Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_03 12 1985subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD MARCH 12, 1985 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum. A quorum was present being 11 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting. The minutes were approved. III. Members Present: David Jones John Schelereth Bill Rector, Jr. William Katcher Jerilyn Nicholson Jim Summerlin Richard Massie Ida Boles John Clayton Betty Sipes Dorothy Arnett IV. City Attorney Present: Phyllis Carter SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES March 12, 1985 Deferred Items A. "Forest Hills" Revised Preliminary B. Hilltop Subdivision of Plot 2, Country Homes Addition of the City of Little Rock C. The Bluffs "Short Form PRD" (Z -4396) D. Brittany Point Addition Replats /Plats 1. Ray Robinson Preliminary 2. Vimy Ridge Estates Preliminary 3. Baptist Medical Center - Revised Preliminary 3A. Rezoning (Z- 2079 -G) 4. Mears Replat Replats /PUD's 5. Oxford Court "Short Form PRD" (Z -4414) 5A. Oxford Court Replat 6. McGee "Short Form PRD" (Z -4415) 6A. McGee Replat 7. Holiday Inn - West Little Rock "Short Form PCD" (Z -4416) 7A. Holiday Inn West Replat 8. Roy D. Rainey, Jr. "Short Form PCD" (Z -4333) 91 Putnam Realty "Short Form PCD" (Z -4334) 9A. Putnam Realty Replat Conditional Use 10, Rudy's Sausage (Z -4413) 10A. Rezoning (Z- 4413 -A) Building Line Waiver 11. Pleasant View Subdivision Lots 440 R and 441 R, Phase VII C Right -Of -Way Abandonments 12, Alley Closure in Block 112, Original City of Little Rock 13. Alley in Block 174, Original City of Little Rock Other Matters 14. Bylaw Amendments 15. Walton Park March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No, A NAME: Forest Hills Revised Preliminary LOCATION: North End of Foxcroft Road - 3800 Block APPLICANT /ENGINEER: Richardson Engineers 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 664 -0003 STAFF REPORT This submission represents the third revision of plans for the site in the last two months. The previous submission, which proposed access through Robinwood, was denied by the Commission last month. This plan consists of 15 single family lots, which take access off of a cul -de -sac leading from Foxcroft Road. ^ As before, staff has no problems with the development of the property as single family, since it is a compatible use. The only problems related to design. Lots 7 and 8 are pipe stem lots, but with other lots also taking access from the stem. Staff feels that the plan should be redesigned, so that each lot has its own stem or there is a common drive. Also, staff feels that the applicant should consider redesigning Lot 4. Staff recognizes that if the street is extended to the plat boundry, double frontage lots would be created in the abutting Subdivision to the west; however, it is still felt that the applicant should try to resolve the issue. If the cul -de -sac is in excess of 750', a waiver will be needed. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: (1) Request Foxcroft Road be extended as a collector. (2) Request preliminary information on the grade of cul -de -sac. (3) Construct guardrail type barricade at the end of Foxcroft Road or a cul -de -sac turnaround. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: r Approval, subject to comments made. March 11, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Several persons from the neighborhood were present. Their main concern was the location of the cul -de -sac so close to Robinwood. Mr. Tim Bolen felt that double frontage lots would be created and requested that this plan should be designed so that it took the brunt of the traffic instead of Robinwood. He offered to support the plan if the street was shifted eastward. Ms. Marilyn Schultz, the owner of Lots 50 and 51, was concerned about a possible erosion problem. Since it appeared that she will be most directly impacted by traffic, she also requested that the street be moved. Mr. Richardson felt that if he shortened the cul -de -sac, he might need to lengthen the access drives. The question then arose as to the feasibility of developing this parcel. If it was developed, how many lots could it support? One commissioner felt that the real question was if land is developed to its highest and best use, do you develop it to the detriment of your neighbors, or do you contain this detriment within the proposed subdivision? r1 Finally, a motion for approval was made, but failed to pass for lack of an affirmative vote: 5 ayes, 5 noes and 1 abstention (noes: Ketcher, Summerlin, Massie, Sipes and Rector). SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. Several alternate plans were discussed with the Commission. The issue remained the proposed location of the cul -de -sac. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff explained that the issue remained the location of the cul -de -sac in proximity to Robinwood. The applicant's representative, Mr. Bob Richardson, explained that his preference was to locate the cul -de -sac 50 feet from Robinwood, but he had been unable to reach an agreement with the abutting property owners. Mr. Lloyd McCain of Robinwood Development Company, the predecessors of the original developers of Robinwood Addition, spoke in behalf of the applicant. He explained that it was not economically advantageous 25 years ago to develop the entire ownership; thus, portions including r Parcel 8 were excluded at the time of development. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (2- 28 -85) The applicant submitted two plans and ask that one with the streets extended to Tract B be granted Commission approval and the other was a cul -de -sac be given conditional approval in case the first plan was not constructed. The Committee did not object to this approach. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant and the developer were present. Numerous persons from Foxcroft and Robinwood neighborhoods were present. Assistant City Attorney Phyllis Carter was asked to report on an opinion requested by the Commission. Ms. Carter reported that the request involved three parts: (1) Would the Commission be in violation of Subdivision Ordinance 13,556, Section 37.20(g), as amended, if it permitted Tract B to be land - locked? Her answer was, "Yes," since the word "shall" is used in Section 37.20(g). The Commission must provide access to adjacent unplatted properties. (2) Could liability for the land - locking of the tract by the Commission be waived by the owner if a written waiver was submitted by the owner? Ms. Carter stated that only two means were acceptable. One involved a written agreement which would run with the land and be recorded, which stated that there was an alternate route of access or some physical impediment. The other involved the owners of Tracts A and B entering into a written agreement. These methods would not place the Commission in violation of Section 37.20(g). (3) Does the fact that the owner contributed to the situation by land - locking himself make a difference? Her answer was that the Commission would not be justified in relying on this for disapproval. A review of the surrounding area and an ownership map was given by the staff. Engineering responded to a question by the Commission and explained that a traffic count study had been taken in several areas near Foxcroft, and it was determined that the extension of Foxcroft to the River would �- have to be a federal bond project, and had a low priority March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Recently, he has discovered that this parcel will be landlocked. Be had also made an offer to sell the parcel to abutting property owners in Robinwood at a discounted price, on the restriction that it will be maintained as a greenbelt, and conditioned upon the property owners that currently object to this project working out an agreement with the applicant. Numerous persons from the Foxcroft and Robinwood neighborhoods were present. Spokespersons included: (1) Ms. Paula Black, president of the Foxcroft Garden Club, who submitted a petition expressing concern over the extension of Foxcroft as a collector down to the river; (2) Mr. Michael Bryant who requested a comprehensive plan of the area; (3) Mr. Russell Drawn who agreed with Mr. Bryant and questioned the outcome of plans for extending Foxcroft to access