HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_08 16 1983subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARy AND MINUTE RECORD
SUBDIVISION HEARINGS
August 16„1983
1:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum.
A Quorum was present bei.ng nine in number.
II.Approval of the Mi.nutes of the Previous Meeting.
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as
read by the Planning Commission.
III.Members Present».John Schlereth,Chairperson
Betty Sipes
William Ketcher
Dorothy Arnett
David Jones
Ida Boles
John Clayton
Jim Summerlin
Jeri.lyn Nicholson
IV.Members Absent:Bill Rector
Richard .Massie
V.Ci.ty Attorney:Hugh Brown
August 16,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —Fi,le No.419
NAME:Village Center Preliminary/Site
Plan Review
LOCATION:South of and Adjacent to
Village Shopping Center
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
R.W.Butler West and Associates,Inc.
P.O.Box 4116 209 N.BaileyLittleRock,AR 72214 Jacksonville,AR 72076
AREA:9.68 acres NO.OF LOTS:2 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"NF-24"
PROPOSED USES:Apartments
A.Histor of the Site
This si.te has been used previously as a nursery.
Portions of it have been known to flood considerably.
A levee has been built around apartments immediately to
the east of the site for protection from rising waters.
B.~PO *1
{1)The replatting of a 9.98 acre tract into lots.
(2)The construction of three apartment buildi.ngs in two
phases.
(C)Develo ment Schedule
Phase I:
(a)One 2-Story,10-Unit Apartment Building
(b)15 Parking Spaces{c)Total Area —7,808 Square Feet
(d)Building Line Area —3,909 Square Feet
(e)Ratio of Building Line Area to
Total Line Area —2.99%{3.34 du/ac)(f}Ration of Building Line Area to Total Line Area(left floodway)—4.78{}or 5.33 du/ac
Phase II (Future Ex ansion):
(a)Two 2-Story,10-Unit Apartment Buildings
(b)One Two-Story,Eight-Unit Apartment Building
(c)42 Parking Spaces
(d}Total Building Square Feet (including
Phase I .............229.696 square feet.
August 16,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —Continued
(e)Total Building Land Area in Square Feet (phase I
Included)..........14,848 Square Feet
{f)Ratio of Building Line Area to Total Line
Area .........11.40%or 12.72 du/ac
(g)Ratio of Building Li.ne Area to Total Land Area
(Less Floodway).......18.17%or 20.26 du/ac
~~~Ld p
The applicant has stated that."due to site location
behind University Inn and the Village Shopping Center,
minimum landscaping is anticipated.All lands will be
seated to floodway.Hedges and fence are already in
place along the southern and western proper'ty lines
providing privacy from the existing motel.A new
privacy fence will be located between the proposed
project and the shopping center."
E.En ineerin Considerations
Explain plan access to the site,»since the existing
access appears to be one-way.Floodway and Floodplain
Ordinance applies to this site.
F.Analysis
This proposal involves some severe problems that
interfere with the fundamental dictates of livability
described in the Subdivision Ordinance.First of all,
there is very inadequate access to the site by a
15-foot one-way easement that runs between an existing
)shopping center and existing motel.The appli.cant must
demonstrate a viable means of access.A minimum of two
lanes is needed.The flooding issue must also be
discussed since all of the site is in the floodplain
and part is in the floodway.The existing apartments
to the east were developed by the same owner and has
been known to have water almost to the second floor
during heavy rains.
Fire Department approval of this plan is necessary due
to the access of the drainage.Staff is not
comfortable that this proposal provides a living
environment as in the best interest of public safety.
Questions of access and flooding will have to be
resolved before staff support can be given.
G.Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
August 16,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —Conti.nued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
This application was not represented;therefore,the
Committee did not discuss specifics of this case.General
discussion involving the staff and the Engineering
Department reflected several significant issues which the
Planning staff will attempt to resolve by meeting with the
applicant prior to the July 12 meeti.ng.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.There were no objectors.Si.nce
the applicant was not present at the Subdivision Committee
meeting and there were still several basic issues
unresolved,a motion was made and passed for deferral until
the August 16th Planning Commission meeting.The item wi.ll
also go back to the Subdivision Committee meeting on
July 28th.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes
and 2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW".{July 28,1983i
The applicant was present.A discussion of the issues was
held,during which the staff expressed dissatisfaction with
the suitabi.li.ty of the land for this development;and with
the access,even though the plan has been approved by the
Pire Department.The applicant stated that he would provide
a 30-ft.easement with 24-ft.of pavement,instead of the
15 feet shown.Engineering agreed with this suggestion and
commented that the floodplain issue had been resolved.
PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION".{8-16-83)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors.Staff
expressed opposition to the project.The Commissi.on felt
that all requirements had been met.A moti.on was made and
passed for approval.The vote was:8 ayes,1 noe and
2 absent.
August 16&1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1A —Z-4043
Owner:R.W.Butler
Applicant:R.W.Butler
Location:Lot B,Village Center
Subdivision
Request:Rezone from "C-3"General
Commercial to "NF-24"
Nultifamily
Purpose."Expansion of existing
development
Size:1.5 acres +
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Commercial,Zoned "C-3"
South —Commercial,Zoned "C-3"
East —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
West —Commercial,Zoned "C-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing
agency concerni.ng this request.The purpose of the zoningrequestedistoconformthispropertytotheproposed
expansion of the Village Center Project calling foraddi.tional multifamily buildings.There is staff oppositiontotheproposedmultifamilyexpansion,and since this zoningiscompletelyapartofthatdevelopment,staff is not
recommending approval of the zoning until such time as theplattingissuesareconcluded.
PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present and was represented by hisengineer.There were no objectors in attendance.The item
was discussed briefly in conjunction with the subdivision
and site plan review.The Planning Commission voted on a
motion to approve the rezoning application.The motionpassedbyavoteof8ayes,1 nay {Betty Sipes),2 absent.
August 16„1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.2 —File No.45-R
MANE:Otter Creek Community
Phase VI
LOCATION:Southwest of Quail Run Drive
Off Nallard Cove and
Strawberry Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Rock Venture The Hodges Firm
3426 Old Cantrell Road 209 I/2 W.2ndLittleRock,AR Little Rock,AR
Phone:375-4404
AREA:30.932 acres NO.OF LOTS".36 FT.OF NEW ST.:2,750
ZONING:"R-2"
PROPOSED USES:Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
Length of cul-de-sac:
1.End of Otter Creek Master Plan.
2.Terrain to the south.
A.History of the Site
None.
B.Existin Conditions
The proposed plat is characterized by gentle slopes andvegetationconsistingofpinetrees.The site abutstheSaline-Pulaski County line on the west and singlefamilydevelopmenttotheeast.Existing publicfacilitiesandservicesincludeanelementaryschool,public parks facilities and an internal pedestrian
walkway system.
C.Develo ment Pro osal
This is a proposal to subdivide a tract of land with30.93 acres,into 36 lots with single fami.ly.2,750feetofnewstreetisproposedforthisplat.Avarianceisrequestedregardingthelengthofthecul-de-sac,whi.ch is excessive due to terrain to thesouth.It is also shown on the Otter Creek WasterPlan,so it is in conformance with what was originallyplanned.
August 16,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.2 —Continued
D.En ineering Considerations
Drainage plan specifics will be reviewed along withstreetplans.
E.Staff Analysis
Staff is basically favorable to the request.It
represents the termination of what has been a
well-planned residential development.Someclarificationisneededastothefunction of the
25-foot areas designated as the green belt.They are
shown as separate parcels,outside of the lot
boundaries.The ownership of these areas should be
specified.
F.Staff Recommendation
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present.A revised plan was submitted,
which included the green-belt area within the lots as buffer
easement,to be maintained by the property owners.Staff
reported that the Master Street Plan proposes a minorarterialstreetthroughthisplat.Some discussion was heldrelativetoobtainingtherequiredamountofright-of-way
for this street from Saline County,whi.ch abuts on the west,or eliminating the street from the plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(8-16-83)
Mr.Bob Lowe was present in support of the application.
