HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_04 12 1983subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARy AND MINUTE RECORD
SUBDIVISION HEARING
APRIL 12,1983
1:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum.
A Quorum was present being 10 in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve
the Minutes as mailed.
III.Present:John Schlereth
William Ketcher
Jerilyn Nicholson
Dorothy Arnett
Richard MassieBillRector
David Jones
Jim Summerlin
Betty Sipes
John Clayton
Absent:0 (I open position)
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —File No.318
NAME:Brainard Place "PRD"
LOCATION:S.Valentine and Lamar
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Harney Construction Mehlburger,Tanner,Renshaw
2723 Foxcroft Road Little Rock,AR
Suite 108 Phone:375-5331LittleRock,AR 72207
AREA:6.41 acres NO.OF LOTS:2 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"R-4"(Existing)
PROPOSED USES:Residential
REQUEST:
To reclassify an area from "R-4"to "PRD."
I.DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND PHILOSOPHY
(A)Accommodates increased rental need generated by
new and existing medical facilities and end of
economic life of existing rental units in thearea.
(B)Sets a trend for quality development.
II.PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
A.Parcel Size 6,800 sq.ft.
B.Existing Zoning —————————"R-4"
C.Development Scheme:
1.No.of Units ———4 Two-Bedroom Town Houses2.Unit Type —————Duplex (2 Bldgs.)3.Square Footage -—3,456 sq.ft.
D.Building Coverage ———1,484 sq.ft.
E.Open Space ———————3,864 sq.ft.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —Continued
F.Parking —————————4 spaces
III.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
None at this time.
IV.STAFF ANALYSIS
This site is located in a multifamily area thatconsistsmainlyofolderhousingstockthathas been
converted to duplexes,though the property is bordered
on the north by a single family residence.The onlyexistingstructureisaveryrecentlyconstructed
duplex on the west,which the existing zoning allows.
The applicant is proposing to replat the lot and build
a similar unit on the vacant portion to the east.
Staff is concerned with the possibility that one of the
resulting lots may be sold.That is not advisablesincethiswouldthencreatelotssmallerthanusualforthislanduse.Also,the plan should be revisedtoaccommodatethesixparkingspacesrequiredas
designed,it is doubtful that adequate space exists.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Since the applicant was not present,the Committee decidedtopassthistotheCommissionwithoutrecommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors.
The motion was made and passed to defer the item for one
month in order for it to be returned to the Subdivision
Committee and the applicant contacted.The motion passed by
a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:(3-31-83)
Since the applicant was not present.The Committee decidedtopassedthistotheCommissionwithoutrecommendation.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —Continued
PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not in attendance.A letter was presentedtotheCommissionrequestingadeferralofthismatterto
Nay 10,1983,in order to receive review by the Subdivision
Committee.There were no objectors in attendance.The
Planning Commission voted 10 ayes,0 nays to defer thematterasrequested.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.2 —File No.322
NAME:Orchard Subdivision
LOCATION:300'orth of Intersection of
Sardis and Alexander Roads
ENGINEER:APPLICANT/AGENT:
Allan Curry Roark,Perkins,Kennedy and
Main Street Associates
North Little Rock,AR 713 W.2nd Street
Phone:372-2131 Little Rock,AR 72201
Phone:372-0272
DEVELOPER:
James Whitehurst
AREA:15.39 acres NO.OF LOTS:34 FT.OF NEW ST.:
2,240'ONING.
iiR-2"
PROPOSED USES:Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A.EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site is located in a rural type area with most of
development consisting of single family homes.The
land is flat with scattered trees and vegetation.Itisborderedonthesouthandwestbysinglefamilyresidentialstructures.Improvements are needed alongSardisRoad.
B.DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
This is a proposal to develop 15.39 acres into 34 lotsofsinglefamilyuse.Included are plans for a pool,
play area and walkway easements.2,240 linear feet of
new street will be provided.No variances have beenrequested.
C.LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
None.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.2 —Continued
D.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
1.Dedicate sufficient right-of-way for minor
arterial street.
2.Improve Sardis Road to minor arterial standards
with underground drainage if required.
3.75'adius on Old Orchard Lane requires variance.
4.Requesting the intersection of Old Orchard Lane
and Sardis Road be discussed with Traffic Engineer
prior to preparing final plans.
F.ANALYSIS
Staff recognizes this as an attempt by the developer to
provide a single family subdivision with a number of
recreational amenities and one which incorporates much
of the existing and natural features of the area.The
proposal submitted is generally considered to be a
favorable one;however,there are several points for
discussion and/or resolution.