other lands to the north; and (4) Mr. Tim Bollen from Robinwood who also requested a total picture of what was to happen in the area. ^ The Commission discussed the proposal. Questions arose as to whether or not the Commission was responsible for providing access to a person that by his own sale of property, denied it to himself and whether or not the applicant should be required to submit /and include 40 acres of additional acreage in a preliminary sketch in order to examine the full impact of the Foxcroft extension and other related issues. Finally, a motion was made for a 30 -day deferral, conditioned upon: (1) Submittal of a pre - preliminary on other lands owned by the developer under option and that shows the relationship to Robinwood. (2) Legal opinion from the City Attorney on Section 37.20 (subparagraph g) as it relates to this property in Tract D. (3) Engineering formulating an opinion on whether Foxcroft should be downgraded from 36' to 27' street. The motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 3 noes and 0 absent. (The no votes: Rector, Ketcher, Schlereth) March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued compared to others in the City. He did say that his department felt that the extension of Foxcroft to the River would be in the best interest of the City, and a 36' street is favored as the area is developed. Mr. Bob Richardson, Engineer for the project, requested adoption of the two plans presented, in accordance with the City Attorney's opinion on not land - locking, with the contingency that the plan with the cul -de -sac be adopted upon sale of Tract B to Robinwood property owners. He stated that there were ongoing negotiations for the purchase, but he did not know the current status. One commissioner pointed out to Mr. Richardson that the stub -out street was still located about 20' to 30' from the lots and it should be at least 100' from existing lots. Mr. W.P. Hamilton addressed some background issues of the original development. He stated that the developers land - locked themselves to provide more marketable development by additional buffer areas. He was an attorney during the negotiations. He thought it improper for a developer who deliberately provides buffers to increase the marketability of the property to then change his mind and come back and ask for access. Mr. Don Hamilton stated that there is a tentative deal for negotiation to purchase Tract B, and there did exist a strong possibility for the purchase of the tract by the property owners. Mr. Tim Bowe of Robinwood asked the Commission to take the residents' interests into consideration, especially due to the double frontage situation created. He stated concerns about the damage to surrounding ownerships and offered to purchase a 100' strip because he felt that the street should be located at least 100' away. Ms. Sarah Smith of Foxcroft expressed concerns about flooding and the extension of Foxcroft. Dr. Robert Strauss also expressed environmental concerns and a fear of detrimental effects due to the traffic impact. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Mr. Richardson stated a reluctance to move the street Over 100' because he felt it would harm property values of the southern lots. He also felt that there were no double frontage lots and that he was in compliance with the ordinance, since it states that 50' is required from adjacent property if a cul -de -sac does not extend to adjacent property. The Commission felt that regardless of the ordinance, adequate planning for the area mandates the location of the street at least 100' from the platted lots. Mr. Richardson felt that the result of moving the street would impact Foxcroft and the lots in the proposed subdivision. He stated that the property values within the proposed subdivision would suffer, and that would damage all parties involved. Finally, a motion for approval of the application as filed was made and denied by a vote of: 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Staff's main concern related to the design of some lots with pipe stem access. Staff felt that the ownership of the easement should be more clearly delineated. Also, the Commitee expressed concern about the proposed street's proximity to houses in Robinwood. The applicant was asked to submit a revised plan changing the location of the street. The applicant felt that the proposed street represented a better alignment. However, the Committee felt that neighborhood objection would be likely and could be prevented if the plan was revised. The applicant requested to amend the application and request a waiver of sidewalks. Engineering felt that sidewalks would not serve any meaningful purpose on this street because of the minimal length. The applicant agreed to extend Foxcroft as a collector and notify Lot 53 in Robinwood of the proposal. Water Works - A 15' easement is required adjacent to the e' west and south lines of Lot 8. Provide access and utility easements to all lots that do not have frontage on a street right -of -way. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The developer and his engineer, Mr. present. Mr. Richardson submitted addressed most of the issues identi Committee. The remaining issue to public hearing was the location of proximity to Robinwood. Bob Richardson, were a revised plan that fied by the Subdivision be discussed at the the cul -de -sac in close Mr. Richardson still contended that such a revision would result in a bad layout. He felt that physically this represented the best location since it would be located below the foundation of the Robinwood homes and would place at least 100 to 135 feet of distance between houses in this subdivision and Robinwood, which is much more than an abutting subdivision would. If the cul -de -sac was moved to the east, Mr. Richardson felt that parcel B (a land locked tract, south of Lot 50 and west of Lot 7) would be abutted by two lots that would increase its likelihood for access. n March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No, B NAME: Hilltop Subdivision Preliminary of Plot 2, Country Homes Addition LOCATION: North side of River Mountain, Rodney Parham & Highway 10 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Joe De Palo Mehlburger, Tanner & #4 River Mountain Road Associates Little Rock, AR 72211 P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375 -5331 AREA: 5.013 acres NO. OF LOTS: 19 FT. NEW STREET: 690 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family r VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site History The site was before the Commission on December 18, 1984, for PRD approval of a condominium project. The application was denied. B. Existing Conditions The land involved currently has one single family frame residence on the site. Elevations range from 525 to 5701. Scattered trees and other vegetation are apparent. The area consists of large lots, single family, except for a church to the south of the site. "OS" strip serves as a buffer area between the church and the property. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to develop 5.013 acres into 19 lots for single family development, with 690 feet of new streets. The average lot size is approximately 11,486 square feet and the minimum is 7,350 square feet. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued D. Engineering Comments 11 Improve River Mountain Road to minor arterial standards. River Mountain Road and the right -of -way is controlled by A.H.T.D.; discuss street and drainage plans with them. 2. Submit internal drainage and detention plan; discuss plan with Mike Batie, 371 -4861. E. Analysis Technically, the proposal meets the ordinance requirements. Staff does not oppose the use of the land. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: n The applicant discussed the proposal with the Committee. He explained that the Bill of Assurance restrictions expired in 1964; the homes would be 1,800 to 2,000 square feet, and the plan remained open for the Commission's input as to how to develop the property or what restrictions to place in the Bill of Assurance. Staff gave its support of the plat, but stated that both the Suburban Plan and the recent Corridor Study designates this area for large lot single family. The Committee then discussed whether or not this plan constituted large lot single family. One Committee member felt that this plan was not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. Other Committee members requested that an alternate plan with a mid -rise overlooking the River be submitted. They felt that such a plan reviewed under the PUD process would maintain the existing frontage and visual quality of the area. The applicant was advised that t responsibility was to assess the proposal to the entire area, not that whatever development occurs precedent and have a significant hillside will be developed. ae Commission's overall impact of the only the site. They felt on this site would set a impact on how the entire March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 12 -85) The applicant, Mr. Joe DePalo, was present. He was accompanied by Mr. Joe Kemp, his attorney, and Mr. Don Chambers, the architech. An alternative plan showing a mid -rise was presented, as was requested by the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Chambers explained that his client was attempting to use his property to its highest and best use. They felt that the highest and best use was once large lot residential, but since development of the church, it is now a dense residential use. He also explained that the property could contain 25 lots, but he only proposed 19. If the mid -rise were to be considered as a PUD, it was requested that the single family plat be continued until the PUD was approved or denied. Mr. Chambers further explained that the proposed plan included homes of 1800 to 2000 square feet at a cost of $150,000 to $200,000; and that his client's general feeling was that the total environment of the property would change due to the intrusion of the church, which was a nonresidential use. He stated this proposal only represented an attempt to buffer the office use by a higher residential use. Mr. DePalo then explained his position. He had acquired the property in 1981 and was advised that the corridor was subject to be changed, but that "R -2" would be the prevailing use. At the time, he was unaware that a church could be built in the area, when the church was considered by the Commission, he asked his neighbors to join him opposing it; but they didn't. He then proceeded to pass pictures around illustrating the damaging effects of the church. He stated that he was a landowner within the law who had the right to develop his property. He assured the Commission that he intended to reside on the land and that his approach was not that of vengeance. He mentioned that Mr. Darragh had made what he considered to be a "hollow gesture" to purchase his property. Mr. Herb Rule represented the property owners to the east. He felt that the proposal was not in keeping with the neighborhood and that his clients had tried unsuccessfully to work with DePalo. He stated that there was a sign up for 8 to 10 years on the church property before Mr. DePalo bought the church property advertising the construction of a church and that during Commission review, the church was required to leave two acres and green space as a protective buffer for Mr. DePalo. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued Mr. Darragh agreed that he was asked by Mr. DePalo to oppose the church. He explained that he couldn't since the residents to the east knew that a church would be built and preferred this to a commercial or office use. He assured the Commission that if he bought DePalo's property, it would remain large lot single family. Mr. DePalo spoke again. He questioned whether or not his neighbors to the east should have been knowledgeable about the "R -2" zoning, just as he was expected to be knowledgeable about the church in an "R -2" zone. Mr. Rule stated that the property should be zoned "R -1,' instead of "R -2." He felt that "R -2" was an insult to the property. The Commission discussed the item. Several Commissioners had mixed feelings about the development since it was realized that Mr. DePalo had the right to develop his property. On the other hand, a proposal of 19 or 20 lots would be a drastic departure from what was existing, and the neighbors also had the right not to have their entire environment totally uprooted. It was explained that the Commission's duty was to consider not only this site but what was fair on both sides and what was beneficial for the community at- large. The Commission felt that what happened on this property determined how the entire hillside would be developed. Mr. DePalo was asked to defer the item for 30 days and work out a solution with abutting property owners. Mr. DePalo stated that he resented the fact that he was within the law and still had to compromise on a right that he is entitled to enjoy. He felt that there must be some question that right existed. Finally, he agreed to defer for 30 days and work out a solution with his neighbors. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (2- 28 -85) There was no review of this item. Water Works - An 8 inch watermain extension will be required. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 12 -85) A motion for a 30 -day deferral, as requested by the applicant, was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. n v March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - File No. 360 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Cromwell /Crain, Owners AGENT: Nat Griffin Flake & Company P.O. Box 990 Little Rock, AR 72203 376 -8005 The Bluffs "Short Form" PRO (Z -4396) Northwest corner of North Gaines and Garland ENGINEER: Cromwell, Truemper, Levy, Parker & Woodsmall, Inc. Al Spring Street Little Rock, AR AREA: 1.63 acres NO. OF LOTS: FT, NEW STREET: 0 ^ ZONING: PRO (Proposed) PROPOSED USES: Residential /Office A. Site History None. B. Development Objectives 1. To provide infill development that is consistent with official City planning policy (downtown plan); which "proposes that the south bank be redeveloped as an 'Urban Village' or high density residential community." 2. To optimize a unique and highly accessible location and maximize on the attractive views over the Arkansas River, 3. The removal of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site. C. Proposal 11 The development of a high density apartment complex and two three -story buildings on two separate tracts, consisting of 1.63 acres. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - File No. 360 - Continued 2. Building data Unit No, Unit Type 8 2- bedroom 44 1- bedroom 12 efficiency 3. 97 parking spaces /1.52 spaces per unit. 4. Development schedule - ground breaking will be in early 1985, with the completion date the latter part of the year. 51 Building coverage, 25 percent of the site. 6. Street closure - Closure of Gaines Street, north of Garland. AP&L owns property east of Gaines. They have indicated a willingness to transfer ownership of that portion of Gaines Street they will obtain through the closure to the development in exchange for easement rights across the site. D. Engineering Comments The City has a drainage project planned that will use North Gaines Street. An easement will be required along the east side of the street for the full length of Gaines Street. The drainage structure would be placed under one and possibly two of the proposed units. Request a discussion with the City Engineer to resolve this conflict. E. Analysis Staff does not oppose the concept of the development. The applicant, however, should provide a fully dimensioned site plan indicating the setbacks, distances from property lines and provide a landscaping plan. Due to Engineering's comments, several of the eastern most units may be lost. This should not pose too much of a problem since the density is about 39 units per acre. If it does, the applicant should feel free to devise an alternate route for the drainage. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - File No. 360 - Continued A separate application for the street abandonment should be filed. Since it is a part of The Original City Subdivision, the City will have to quit-claim eed it to tT he applicant. A plat should be filed to incorporate the street abandonment and to reflect the needed easements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He agreed to get the approval of the Fire Department and work out the location of the easement with the City's Engineering staff. Water Works - 6' or 8" on -site fire line and hydrant will be required. 