There were no objectors.Mr.Don McChesney,the City
Engineer,requested that the item be deferred for two weeks
so that he could discuss the possible attainment of
right-of-way with Saline County officials.Staff reportedthattheysupporteddeletionofthestreetfromtheMasterStreetPlansincetwophasesofthesubdivisionhadbeen
previously approved without obtaining right-of-way.The
Master Street Plan was adopted after the plats were
approved.A motion for a 2-week deferral as requested bytheCityEngineerwasmadeandpassedbyavoteof9ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
August 16,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3 —File No.24-N
NAME:Hillsborough Multfamily
Subdivision
LOCATION:West End of Windsor'ourt
Off Hinson Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Kelton Brown The Hodges Firm
Beckingham Drive 209 I/2 W.2nd Street
Li,ttle Rock,AR Little Rock,AR
Phone."375-4404
AREA:21.966 acres NO.OF LOTS:34 FT.OF NEW ST.:2,400
ZONING:"MF-6"(Proposed)
PROPOSED USES:Duplex —Triplex —Fourplex
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
Length of cul-de-sac due to terrain and limited access
potential on south.
A.Histor of the Site
None.
B.Existi.n Conditions
This site,which is currently outside the City limi.ts,is located on very rugged terrain,with elevations
ranging from approximately 420 feet to 630 feet.It is
wooded with vegetation consistly mainly of an abundance
of pines.Adjacent to the tract on the north,is an
"MF-6"parcel,on the east a multifamily project is
being constructed and on the south is an existing
single family residential area.
C.Development Pro osal
The applicant is requesting to divide a tract of 21.966
acres into 34 lots for multifamily use as duplexes,
triplexes and fourplexes.Twenty-four hundred feet of
new street is proposed.A waiver of the cul-de-sac
length is requested,due to the terrain and limited
access potential on the south.Application will be
made for annexation to the City and rezoning to "MF-6"
since properties outside the City are brought in as"R-2"areas.
August 16,1983
/SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3 —Continued
D.En ineerin Considerations
1.Provide preliminary street grades and vertical
curbs prior to the Commission meeting.The
topography indicates there may be street grade
problems,especially at the street intersection.
Indi.cate how storm water will be disposed of at
the end of the ditch at the southeast corner of
Lot 15.Is there an existing or proposed channel
running east to the large ditch.
E.Staff Analysis
Staff has severe reservations about developing the
property as requested.It is felt that the proposal,
as designed,will not adequately support multifamily
development.The street system is insufficient as to
size and design.It is felt that the "NF-6"zoningdistrictwasintendedfordevelopmentonlotslarger
than those proposed.The lotting arrangement,also
does not meet acceptable criteria for multifamily
development,since it appears to be more suitable for
a conventional single family type arrangement.Due to
a 40 percent slope on some portions of Lots 1-14,they
are unbuildable unless an easement is constructed at
the rear for access.Staff views this as unnecessary
since Section 37.20 of the Subdivision Ordinance
prohibits development on lands which are unsuitable
for a proposed project.If such measures have to be
taken to make these lots accessible,then such land is
unsuitable.
If this proposal is annexed,the applicant should
provide assurances that the appropriate density to
accommodate "MF-6"development is transferred from
unused lands.Hillside regulations require the
provision of a 15-foot building li.ne in those areas
with slopes in excess of 18 percent.The applicant
should dist.inguish between these lots which have
building lines with 15 feet and 25 feet.
F.Staff Recommendation
Approval,subject to comments made.
August 16,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3 —Continued
SUBDIVISION CONNITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present.Staff reported that there were
two additional issues relative to water and sewer service.
Water Works has limited service to a maximum floor elevation
of 560 feet,which limits service to only Lots 14-34.No
sewer is available to this tract since it is not a part of
Sewer District 222.The applicant stated that he was in the
process of working out acceptable agr ments with both
agencies,and he has applied for annexation and rezoning of
the parcel.There was discussion as to whethex or not the
plat should be reviewed when the sewer service i.s uncertain;
and as to the suitability of the proposal fox multifamily
development.Some Committee members felt that a more
unifi.ed approach would be more appropriate due to the
hillside problems.Staff pointed out that if the plat was
approved,the creation of such lots would not be a basis for
Board of Adjustment approval,since the planning Commissi.on
should refrain from appxoving those proposals that create
hardship.The Commi.ttee decided to pass this to the
Commission,subject to the applicant submitting lettexs at
the August 16th planni.ng Commission meeting from wastewaterUtility,Sewer Distxict 222 and Water Works,relative totheircapacityofservicetotheparcel.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(8-16-83)
The applicant was present.He submitted a letter requesting
a 2-week deferment which would enable him to conduct further
research regarding sewer connecti.ons and densities on the
pxoject as requested by the Sewer Improvement District 4222.
