HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_06 14 1983subI ITTLE RUCK P LANNING CDNNISSI ON
SUNNARI AND NINUTE RECQRD
SUBDIVISION HEARING
JUNE 14p 1983
I:QO P.N.
I.Roll Call and f ind ing a f a Quorum.
A Quorum was present being XG in number.
II.Approval of the Ninutes of the Previous Nesting.
The minutes of the previous meeting were appravedasmailedout
III Nembers Present:John Sch3.ereth„ChairpersonJ.Nicholson,Vice-Chairperson
R.Nassie
Bi Sipes
W.Ketcher
D.Arnett
D JonesI~BalesJ.Summerlin
B.Rector
IV.Nembers Absent:John C3.ayton
V.City Attorney".Hugh Brawn
/
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 -File No.323
NAME:Highway ¹10 —Commercial
Subdivision
LOCATION:Approximately 400'est of&Intersection of Black Street
and Highway 10
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
J-G Construction Co.Sam Davis
Route 5,Box 415B 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-3F""R-2"
PROPOSED USES:Commercial
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A.EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed site is composed of flat ground,a portion
of.which is in the floodway.Several uses are
apparent.Lot 1 consists of a portable concrete batchplant.Lot 3 consists of a larger concrete plant andthreemetalbuildingsusedfortruckmaintenance.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 thewestbyacommercialuse,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 thesingleandcommercialtracts.Access through the
property is provided by what is currently a 60'ravelaccesseasementthatextendsfromHighway10southwardtoTractA.A concrete bridge exists over a creek thatrunsfromeasttowest.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 forcommercialuse,and into an acreage tract that iscurrentlyzonedforsinglefamily.The applicant
June 14,1983
SUSDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —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 drainagecalculationsandcertificationthatconcrete
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 standardsforcommercialofficedevelopment(36'treet).We are
suggesting though that the applicant initially developLots1-4 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,theapplicanthasnotindicatedanyfloodwayinformationontheplat,and a substantial amount of the site lies inthefloodway.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.
June 14,1983/
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —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
voted 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 beresolved,the Planning Commission determined that a deferraltotheMay10,1983,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.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
A request was received from the applicant for a 30-daydeferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Commission voted 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent to defer
the item,as requested by the applicant,to the June 14th
agenda.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
A revised plan was submitted by the applicant.The
Committee decided to pass it to the Commission,subject to:
(1)Showing Master Street Plan collector through SecludedHills.
(2)Shortening of a cul-de-sac north of Tract "A."
(3)Addition of topos to plats.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
The applicant was present.The motion was made and passedtoapprovetheplanasrevisedsubjectto:
(1)Widening of Highway 10 to one-half of a 48-footarterialwithundergrounddrainage.
(2)Engineering approval of bridge.
It passed by a vote 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.2 —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.Mini-warehouses
are present on the site to the south and a concrete
batch plant to the west.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
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.Screenin 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.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.2 —Continued
5.A~1
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 andtheeastpropertyline.
This site plan does not meet building setback lines onthewestsideofthelot.A 25-foot building line is
required.In addition,a 15-foot building line isrequiredontheeastpropertyasitisadjacentto asinglefamilyuse.
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 theapplicantsubmitarevisedsiteplanthatwillshow:(1)adequate landscaping on the north and east propertyline;(2)proper building lines on the east and west
property line;and (3)100-Year Floodplain informationrelativetotheproposedstructures.
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 totheMay10,1983,Planning Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Applicant requested by letter that this item be deferred 30
days to the June 14'983/Planning Commission meeting,sothattheycanhavetimetoresolvefloodway/floodplainissues.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.2 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Commission voted 10 ayes,0 noes,1 absent to defer this
item as requested by the applicant to the June 14,1983,
Planning Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and submitted a revised plan.The
revised plan is to locate five mini-warehouse buildings on
the proposed lot.The revised plan has corrected all
previously sighted deficiencies *(see revised sketch).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Voted 10 ayes,0 noes,1 absent to approve the revised
proposal as recommended by staff and reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3 —File No.397
NAME:Bodeman's Addition
Lot 6,Block 11
"PRD"Short Form
LOCATION:NW Corner of Valentine
and 6th Streets
DEVELOPER:ARCHITECT:
K.B.Company Bob Killingsworth¹I Inwood Circle ¹1 Inwood Circle
Suite 202 Suite 202LittleRock,AR Little Rock,AR
Phone:225-8587
AREA:6,026 sq.ft.NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"PRD"
PROPOSED USE:Four-plex
REQUEST:
To reclassify an area zoned "R-2"to "PRD."
I.History of the Site:
The site and immediate area has been noted for single
family use through the years.
II.Development Objectives and Philosophy:
A.To remove an existing and vacant frame residence
which is approximately 50 years old.
B.The construction of a two-story,frame structure
with brick and siding exterior,to be used as a
four-plex.
C.Sale of completed project to an investor for
rental purposes.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3 —Continued
III.Project Characteristics:
A.Parcel Size ...........6,026 sq.ft.
B.Existing Zoning .....,."R-2"
C .Development Scheme:
(1)Four-plex
First Level ...........3,800 sq.ft.
Second Level ..........1,800 sq.ft.
Total Building Size ...3,800 sq.ft.
(2)Lot Size ..............131'
46'3)
Building Coverage .....30%
(4)Parking ...............7
(5)Unit Size .............950 sq.ft.
D.Timetable for Construction
(1)Construction Start ....June 15,1983
(2)Ready for Occupancy ...September 15,1983
IV.Engineering Considerations:
(1)Parking plan on Valentine is not satisfactory,since backing into the right-of-way is not
permitted.
(2)Engineering records show that 6th Street
right-of-way is on the south side of the propertyratherthanthealleyshownonthesubmittedplan.6th Street should be improved as a part of thisproject.
V.Staff Analysis:
Staff has severe reservations about endorsing thisproposal.Technically,it is deficient relative tospecificdesigncriteria,as it does not allowsufficientspacefortherequiredamountofparking.
Nore importantly,the proposal represents a directioninwhichstaffisreluctanttosupportinregardto the
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3 —Continued
general character of the Neighborhood.If approved,
this plan would represent a departure from many of the
goals that have been set by the Neighborhood and City
policy.
The Woodruff Neighborhood is a part of the City which
has been experiencing revitalization over the last five
to seven years through the C.D.B.G.program and some
private investment.Recently,it has begun to
experience outside pressures due to the construction of
a medical complex to the west.Staff feels that the
efforts of the neighborhood should not go unheeded.
Approval of this type proposal in an area that is
single family and encouraging the demolition of a
single family structure would only add to the external
pressures and encourage instability in the area.The
City must support the efforts of the neighborhood and
try to ensure that the positive trends that have taken
place recently are not reversed.Furthermore,this
seems to be a good case for rehabilitation.
Demolishing the structure and replacing it with the
proposed would be removing affordable housing stock
from the Little Rock from a desirable neighborhood.
Only 1 I/2 block to the south of the site,18 new units
have been constructed,are under construction or have
been approved by the City for construction.The
concentration of all the new units in one area could
have a very negative impact on the general character;
so staff is in favor of keeping the site single family.
There is some vacant land in the area that would
accommodate some non-single family development.This
would not necessitate setting a precedent for the
demolition of existing structures.
VI.Staff Recommendation:
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission without
recommendation,since the applicant was not present.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3 —Continued
PLANNING CONNISSION
ACTION-'he
applicant was present.There were approximately 20personsthereinopposition.Since the applicant was notpresentattheSubdivisionCommitteemeeting,the CommissiondecidedtodefertheitemtotheJune14PlanningCommissionmeeting.The vote was:10 ayes,0 noes,1 absent.
SUBDIVISION CONNITTEE REVIEW:(Nay 26,1983)
A revised plan,which reduced the proposal to a 2-storytri-plex,was submitted.It was passed to the Commission,subject to identification of several issues:
(1)Density
(2)Design of parking.
(3)Concern of neighborhood.
(4)Improvements to 6th Street.
(5)The question of whether or not approval of this
proposal would be detrimental to the neighborhood.
The applicant was favorable to the improvement of 6thStreet.He was advised to meet with Engineering before thePublicHearing,so that the parking may be revised.
PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.A revised plan showing anagreementworkedoutwithEngineeringwassubmitted.AnumberofresidentsfromtheWoodruffNeighborhoodwerepresentandinoppositiontotheplanasproposed.Nr.David Elms,President of the Woodruff School CommunityDevelopmentBlockGrant(CDBG)Committee was the firstspokesman.He submitted a letter addressed to theCommission,which offered guidelines for the considerationofrezoningandPUDapplicationsinthearea.The majorrecommendationsoutlinedintheletterincluded:
(1)Disallowing rezoning out of conformity with the
Neighborhood Plan.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No .3 —Continued
(2)Non-acceptance of a PUD proposal that increased the
potential number of residential units on any platted
block as zoned,taking into consideration development
of other lots in the block.
(3)Non-acceptance of a PUD proposal which would increase
by more than 50 percent the number of units allowable
per lot on any plat as zoned.
The second person to speak was Reverend Murray Tucker ofSt.Peters Baptist Church,who expressed opposition to
re-zoning and asked that the request be denied and that it
remain single family residential.Mr.J.N.Dueheart,Sr.of
510 S.Valentine expressed similar concerns and a fear that
the neighborhood was experiencing undue development pressure
due to the new VA Hospital in the area.He submitted a
petition with 65 signatures from the neighborhood.
Rehabilitation of the structure was discussed.The
Commission suggested reusing the same structure for the
development,and Mr.Elms pointed out that $50,000 in rehab
money was available for renovation in the area.The
applicant stated that it was not economically feasible to
rehabilitate the structure.He was then asked whether or
not he would consider the possibility of the duplex on the
property.He indicated that it was probable.A motion was
made to approve the item as filed."The motion was denied by
a vote of 1 aye,8 noes and 2 absent.
Staff was instructed by the Commission to give some comments
at the June 28th meeting as to whether or not they are in
support of the proposal submitted by the C.D.B.G.Committee.
The applicant was advised to wait until these comments were
presented before a decision was made whether or not to
refile an alternate proposal.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.4 —File No.24L
NAME:Hillsborough Subd.
Phase V
LOCATION:South End of Existing
Hillsborough Lane
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Kelton Brown The Hodges Firm
Big K Development Corp.3424 Old Cantrell
13700 Beckingham Road Little Rock,AR 72202
Little Rock,AR Phone:664-5000
Phone:225-2891
AREA:24.29 acres NO.OF LOTS:47 FT.OF NEW ST.:3400
ZONING:"R-2"
PROPOSED USE:Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1.Street grade on Hickory Ridge.
A.History of the Site:
Previous preliminary approval reveals that there is a
water service elevation limit of 560 feet.
B.Existing Conditions:
This site consists of very rugged terrain and slopes
ranging from 0 to 30%.Currently,it is wooded and
bounded by other single family uses or zoning.
C.Development Proposal:
This is a proposal to develop an area of 24.29 acres
into 47 lots for use as single family.3,400 feet of
new street will be provided.One variance to exceed
the allowed street grade of 15%on Hickory Ridge has
been requested.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.4 —Continued
D.Engineering Comments:
(1)Preliminary check indicates grade exceeding 225.
Information provided has 10-foot contours and no
street profiles.
(2)Request profile of proposed grades for
Hillsborough Lane,Hickory Ridge and Saddle Hill
Drive.All three streets appear to have grades
which greatly exceed the 15%limit for residentialstreets.
E.Staff Analysis:
Staff had several problems with the proposal.
Foremost is the fact that the staff review was
inhibited due to the applicant's failure to submit a
hillside analysis of the area,which provides the basis
for special subdivision development standards for
vehicular access easements,lot dimensions,and front
and side yard setbacks in areas of steep slopes.Also,
the Ordinance requires the plate with an average slope
in excess of 10$be submitted with five-foot contour
intervals.This submission had 10-foot contours.It
appears that the previous water limit on service
elevation would eliminate all the lots,except
Lots 160-166.It is necessary to find out the current
policy of Water Works in regards to this matter.Staffisstillreluctant,however,to endorse lots above the
560 —foot elevation,due to the severe constraints on
design and hazardous street situations.It is
recommended that the area remain as open space.Only
one variance was requested for Hickory Ridge,but three
are needed since grades on each exceed 15%.
F.Staff Recommendation:
Deferral until resolution and justification in writing
and graphics that this hillside can accommodate the
proposed development.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.4 —Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
(Additional Information —The Development Policies of the
Suburban Plan that were adopted by the Little Rock City
Board of Directors on April 8,1980,specifically recommend
restricting "water service to areas which can be served in
an efficient and cost-effective manner,avoiding the
construction of water lines at elevations above 675 feet
requiring specialized storage and pumping facilities.")
The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission,
subject to:
(1)The applicant providing the City staff with any
additional information needed for hillside and street
grade analysis;and
(2)A policy statement from Water Works relative to plans
for serving this area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr.Bob Lowe of the Hodges Firm represented the developer.
There were no objectors.Engineering reported that the
street grade on Hickory Ridge was totally unacceptable.The
Planning staff reported that some communication had been
received from Water Works.The memo indicated that it may
be possible to service up to an elevation of 700',but at
least two lots,which are above this elevation,are not
serviceable.It was also indicated that further information
was being developed relative to serving the area.These
guidelines would be forwarded when finalized.A motion was
made and passed,subject to resolution of the described
issues.The vote was:10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant submitted a revised plan.The Committee
decided to pass this to the Commission,subject to:
(1)Resolution of the development problem with Lots 141,
142 and 143.
(2)Board approval of lots over 675 feet.
(3)Presence of a representative from Water Works at the
meeting.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.4 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.There were no obj ectors.Arevisedplanwassubmittedwhichshowedonlyonelotwithelevationsabove695feetandHillsboroughLaneasacul-de-sac.The letter was in response to a neighboringdeveloper's request that this street not be extended to theboundaryofhisproperty.Staff reported that a resolutionwaspassedbytheCityBoardonJune26,1979,thatprohibitsauthorizationforextensionofservicelines aboveelevationsof675feetunlessitisapprovedbytheBoardofDirectors.It was decided that staff should develop aresolutiontotheBoard.A motion was made and passed forapprovaloftheplat,subject to Board approval of aresolutionendorsingextensionofwaterservicetoHillsboroughSubdivision,Phase V and including lots with a
maximum elevation of 695 feet as an amendment to SuburbanDevelopmentPolicyNo.15.The vote was 10 ayes,0 nays and1absent.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5 —File No.313
NAME:Evergreen Square —Site Plan
Review
LOCATION:NW Corner of West Capitol and
Rodney Parham
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Robert Dix Sam Davis
Route 2,Box 389F Little Rock,ARLittleRock,AR Phone:664-0324
Phone:868-5824
ARCHITECT:
Robert BaileyLittleRock,AR
Phone:224-7404
AREA:2.4 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"MF-24"
PROPOSED USES:Residential
REQUEST:
Site plan review of multiple building site.
A.EXISTING CONDITIONS
This site is located in what is generally a mixed
residential area.The land involved is practically
level with an approximate rise of 3'rom south to
north.There are no structures currently existing on
the site.
B.PROPOSAL
1.The construction of Phase I of a development,
which will include nine four-plexes on 2.4 acres.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5 —Continued
2.Development according to the following scheme:
N .*f U 't ~U't Size
9 2 Bedroom 1,033 sq.ft.
9 3 Bedroom 1,097 sq.ft.
18 2 Bedroom 1,145 sq.ft.
Town Houses
36 Units (Total)
3.Building Coverage ————————29,322 sq.ft.
4.Driveway Area 17,450 sq.ft.
5.Parking Area 8,600 sq.ft.
6.Lawn and Landscaped Area ————49,393 sq.ft.
7.Parking 92 spa ces
Ga rages—36 spaces
Other Spaces 56
SPECIAL REQUIRENENTS ("NF-24"Districts):
l.All exterior yards abutting dedicated public streets
shall have a depth of at least 25'.
2.All interior yards or yards abutting interior property
lines or any lot of record shall have a depth equal to
the height of any proposed building or structure.
