2) submit a landscape plan;
and (3) restrict towers, belfries, etc., to a maximum
of 35 feet.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The Commission voted 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent to approve the application as reviewed
by the Subidivision Committee.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME:
Florida Street Closure
LOCATION: N 1/2 of the 1500 block of
Florida between Ohio and
Indiana
APPLICANT: Norman Holcomb
REQUEST:
Closure of the described right -of -way.
STAFF REPORT:
This is a petition to close all that portion of Florida
Street located between the southern boundary line of Lot 24,
Block 2, Riffel and Rhoton's Forest Park Highlands Addition
to the City and the southern boundary line of Lot 1,
Block 3 of the same addition. The right -of -way is not
constructed as such, but is adjacent to a vacant lot. The
desired use of the right -of -way is in conjunction with the
Stanton Court Condominiums, which was approved by the
Commission on March 12. After closure, the eastern half of
the property will go to Willis Smith and the western half to
Stewart and Associates, Inc.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to utility approvals.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made and passed for approval. The vote was:
8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15
NAME: Snider Corporation PCD
LOCATION: I -630 at Pine and Cedar Streets
APPLICANT: Bill Terry
REQUEST:
For a second one -year extension of a PCD approval,
originally approved by the City Board on April 6, 1982.
crphv v Dvnnnm.
This is a request by the applicant, for a one -year extension
for the submission of the final development plan for Snider
PCD. Originally, the plan was approved by the Board on
April 6, 1982. The first one -year extension was granted by
the Commission on February 15, 1983. The applicant reports
that the existing litigation over the financing of another
hotel -motel project in the City by the issuance of tourism
revenue bonds by the municipality has not been concluded. A
decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court is expected. The
Ordinance allows the granting of two one -year extensions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
NAME:
Sandpiper Addition, Lot 56
Building Line Waiver
LOCATION: #7 Cottowood Court
APPLICANT: Eugene Auffert
REQUEST:
To allow an added encroachment of 4' into an established 25'
setback.
STAFF REPORT:
This site is located in a single family residential
subdivision. It is located near the end of a cul -de -sac and
abutted on both sides by single family homes.
The house was built before being annexed into the City of
Little Rock and currently does not meet the 25' building
setback requirement on the southwestern corner. The
applicant is asking that he be allowed to encroach 4' more
into the setback area. He would like to enlarge his garage
to house a new boat instead of keeping it in the driveway.
Also, he would like to increase floor space in his
daughters' rooms to allow more options for locating existing
furnishings, since he is severely limited at present.
Staff is not opposed to the waiver, since it appears that no
adverse effects will result. The proposed addition will be
in line with an existing concrete porch. The applicant is
requested to get the approval of the neighbor nearest to the
encroachment. The usual Bill of Assurance amendment and
final plat will be required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant stated that the Architectural Committee of his
subdivision had approved his proposal. He was asked to
furnish a written recommendation from this Committee.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made and passed for approval, subject to the
submission of a one lot replat. The vote was: 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent.
' f
f
{
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
NAME:
LOCATION:
T- %VT7VT nT%L "_
The Ridge Subdivision
On Cantrell, North of Jackson
Reservoir
V*TrTW7VVn.
McHowe Company Delbert Van Landingham
1015 Louisiana 1015 Louisiana
P.O. Box 1539 P.O. Box 1539
Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 376 -6838 Phone: 376 -6838
AREA: 20.46 acres NO. OF LOTS: 24 FT. OF NEW ST.: 2,000
ZONING: "PRD"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Street grade on Ridgeview Court.
2. Cul -de -sac waiver on Ridgeview Court.
STAFF REPORT
The applicant is requesting that he be allowed to provide a
street system 24' vs. 27 -foot pavement. The item was
approved by the Commission on March 13, 1984, with private
streets. He feels that they are needed because of steep
side slopes. The streets could be lowered if there were
less pavement. Staff is favorable to the request.
CmT VV D17lTn/LAKAMXTT% M1 ^XT_
Approval.
n T T MM T XWT !T /1"" r n n T ^XT T I M T /11T
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
8 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
Resolution No. 58
A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING GRIEF AT THE TRAGIC
AND UNTIMELY DEATH OF HERBERT LYNN WASSELL, JR.,
FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING
COMMISSION.
WHEREAS, Herbert Lynn Wassell, Jr. devoted himself unselfishly to
the public interest for nine (9) years as a member of the Little Rock
Planning Commission, and
WHEREAS, Herbert Lynn Wassell, Jr. was Chairman of the Commission
between December 1976 and October 1978, and in that capacity exercised
thoughtful and enlightened leadership in guiding the growth of the
City, and
WHEREAS, Herbert Lynn Wassell, Jr. was a distinguished architect
whose projects are a credit both to himself and the community, and
WHEREAS, Herbert Lynn Wassell, Jr. was held in the highest esteem
both by City staff members and the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission hereby expresses to his wife
and family its grief and sense of loss at the tragic death of
Herbert Lynn Wassell, Jr.
SECTION 2. His death is a loss to the entire City which he
served for so long and with such distinction.
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
4a ati. *Gf fin,
S ecretary
APPROVED:L'L _�L��
4hairman Sc leret
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
r V O T E R E C O R D
DATE �PQI C. I Q. � 1���
ITEM NUMBERS
SUBDIVISION
`/AYE 40 NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN
��oovov00000000voo�o
��000mo���a��v�o�g
°
°�
=:
0000000
000
0
00000
°000000vv000voii
W. Ketcher
��000000���Ro��9�og�MCC
�00000�
�o..a�oo
J. Clayton
�8����0
000mv000000�..
`/AYE 40 NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN
r
t
i i l
V
t'
d
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
4