A motion was made and passed to defer the item to the
August 30th Planning Commission meeting.The vote was:
9 eyes,0 noes and 2 absent.
August 16,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.4 —File No.434
NAME:Southwest Mall Shopping Center—
Site Plan Review (Revised)
LOCATION:Southeast of Geyer Springs and
I-30 Service Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Rector,phillips,Morse Edward G.Smith and Associates
401 Victory 401 VictoryLi.ttle Rock,AR Little Rock,AR
Phone:374-1666 Phone:374-1666
AREA:25.6180 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"C-3"
PROPOSED USES:Shopping Center
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
REQUEST:
Site plan approval of a multiple building site.
PROPOSAL:
1.The addition of one building on a 25.6 acre mall site.
2.Development Schedule:
Land Area 25.62 acres
Building Area .............266,230 square feet
Parking .................1,390 cars
Parking Per 1,000 Sq.Ft...5.22
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS."
A.Request clarification of travel way between Bojangles
and the service station to the north;will movement be
permitted from the driveway directly into parking
space?
B.Request raised curb behind Bojangles to mark thecirculationdrive.
August 16,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.4 —Continued
C.Request pxovisions be made for handicapped parking.
D.One-way drive in the vicinity of the entrance should be
signed by the mall.
E.The two northeastern parking spaces at Bo Jangles will
back out into the mall circulation drive.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff is.basically in support of the project,"however,it is
generally felt that an additional curb cut is not
necessary on Geyer Springs Road.The applicant should
consider using the existing ones since it provides for a
through flow of traffic to the opposite end of the mall.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present.Engineering repoxted that they
had no objection to the curb cuts as shown.The Committee
decided to pass this to the Commission,subject to
Engineering comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.There were no objectors.Staff
reported that they had modified their position relative to
curb cuts to concur with that of the City Engineer's.
Commissioner Sipes stated that she agreed with staff's
original position on the limitation of curb cuts on
Geyer Spxings.She then questioned the City Engineer as to
what was being done about a traffic signal problem on the
street.He replied that it was under consideration.The
moti.on was made and passed for approval,subject to
Engineering comments.The motion passed by a vote of
9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
August 16,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5
NAME:Fliteline Notors
LOCATION:5111 Asher
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
Harold Barker William F.Davis,Jr.
8601 Chickamauga Ct.P.O.Box 6031
Nabelvale,AR 72103 Sherwood,AR 72116
Phone:455-2726 (work}Phone:835-3550
565-7525 (home)
AREA:1.21 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"I-2"/"C-3"
PROPOSED USES:Industrial
A.History of the Site
None.
PROPOSAL:
1.The constructionof a metal building on a multiple
building site of 1.21 acres.
2.The building is to be 50'60'ong.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS:
1.Front yard setback of at least 50 feet.
2.Side yard setbackof at least 15 feet.
3.Rear yard setback of at least 25 feet.
4.Lot area of at least 14,000 square feet.
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS:
A.Dedicate right-of-way necessary for an arterial.
Ten feet of right-of-way required from centerline ofstreet.
B.Improve Asher Avenue to include curb and gutter,
standard driveways,and underground drainage if
required.Widen Asher to place back of curb and
gutter'oprovidea40-foot arterial street.Engineering
plans to be submitted to the City Engineer for review.
August 16,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5 —Continued
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff was inhibited in its xeview of the plans since the
dimensions were not clearly indi.cated.The applicant should
submit a propexly dimensioned plan or clarify the numbers
shown.It is suggested that a final plat be submitted to
plat a building line,which will accommodate the existing
buildings on-site in-lieu of what is required„since 10 feet
of the property will be dedi.cated fox right-of-way.The
applicant should submi.t assurances that the existing metal
building will be removed upon constxuction of the proposed
buildings especially since it seems to encroach in the
requix'ed setback area.Staff is requesting the submission
of a proper landscaping and parki.ng plan,along with thefloorareasofexistingbuildings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present.He stated that his plans did not
include removal of the metal building.He was instructed to
meet with the Engineering Department before the August 16th
Planning Commission meeting to work on compliance with theix
comments and an acceptable landscaping/parking plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present.Staff reported that he had
x'equested withdrawal of the application.A motion was made
and passed for a withdrawal.The vote:9 ayes„0 noes and
2 absent.