First of all,the design of the entrance-way was
originally questioned,but upon site investigation,it
seemingly represents an effort to preserve several
existing pear trees,which will provide an orchard-like
entrance into the Subdivision.The City Engineers have
suggested that this intersection be discussed with theTrafficDivision.Secondly,there are five areas noted
on the plat that constitute open and/or recreationalareas.The applicant needs to provide some type of
explanation as to what some of the areas,such as the
"pecan grove"will be used for,and who will be
responsible for the maintenance and ownership of all
the areas.The pool and parking area cannot be
approved as a part of this plat since they require aconditionalusepermitin"R-2"areas.There is a
possibility that a portion of this plat may lie outsideoftheCity's boundaries.Staff will research this.If this is so,annexation will be necessary.As for
plat technicalities,the cul-de-sacs seem to be offset
a bit,and there is a curb radius problem with the
property and right-of-way lines.Building lines are
not shown,and all of the preliminary certificates have
not been stamped on the plat.Engineering has statedthatavarianceisrequiredforthe75'adius shown
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.2 —Continued
on Old Orchard Lane since the Ordinance requirement is150'.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant was present.During discussion of the item,it was noted that no variances were requested,but four were
needed.A motion was made to pass this to the Commission
without recommendation,subject to:
(1)Modification of the entrance drive so that less
pavement would be provided for maintenance by the
City;
(2)Variance for 75'ariance on Old Orchard Lane;
(3)Variance for excessive length of cul-de-sac;
(4)Variance for cul-de-sac offsets;
(5)Variance for right-of-way lines;
(6)Dedication of sufficient right-of-way for minorarterialstreetonSardisRoad;
(7)Improvement of Sardis Road to minor arterial standards
with required drainage;and
(8)Discussion of front intersection with Traffic Engineer
prior to preparation of final construction plans.
The vote —4 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present.Mr.Allan Curry,the
engineer,was present to represent the subdivision.He made
a brief statement.After a brief discussion of the issues
offered by staff,the Planning Commission voted to approvethepreliminaryplatasrecommendedbytheSubdivision
Committee being Items 1,6,7 and 8 of their recommendation
and incorporating a variance approval for Items 2,3,4 and
5 of the Committee recommendation.The vote on the motion—
10 ayes,0 nays.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3 —File No.323
NAME:Highway 410 —Commercial
Subdivision
LOCATION:Approximately 400'est of
Intersection of Black Street
and Highway 10
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
JM Construction Co.Sam Davis
Route 5,Box 4158 5301 W.8thLittleRock,AR 72212 Little Rock,AR 72204
Phone:225-6799
AREA:20.607 acres NO.OF LOTS:5 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"C-3,""R-2"
PROPOSED USES:Commercial
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A.EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed site is composed of flat ground,a portionofwhichisinthefloodway.Several uses are
apparent.Lot 1 consists of a portable concrete batch
plant.Lot 3 consists of a larger concrete plant and
three metal buildings used for truck maintenance.
Lots 2 and 4 consist of 323 mini-warehouses ranging insizefrom5'10'o 12'25'hat have been
developed since 1977.The property is bordered on the
west by a commercial use,the south by single family
zoning and the east by commercial zoning.Isom Creek
runs across the property from east to west;and therealsoisanexisting50'ater easement between the
single and commercial tracts.Access through the
property is provided by what is currently a 60'ravel
access easement that extends from Highway 10 southwardtoTractA.A concrete bridge exists over a creek that
runs from east to west.Street improvements will be
needed along Highway 10.
B.DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
This is a proposal by the applicant to subdivide atractoflandof20.607 acres into four lots for
commercial use,and into an acreage tract that is
currently zoned for single family.The applicant
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3 —Continued
is requesting that this be reviewed as a combination
preliminary/final.
C.LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
None.
D.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
1.Widen Highway 10 to one-half of a 48'rterial
with underground drainage.
2.Request internal drainage plan to include drainage
calculations and certification that concrete
bridge is adequate hydraulically and structurally.
3.Floodway is extensive through the property.The
proposed 30'rainage easement does not appear
adequate.Show floodway in 100-Year Flood
elevation on plat.
E.ANALYSIS
The main concerns with this proposal revolve around
provision of adequate access to the commercial lots and
the residential tracts to be developed later,and
proper treatment of the floodway area within the site.
Staff has considered whether or not the 60'ccess
easement through the site should be a private street or
be publicly maintained.A private street would be
acceptable,provided it is built to the City standards
for commercial office development (36'treet).We are
suggesting though that the applicant initially develop
Lots 1-4 with the street,but construct a cul-de-sac
that would extend to the south side of the water
easement when the final to Tract A is done.Also,the
applicant has not indicated any floodway information on
the plat,and a substantial amount of the site lies in
the floodway.Engineering has questioned this,the
adequacy of the existing concrete bridge,and a
proposed 30'rainage easement.