3.All detached buildings shall be separated by a distance
of not less than 10'.
4.Site area should be a minimum of one acre.The plan
complies.
5.Landscaping shall be in conformance with the City'
Landscaping Ordinance.This plan complies.
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS:
(1)Traffic Section expresses concern about the tight and
perhaps unsafe backing area for persons attempting to
back out of garages.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5 —Continued
(2)City has a drainage project which will require the
purchase or condemnation of 25'o 30'long the
western edge of this property.
ANALYSIS:
Staff is not particularly pleased with the layout of thissite.The applicant needs to redesign his site plan,so asto:(1)eliminate some of the surplus parking spaces,or
eliminate the attached garages so as to aesthetically
improve the site;(2)redesign the unit so that they are not
facing the ditch to the south but have their backs to it;
and (3)revise the site plan leaving out the portion of the
property that is currently zoned for office use.Finally,a
certified land survey should be submitted.The plan
reviewed did not contain an engineer's seal.There is a
possibility that there is an easement to the north of the
property which was originally meant to provide another
access point.Staff will research this.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deferral until the above issues are resolved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Since the applicant was not present,the Committee decided
to pass this to the Commission without recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff reported that a request for deferral until VA
financing is obtained was received from the applicant.A
motion was made and passed for a 60-day deferral.The
vote —9 ayes,0 noes,2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW (4-28-83):
Staff reported that the applicant had requested a 30-day
deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made and passed to defer this item until the
June 14th Planning Commission meeting,as requested by the
applicant.The vote:10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5 —Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant's submitted a revised plan eliminating
phase II of the project.The Committee decided to pass this
to the Commission subject to:
(1)The submission of a survey.
(2)Showing of right-of-way dedication on West Capitol.
(3)Provision of less parking.
(4)No notification to neighborhood.
(5)Platting of building line on the east.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present,and a revised plan was submitted.
Staff reported that a final was needed so that the drainage
easement could be dedicated along with the platting of a
12.5-foot building line on the west instead of the required
25 feet.A motion was made and passed for approval subject
to the above.The vote was 9 eyes,0 nays,1 absent and
1 abstention (abstaining —Rector).
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.6
NAME:Woodland Heights Office Center
LOCATION:Woodland Heights Road,just
north of Pleasant Forest Drive.
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Ronnie Caveness The Hodges Firm
Pinnacle Bldg.Sys.Inc.3426 Old CantrellLittleRock,AR P.O.Box 7416LittleRock,AR
Phone:664-5000
AREA:2 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
20NING:"PCD"
REQUEST:
To reclassify an area zoned "R-2"to "PCD"for use as anofficedevelopment.
I.History of the Site:
This item was deferred from the April 26th Public
Hearing where it was considered for rezoning from "R-2"
to "0-3."There were objectors to this request.The
Commission decided that this should be referred to the
Subdivision Committee for review as a short form PUD.
(1)Development Objectives:
(a)The construction of two buildings on 2.05
acres.
(b)The provision of two access points on
Pleasant Forest Drive to the buildings facing
that right-of-way.
(c)One access point to the building facing
Woodland Heights Road.
(d)Provision of a 40-foot undisturbed buffer and
6-foot opaque fence along the west property
line and northeast corner.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.6 —Continued
(2)Project Statistics:
Dance Studio 5,000 sq.ft.
Office Building 19,500 sq.ft.
(b)Building Coverage ....28 Percent
(c)Parking:
Dance Studio ...1 space/1416 sq.ft......11 spaces
Office Bldg....1 space/406.25 sq.ft....44 spaces
Total 55 spaces
III.Fngineering Comments:
Sufficient right-of-way required to support collectorstreetforimprovementdistrictconstruction.
IV.Staff Analysis:
No problems were found with the development.The
applicant should provide the required amount of
dedication for the needed improvements to Woodland
Heights Road which will be taken care of through an
improvement district.
V.Staff Recommendation:
Approval,subject to comments made.
VI.Subdivision Committee Review:
Passed to the Commission without recommendation.
VII.Planning Commission Action:(May 10,1983)
Mr.Bob Lowe of the Hodges Firm and
Mr.Ronnie Caveness,the owner,spoke in support of the
application.There were numerous persons present in
opposition from the Pleasant Forest neighborhood.
Petitions opposing the plan and with 336 signatures of
those residing in Pleasant Forest and Pleasantview were
submitted.The Commission reported that approximately
20 letters from concerned residents were received.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.6 —Continued
Several persons spoke in opposition.They were:
1.Mr.Dale James of ()7 Pleasant Forest Cove,
2.Dr.Michael Hazelwood of ()14 Pleasant Forest Cove,3.Mr.Rex Crane of 12707 Pleasant Forest Drive,
4.Mr.Larry Brooks,5.Mr.Keith Nudgett of ()10 Pleasant Forest Cove,
6.Mr.Dale Gunter of 12622 Pleasant Forest Drive,
7.Ms.Hilda Dillinger,8.Mr.Steven Crane.
The main objections expressed focused on fear of a
decrease in property values,fear of crime,noise and
creation of a hazardous traffic situation.The
residents were particularly concerned that the project
proposed entrances on Pleasant Forest Drive near the
entrance to their subdivision.It was decided that the
applicant should revise the project and come back in 30
days,after having addressed these issues:(1)access
from Pleasant Forest,(2)smaller office building,(3)
parking spaces at a ratio of one per 250 square feet of
forced floor space;(4)proposed schedule of operation
and (5)the phasing of the proposal to include the
dance studio first.
A motion was made and passed for deferral until
June 14th,subject to the above comments.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes,3 noes and
4 absent (No votes:Schlereth,Sipes and Massey).
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
A revised plan was submitted.The Committee decided to pass
this to the Commission without recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(6-14-83)
The applicant was present.He submitted a revised plan.
Mr.John J.Scanlan represented the neighborhood and
submitted a letter in opposition to the rezoning of the
property and setting out several conditions for approval.
The Commission felt that the applicant had attempted to
address the concerns expressed previously.Mr.Scanlan
wanted some assurance as to what would happen if the dance
studio were to cease operation.A motion for approval of
the revised plan was made and passed,subject to the
condition that if the dance studio went out of business,the
substitute use will convert to "0-3."The vote —10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.7
NAME:Pine Ridge Subdivision,Block 1
LOCATION:Between Melba Drive and
Fairways Drive on the east side
of Darragh Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Darragh Investment Co.Robert J.Richardson
42 Westpark Bldg.1717 Rebsamen Park RoadLittleRock,AR Little Rock,AR
Phone:664-0003
AREA:1.83 acres NO.OF LOTS:7 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"R-2"
PROPOSED USES:Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
Exclusion of total conceptual development scheme at this
time.
A.HISTORY OF THE SITE
This proposal was originally a part of a much larger
mixed use plan for development,which was considered
by the Commission on January 7,1965.The original
plan proposed extension of Melba Drive as collector
street tie-in to University Avenue to the east.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site is currently wooded and basically a flattractofground,which is boarded on the east and
north by multifamily zoning.Across Darragh Drive on
the west is the Western Hills School and across
Fairways on the south is a developed area consisting
of single family residences.Access from the west is
by Melba Drive,a fully constructed collector street
which dead-ends into this property.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.7 —Continued
C.DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The applicant is asking that he be allowed to develop
seven lots for residential use.He is asking to vary
from usual requirements by excluding the total
property ownership from this plat since this is only a
portion of a plan for the development of 200 acres.
D.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
None.
The major problem with this request is its conflict
with the proposed Master Parks Plan for the City which
shows a park in this area.Furthermore,the original
plan on this property calls for the extension of
Melba Drive east to University in the Master Street
Plan.Staff feels that a better prospective on these
issues can be gained if the total plan for developmentissubmitted.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
(Additional Information —Staff reported that an error was
discovered on the Parks Plan,so this project is not in an
area proposed for use as a park.)