August 16,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.6
NAME:Rosedale Church of God in Chri.st
Conditional Use Permi.t (2-4055)
LOCATION:4100 Ludwig
OWNER/APPLICANT»Rosedale Church of God in Christ
Elder Raymond Savage
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 26QQ square foot addition to an existing
1,029 square foot church building (15Q total capacity),and
to build 30 parking spaces on land that is zoned "R-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
This site (four lots)i.s located adjacent to an
intersection of two residential streets.The property
slopes downward to the north.This site lies with the
John Barrow C.D.B.G.District.
2.Compatibilit wi.th Nei hborhood
This site is located in a residential neighborhood.
The property to the west of this site is vacant.A
church is located across Ludwig to the east.This use
i.s compatible with the neighborhood.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
The applicant is proposing two access dri.ves on Ludwig.
The proposal also includes 30 paved parking spaces
(includes two handicapped spaces).Two separate
parking areas are proposed,one containing six spaces
and the other 24 spaces.
4.Screenin and Buffers
This site contains several large trees,which will be
retained by the appli,cant.The applicant has also
proposed to plant shrubbery around the new structure.
5.~51
The staff supports this proposal and feels that it
would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding
August 16&1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.6 —Continued
neighborhood.The site plan should,however,be
revised to include a more detailed landscape plan.In
addition,the six space parking area should be
redesigned so that three spaces are oriented to t,he
north and three spaces to the south.Thi.s would
alleviate the problem of vehicles having to back onto
the right-of-way.The proposed drive aprons need to
revised so that they meet the curb on the paved portion
of Ludwig.The applicant needs to file a final plat
dedicating additional right-of-way on 41st Street and
Ludwig to bring these streets up to residential
standards.Ludwig Street should be constructed to
residential street standards,one-half of 27-foot
pavement with curb and gutte~.
6.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval provided the applicant files
a revi.sed plan to:{1)show landscaping;{2)reorient
six space parking area;{3}extend the drive aprons.
Approval is also subject to the applicant agreeing tofileafinalplatdedicatingadditionalright-of-way on
Ludwig and 41st Street,and that applicant agrees to
construct improvements on Ludwig to one-half 27-foot
pavement with curb and gutter.
SUBDIVISION CONNITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present.The applicant agreed to comply
with the staff recommendations.There was some discussion
concerning the postponement of street improvements to 41stStreet.The Engineering staff stated that they and the
applicant could resolve the timing of the off-site
improvements to 41st Street.
PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.No objectors were present.Thestaffcommentedthatalltheissueshadbeenresolvedbythe
applicant.The Commission then voted 9 ayes,0 noes and
2 absent to approve this item as recommended by staff.
August 16,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.7 —File No.435
NAME:Greathouse Bend Street
Improvement District
APPLICANT:Harry E.McDermott,Jr.
LOCATION:Overlook Drive at Murray Park
Access to Rebsamen Park Road
AREA:30 acres NO.OF LOTS:FT.OF NEW ST.:
ZONING:"R-2"Single Family
REQUEST:
Planning Commission approval or formation an improvementdistricttoconstructthephysicalimprovementswithin the
Greathouse Bend subdivision plat.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Recommends formation of improvement di.strict,if there are
no adverse comments.
PLANN1NG COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff reported that the applicant had requested withdrawal
of the application.A motion to this effect was made and
passed by a vote of:9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
August 16,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.8 —plannin Commission public Hearin on Kin wood/
Murra Park Traffic Problem
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Chai.rman called the public heaxing to order at 2 p.m.
In attendance at the meeting were Mr.Don McChesney of the
City Engineer's Office,Capt.Pettyjohn and Lt.Walters from
the Little Rock Police Department„several members of the
Planning staff,approximate1y seven persons representing the
neighborhood,the chief spokesman for which was Ann McQueen.
To initiate the public hearing,Mr.McChesney presented a
lengthy report on the public Works Department histoxy of
thi.s problem area and offered the recommendations which had
been previously suggested by his office.There were several
comments offexed by Planning and Engineering staff members
in association with the presentation.The chairman then
turned the meeting to the neighborhood and asked for
specific comment from Ann McQueen.Mrs.McQueen offered the
various reasons for the petition which had been initiated
before the City Board of Di.rectors several months prior.