As for technicalities,several basic plat requirements
have been omitted,such as building lines (25'n "C-3"
areas),vicinity map and preliminary plat certificates,etc.The applicant should contact the staff about
resolving these.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3 —Continued
The applicant has requested that this be considered as
a combined preliminary and final.Staff,however,does
not feel that this meets the criteria designated in the
Ordinance.It specifically states that this type
review is to be used for minor subdivisions that:
(1)do not create more than four lots,tracts or
parcels;(2)tracts not larger than five acres;(3)
proposal does not involve dedication of public street
or access easement through parcel.
Usually a 40'andscaped buffer and 6'ence are
required between commercial/office subdivisions and
areas zoned for residential use.In this instance,a50'asement with no existing trees is in the area;
furthermore;the trees beyond this point have been
bulldozed.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Since the applicant was not in attendance,the Committee
vote to defer this item to the next Commission meeting.The
motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The developer and his engineer were present and offered
comments.There were no objectors.After a brief
discussion of the issues and the problems yet to be
resolved,the Planning Commission determined that a deferral
to the May 10,1983,meeting would be in order.This would
be structured to allow Mr.Davis,the engineer,to return to
the Subdivision Committee on April 28.The Commission
approved a motion to defer the matter by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 nays.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No,.4 —File No.324
NAME:Little Rock Freezer
Industrial Park
LOCATION:Patterson,North Side ofLittleRockIndustrial
District
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Holding Freezer Dist.Edward G.Smith &Associates
Center,Inc.401 Victory
c/o Edward G.Smith &Assoc.Little Rock,AR
401 Victory Phone:374-1666LittleRock,AR 72207
Phone:374-1666
AREA:38.7 acres NO.OF LOTS:12 FT.OF NEW ST.:3,050
ZONING:"I-2"
PROPOSED USES:Industrial
VARIANCE REQUESTED:None
A.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The land involved is located in what is generally an
industrial area.It is flat and consists of scattered
trees and vegetation.Portions of it lie in the
floodplain.Although it may have been filled,portions
of the site are below the acceptable floodplain
elevation.The floodway cuts across the property on
the northeast,affecting Lots 7 and 8,and possibly Lot
6.Improvements are needed on Patterson Avenue.
B.DEVELOPMFNT PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing to develop 38.7 acres into
12 lots for industrial use.Three thousand fifty feet(3,050')of new street is proposed.No variances have
been requested.
C.LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
None.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.4 —Continued
D.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS:
l.Improve Patterson Avenue to collector standards to
include underground drainage if required.
2.Floodway appears to encroach on Lots 7 and 8,show
floodway on plat.
E.ANALYSIS:
This proposal presents several concerns.Due to the
floodway encroachment on the lots in the northeastern
corner,the Parks Department is requesting an easement
over the floodway and an adequate building line from
the floodway.The next problem of significance is thefactthataportionoftheplatonthenorthisoutside
the City's boundary.The applicant is required to
annex this area by Board of Directors policy.
Relative to site-design,staff has questions about the
unique shape of Lot 12.It is requested that the
applicant label the parcel that juts out to the south
as "Tract A"and note it as unbuildable on the plat andBillofAssurance.As for streets,the applicant is
requested to improve Patterson Avenue to one-half of acollectorstandard.Freezer Road should be built to
industrial street standards with regular curb/gutter.
Since a new boundary street is being created adjacenttoLots6through8,the applicant is expected to
improve both sides of the street as required by
ordinance.As submitted,the plat did not contain the50'uilding lines required in "I-2"areas.These
should be indicated internally as well as on theexteriorside.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION:
A motion was made to pass this item to the Commission
without specific recommendation.The following are itemsforresolution:
(1)Dedication of an easement over the floodway and the
25'etbackareafromthefloodway;
(2)Annexation of the portion outside of the City;
(3)Improvement of Patterson to collector standards withrequireddrainage;
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.4 —Continued
(4)Plans showing encroachment of floodway on northeastern
lots,and required building lines;and
(5)Improvement of Freezer Road to industrial standards.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The developer's engineer was present to represent the issue
and made a brief statement.There were no objectors
present.A brief discussion by the Commission and staff
relative to the five items in the Committee recommendation
led to a motion to approve the preliminary plat as
recommended by the Subdivision Committee.The motion
included introduction of a correction on Item 1 under the
Committee recommendation to change the sentence to read:
Dedication of an easement over the floodway and the
establishment of a 25-foot platted building line parallel to
the floodway line.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes
and 0 nays.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5 —File No.325
NAME:Barclay Apartments —Site
Plan Review
LOCATION:Rainwood and Green Mountain
DEVELOPER:ARCHITECT:
Henderson Real Estate Canino/Jackson/Maune,Architects
NW Grand Blvd.Investors,Inc.
Oklahoma City,OK 2 Van Circle
Phone:(405)947-1042 Little Rock,AR 72207
ENGINEER:
Allan Curry
Phone:372-2130
AREA:1.91 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"MF-24"
PROPOSED USES:Multifamily
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1.Reduce 40'etback to 25'ince adjoining propertiesaremini-warehouses.