The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission without
recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present,and there were no obj ectors.A
motion was made and passed for approval of the plat and
waiver provided that no further approvals are granted until
submission of the total plan.The vote was 10 ayes,0 nays
and 1 absent.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.8
NAME:Pine Ridge Subdivision,Block 2
LOCATION:One block of intersection of
Shady Lane and Charbett,all
that property east of Shady Lane
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Darragh Investment Co.Robert J.Richardson
02 Westpark Bldg.1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock,AR Little Rock,AR
Phone:664-0003
AREA:3.67 acres NO.OF LOTS:10 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"R-2"
PROPOSED USES:Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
Exclusion of total conceptual development scheme at this
time.
A.HISTORY OF THE SITE
This proposal's history is similar to the previous
item in that it is part of property that was
considered by the Commission for mixed use development
on January 7,1965.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site is currently covered with an abundance of
pines and brush,and consists of a significant rise in
elevation from 250'o 320'n the northwestern
portion of the property.It is served by an existing50'ight-of-way in the form of a fully constructed
cul-de-sac.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.8 —Continued
C.DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
This is a proposal to develop 3.67 acres into 10 lots
for residential use.The plan represents only a
portion of a larger 200 acre development which is
currently being planned.The applicant is requesting
that he be allowed to submit only this portion for
consideration at this time.
D.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
Floodplain appears to encroach on Lots 9 and 10.
Requesting that floodplain be identified on the plat.
E.STAFF ANALYSIS
There are no significant problems with the proposal.
The applicant is asked,however,to submit the needed
floodplain information.Staff feels that submission
of the overall development scheme would be
advantageous.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission without
recommendation,subject to showing of the floodplain
information on the plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
A motion was made and passed for approval of the plat and
waiver,provided that no further approvals are granted until
submission of the total plan.The vote was 10 ayes,0 nays,
and 1 absent.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.9
NAME:Kelliwood Preliminary
Subdivision
LOCATION:Alexander and Mabelvale Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Billy Mathis/John Barger Robert J.Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park RoadLittleRock,AR
Phone:664-0003
AREA:9.22 acres NO.OF LOTS:31 FT.OF NEW ST.:1,060
ZONING:"I-2"/"C-3"
PROPOSED USES:Mobile Homes
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1.Curb,gutter and underground utilities.
2.Street improvements to Alexander/Mabelvale Road.
A.HISTORY OF THE SITE
None.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS
The land involved is flat and covered with shrubs,trees and brush.The parcel is bounded by the Mopac
Railroad on the west,a single family home on the
north;however,the general area is mostly industrial.
The northern third of the tract and the eastern
boundary of the tract are in Little Rock city limits.
The remainder is in the town of Alexander.
C.DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to develop this tract as
mobile and modular housing.He is requesting review
under the "R-7-A"Ordinance passed by the City ofLittleRockonFebruary1,1983.Variances have been
requested for curb,gutter,underground utilities and
for street improvements to Alexander and Mabelvale
Road.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.9 —Continued
D.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
1.Dedicate right-of-way along Alexander Road for a
minor arterial street.2.Concur with request for rule of standards on
internal street.
E.STAFF ANALYSIS
This proposal is unique in that the majority of it lies
within another municipality's boundaries.Staff's
review of this will be tailored toward the lots in
Little Rock.Review under the "R-7-A"subdivisiondistrictrequires:(1)one mobile home dwelling
converted to a permanent structure,(2)height
limitation of 35 feet,(3)minimum site area of five
acres,and (4)minimum density of 12 units per acre of
saleable land area.At the time of rezoning,the
developer will be required to submit a site plan
review.The Planning Commission shall determine the
reasonable setbacks and perimeter treatment of the
property.
Staff does not feel that adequate justification has
been received for the granting of waivers.The
applicant must give substantial reasons for such a
request.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff reserves comments until further information is
received.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No .9 —Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee passed this to the Commission,subject to:
(1)The submission of a plat realigning the lot lines
according to each City's boundaries;and
(2)Some information as to whether or not the City of
Little Rock can de-annex a portion of its boundary,and
whether the City of Alexander is an incorporated
municipality.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.There were no obj ectors.Staff
reported that a revised plan had been submitted in
accordance with the Subdivision Committee's review,and that
the City of Alexander had to be recognized as an
incorporated muncipality.A motion was made for approval,
subject to:
(1)Rezoning of the site to "R-7A."
(2)Full improvements to the streets.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,3 nays and 1 absent.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.10
NAME:Baptist Medical Center Campus
LOCATION:Southeast intersection of
I-630 and I-430
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Baptist Medical Center The Hodges Firm
P.O.Box 7416LittleRock,AR
AREA:166 acres total,100 acres (this proposal)
NO ~OF LOTS:32 FT.OF NEW ST.:5,000
ZONING:"0-2"
PROPOSED USES:Office
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A.HISTORY OF THE SITE
The existing structures are on parcel zoned "R-4"and
some streets,functioning as collectors,are currently
private drives.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS
This site consists of a large wooded tract which is
bounded by I-630 on the north and east,I-430 and
Kanis Road on the west.
C.DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting to plat 166 acres of
property into 34 lots for use in conjunction with the
large medical complex.Five thousand feet (5,000')of
new street will be provided.No requests for variances
have been received.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.10 —Continued
D.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
l.Improve Kanis Road adjacent to this property to
minor arterial standards.
2.Construct sidewalks along Kanis Road adjacent to
previously developed property.
E.STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff has two basic concerns relative to the proposal.First of all,it is felt that this is an appropriate
time for the applicant to bring the zoning into
conformance with the existing use.A rezoning
application should be filed for that portion platted
prior to this application that is zoned "R-4."
Secondly,we feel that the collector street should no
longer be private drives.They should be dedicated to
the City.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant indicated that he has initiated the rezoning.
The Committee passed this to the Commission,subject to the
dedication of Medical Drive,and Engineering comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.There were no objectors.A
motion was made and passed for approval,subject to:
(1)The submission of a final plat with a Medical Drive
dedication.
(2)Improvement of Kanis Road adjacent to the property to
minor arterial standards.
(3)Construction of sidewalks along Kanis Road adjacent to
previously developed property.
The vote was 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.11
NAME:W.C.Littleton Preliminary
LOCATION:660'orth of the intersection
of Yarberry and Kerry Lane
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
W.C.Littleton Finley Williams
11411 Kerry Lane 210 South Victory
Mabelvale,AR 72103 Little Rock,AR
Phone:565-7375 Phone:376-3505
AREA:5.11 acres NO.OF LOTS:2 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"R-2II
PROPOSED USES:Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1.Waiver of improvements on Kerry Lane.
2.Lot depth.
A.HISTORY OF THE SITE
This site was recently brought into the City as an
"R-2"parcel.The annexation date was July 1979.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS
The area involved is rural in character,with single
family homes and pasture land being the most
predominant uses.The land is flat with scattered
trees and there is an existing one story brick
residence on the site.Access to the site is by
Kerry Lane,a 24'ide asphalt street.A portion of
the property on the east is in the floodplain.
C.DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting that he be allowed to
subdivide this tract of five acres into parcels,one
with 2.95 acres,which will include the existing house
and the other with 2.16 acres.The request is based
upon the applicant's pending retirement and a recent
formation of a water and sewer improvement district
with high tax assessment.The applicant plans to sell
the existing home to his daughter and family and
construct a new home with approximately 1,500 square
feet on the other parcel.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.11 —Continued
Two variances have been requested:(1)a waiver of
improvements on Kerry Lane and (2)of excessive lot
depth on both lots.Justification for the first
includes the current dead-end (into the woods within
floodplain)conditions of Kerry Lane with no indication
for extension by the City's Master Street Plan.The
applicant is requesting that the second waiver be
granted since the back part of this tract is in the
floodplain and would not be used for any other use.
D.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
l.Improve Kerry Lane to residential street
standards.
E.STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff is sympathetic toward the applicant's request andissupportiveoftheproposaltosubdivideandwaive
the lot depth requirement,which requries that no lot
should be more than three times as deep as it is wide.