15' easements should be retained, 7.5' either side of existing water main in Gaines Street, PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 12 -85) A motion was made and passed for a 30 -day deferral as requested by the applicant. The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (2- 28 -85) The applicant submitted his revised plan which was reduced to 60 units, with one bedroom units of 650 feet and two bedroom units with 800 feet. He stated that a one -lot replat would be filed to dedicate the required easements. The Committee felt that this plan was an approvement over the last one submitted. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 12 -85) The applicant was present. Ms. Rosa LeKing, the owner of four houses in the area, was in attendance. Staff reported that a letter had been received from Mr. Sandy McMath, who couldn't be in attendance due to a teaching assignment in California. Mr. McMath asked that the applicant agree: (1) that the rental price begin at $350 per month; (2) that there be no increase in traffic at State and La Harps Blvd; (3) no objection to the use of his property for any use for which it is zoned; and (4) no interference with APBL's removal of power lines along the river to be relocated March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS C - File No. 360 - Continued across the applicant's property. He also wrote of his feelings that 45 units should be the maximum unless special measures would be taken to ensure occupant privacy, access and traffic flow commensurate with an upscale dwelling, and that Mr. Cromwell, the architect, assure him of these points. If the applicant did not agree to these conditions, he requested that a formal objection to the project be placed on record. The chairman asked Mr. Nathaniel Griffin, the applicant, to respond. Mr. Griffin stated that they were in agreement with Mr. McMath's request; however, the rental rates would be determined by the market and the Little Hock Housing Facilities Board, even though their plans did include an initial rate of $350 per month. Mr. Griffin said that if there was no net increase in traffic, they would not object to zoning allowed in the area and an agreement had been reached with AP &L. n Staff reported that the applicant had addressed all of the issues raised by Mr. McMath. Ms. LeKing then stated a formal objection to the project since Mr. Griffin had failed to sign Mr. McMath's letter. A motion for approval of the revised plan was made and passed by a vote of; 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C -1 - Street Right -Of -Way Abandonment NAME: Gaines Street in the 200 block north LOCATION: All of North Gaines Street north of Garland Street to the MO PAC Railroad OWNER/APPLICANT: AP&L Co. and the Cromwell, Crane Development group REQUEST: Abandon the present 60 -foot right -of -way and join with the adjacent lots on the west for redevelopment STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for This Right -Of -Way None expressed at this writing except that the City Engineer has noted a drainage project within this right -of -way. 2. Master Street Plan There are no Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 3. Need for Right -Of -Way on Adjacent Streets None required. 4. Characteristics of Right -Of -Way Terrain A gentle slope toward the river and a fully developed street. 5. Development Potential None except as a part of the adjacent lots on the west. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The abutting lots are used for a mix of office, commercial and multifamily, plus there is a large Arkansas Power and Light Company facility under construction to the east. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C -1 - Continued 7. Neighborhood Position None expressed at this writing. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities There is a requirement for the right -of -way to be retained in its entirety as utility and drainage easements. 9. Reversionary Rights The present agreement between the petitioner and AP&L is that the apartment project proposed on the west side of the street will receive the entire dedication. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This petition is a cleanup action attached to "The Bluffs PRD Project." This right -of -way represents, plus or minus, 25 percent of the total project land area and, as such, is a factor in the economic success of a development in this neighborhood. Inasmuch as we have supported the project, we feel compelled to support the abandonment, we would condition our support on the abandonment on the following two points: 1. That the right -of -way be retained as utility and drainage easements. 2. That an agreement by the owners be provided, to dedicate and return this right -of -way to the public, should the project fail prior to removal of the street improvements. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 12 -85) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. This matter was discussed in conjunction with Item "C," this agenda titled "The Bluffs." The Commission voted to recommend approval of the abandonment as recommended by staff. The motion was approved by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D - File No. 359 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Jack Files 800 Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 Brittany Point Addition Approximately 1,200 feet east of Arch Street, north side of Dixon Road RWa TNR.RR. Robert D. Holloway, Inc. 200 Casey Drive Maumelle, AR 72118 851 -3366 AREA:118.134 acres NO. OF LOTS: 22 FT. NEW STREET: 5,300 ZONING: Outside City PROPOSED USES: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: 11 Elimination of Baseline extension through the property (from the Master Street Plan). A. Site History None. B. Existing Conditions The land involved is located in a rural -like area consisting or large acreage tracts. The site involved is currently covered with mature vegetation. The Suburban Plan identifies the area as for mining resources. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to plat a tract of 118.134 acres into 22 lots for single family development and 5,300 feet of new street. The applicant envisions that the land will be developed as 5 -acre estate size tracts. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the lots to front on a private cul -de -sac, which is of excessive length (over 750 feet); and that March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D - File No. 359 - Continued the Master Street Plan extension of Baseline, going through the property, be eliminated. He feels that it is "inconceivable that construction is imminent, not really needed and economical for the City to undertake because ": (1) The cost of the 5,300' of roadway would be $600,000. (2) Adequate right -of -way and thoroughfare exist, namely, Arch Street (S.H. 367) and Dixon Road (S.H. 338). (3) Construction of this alignment would not diminish need for future widenings of the above State highways. (4) Inconceivable that anyone would construct the facilities described in order to save only 4,000 feet of length. (5) The experience obtained in England Acres Subdivision proves the cost to be incurred will be expensive because of the amount of Granite in the area. (6) Slopes just east of Baseline are 13.5 percent in excess of that type of street. (7) Character of the area is rural estate -type residential /mining; and the immediate surrounding area is wooded or consists of metal lands, all of which compliments the intended use. (8) Construction of the Baseline extension would completely change the character of the existing area and cause development similar to that adjacent to U.S. Highway 65. The applicant further requests that the Planning Commission: (1) Grant approval of the subdivision or part of the subdivision, with the owner and City Engineering working on a more suitable and defined alignment of the proposed extension; or March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D - File No. 359 - Continued (2) Grant approval of the subdivision with some sort of defined alignment of the possible future extensions of Baseline Road shown on the final plat. The applicant further states that the alignment on the Master Street Plan, "proves reasonable in its two - dimensional form, but does not have a high degree of need and scores very low on a cost - benefit examination." D. Engineering Comments 1. Master Street Plan issue involved; proposed arterial alignment crosses the north portion of the development. Request meeting the City Engineer, 2. Improve Dixon Road to collector standards. This roadway is State Highway 338, plans to be improved by the City and the Highway Department. 