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS:
1.The construction of three two-story apartment buildings
on 1.91 acres at a density of 23 units per acre.
2.Development Scheme
(a)Type of Units No.of Units Unit Size
0 Bedroom 20 448 sq.ft.
1 Bedroom 16 595 sq.ft.
2 Bedroom 8 931 sq.f t.
Total 44 Units
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5 —Continued
(b)Building Type Building Size
Bldg.A.........8,960 sq.ft.
Bldg.B ...9,405 sq.ft.
Bldg.C 7,448 sq.ft.
Gross Area 25,912 sq.ft.
3.The provision of 66 parking spaces with five accessible
to the handicapped.
4.The provision of a pool with a fence-enclosed deck and
accessory building.
5.Construction is to be of wood frame,90 percent brick
veneer and designed so that units will open onto a
covered corridor or stairway.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS ("MF-24")
l.Exterior yard shall have a depth of 25'.This plan
complies.
2.Interior yards abutting interior property lines or anylotofrecordshallhadepthequaltotheheightofa
proposed building or structure.This plan complies.
3.Detached building separation should be 10.This plan
complies.
4.Minimum site area is one acre.This plan complies.
5.The proposal must comply with the City's Landscaping
Ordinance.
6.Three copies of a revised or an approved site plan must
be submitted to the staff before the building permit is
received.
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS:
None.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5 —Continued
ANALYSIS:
No major problems were found.Staff is basically supportiveoftheapplicant's proposal and variance.Usually a
40'ufferanda6'ence is required between multifamily andsinglefamilyareas.Since mini-warehouses are currentlylocatedontheproperty,the requirements aren't necessary.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
A motion was made and passed to approve this item.The vote
was 4 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present.The application was
represented by the architect.After a brief discussion,the
Planning Commission voted to approve the site plan as
recommended by the Subdivision Committee.The vote
10 ayes,0 nays.
April 12,1983
Item No.5A —Z-3315-A
Owner:Henderson Real Estate Investments
Applicant:Don Johnson
Location:SE Corner Green Mountain Drive
and Rainwood Road
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Familyto"MF-24"Multifamily
Purpose:Multifamily Development
Size:1.9 acres t
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Commercial and Vacant,Zoned "C-3"and "C-4"
South —Industrial,Zoned "R-2"
East —Vacant,Zoned "C-3"
West —Multifamily,Zoned "R-5"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing
agency concerning this request.This property was thesubjectoflitigationoveradeniedapplicationfor
commercial zoning some years ago.In that case,which wenttotheArkansasSupremeCourt,the City successfully
defended its contention that the property is better suitedtoresidentialuse.
Finally,a developer has applied for approval to construct
44 units on this site.The site plan is also underconsiderationatthisPlanningCommissionmeeting.Green
Mountain Drive and Rainwood Road are both collector streets
on the Master Street Plan and have been constructed to Citystandards.No outstanding issues exist.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present.The application wasrepresentedbythearchitect.After a brief discussion,the
Planning Commission voted to recommend approval to the CityBoardoftherezoningto"MF-24"Multifamily.The vote10ayes,0 nays.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.6 —File No.326
NAME:Westpark Meadows Site Plan
Review
LOCATION:1701 Westpark Drive
DEVELOPER/AGENT:ENGINEER:
Bill Horvath Co.Robert J.Bailey
()5 Oak Cliff Circle P.O.Box 65069LittleRock,AR 72205 Little Rock,AR 72207Phone:225-3323 Phone:224-7406
OWNER:
Louis Rauton
AREA:13.47 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"R-5"
PROPOSED USES:Multifamily
REQUEST:
1.Site plan review of a multiple building site.
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS:
1.The construction of a four-plex in an existing
apartment complex of 250 units on 13.476 acres.
2.Development Proposal
Bldg.Type Unit Type Unit Size Gross Area
2-Story 1 Bedroom 766 sq.ft.3,064 sq.ft.
3.Location of the four-plex:
(a)34'rom closest existing building.
(b)22'rom west property line.
(c)At the end of a dead-end private drive within the
complex.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.6 —Continued
4.Parking:
(a)No.Proposed .......6
(b)Location —within 37'rive
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
(1)Parking layout is unsafe according to Traffic Engineer.
(2)Request modification to parking to provide standard
dead-end parking.
ANALYSIS:
Staff is not supportive of this request because of several
reasons.Foremost is the consideration that several issues
from the original submission of the development have never
been resolved,due to the applicant's receiving a building
permit before the final plat was filed.Therefore,no final
plat has ever been filed of record with the proper
dedication requirement on Boyle Park Road and of utility
easements.Staff is not particularly supportive of the
location of the four-plex.Westpark Drive was originally
proposed to connect where the abutting property to the westis.Instead,a warehouse has been constructed,which is
immediately opposite the proposed building,but will be
separated by a 6'ood fence and 4'ide landscaped strip.