Engineering,however,has recommended that Kerry Lane
be improved not necessarily because of a dire need for
improvements to urban standards in this location,but
because of a precedent set by a previous Planning
Commission approval on Yarberry Lane.Thus,we are
reluctant to endorse a waiver of such improvements.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of plat and first waiver.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission,
subject to the approval of the plat and both waivers.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.There were no objectors.There
was some discussion on whether or not it was wise to depart
from the precedent established in the area relative tostreetimprovements.It was decided that this proposal
involved unique circumstances that warranted approval of the
waiver.These were mainly due to no City plans for use of
the street and the floodplain issue.A motion was made and
passed for approval of the plat and both waivers.The
motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,1 nay and 2 absent.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.12
NAME:Tschiemer Subdivision
LOCATION:One mile east of Arch Street
Pike,approximately 100'ast
of intersection of Dixon and
Russenburger Road
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
James.C.Tschiemer Ralph B.Jones
2112 N.McKinley
Mabelvale,AR
Phone:664-1325
AREA:6.32 acres NO.OF LOTS:2 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:Outside City
PROPOSED USES:Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A.HISTORY OF THE SITE
None.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS
The property involved is rural in character and
consists mainby of flat land.It is served by a
12'raveldrivewayandcoveredwithvariousgreen
vegetation.
C.DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The applicant has submitted this as a request for
information.He is proposing to subdivide a tract of
6.32 acres so that a one acre tract may be deeded to
his daughter.
D.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
None.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.12 —Continued
E.STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff is concerned that this request represents a
departure from the Ordinance's requirement that all
lots abut upon a dedicated street.This matter is
complicated in that the four lots served by this
private drive are in large acreage tracts which have
previously been deeded to separate owners.The
question reduces to whether or not we want to accept
the platting of these large lots on a minor road.
There is no guarantee that this owner can coerce the
others to participate in a plat for the dedication of
right-of-way.
The Suburban Development plan recognizes this as a
"mineral resources zone,"which characterizes the area
as being a potential mining area that offers severe
limitations upon residential development.Our solution
would be to request that the applicant submit a plat
justifying right of access to the first two lots.A
notation will be made stating that the City of Little
Rock is not endorsing this private drive for further
subdivision of the tracts.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present,the Committee decided
to pass this to the Commission without recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present.Staff reported that he had
been contacted the previous day and was not likely to pursue
the request.A motion was made and passed to withdraw the
item from the agenda.It passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays
and 2 absent.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.13
NAME:Castle Valley Subdivision
LOCATION:Northwest intersection of
Bunch and Chicot
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Dr.&Mrs.E.A.McCracken Bond Consulting Engineers
509 Main Street 1000 School Drive
Stuttgart,AR 72076 Jacksonville,AR
Phone:982-1538
AREA:73,44 acres NO.OF LOTS:224 FT.OF NEW ST.:9,000
ZONING:"R-2"
PROPOSED USES:Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A.HISTORY OF THE SITE
Proposals relative to this property have been before
the Commission on several occasions.In January of
1983,the first preliminary was submitted.In zoning
cases occurring earlier this year,portions of the
property were rezoned from "R-2"to "C-2"and "MF-18."
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS
This site is located in southwest Little Rock at the
southwest corner of Bunch and Chicot Roads and north of
the C.R.I.aP.Railroad.The terrain is mostly flat and
tree covered.The tract is currently served by Bunch
Road on the north,Coulder Lake Road on the west,
Chicot on the east and Castle Valley on the southeast.
C.DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting that he be allowed to plat
73.44 acres into 224 lots for single family use.Nine
thousand feet (9,000')of new street will be
constructed.No variances have been requested.
'June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.13 —Continued
D.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
l.Improve Castle Valley Road to residential street
standards.
2.Request internal drainage plan be submitted to
City Engineer.
E.STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff is basically supportive of the plan,provided
that the plat is revised to adjust a few technical
requirements.They are:
1.Give some evidence of topography.
2.Clarify a point at which Bunch Road meshes with
section line (give radius).
3.Show Caulder Lake Road boundary.
4.Indicate lot numbers.
5.Provide the lot dimensions where needed.
6.Provide proper setbacks from Bunch Road.
7.Provide date on survey.
Because of previous rezonings on the site,it appears
that some parts may have to be downzoned to accommodate
the proposed use.The applicant should address this.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
(Additional Information —Staff reported that the downzoning
indicated in the Staff Analysis was no lonqer an issue.)
The applicant submitted a phasing plan which includes 40
lots in the initial development.The Committee decided to
pass this to the Commission without recommendation,subject
to a plan complying with seven technical requirements
brought out in the Staff Analysis.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.There were no obj ectors.Staff
reported that a revised sketch was submitted.Engineering
stated that improvements would be required on Bunch Road
only where it abuts this property.A motion was made and
passed for approval,subject to Engineering comments.The
vote was 9 ayes,0 nays,1 absent and 1 abstention (Massie
abstained).
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.14
NAME:Executive Park Preliminary
LOCATION:On Markham,East of I-430
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Terry Moore &Associates Edward G.Smith &Associates
1210 Worthen Building 401 VictoryLittleRock,AR 72201 Little Rock,AR
Phone:372-1700 Phone:374-1666
AREA:15.33 acres NO.OF LOTS:11 FT.OF NEW ST.:300
ZONING 0 2~0 3
PROPOSED USES:Offices
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A.HISTORY OF THE SITE
The original preliminary on this site was approved by
the Planning Commission on February 12,1980.Finals
have been approved on Lot 6,the northern part of
Lot 4A and the southern portion of Lot 2.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site is fairly level to rolling,with slopes
generally to the south where Rock Creek crosses a
corner of the property.The property is generally
wooded,with existing office uses on several of thelots.
C.DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
This proposal involves:(1)the acquisition of more
land that was included in the original approved
preliminary (170'1000'ong);(2)replatting of lots
to reflect sales;(3)replat of Lot 6 and 6A to 6R;and
(4)extension of cul-de-sac.No variances have been
requested.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.14 —Continued
DE ENGINEERING COMMENTS
None.
E.STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff has several concerns with the Project.A waiver
is needed for Lots 4C through 4E since they are more
than three times as long as they are wide.However,
the southern end of the lots are encroached upon by the
floodway.Portions of this area will need to be
designated as Tract "A"and conveyed to the City.
Staff is recommending that Lots 6 and 6A be redesigned
to eliminate its land-locked position.The lots should
be renumbered to coincide with those lots already
final.Sidewalks should be constructed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission,
subject to:
(1)Conveyance of portions of the property within the
floodway for the City.
(2)The renumbering of lots to coincide with those already
finaled.
(3)A waiver for Lots 4C through 4E.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.There were no objectors.The
applicant agreed to comply with the suggestions of the
Subdivision Committee.A motion was made and passed for
approval of the plat and waiver,subject to:
(1)Conveyance of portions of the property within the
floodway.
(2)Renumbering of lots to coincide with those already
finaled.
The vote was 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.15 —Z-4030
NAME:Rock Creek "PCD"
LOCATION:Markham and Cunningham Lake Road
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
The Hodges Firm The Hodges Firm
P.O.Box 7416 P.O.Box 7416LittleRock,AR 72217 Little Rock,AR
Phone:664-5000 Phone:664-5000
AREA:3.73 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:462
ZONING:"R-2"
PROPOSED USES:Mini-warehouses
REQUEST:
To reclassify an area zoned "R-2"to "PCD".
A.HISTORY OF THE SITE
This property was considered for rezoning from "R-2"to"C-3"during a Commission public hearing on
September 30,1980.After much neighborhood
opposition,it was denied by the Board of Directors on
November 18,1980.
B.DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
1.Site size..................3.73 acres
2.Building coverage..........31%3.Project statistics:
Size Number
5'8'305'10 3810'22'1
10'25'15
Total 344
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.15 —Continued
CD ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
1.Portion of construction with the floodway must
conform to Floodplain Ordinance.
2.Widen Cunningham Lake Road to residential
standards;in place of curb,construct the
concrete header adjacent to the pavement.
D.STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff views this as an acceptable use of this property,
which will probably generate a reasonably low activityinthearea.The applicant shows three parking spaces
on the site plan,but does not state the size of theofficebuilding.The applicant is asked to provide thestaffwiththisinformation.