She enumex'ated problems with speeding,alcohol related
incidents and late night activities unacceptable to her
neighborhood.She additionally offered what the
neighborhood believed to be resolution of some of the
problems.These were closing the Murray Park recreation
area,px'ovi.ding one-way streets in certain locations in the
neighborhood or providing physical impediment to throughtrafficbyoutsi.ders.Following this presentation,the
Planning Commission conducted a lengthy discussion of some
two hours,the result of which was a recommendation by
Commissioner Jones that an ad hoc committee be established
by the Planning Commission.This Committee would be
composed of members of the Commission,the neighborhood„
City Engineer,Police and Parks Depaxtment.The purpose ofthisCommitteewouldbetoholdmeetingsoverthenext
several weeks and develop specific recommendations which
could be returned to the Planning Commission.It was
suggested that these recommendations would then be endorsed
and forwarded to the City Boaxd of Directors at the
appropriate public hearing.The Planning Commission
unanimously endorsed this approach.The Chairman asked for
a volunteer commitment from the membership as to
participati.on in the committee.The unanimous raising of
hands followed.Commissioner Jones was instructed to
px'oceed with the organisation of this committee choosing the
appropriate members of the Commission and others to serve.
The chairman then directed the staff and participants inthisCommitteetoreturnrecommendationstothePlanni.ng
Commission at its meeting on August 30,1983.
.-~Li
L-
i
,L
~
K O
+--t"C D-f K
fd
~x~Wh h,+
0 jZQlSJJDQf"H M 0 Q Oma&w w u e o ~+'M Ul G.,Q CJ .f-I CU4~~S QlgjIAMRXA 4 'g
n
August 16,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was
adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
airperson
C
S cret ry
/3,'Z
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,PERTAINING
TO TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN THE KINGWOOD
ADDITION TO THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK.
WHEREAS,a subcommittee comprised of Planning Comm1ssion members and
Kingwood residents met on August 29,1983 to discuss possible solutions to
their traffic problems,and
WHEREAS,the subcomm1ttee did reach a consensus on several recommendations
for traffic reduction,and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has reviewed the
subcommittee
's
recommendat1ons,and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commiss1on agrees with the spec1fic recommendat1ons .
THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
'TTLE POCK,ARKANSAS,
SECTIO!N l.The Plann1ng Commiss1on hereby recommends that the City Board
of D1 rectors enact the following recommendations:
PI.LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATION
To make the extension of Rebsamen Park Road to R1ver Mounta1n Road a
high capital improvement priority for the C1ty.
II.SHORT-RANGE RECOMMENDATION
l.To eliminate the P1ne Valley Road (from North Un1versity to Rockwood)
and Rockwood collector streets (P1ne Valley to Overlook Dr1ve)from
the Master Street Plan.Th1s action would reclassify these streets
as residential streets.
2.Install Stop signs at the following locations:
a.)The intersect1on of Skywood and Hillwood on the north side
to stop westbound traffic.
b.)At the northern corner of H1llwood and Richwood to stop
downhill westbound traffic.
3.Construct channe]ization at four intersections to provide bettertrafficmovementandtod1scourageMurrayParkpatronsfrom
traveling through the Kingwood area.These intersections are:
(a)Hillwood and Richwood,(b)Skywood,K1ngwood and Pine Valley
and,(c)the east and west engrnces of Murray Park.Determine
the feasibil1ty of constructing an internal street to connect
the east and west sect1ons of the park.The channelizations are
illustrated by the attached draw1ngs.
4.Install "No Through Traff1c"s1gns at the three (3)southern
entrances of the K1ngwood residential area.
5.Close Murray Park at 10:OO P.M.daily.
6.The need for consistent enforcement of the traffic laws.
7.After the above recommendations are in place for six (6)months,
a further review of the traffic problems of Kingwood should be
conducted by the
City
.If the traffic problems still exist,
the Committee recommends that the staff explore with the residents
the concept of mid block closings of certain streets.