Since there is a major water main to the warehouse on the
property,staff feels that the proposed location will
interfere with fire protection to the warehouse.
Based on these reasons,staff feels that approval of thesiteplanisnotwarranted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant was present.A revised parking plan was shown
to the Committee.The general concensus was that ample room
for parking was provided.It was decided to pass this to
the Commission without a recommendation,subject to:
April 12,1983
I SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.6 —Continued
(1)Approval of the Fire Department;and
(2)The submission of a final plat dedicating the
appropriate right-of-way and easements,which should
have been dedicated previously.
PLANNING COMMSSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present.The application was
represented by Mr.Bill Horvath and Mr.Robert J.Bailey,
the architect.They made a brief presentation on their
application.The planning Commission discussed the matteratlengthastotheappropriatemeansofdealingwithItems
1 and 2 identified under the Committee Recommendation.A
motion was made to approve the site plan for the
construction of the additional four units subject to the
applicant's submission of a final plat dedicating the
appropriate right-of-way and easements for Boyle park Road
and the recording of that plat on the County record prior to
the issuance of building permits.The vote —10 ayes,
0 nays.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.7 —File No.327
NAME:Bullock's Site Plan Reivew
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS:
1.The construction of a single bay car wash with a smallofficespace(16'16')and vacuum area.
2.The provision of 13 additional parking spaces for theexistingbuilding.
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS:
Consider closing one driveway and using access to carwash on
one wide driveway.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This proposal is located on a site which consists of anexistingcommercialbuildingalsowithintheapplicant's
ownership.Staff is not opposed to his request to build thecarwash,but views the relationship between his accessdrivesandthelocationofanexistingmedianwhereKanis
Road intersects with Rodney Parham as a potential traffic
problem.The applicant should specifically indicate wherethismedianstopssoafullassessmentcanbemade.TheTrafficDepartmenthasalsobeenaskedtoreportonthis.
The submitted site plan did not indicate the requiredsetbacksandthesubmissiondidnotindicatethesquarefootageoftheexistingbuilding.A revised and/or approvedsiteplanwillberequiredbeforeabuildingpermitisreceived.
STAFF RECONNENDATION:
Staff reserves recommendation until further comment isreceivedfromTraffic.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant was present.The Committee decided to passthisitemtotheCommission,subject to:
(1)The submission of a revised plan showing existingthemedianonRodneyParhamandaproperlydimensioned
survey before April 12.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.7 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present.The application wasrepresentedbytheowner.A brief discussion followed.ThePlanningCommissionthenvotedonamotiontorecommend
approval of the proposed car wash and site plan subject to alimitofasingledrivewayaccessontoWest12thStreetwhichistobereviewedbytheCityEngineer's Department astodesign.The vote —10 ayes,0 nays.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.8 —File No.324-B
NAME:Westover Hills Site Plan
Review
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS:
1.To construct two 2-story duplexes on a one acre site.
2.Request for a waiver from "R-5"requirement of no
parking in the front.
3.Development Scheme
No.of Units Unit Size Total Floor Area
4 1,066 sq.ft.4,264
4.Provision of 7 parking spaces.
5.Density —18 units per acre.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS:
1.Front yard setback of not less than 25'.This plan
complies.
2.Side yards of not less than 5'.This plan complies.
3.Rear yard of not less 25'.
4.Detached building separation of at least 10'.This
plan complies.
5.Minimum site area is 10,000 square feet.This plancomplies.
6.Landscaping must comply with City's regulations.
7.Three copies of a revised and/or approved site plan
must be submitted to staff before building permit isobtained.
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.Widen McKinley to match curb line to the south of
property.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.8 —Continued
2.Drainage plan previously approved.
3.No improvements required on Pine Valley Road.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This property is located in a residential neighborhood,
generally consisting of single family uses.The site fronts
on both Pine Valley Road and North McKinley Street and is
nestled between a single family home on the north and a
small corner store immediately to the south.The proposal
on this site was originally submitted to the Commission for
review in March of 1982.The applicant then proposed to
develop the property into two lots of about 4,992 squarefeetand4,907.5 square feet.A variance was requested from
the Ordinance's lot depth requirement of 7,000 square feet
for which the justification was stated as insufficient "land
for two lots because of the double frontage nature."
On March 9,1982,the Commission decided that the item as
submitted posed a legal question of whether or not the
Commission has the authority to reduce minimum lot size
requirements.On March 30,1983,the City Attorney reported
on a legal opinion which inferred that this request was
invalid.As a result,the applicant withdrew his
application.On a later date,the applicant approached the
Commission and was advised that he resubmit this as a zoning
application from "R-4"to "R-5."The site was rezoned and
the applicant was advised that a site plan review would be
required for a multiple building site.