E.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission without
recommendation.The applicant reported the size of theofficeis20'30'.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr.Bob Lowe represented the developer.He submitted arevisedplanthatshowedafive-foot walkway easement to beusedbytheneighboringresidentsincaseofaflood
emergency.Several residents were present,not inopposition,but to express their views on a walkway and thecurrentfloodproblemsinthearea.
Mr.Frank Pichico asked that the Commission consider thefloodproblemsbeforeauthorizinganyapprovalsofnew
development in the area.He pointed that this developer wasconstructingonasiteabovethefloodplainandthesurroundinghousesarebelow;thereby creating a basin withwaterhavingnowheretorunbutdownward.He requested that
a moratorium be placed on development along Rock Creek untilthefloodwaywaswidened.He questioned as to why the Citywouldcompoundanexistingproblembygivingmoreapprovalsalongthiscreek.Mr.Hayes,another resident,told ofincidentsinwhichthefloodwatersroseandhehadtoescape
by carrying his sick wife on his back.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.15 —Continued
Engineering reported that $3 million had been appropriated
toward correcting the Rock Creek problem sometime in thefuture.As for this development,it met the Ordinance
requirements for floodplains and floodways.
A discussion was held during which the Commission expressed
sympathy for the plight of the residents,but felt that this
proposal should be acted upon since it did not violate theOrdinance.Staff reported that at the next Planning
Commission meeting a packet would be distributed which
examined the current floodplain problem in Little Rock.A
motion was made and passed for approval of the plan.Thevote—7 ayes,2 noes and 2 absent.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.16 -Z-4015
NAME:Linden Court,Phase II
Short Form "PRD"
LOCATION:Southwest Corner of Lee&Pierce
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
Norman Holcomb Co.Samuel Davis
P.O.Box 7244 5301 West 8th StreetLittleRock,AR 72217 Little Rock,AR
Phone:227-7534 Phone:664-0324
AREA:1.2 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"PRD%
PROPOSED USES:Condominiums
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
To reclassify an area zoned "0-3"to "PRD."
A.HISTORY OF THE SITE
The last zoning activity relative to this case was in
the spring of 1980.During several meetings,it was
suggested that the applicant (who owned Phase I,with a
zoning of "R-5"),join with the owner of the "0-3"
tract and down-zone it to "R-5."
PROJECT CHARACTERISITICS
a.Construction of the second phase of an existing
condominium development to the south.
b.Development scheme will consist of 20 units with
approximately 1,000 square feet of floor space.
C.STAFF ANALYSIS
There are no major concerns with this proposal.Infact,it eliminates an unappropriate "0-3"zoning and
brings the site in conformance with the
"Heights/Hillcrest Plan"which recommends multifamily
housing.Improvements to Pierce and sidewalks on Lee
are requested.Final plat for right-of-way dedication
will be needed.
D.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval,subject to comments made.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.16 —Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission without
recommendation,subject to staff comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.A note from an opposer to the
proposed access to Lee Street was read by the Chairman.A
motion was made and passed for approval,subject to:
(1)The submission of a final for dedication;
(2)Improvements to Pierce Street;and
(3)Sidewalks on Lee.
The vote —8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.17
NAME:Southall Subdivision,
Replat of Part of Tract F,
Charles Valley Subdivision,
Phase II and Lot 1,
Southall Subdivision
LOCATION:1605 Green Mountain
APPLICANT:
Jim Mitchell
2100 First National Bank
Little Rock,AR 72201
Phone:372-6161
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Barnes,Quinn,Flake &Garver &Garver Engineers
Anderson 11th and Battery
Little Rock,AR
Phone:376-3633
AREA:3.608 acres NO.OF LOTS:2 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"C-3"
PROPOSED USES:Mini-Warehouse
A.HISTORY OF THE SITE
None.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS
This property can be described basically as flat and
tree covered.An existing mini-warehouse project
adjoins the property on the north and west.
C.DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
This is a proposal to combine a tract of 2.598 acres
and 1.010 acres,making a lot of 3.068 acres.The
applicant plans to use the property for the expansion
of an existing commercial use.No variances have been
requested.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.17 —Continued
D.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
None.
E.STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff has no objections to the request for replatting
the lot.It conforms to regulations for development in"C-3"districts since the required building setback
will be measured from Green Mountain Drive.
F ~STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission without
recommendation.
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 nays,2 absent and 1 abstention (abstaining
Rector).
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.18
NAME:Forest Heights Jr.High School
Replat
LOCATION:Southeast corner of University
and Evergreen
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Little Rock School Dist.Edward G.Smith a Associates
Markham &Izard 401 Victory
Little Rock,AR 72201 Little Rock,AR
Phone:372-6161 Phone:374-1666
AREA:24.06 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"0-2"
PROPOSED USES:Offices
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A.HISTORY OF THE SITE
None.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located on a large tract which
principle use is a public school.The remainder is
vacant with a variety of greenery.
C.DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
This is a proposal to divide a tract of 24.06 acres
into two lots.The new lot will be sold.
D.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
1.Widen University one lane width adjacent to Lot l.
2.Dedicate right-of-way on University as required,
adjacent to Lots 1 and 2.
3.Construct sidewalk on University and Evergreen,
adjacent to Lot l.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.18 —Continued
E.STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff has no objections to the splitting of the tract.
We are supportive of the additional lane to University
full length of the property,especially since a
precedent has been set in the area by a previous office
development.The applicant should file a final plat
with the full dedication.If desired,improvements
adjacent to Lot 1 may be done initially,with the
remainder to be accomplished with further platting.A
revised preliminary should be submitted with the
appropriate topographical information.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission,
subject to:
(1)Submission of a revised preliminary with topos on Lot 1
and a waiver for remainder of plat.
(2)Final plat with appropriate dedication.
(3)Staging of improvements to include the widening of
University.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.There were no obj ectors.A
revised showing the topos on Lot 1 was submitted.A motion
was made and passed for approval of the plat subject to
Engineering agreements and a final plat with an appropriatededication.The vote 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.19
NAME:Evergreen Apartments Site Plan
Review
LOCATION:Southeast corner of Stacy at
West Markham
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
Robertson Holmes U.S.Mehlburger,Tanner,Renshaw
6653 Embarcadero Dr.P.O.Box 3837
Stockton,CA Little Rock,AR 72203
Phone:(209)957-5698 Phone:375-5331
AREA:24 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:1,300
ZONING:"MF-18"
PROPOSED USES:Apartments
REQUEST:
Site plan review over multiple building site.
I.Histor of the Site
None.
II.Pro'ect Characteristics
a.The development of 34 acres for use as apartments:
Phase I —24 acres...296 D.U.=12.3 D.U./acres
Phase II —10 acres...176 D.U.=17.6 D.U./acres
b.Development scheme (Phase I):
1.~Bld .T B B~t'Total
(2-story)
"A"1BR/1BA 702 sq.f t.152 106,704 sq.f t.
"B"2BR/1BA 896 sq.ft.48 43,008 sq.ft.
"C"2BR/2BA 968 sq.f t.96 92,928 sq.f t.
242,640 sq.ft.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.19 —Continued
2.Recreation Room:3,000 square feet.
3.Total ground coverage:124,320 square feet.
4.Additional amenities:Recreation room/office,
laundry,weight community room,pool,tennis
courts and jogging trail.
5.Perimeter treatment:Areas abutting residential
zones shall have a 6-foot opaque fence and a
15-foot wide undisturbed buffer zone.Areas
adjacent to public streets will be reforested
using evergreen and flowering trees.
d.~Ld ':W'll 'd*t'l'*t'f t l
vegetation and an existing lake,reclaiming of
those areas disturbed by construction with trees,
shrubs,sod,seed and rip-rap in accordance with
the City's Landscape Ordinance.
7.Streets and ri ht-of-wa s:
(a)10-foot dedication along Markham and Stacy.
Improvements to be constructed on Markham and
Stacy.
(b)Additional 10-foot dedications are made to
the existing unopened right-of-ways and full
streets improvements will be made.
(c)Unopened right-of-ways abutting residential
areas on the west and south sideg of the
parcel shall be closed and 15'f their width
shall be used as natural buffer space.
(d)Public access/utility easement 45-foot wide
shall be platted along centerline of all
parking areas.