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:APPROVED:fJ~t.f n o n c eret
Secretary Chairman
I
1
r:
/r 7 X(';.'.,i-'
/
')'=j,g~j ~
\Y
0 PROPQstb STOP SIGH I.ocATioe&
I ITTLE ROcK,AR 8 so-83,
T.——
X 0
'V(L C~
'(ll:LD
STOP
J
i'',''
(l,'I '',',;,J I l,'(',I'&!t'Jll!1
t
l"
G0
7
l
''sTov"
//
STo P
o
/L?'//,1 I'I'l)i':'
k
.1 ."l !l .'I l ~I ~1 ...!,I I
'..1 I .
'..!I ~1 .'H &
4 WHT Tile-Pt ~A
ark.
i'HCe!wide nits
F'MP~~P CttAHHELIZPT IGH
~u NL1P-PAf PA.Pf (eaef.i veek en'-arm~)
P
~~a g~
~
City ot Little Rock
Office of City Half
Comprehensive Markttam at Broadway
Planning Little Rock,Arkansas 72231
371-4730
Auclust 26,1983
TO:The Planning Commission
FROM:David Jones,Chairman of the
Kingwood Subcommittee
SUBJECT:Kingwood Subcommittee Meeting of
August 25r 1983
The ad hoc Kingwood Subcommittee met on August 25r 1983r at
City Hall,to discuss possible solutions to the Kingwoodtrafficproblems.The Subcommittee was composed of
James Summerlin,Jerilyn Nicholson,William Ketcher,
Gene Pfeifer (Overlook developer),Bob Pettyjohn (Police
Department),Nat Griffin,Don McChesney and three Kingwoodresidents;(Jianne Smith,Ann McQueen and Kay Flowers.
The group met for three hours in which many problems andtheirsolutionswerediscussed.The Subcommittee did reach
a consensus of several recommendations which are outlined
below.
1.TONG-TERM RECOMMENDATION
Encourage the City Board of Directors to make the extensionofRebsamenParkRoadtoRiverMountainRoadahighcapital
improvement priority for the City.
II.SHORT-RANGE RECOMMENDATION
1.To eliminate the Pine Valley Road {from North
University to Rockwood}and Rockwood collector streets
(Pine Valley to Overlook Drive)from the Master Street
Plan.This action would reclassify these streets asresidentialstreets.
2.Install Stop signs at the following locations:
a}The intersection of Skywood and Hillwood on the
north side to stop westbound traffic.
b)At the northern corner of Hillwood and Richwood Co
stop downhill westbound traffic.
/~I I /~f I w~.((','.
-''l'
).„„!j'~,/r
l
l
V
/
PIKPQStb STOP SIGH LocATiQN&
LiTTLE RGCK )AR,8 50 85
3.Const.ruct channelization at four intersections to
provide better traffic movement and to discourage
i4urray Park patrons from traveling through the Kingwood
area.These intersections are:(a)Hillwood and
Richwood,(b)Skywood,Kingwood and Pine Valley and,
{c)the east and west entrances of iMurray Park.
Determine the feasibility of constructing an internal
street to connect the ea t and west sections of the
park.The channelizations are illustrated by the
attached drawings.
4.Install "No Through Traffic"sign."at the three
southern entrances of the Kingwood residential area.@&'-'
'„'':;'''',':n:0 K'n"'fi 0 jL,T I'QQ (tklf Kn'o 'c cY,
5.Close Murray park at 10:00 p.m.daily.
6.Emphasize to the Board of Directors the need for
consistent enforcement of the traffic laws.
7.After the above recommendations are in place for.six
months,a further review of the traffic problems of.
Kingwood should be conducted by the City.If the
traf fic problems still exist,the Committee recommends
that the staff explore with the residents the concept
of mid block closings of certain streets.
dl,/Dd:rf7
E ~(~~~~etc)jc
r
I
'f~,()
/)
f.(i
/
/
(1 I (.)i&J
I /
I
i'/
1.4 j
(Jl
/
l
i
/
~I ).
I;*
f
','.
1 (
j
//
Cj
(;/
I'gl",%fII(I~I'III/Ilf(I'I(l IIII»I I Il/~
1
I
4 Pv,6~~iten ~H
ark
~iced,eHed-~d~ing
PVDPC'&P-D GPAHHELlZAT lC H
5 117-PP7 PA Rv (me(~ver$e8ranm~)