The applicant has stated that his present submission will be
developed as proposed in the original proposal,and his planstillshowstwolots.Site plan reviews of this nature are
for two buildings on one site.Staff is not endorsing thelotlinesthroughthemiddle.We are suggesting that the
applicant adjust the siting of the buildings and parking so
that it does not require backing into the street.The
driveway should be kept at a width of 22'.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval,subject to comments made.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.8 —Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Nr.Bob Richardson represented the applicant.The CommitteedecidedtopasstheitemtotheCommissionwithout
recommendation,subject to:
(1)Widening of NcKinley Street,which the applicant agreedtodo;and
(2)Submission of a revised plan eliminating the lot line
and changing the parking as recommended by the staff.
*Commissioner Rector abstained.
PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present.A brief discussion washeld.Nr.Richardson,the applicant,indicated that theplanhadbeenrevisedtoaccommodatethestaff
recommendation.The Planning Commission voted to approve amotionofapprovalontheapplicationandtheplanasmodified.The vote —9 ayes,0 nays.Bill Rectorabstained.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.9 —File No.329
NAME:Paul C.Watson "PRD"(Z-3992)
(Short-Form)
LOCATION:1904 Battery
DEVELOPER/OWNER:ENGINEER:
Paul C.Watson,Jr.Ollen D.Wilson
24 Queenspark 212 VictoryLittleRock,AR 72207 Little Rock,AR 72201
Phone:225-2652 Phone:375-7222
AREA:.3 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"R-4"(Existing)
PROPOSED ZONING:"PRD 11
PROPOSED USES:Multifamily
REQUEST:
Reclassification of an area zoned "R-4."
I.PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
a.Parcel signs —.3 acres.b.Existing zoning —"R-4".c.Development scheme:
(1)Conversion of a two story frame structure
from three apartment units to four one
bedroom apartment units.
(2)Modification to include adding one kitchen,
one bathroom,closing some doors and somecosmeticimprovements.
(3)No structural changes are to be made.
(4)Parking proposed is six spaces.
II.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
(1)Repair or replace damage curb and sidewalk.
(2)Reconstruct driveway and parking area to Citystandards.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.9 —Continued
II.ANALYSIS
This item is being considered as a short-form PUD,due
to the applicant's inability to get the desired density
in the zoning district.The proposal includes
conversion of a two story structure of three apartments
into four apartments,the result of which is
unallowable in an "R-4"area.No physical additions
are included.Only modifications necessary for the
conversion are to be made.Since this is the PUD
process,a question was raised among the staff as to
our role in renovation requirements.Our only request,
in addition to the City Engineers'omments,is that
the applicant improve the driveway to the structure
since it was originally constructed for automobiles in
the earlier part of the century.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMENDATION:
A motion was made to pass this to the Commission without a
recommendation,subject to the applicant addressing the
following:
(1)Submission of a site plan showing ingress and egress,
treatment of landscaping and parking;
(2)Submission of more details on what is to be
constructed;and
(3)Justification of the request for increased density.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were several objectors present represented by an
attorney,Mr.Ralph Washington.There was one petition of
objection offered for consideration.A lengthy discussion
of this matter followed with comment from several of the
neighbors as well as Mr.Watson,the applicant,with the
end result that Mr.Watson determined the appropriate
action would be to withdraw his application from further
consideration.The Planning Commission voted to approve
the withdrawal.The vote —10 ayes,0 nays.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.10 —File No.161-D
NAME:Woodland Hills PUD
LOCATION:Mara Lynn Road at a point
one-fourth mile east of
Napa Valley Drive (east portion
of Turtle Creek)
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
The Danny Thomas Co.Edward G.Smith &Associates
Centre Place Building 401 Victory
212 Center Little Rock,AR
4th Floor,Suite 400 Phone:374-1666LittleRock,AR 72201
Phone:374-2231
AREA:30.532 acres NO.OF LOTS:151 FT.OF NEW ST.:
ZONING:"PRD"
PROPOSED USES:Single Family
REQUEST:
To modify an approved preliminary.
A.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This proposal represents an innovative approach to
residential living that was approved by the Planning
Commission on June 9,1981.The developer described it
as an attempt to bring young people and medium income
families into the single family ownership market with
cost planned at approximately $50,000.High
development costs have now placed the existing
development in a higher price market than planned.As
approved,design was to incorporate two distinct typesofhousing.One involved a two unit attached structure
with each unit on a separate lot.Each owner would own
one-half of the structure constructed directly over hislot.These were designed with rear access so as to
resemble single family units.Traditional single
family housing was to be provided adjacent to homes in
the Turtle Creek and Pleasant Tree Subdivisions so as
to offer an on-site transition from single family to
paired unit development.Lots in this area were to be
7,000 square feet.