III.S ecial Re uirements (MF-18")
1.Front yard setback of 25'.This plan complies,
but see staff's analysis.
2.Ninimum site area of one acre.This plan
complies.3.Detached building separation of at least 10'.
This plan complies.
4.A minimum of 1.5 parking spaces per unit is
required (see staff's analysis).
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.19 —Continued
IV.En ineerin Considerations
1.Improve West Markham Street to collector street
standards.
2.Improve Stacy and Lorena to residential street
standards.3.Submit inspection report for condition of dam.
4.Discuss intersection design at Stacy and Lorena.
V.Staff Anal sis
Basically,staff views the proposal quite favorably.
The layout is good,and the applicant has been
relatively attentive to dimensioning,with a few
exceptions where the distances from buildings to the
property line and structural dimensions were left off.
Of major importance is the parking proposed in setback
areas.This should be corrected since it is
prohibited.The amount of parking spaces to be
provided should be clarified.
VI.Staff Recommendation
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
A revised plan was submitted.The Committee decided to pass
this to the Commission without recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr.Don Chambers of Mehlburger,Tanner and Renshaw
represented the developer.He reported that the name of the
project will be changed to Shadow Lakes.A motion was made
and passed for approval,subject to closing of the unopened
right-of-ways.The vote was 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.20 —Z-4027
NAME:Tanglewood Montessori School
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:7217 Ohio Avenue
OWNER/APPLICANT:Tanglewood Montessori
School Inc./Bob Bland
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 990 square foot addition (single family
classroom)to an existing 2,002 square foot school.The
addition will accommodate 28 additional children.
ORDINANCE AND DESIGN STANDARDS
1.Site Location
The site is located in a residential neighborhood.
Single family is located to the north and south with
duplex on the west and vacant land on the east.
2.Com abilit with Nei hborhood
The existing site could at best be considered
marginally compatible.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
A single semi-circular drive exists on the present
site.There is no existing paved parking,and the
applicant is not proposing any.
4.Screenin and Buffers
No landscape or screening proposals have been
submitted.
5.5~1
The staff feels that this site is ill suited for a
private school.Ohio Street is substandardly
constructed and dead-ends at the site.The lack of
parking (either existing or proposed),and the
substandard turnaround pose a hardhip on the
neighborhood as it exists now.Any expansion of this
use would only exacerbate current inadequate
conditions.
6.Staff Recommendation
Denial.
l
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.20 —Continued
SUBDIVISION CONMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present.No action taken.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
One objector was present and presented a petition from the
neighborhood that expressed opposition to the proposal.A
brief discussion followed.The Commission then voted
0 ayes,9 noes and 2 absent to deny the application.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.21 —Z-4028
NANE:Marshall Street Business College
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:16th and Marshall Streets
OWNER/APPLICANT:Roman Catholic Diocese of
Little Rock/L.Dixon Flake
PROPOSAL:
To remodel this structure for use as an auxiliary branch of
Capitol City Junior College.Projections are for an
enrollment of a maximum of 100 students.
ORDINANCE AND DESIGN STANDARDS
1.Site Location
This site is located in a mixed use area.Single
family lie to the north and west,multifamily is
located to the south,the Arkansas Baptist College is
adjacent to the east boundary.
2.Com abilit with Nei hborhood
This building is the old St.Bartholomew Catholic
School.This proposal is compatible with the existing
neighborhood.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
Two drives will serve as ingress and egress.One
access drive is located on Narshall Street and the
other is located on the alley on the east lot-line.
The plan calls for 29 parking spaces.
4.Screenin and Buffers
The site is completely built and developed.Applicant
plans to cleanup and refurbish the existing site.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.21 —Continued
5.~AA
The staff is in agreement with the proposed usage for
this site.No adverse impact is expected.The
rehabilitation of this structure will tend to improve
the neighborhood.The staff feels that the alley way
should be paved (that portion that is not paved)and a
proper driveway entrance should be constructed on
17th Street as well as the Marshall Street entrance.
6.Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed,provided the applicant (1)paves the
unpaved portion of the alley;and (2)constructs
driveway entrances on 17th Street and Marshall Street.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present.The applicant stated that the
Marshall Street entrance would not be used.The applicant
agreed to pave the entrance in the alley from 16th Street
south to just south of their drive entrance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
One objector was present.The applicant was not present,
but a representative was present in his behalf.A lengthy
discussion ensued.A number of unanswered questions were
raised by the Commission.The staff recommended that the
application be deferred to the June 28th Planning Commission
meeting.The Commission voted on the proposal as filed.
The vote was 4 ayes,5 noes and 2 absent,which resulted in
an automatic deferral for 30 days.A motion was then made
to defer this item to the June 28th Planning Commission
meeting.The motion passed —9 ayes,0 noes,2 absent.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.22 —Z-4031
NAME:Green Mountain Mini-Warehouse
Conditional Use
LOCATION:1605 Green Mountain Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT:Birchbrook Inc./Jim Mitchell
PROPOSAL:
To construct mini-warehouse units (Plan A —five buildings)
(Plan B —three buildings)on land that is zoned "C-3"and
"R-2"(see sketches).
ORDINANCE AND DESIGN STANDARDS
1.Site Location
This site is located in a mixed use area.A
multifamily use is located to the west,a day-care
center to the south and vacant land to the north and
east (vacant land is zoned "C-3").
2.Com bilit with Nei hborhood
The proposed addition to the existing mini-warehouse
units is compatible,especially since its orientation
will be towards "C-3"properties.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
One existing drive serves as ingress and egress from
Green Mountain Drive.Interior circulation exists on
the perimeter of the property,and is proposed on the
perimeter of the addition.A north/south isle is also
proposed.
4.Screenin and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use the trees and
shrubbery that exists on the property line.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.22 —Continued
5.~A1
Staff is in agreement with the proposed usage of this
property.No adverse impact is expected to the
surrounding property.There is,however,a zoning
discrepancy.This proposal overlaps into an "R-2"
district.A mini-warehouse use is not conditional in
an "R-2"district.The staff feels that the applicant
should rezone the property immediately north of this
proposal to a "C-3"district.The area due north is
also not paved.Staff feels that all driving surface
should be paved.The staff feels that both alternative
proposals are acceptable provided the applicant reduces
the length of all the buildings by five feet on the
west end.
6.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of both alternative proposals
provided:(1)all area is paved,(2)the adjacent
property to the north is rezoned "C-3";and (3)all
building lengths are reduced by five feet on their
western end.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff's
recommendations.There were some discussion concerning
screening on the eastern property line;however,no
recommendations were made concerning the screening.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present,and there were no objectors.The
Commission voted 8 ayes,0 noes,1 abstention and 2 absent
to approve the application as recommended by staff.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.23 —Z-4032
NAME:The Bible Church
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:10,618 Breckenridge Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT:Bible Church of Little Rock/
James A.Alessi
PROPOSAL:
To construct an additional church school building which will
contain four classrooms.
ORDINANCE AND DESIGN STANDARDS
1.Site Location
This site is located in a single family area and is
adjacent to I-430 on the east.
2.Com abilit with Nei hborhood
The church use is compatible with the surrounding area.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
The church has two drives which take access from
Breckenridge Drive and a paved parking lot containing
80 spaces.
4.Screening and Buffers
The applicant plans on using existing trees as
screening and buffers.This site was landscaped 10
years ago.Additional landscape plans are beingfinalized.
5.~51
The staff is in agreement with this proposal.Thestaffdoeshavesomeconcernswithregardtoscreening
the rear and side yards of single family residences
that abutt the west and northwest church boundary.Staff feels that a 6-foot board fence should be
constructed along the west and northwest boundaries of
I
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.23 —Continued
the church beginning at Breckenridge Drive and
continuing west and north along the church property
line to the intersection of I-430 right-of-way.The
staff also needs a revised site plan showing dimensions
of the buildings and their relationship to the property
lines.Applicant also needs to repair any sidewalk
damage that might result from construction vehicles
using a temporary drive.
*Note:The Board of Directors has approved the
issuance of a foundation permit on this project by
Resolution ()6,995 on May 17,1983.
6.Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed,provided applicant submits a revised
site plan that:(1)shows the screening fence on the
northwest and west property line;(2)shows building
dimensions and their relationship to the property lines
and provided that applicant agrees to repair any
sidewalk damage which occurs as a result of
construction activity.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present.The applicant disagreed with the
staff request concerning the screening on the west and
northwestern property line.The Committee discussed the
screening issue,and felt that the neighbors will make their
views known if the screening is an issue to them.The
applicant agreed with the remainder of the staff request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present,and there were no objectors.A
discussion centered around the issue of a screening fence on
the west/northwest property line.The Commission felt that
since the neighbors didn't express interest,no fence would
be required.The Commission voted 9 ayes,0 noes,and
2 absent to approve this application as recommended by staff
excepting the screening fence requirement.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.24
NAME:Fulkerson "PRD"—Final Plat
Confirmation
APPLICANT:Floyd Fulkerson
LOCATION:Hinson Road
REQUEST:
The applicant has requested final plat confirmation for an
approved "PRD."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval for the first phase conditioned upon no certificate
of occupancy for any unit until improvements are accepted
and inspected along Hinson Road.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission,
subject to staff's recommendation.The agreement for
improvements was stated by City Engineering as the
construction of both sides of the street the full length of
the property.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made and passed for approval,subject to
staff's recommendation.The vote was 8 ayes,0 nays,
2 absent and 1 abstention.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.25
NAME:Old Town —Central Business
Improvement District
PROPOSAL:
To provide for an improvement district incorporating an area
of approximately four City blocks lying between
Sherman Street,Commerce Street,East Fourth Street and
approximately one-half block north of Markham.This
district will provide a financial base for the completion of
the Sherman Oaks project,a renovation of the terminal
warehouse and development of the two blocks between
East Markham and East Third as an attractive landscaped area
and parking space.Additionally,the plan will provide a
new streetscape throughout with the addition of plantings,
decorative low walls and period lighting.
STAFF COMMENT:
The plan as requested is small in land area,but appears to
be a solid approach to furthering the redevelopment of this
area.The proposal is consistent with the Downtown
Development Plan,which endorses adoptive reuse of the
Terminal Warehouse and completion of the Sherman Oaks
project.Several other significant public projects are
being contemplated in the vicinity of the proposed CBID,
including an Arena and a Museum.Neither of these projects
(according to current available information),however,would
locate within the boundaries of the Old Town CBID.
We are reluctant to see a proliferation of small,single
purpose CBID's.In this instance,however,the proposed
project is clearly directed toward the purpose for which the
state originally created CBID's,namely "the elimination of
urban blight and decay and the modernization and the general
improvement of such central business districts..."
Reasonably small size of the proposed district is another
matter of concern.Here too,however,the public benefits
outweigh the negatives especially if the district is created
in such a way as to allow future expansion.Little Rock
will need to exercise care in the creation of such
districts,and should only do so in furtherance of
formalized planning and economic development objectives.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.25 —Continued
Office of Comprehensive Planning recommends approval of the
improvement district with the following provisions:
l.Planning Commission to review and approve the Old Town
CBID development plans.Such reviews shall focus on
conformance to the Downtown Development Plan.
2.CBID to be structured in such a way as to permit future
expansion of district.
3.Public Works to review and approve all improvements inthepublicright-of-way,including lighting and streettreatment.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
This item is passed to the full Commission for review and
recommendation and further report from the staff.There
were no serious problem areas noted except that the MasterStreetPlanmayrequiresomemodificationofthestreetdesigntoincorporatethelandscaping,sidewalks and wallsproposed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.A motion was made and passed for
approval of the improvement district,subject to comments
made.The vote —9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.26
NAME:The Orchard Subdivision
Revised Preliminary
LOCATION:300 feet North of Intersection
of Sardis and Alexander Roads
ENGINEER:APPLICANT/AGENT:
Allan Curray Roark,Perkins,Kennedy a Assoc.
Nain Street 713 W.2nd
North Little Rock,AR Little Rock,AR 72201
Phone:372-2131 Phone:372-0272
DEVELOPER:James Whitehurst
AREA:15.39 acres NO.OF LOTS:41 FT.OF NEW ST.:
ZONING:"R-2"
PROPOSED USE:Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
The applicant is asking that he be allowed to revise a
Preliminary,which was approved by the Commission on
April 12th.The request was prompted by the refusal of the
lending institution to fund the project with the proposed
amount of recreation on amenities.As a result,the
applicant has deleted the tennis courts/swimming pools,
leaving just the basketball courts.The lots have been
increased from 34 to 41,a couple of cul-de-sacs have been
added,and several variances are requested.They are:
(1)Allow 75-foot centerline radius as shown.
(2)Allow 15-foot building line on south side of Lot l.
(3)Allow cul-de-sac to be 30 feet from property line.
(4)Allow less than 125 feet between cross streets.
(5)To allow the unique shape of Lot 6.
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.26 —Continued
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
(1)In-lieu contribution for improvements on Sardis Road.
(2)Dedication of right-of-way to arterial standards.
(3)Right-of-way dedication at Old Orchard Drive and Sardis
Road does not provide sufficient space for standard
street radius on south side of Old Orchard.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval as revised.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr.Allan Curry,engineer for the project,represented the
developer.No one objected.The motion was made and passed
for approval as revised subject to comments by Engineering.
The vote was 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
~~axa ~wzX qzg
Chhhhh X 4 ~4 Xg
x~a~x
~)yb y g&+5 ~
~~~~~
Z
N A
f4
K O rn
X CJ hl
z ~~m4 g~Q g Q g q H
f4 400 ~~~OC
N
IQ p
g 2
S m 4 alS~N 0 0
a
June 14,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business,the meeting was adjournedatapproximately5:15 p.m.
Chairman
Secretary,
Date 5
RESOLUTION NO.39
A RESOLUTION OF THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMh1ISSION
ENDORSING EXTENSION OF WATER SERVICE TO HILLSBOROUGH
SUBDIVISION,PHASE V AND INCLUDING LOTS WITH A
MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 695 FEET,AS AN AMEND!1ENT TO
SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT POLICY NO.15.
WHEREAS,a resolution passed by the Planning Commission on June 26,1979,
limited water service line extensions to a maximum elevation of 675 feet
"unless such extension of service is authorized by the City !3oard of Directors",
and
WHEREAS,Suburban Development Policy No.15 as adopted by the Board of
Directors restricts "water service to areas which can be served in an efficient
and cost effective manner avoiding construction of water lines with elevations
above 675 feet requiring specialized storage and pumping facilities",and
WHEREAS,the above mentioned water service elevation limitation was based
upon planned construction of a water storage tank at elevation 740,but the
water storage tank was eventually constructed at elevation 760,and
WHEREAS,as originally submitted,IM llsborough Subdivision Phase V proposed
lots to an elevation of approximately 700 feet,and
WHEREAS,the Municipal Water Works wrote the developer on December 12th,
1980,stating that lots in the southwest corner of the N-';,SE-';,NW'„Section 32
may be an exception,since the area "is relatively near the 2.5 MG tank,i t may
be possible to provide service to elevation 700 feet MSL",and
WHEREAS,Municipal Water Works in subsequent meetings with the developer,
and as outlined in a letter dated May 20th,1983,has determined that "a maximum
floor elevation for the houses could be established at 695 feet due to this
proximity to the water storage tank".
NOIJ,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1.The Planning Commission hereby extends pr~inary P4~pproua3„
to Hillsborough Subdivision Phase V as amended with a requirement that this action
be acknowledged and accepted by the Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock.
SECTION 2.This amendment of previously adopted City resolutions and
policies shall be applicable to this development only and does not constitute
authorization to serve any other areas exceeding 675 feet elevation.
ia$4
SECTION 3.The Planning Commission understands that the Office of
Comprehensive Planning staff,the Municipal Mater Works staff and Deltic
Timber Company propose to undertake a comb1ned study of development
problems and potent1als in the mountainous areas above 700 feet MSL lying
northwest of the existing City Limits with the i ntent of preparing a land
use strategy for these areas.
ADOPTED g /~/
ATTEST ~AP ROVED
athan el M.riffi n Schlereth
ecretary airman