The first phase,which was developed at a density of
approximately four units per acre,included 42 out of a
total of 169 lots approved.Twenty-two of the 42 lots
are currently developed along portions of Aspen Drive
and Woodlore Circle,which abuts them.
B.DEVELOPNENT PROPOSAL:
The applicant is now proposing to modify the approved
plan so that 30.15 acres in Phase II will be developedatanincreaseindensityof4.95 acres.This will be
an increase of less than one home per acre,which would
serve to reduce the cost of each lot by 20 percent and
make the homes more affordable,especially since high
development costs have placed existing homes in a
higher price market than planned.Other effects of
this modification are to:
(1)Allow the buyer a choice between detached or
attached structures.
(2)Allow the Developer the option to construct either
structure as the market dictates.
(3)Decrease the distance between structures from
50 feet to 30 feet in attached areas and no less
than 10 feet in detached areas.
(4)Divide this proposal into three phases with
approximately 10 acres and 50 home sites each.
C.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS:
Improvements to Nara Lynn Road to be coordinated with
plan to extend Bowman Road from Markham Street to
Nara Lynn.
D.ANALYSIS:
The problem with this requests stems from a condition
which was previously placed upon approval of the
project.Because of neighborhood objection,the
applicant agreed to provide conventional single family
lots with detached structures adjacent to the single
family areas on the north.He is now asking to depart
from that commitment.In light of this,staff feels
that these persons should be properly notified.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff reserves comments until the Subdivision Committee
meeting,at which time more information will be forthcoming.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.10 —Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
A motion was made to pass this item to the Commissionwithoutarecommendation,subject to the appicant:
(1)Revising only a portion of the project at this time,since market conditions could change again;
(2)Notification of property owners inside the project whoarewithin200'f the change;and
(3)Investigation as to whether or nor a change would berequiredintheBillofAssurence.
The vote —4 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A formal letter of request was submitted requestingdeferralofthismattertoApril26,1983.The Planning
Commission voted on a motion to approve the deferral.Themotionpassedbyavoteof10ayes,0 nays.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.11 —File No.296-A
NAME:Parkway Village PRD
LOCATION:North of Parkway Place Addition
14300 Rock Creek Parkway
REQUEST:
Final plat confirmation of an approved preliminary.
STAFF COMMENTS:
This item has been submitted as required by ordinance toreceivefinalconfirmation.Staff has found no problem withtheplanandrecommendsapproval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMENDATION:
A motion was made and passed to approve the request.Thevote—4 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present.The application wasrepresented.After a brief discussion,the Planning
Commission voted to recommend approval of the final plat ofthefirstphaseofParkwayVillagePlannedResidentialDevelopment.The vote —10 ayes,0 nays.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.12 —Z-3990 —Conditional Use Permit
NAME:Highway 410
LOCATION:Approximately 400 feet west
of the Intersection of
Black Street and State
Highway 410
OWNER/APPLICANT:J.G.Construction Company/
Julian Gilliam
PROPOSAL:
To final plat this property and to obtain a conditional use
permit to allow the construction of 11 office-warehouses in
Building 1,34 mini-warehouse unit in Building 2,and 20
mini-warehouse units in Building 3,all located on property
that is zoned "C-3"(General Commercial District).
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
This site is located in a mixed use area.A variety of
land uses such as single family,commercial and
industrial are adjacent to this property.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
The use of office-warehouse and mini-warehouse is
compatible with the surrounding area.Nini-warehouses
are present on the site to the south and a concrete
batch plant to the west.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
There will be no direct access to Highway 10 from thesite.The concrete drive now existing on the west side
will be used.The applicant is proposing 24 parking
spaces in conjunction with the office-warehouse use.
4.Screening and Buffers
The applicant has not shown screening and/or
landscaping on the submitted site plan.It is assumed
he will comply with Ordinance minimum.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.12 —Continued
5.Analysis
Staff is in agreement with the proposed usage for this
property.No adverse impact is expected on the
surrounding area.
The staff does,however,have some reservations about
landscaping.Staff feels that the site needs to meet
screening and buffer requirements along Highway ()10 and
the east property line.
This site plan does not meet building setback lines on
the west side of the lot.A 25-foot building line is
required.In addition,a 15-foot building line is
required on the east property as it is adjacent to a
single family use.
The staff feels that the possibility exists that the
southernmost warehouse may be located in the
floodway/floodplain.
6.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval,on the condition that the
applicant submit a revised site plan that will show:
(1)adequate landscaping on the north and east property
line;(2)proper building lines on the east and west
property line;and (3)100-Year Floodplain information
relative to the proposed structures.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Since the applicant was not in attendance,the Committee
voted to pass this item on to the Commissiom without
recommendation.The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Commission voted 10 ayes,0 nays to defer this item to
the May 10,1983,Planning Commission meeting,
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.13 —Z —3991 —Conditional Use Permit
NAME:North Taylor Street
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:501 N.Taylor Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Barbara H.Thurmond/Dian Asbury
PR|5PDRAL:
To obtain a conditional use permit that would allow a duplexuseandtheconstructionoftwoparkingspacesonpropertythatiszoned"R-3"(Single Family District).
1.Site Location
This site is located in a single family residential
neighborhood.
2.Compatibility with Nei hborhood
A duplex use does not appear to be compatible with thesurroundingneighborhood.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
One drive serves as access from Lee Avenue.Plansincludeconstructionoftwopavedparkingspacesin therearyardthatwilltakeaccessfromanalleyontheeastpropertyline.
4.Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use existing trees and
shrubbery to fulfill the screening and buffer
requirements.
5.~AL
This neighborhood is an extension of Hillcrest and is
experiencing some upgrading in housing units.Staffdoesnotseethisproposalbenefitingtheadjacentproperties.Staff does not see compelling reasons for
approval.
6.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.13 —Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION:
Since the applicant was not in attendance,the Committee
voted to pass this item on to the Commission without
recommendation.The vote —4 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Three neighborhood residents were present and spoke in
opposition to this application.Mr.Asbury was present to
represent the case.There followed a lengthy discussion of
the neighborhood uses.Comments were offered by Mr.Sam
Warren,a neighbor and land owner adjacent.
A motion was made to vote on the application as filed.The
application was denied by a vote of 0 ayes,10 nays.
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.14 —File No.48-T
NAME:Lot A,Piedmont Subdivision
LOCATION:Highway 10,Approximately
1,600'astofSamPeckRoad
REQUEST:
To modify an approved preliminary.
STAFF REPORT
This is a request by the applicant to deviate on the finalplatfromwhatwasoriginallyapprovedonthepreliminary bynotconstructingLakeviewCourt,a proposed
60'ight-of-way.The applicant has stated that construction of
the street at this time is unnecessary because it wouldn'
provide access for them since the drainage ditch bars accesstoLakeviewCourt.He also feels that this plan is better
overall because:
(1)The property to the east of Lot A is owned by the
developer (Sam Peck and Associates).
(2)The residents to the east of Lakeview Court does notexist.
(3)The property to the west of Lot A is the purchaser.
(4)Construction of the street will serve no purpose atthistime.
(5)The Developer will construct all of Lakeview Court in
the future when access to Lots 1,2 or 3 (currently
unplatted)is needed.
(6)Sale of Lot A to any other party would constitute a
fragmented land use due to its small building area.
(7)The intended use of Lot A is for parking.
(8)The purchaser will improve the drainage ditch.
April 12 g 1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.14 —Continued
Staff is not favorable to the request.First of all,therequestisprematuresinceithastohaveavariancefrom
the Board of Adjustment.Since there is a drainage problem,there is a question as to the utility of the lot itself.
The plan,as submitted,is deficient in that it does not
include all the property in the original preliminary plat.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant was present.His proposal was clarified as
being a request to:(a)modify an approved preliminary;and
(b)not construct improvements required for Lakeview Courtatthistime.Staff felt that the request was premature,since the question of land use should be resolved first.
This would require him to go to the Board of Adjustment and
get a variance to use this for parking since it is now zonedforsinglefamily.Also,a question was raised as to the
enforcement of a condition placed on the previous approval,to build improvements on Highway 10 when this portion of theplatisdeveloped.
The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission without
recommendation,subject to:(1)improvement of Highway 10,(2)solution of drainage problem,and (3)Board of
Adjustment consideration.The Committee specificallyindicatedthatthisrecommendationwasnotanendorsement oftheuseofthelotforparking.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present.The application was
represented by Mr.Wordsmith of the Independent Air
Conditioning Company and Mr.Bob Peck,the owner of theproperty.A lengthy discussion was held on this matter
discussing the various points raised by staff in its report.
The Planning Commission after much deliberation determined
by a unanimous vote to approve the formation of the new lot
and revise the preliminary plat of Piedmont Subdivision.
This approval is subject to:(1)Highway 10 improvementsaretoremainwiththesamecommitmentprovidedontheoriginalpreliminaryplat;(2)drainage problems on the
newly created lot are to be solved to the satisfaction oftheEngineeringDepartment;(3)that the Board of Adjustment
be advised that this action of the Commission in no wayendorsestheuseofthelotasaparkinglotora
nonresidential use.The vote on the motion -9 ayes,
0 nays.Jones abstained.
CV
Cl
N
z
0 "o e%449
M Q
z a ca
Z &I M CO g $Q Q Q .g Q Q Q M
co
z
uW
z S &u u g0QJ'+U)0 0 OMMSNWUQlaC44MUV4C
April 12,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned
at 3:15 p.m.
airperson ert y
5=(-8'3
Date