3. Submit internal drainage plan to include detention plan. Discuss plan with Mike Batie at 371 -4861. 4. Clarify plans for the rural roadway within this development. E. Analysis This plan envisions a rural -type subdivision of large estate -size lots. Ordinarily, the division of tracts into five acres or greater does not constitute a subdivision. In this case, however, two issues caused this proposal to be brought before the Commission: (1) The fronting of the lots on an internal private street; and (2) The Master Street Plan alignment through the site. It appears also that the cul -de -sac is over 750 feet, so it will require a waiver. In materials received by the staff, both the applicant and the City Engineer have mentioned meeting to discuss the street alignment. The Planning staff supports such an effort. n March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D - File No. 359 - Continued The Suburban Plan shows this as a mineral resources area; however, due to the large lot type of development, staff does not feel the proposed is out of character with the area. The applicant is asked to please submit a revised preliminary with the required building lines. The sewer system will have to be approved by the State Health Department, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff reserves recommendation until the Master Street Plan is discussed with the City Engineers, SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Bob Lane, of the City's Engineering Department, reported that he had met with a representative of the State, and it was determined that the proposed alignment would be needed. The issue was complicated further by the fact that the terrain placed limits on proposing the connection around the property; however, he did mention that the alignment was not fixed and there could possibly be some modifications. The applicant agreed to: (1) meet with the City and State Engineering staffs to resolve the issue; (2) get an approval letter from the State Health Department for septic tanks; (3) submit a revised plan with a 100' building line for the lots; and (4) build the private street to public street standards. Engineering agreed to accept rule standards as approved by County Planning, Water Works - An 8" main extension will be required. Monthly Improvement District charges will be assessed for Lots It 21 3, 21 and 22 (all lots with Improvement District No. 16). There will also be a charge of $100 per acre assessed for all property within this proposed subdivision. Private streets should be designated as access and utility easements. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 15 -85) The applicant requested a 30 -day deferral so that he could revise the plat and comply with the notice requirements. motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. n r March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D - File No. 359 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (2- 28 -85) A revised plan was submitted which reflected the agreement worked out with engineering, and an increase from 22 lots to 30 lots with sizes varying from 2.5 to 6.7 acres apiece. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were also interested parties from the adjacent areas in attendance. Mr. Bob Holloway, the Project Engineer, was questioned by some persons regarding the impact on adjacent areas by his proposal for a Sewer Improvement District. He stated that his plans included tying into England Acres and that the Sewer District would only encompass the area within the plat. Mr. Paul Stanfield of Stauffer Chemicals wanted to state for the record that they were presently involved in mining operations in the area, and that these operations would continue; therefore, future residents of the subdivision should be informed. A motion for approval, subject to comments made, was made and passed by a a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - File No, 356 -A NAME: Ray Robinson Preliminary Subdivision LOCATION: Pinnacle Valley West of Little Rock Yacht Club DEVELOPER /ARCHITECT: ENGINEER: Ray Robinson, Jr. Robert Richardson Little Rock, AR 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 664 -0003 AREA: 6.56 acres NO. OF LOTS: 12 FT. NEW STREET: ZONING: Outside City PROPOSED USES: Single Family A. Site History Last month, the applicant submitted a "PRD" application for single family attached units. After meeting with neighbors and considering their opposing views, the applicant decided to withdraw the request and resubmit as a single family (detached) plat. B. Existing Conditions The land involved is located outside of the City near the yacht club in an area that is generally developed as single family. There is property consisting of elevations ranging from 270' to 3301. C. Development Proposal The applicant is proposing to develop 6.56 acres into 12 new lots with one existing lot that currently has a single family use and a common area. No variances have been requested. Sewer will be by packaged plant upon approval of the State Health Department. D. Engineering Requirements (1) Dedicate right -of -way and improve Pinnacle Valley Road to minor arterial standards. n March 12, 1985 r SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued (2) How will access be provided to common area? (3) Submit internal drainage plan to include detention. E. Analysis Staff suggests that the applicant provide a pedestrian foot traffic access to common area. Please include the applicant's lot as a part of this plat and label it as Lot 13, The Bill of Assurance should provide for maintenance of the common area. The applicant is asked to provide staff with certification from the County Sanitarian or State Health Departments that the package plant is acceptable. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: A revised single family plat of 11 lots and a common area was submitted. The average lot size was 16,000 square feet as required by the State Health Department for septic tanks. It was decided that the applicant's lot should be labeled No. 11 instead of 13 and that a minimum of 15 feet should be dedicated as an easement between Lots 8 and 9. There was some discussion in regard to requiring in -lieu contribution vs. street improvement on Pinnacle Valley Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Bob Richardson, Engineer, and Mr. Ray Robinson, Jr. were in attendance. Quite a few persons from the neighborhood were present. They were represented by Attorney M. Jones. He specifically described the groups he represented as The Community Association for Maumelle, St. Paul Church Maumelle Church and surrounding property owners. Other spokespersons from the group were Ms. Barbara Nelson, a neighbor to Mr. Richardson, Mr. Johnny Romes of the neighborhood and Ms. Linda Robinson with the Soil Conversation Service. The major issue involves sewer service and the fear that this project would enhance an existing bad situation. Ms. Nelson spoke of instances where waste comes into her yard, and March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS No. 1 - Continued Mr. Robinson attested to the fact that the soil was difficult to perc. Other concerns expressed involved density, adverse impact on homes due to lot size and inadequate fire protection. Mr. Jones clarified the point that they were not objecting to development of the property, but wanted it to be developed in a safe manner. There was discussion among the Commission about deferring the plan until the perc tests were done, in spite of the letter received from the County Health Department saying that they would review the septic tank system proposed to ensure its conformity to their regulations. Two motions were made. The first motion was to defer for 30 days so that the applicant can do percolation tests. The motion failed by a vote of: 5 ayes, 6 noes and 0 absent. The second motion was for approval of the project as submitted, conditioned upon the final plat coming back before the Commission and notification of the residents. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent. n March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - File No, 367 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: James Huff /Garver & Garver 11th & Battery Little Rock, AR 72203 Vimy Ridge Estate Preliminary East Side of Vimy Ridge Approximately 2600 Feet North of County Line Road ENGINEER: Garver & Garver 11th & Battery Little Rock, AR 72203 376 -3633 AREA: 4.789 acres NO. OF LOTS: 18 FT. NEW STREET: 500 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USES: single Family A. Site History None, B. Existing Conditions This site is located in an area that is rural in character and developed mainly as single family homes. The site is wooded with elevations ranging from 340' to 3721. The property is abutted on the east by "I -2" use. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to develop 4.789 acres into 18 lots for single family development. Access will be provided by 500 linear feet of new street. No variances have been requested. D. Engineering Comments (1) Dedicate right -of -way along Vimy Ridge Road to minor arterial standards. (2) Improve Vimy Ridge Road to minor arterial standards. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued (3) Submit internal drainage plan to include detention considerations. E. Analysis Staff finds the proposal to be in conformance with the Suburban Plan. No problems with the submission have been found provided the applicant provides the required improvements and right -of -way dedication. Southwestern Bell has requested a 10' easement around the perimeter of the property. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Water Works reported that there will be no water to the site until Improvement District No. 139 is in service. The /y applicant stated an intention to tie in the waterline being constructed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - File No. 2 -H NAME: Baptist Medical Center - Revised Preliminary Exit 7 on I -630 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Baptist Medical Mehlburger, Tanner 6 Associates Center P.O. Box 3837 9601 I -630, Exit 7 Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72205 -7299 375 -5331 227 -1982 AREA: 7 acres NO. OF LOTS: 7 FT. NEW STREET: 450 ZONING: "O -3m (Pending) PROPOSED USES: Office A. Staff Report This is a request by the applicant to revise an approved preliminary by: (1) Deletion of approximately 1,600 linear feet of street. (2) Addition of 40 -foot buffer, vehicular prohibition zone and utility easement. (3) Addition of 450 -foot linear street in the form of a cul -de -sac. (4) Down zoning of property (see 3A). The following variances are requested: (1) Deletion of 6 -foot wood fence abutting residential area in exchange for a 40 -feet vehicular prohibition zone, since the feet would occur in slow line of existing drainage. (2) Allow 450 -foot long minor commercial street, since it will serve only four lots. ^ March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued B. Engineering Comments Dedicate right -of -way and improve Kanis Road to minor arterial standards. Submit internal drainage plans to include detention considerations on the modified areas included in this replat. Analysis The applicant should illustrate his phasing and location of sidewalks on the plat to provide a clearer understanding of improvement construction. Staff is favorable to deletion of the fence only if it is an area that is undisturbed; however, if the natural greenery has been disturbed, the applicant should build a fence. The minor commercial street should consist of at least 27 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant stated that Phase I will consist of Lots 16, 17, 37 and improvement of Kanis Road; and Phase 2 will consist of Lots 33 -36 and the cul -de -sac. He had no problems with staff's comments. Water Works - Existing easements and tank sites should be s ownAdditional easements are required: a 20 -foot easement adjacent to the northwest property line connecting the tank site on the west and the existing easement on the north boundary of the development; a 15 -foot easement, 7.5 feet either side of the lot line between Lots 25 and 26; a 20 -foot easement adjacent to that part of the east line of Lot 32 that is south of the north line of the SW 1/4, BE 1/4, Section 3, T -1 -N, R -13 -W; a 20 -foot easement adjacent to the west line of Lot 12, and also adjacent to that part of the north line of Lot 12 that is west of the existing easement; a 20 -foot easement connecting Lile Drive with Patton Place; and a 20 -foot easement connecting Physician's Court with Jungkind. '1 March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 -A - Z- 2079 -G OWNER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: PURPOSE: SIZE: Baptist Medical Systems Don Chambers Kanis Road West of John Barrow Road Rezone from "R -2" and "C -3" to "O -3" General Office 4.5 + Acres EXISTING USE: Vacant and Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant and Public, Zoned "R -2" and "C -3" East - Vacant and Office, Zoned 110-3" and "C -3" West - Vacant, Zoned 110-3" STAFF ANALYSIS: The proposal is to rezone approximately 4.5 acres to "0 -3" for office use. No specific plans have been submitted at this time, but a revised preliminary plat shows seven lots with a cul -de -sac coming off Kanis. It appears that the development pattern will be a single office building on each of the individual lots. The tract in question is part of the Baptist Medical Center's ownership which a majority of the land has been developed for either institutional or office use. Because of this and the zoning pattern on the north side of Kanis, an "0-3" reclassification for this property is appropriate. Being somewhat removed from the John Barrow Road and Kanis Road intersection, the site is probably better suited for a coordinated office development. The "O -3" reclassification and proposed plat should have less of an impact on the residential neighborhood to the north than the existing "C -3" zoning. One final item is the Boyle Park District. This property is part of that plan area and is identified for office use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 -A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the request as filed. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. n March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - File No. 368 NAME: Mears Replat LOCATION: West 2nd Street at West Markham Street and Battery DEVELOPER: ENGINEER /ARCHITECT: Robert C. Mears Eddie Branton 5711 Country Club 707 Wallace Building Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR 72201 376 -3456 374 -4930 AREA: 5.96 acres N0. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "I -3" PROPOSED USES: Mini - Warehouses A. Staff Report The applicant is requesting to replat an old subdivision with many small lots into two lots per use as a mini - warehouse project. Staff has several questions about the proposal. One of the main issues is the fact that Lot A does not abut a public street. The applicant shows a 50 -foot setback. Why? A site plan should be submitted on the site since the project will be a multiple building site. Also, there may be an agreement from years back for construction of the alley with further development on the site. Staff will research this. B. Engineering Comments 1. Improve West Markham Street to collector street standards, and dedicate necessary right -of -way. 2. Other street improvements may be required when development plan is known. 3. Submit internal drainage plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION �-. Staff reserves recommendation until issues are resolved. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: There was discussion as to whether or not the applicant should amend the plan to include a site plan which he presented to the Committee. He was advised to get with staff and work out the details of the submission. Water Works - Existing utilities and proposed easements are sates actorily shown on this plat. Six inch or eight inch on -site bylines will be required. The nearest available water is a 24 -inch main in West Second Street. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made for approval of the replat, subject to the deferment of street improvements until the site plan is approved. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 12, 1985 n SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - File No, 365 NAME: Oxford Court "Short Form PRD," (Z -4414) LOCATION: 7419 Ohio Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Gloria Crofton Edward G. Smith 6 Associates 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 374 -1666 AREA: .51 acres NO. OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PROPOSED USES: Single Family Town Homes A. Site History None. B. Development Objectives (1) To sell an existing six -unit, two -story town house development as zero lot line lots. (2) To change the current status as condominium. C. Proposal (1) The "PRD" Review: Lot Area Use Sq, Ft. 1 3600 sq. ft. 2 -Story Town House 1162.5 2 1725 sq, ft. 2 -Story Town House 1162.5 3 5925 sq, ft. 2 -Story Town House 1162.5 4 5925 sq, ft. 2 -Story Town House 1162.5 5 1725 sq. ft. 2 -Story Town House 1162.5 6 3600 sq, ft. 2 -Story Town House 1162.5 (2) Engineering Comments None. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - File No. 365 (3) Analysis This is a proposal to change the legal composition of an existing town home development so that the owner will be able to sell the property as developed zero lot line lots. Even though the applicant has not stated the specific amount of parking spaces, from site observation it appears to be adequate. Staff feels that more information should be provided before a definite recommendation is made. Both the Bill of Assurance and the plat should clearly delineate the lots, shared easements, common parking, paired units and common walls. Indicate maintenance responsibility. This item should be worked out by the applicant's attorney. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff reserves comment until further information is received. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant agreed to submit a preliminary Bill of Assurance that addressed the concerns of the staff before March 12, PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. n March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - File No. 365 -A NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Gloria Crofton Oxford Court Replat 7419 Ohio Street ENGINEER: Edward G. Smith 6 Associates 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 374 -1666 AREA: .51 acres NO. OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R -5" PROPOSED USES: Single Family Town Homes STAFF REPORT The replat involves the division of a 150' x 150' tract into six lots of varying sizes. Lot 1 . . . . . . 48' x 75' Lot 2 . . . . . . 23' x 75' Lot 3 . . . . . . 79' x 75' Lot 4 . . . . . . 75' x 79' Lot 5 . . . . . . 23' x 75' Lot 6 . . . . . . 75' x 48' There is a 13 -foot platted access easement on the north side Of the lot. All relevant issues have been addressed in No. 5. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - File No. 366 -A NAME: McGee "Short Form" PRO (Z -4415) LOCATION: Approximately 400 Feet South of Claremore, West Side of Reservoir DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Dr, Newman McGee Edward G. Smith 5 Associates 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 374 -1666 AREA: .76 acres NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family A. Site History None. B. Development Objectives (1) The development of the property into three single family homesites. (2) The provision of a single drive from Reservoir Road for access. C. Proposal Lot No, Use Size Area 1 Single Family 1200 to 1400 Sq, Ft. B,B55 2 Single Family 1200 to 1400 Sq, Ft. 11,500 3 Single Family 1200 to 1400 Sq. Ft. 81625 Tract A - Add to Adjacent Tract on West 2,875 D. Engineering Comments (1) Dedicate right -of -way on Reservoir Road to minor arterial standards. .-*� March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued (2) Improve Reservoir Road to minor arterial standards. (3) Submit internal drainage plan to include detention. E. Analysis This item was submitted as a PUD, since it involves the replatting of a parcel into three lots served only by an 18' private drive. The ordinance requires that every lot abut upon a private street. Due to the small number of lots, staff does not oppose the proposal provided the drive is a minimum of 201. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: r The applicant agreed to provide a 20 -foot drive as requested by staff. Water Works - The access easement should be designated as an access and utility easement. A watermain extension will be required in Reservoir Road and in the easement to serve Lots 2 and 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Joe White represented the applicant. Mr. Scotty Scholl, a member of the Unity Church Board of Directors, was Present, He reported that their parking lot abutted the project on the south. There is an existing right of access to rental property owned by the applicant through the parking lot. He requested that the applicant: (1) continue street through the plan for access to the rental property, which would allow church to gain extra parking spaces; (2) the plan be modified so that the street be located on the northern edge of the property or build a fence to discourage residents from parking on the church property; (3) explain drainage and water retention since there was a possibility of a great amount of runoff; and (4) explain sewer service. T March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued Mr. White explained that a sewer would be provided by the City by an extension and that he was not in a position to say that the private drive would be extended to serve the rental property. Mr. Larry Peters of L 6 L Real Estate represented his father. He expressed concern that major disturbance of the land may cause a water problem to the north. Mr. White explained that Mr. Peters was upstream from the project, so there shouldn't be a problem. Another resident, Mr. John Ruthbend of 2722 Reservoir, expressed concerns about drainage and a site distance problem. Mr. Scholl alsc felt that the drive would aggravate an existing traffic problem. The Commission did not feel that this development was extensive enough to create a traffic hazard. Finally, a motion for approval was made, subject to the building line of Lot 3 being moved to the east side of the drainage easement. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 abstention. n March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - File No, 392 NAME: Holiday Inn West Little Rock "Short Form PCD" (Z -4416) LOCATION: Southeast Corner of West Markham and Shackleford DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Robert M. Goff & Wittenberg, Delaney & Associates Davidson, Inc. 1320 Brookwood Drive 840 Savers Federal Bldg, Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AN 72201 376 -6681 AREA: 4.227 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C -2," 100-30" "C -3" to PCD PROPOSED USES: Commercial Hotel A. Site History None. B. Development of Objectives (1) To develop a hotel and a park -like setting with landscaped parking lots with a "dramatic view from the interstate as well as from Shackleford." (2) To provide a structure through the use of brick masonry and stucco exteriors that are compatible with adjacent commercial and retail developments. (3) To provide a mixed use commercial development with a hotel on one lot and future commercial developments to be developed on two adjacent tracts owned by the developer. C. Proposal (1) The development of a 208 -room, 6 -story (maximum of 72' height) hotel on 4.227 acres. (2) Uses will include an 80 -seat family restaurant, a 150 -seat entertainment lounge, a 314 -seat banquet facility and 3- break -out rooms. (3) Parking will include 230 spaces and 2 truck spaces at the loading dock. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued (4) Access Points: Two on Shackleford with secondary after access via access easement to adjacent properties. (5) Perimeter Treatment: Landscaping as buffer or transition zones between the highway and street to the property. (6) The composition of title after development will not change with regard to land ownership. (7) The hillside and the area elevation of Floodplain. site consist shall remain between Lots will be graded down approximately 20' comprising Lot 1 will be filled to an 376' to clear the 100 -Year Natural features at the middle of the ing of rock outcroppings and trees on the east side of the property 1 and 2. (8) Development schedule: May 1, 1985......... Begin grading and construction May 1, 1986......... Complete construction July 1, 1986........ Holiday Inn West opens for business Adjacent tracts will be developed within five years. D. Engineering Comments Access to and from this site will be extremely difficult during peak traffic hours. The City Engineer requests that a meeting be held to discuss the access in more detail. E. Analysis The main issue to be discussed involves the amount of traffic to be generated. The development is proposed in an area that is already heavily impacted by trafffic so this proposal must be viewed very carefully. The applicant's future use of the adjacent tracts as office and a food service establishment must also be considered at this time. All three properties will share a proposed access easement to Shackleford. The applicant requests acceptance of site plans drawn at .^ in = 40" instead of in = 50' as required by ordinance. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to resolution of traffic issue. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The traffic issue was discussed. The applicant was advised to work out the problems with Engineering. Water Works - An on -site fire service will be required. T erT re an existing 15 inch encasement approximately 630 feet south of the centerline of Markham Street that is available for running the service from a 16 inch main on the west side of Shackleford Road. Acreage and frontage charges will apply. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7A - File No. 392 -A NAME: Holiday Inn West Little Rock Replat LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Robert M. Goff & Associates 1320 Brookwood Drive Little Rock, AR 72202 Southeast Corner of West Markham and Shackleford ENGINEER /ARCHITECT: Wittenberg, Delaney & Davidson, Inc. 840 Savers Federal Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 376 -6681 AREA: 6.289 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C -21" "O -3," 11C -3" PROPOSED USES: Commercial Office A. Staff Report The replat involves the division of one lot of 6.289 acres into two lots for a mixed commercial development. The replat will consist of two lots with a total of 6.289 acres, and the PUD described in No. 7 will be on 4.227 acres. All relevant issues are addressed in No. 7. !"'N March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - File No. 363 NAME: Roy D. Rainey, Jr. "PCD" (Z -4333) LOCATION: Northwest Corner of University and Evergreen DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Roy D. Rainey & Co. Forrest C. Marlar 10515 West Markham North Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 72205 758 -1987 AREA: .16 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R -2" to PCD PROPOSED USES: Residential Real Estate Offices A. Site History None. B. Development Objectives 11 To provide a quiet business use buffered between a residential and commercial area. 2. To provide a building whose mildly Victorian design will not detract from the surrounding residential area. C. Proposal I. The construction of a two story residential real estate office building with a total of 2,500 square feet on a site of .16 acres. 2. Parking will consist of 10 spaces for staff and 2 for visitors. 3. A 5 -foot privacy screen will be provided on the north side. v March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued D. Engineering Comments 1. Dedicate right -of -way on Evergreen to collector standards. 2. Improve Evergreen to collector standards; widen street to one -half of 36 -foot section; discuss widening with City Traffic Engineer at 371 -4858. 3. Driveway should provide two -way traffic. Staff parking area needs backup space. E. Analysis Staff is concerned that this request represents inappropriate use of the short form PUD process because of size and location of the development. If the plan is approved, staff recommends a one story building with no more than 11500 square feet and sited better for the off - street parking and access. The applicant is asked .� to submit definite dimensions on landscaping and perimeter treatment. A 6 -foot to 8 -foot fence is needed to buffer the adjacent residential property. A 5 -foot fence is inadequate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee found several problems with the proposal, most of which were related to the intensity of the use. The applicant was asked to redesign his proposal by lessening the density, rearranging parking, providing more buffer and eliminating the front driveway. Engineering reported that some of the property would possibly be used in a street widening project. Most of the landscaping also seemed to be located in the right -of -way. It was agreed that the site had some potential for office use, but what was proposed was definitely too dense for the site. Water Works - Care should be taken to protect existing raw watermains and an existing 8" main in Evergreen. n March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Both Mr. Roy Rainey, Sr. and Mr. Roy Rainey, Jr. were in attendance. A revised plan was submitted that consisted of a one - story, 1,500 square foot building with 8 spaces. There were also persons from the neigborhood that were in attendance. Staff gave its support to the revised plan, which addressed the issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff also read a letter from neighboring property owners, Richard and Linda Harrell, that objected to the project and the fact that they may have to change their address due to the project being assigned the same number, several persons spoke in opposition - Mr. Raymond Stubblefield, Mr, Henry Spitzburg and Mr. Rudy Alvarado. They feared that breaking up a block which was residential with one commercial /office would not be beneficial to the neighborhood. A motion for approval of the application failed by a vote of: 3 ayes, 6 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - File No. 364A NAME: Putnam Realty "Short Form PCD" (Z -4334) LOCATION: 150 Feet South of 65th Street, East Side of Murray Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Putnam Realty /Bill Putnam Edward G. Smith 5 Associates 1820 Union National Bank 401 Victory Street Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 374 -1666 376 -3616 AREA: .68 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT, NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "I -2" to PCD PROPOSED USES: Commercial /Industrial A. Site History None. B, Development Objectives /Proposal The construction of a 40' x 75' building on .68 acres that would house all the activities of the Jack House, Inc. This company is involved in the building, sale and distribution of hydraulic jacks used to service general aviation aircraft. C. Engineering Comments Submit internal drainage plan to include detention considerations. D, Analysis The applicant should clarify his proposal. In Pre-preliminary discussions, he indicated that he wanted to replat the property, keep the existing auto business on one lot and put the proposed building on the other, The submitted plat does not indicate similar intentions. The applicant should also specify which zoning classification use group he wants on the �-, property. E. Staff Recommendation Staff reserves comment until further info is received. n March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant's engineer was asked to resolve the following issues: (1) whether the request involved a replat; and (2) how to characterize the use proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. It was felt that the application should be deferred for 30 days, since the plan did not reflect the applicant's request for flexibility to expand to 6,000 square feet in the future. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 NAME: Rudy's Sausage Conditional Use Permit (2 -4413) LOCATION. The Southwest Corner of Polk and West 33rd Streets (3300 South Polk Street) OWNER/APPLICANT: Rudy Foods Company /David Henry PROPOSAL: To rezone the property to "I -3" and to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow an agricultural food processing center (slaughtering included). The proposal contains an existing 151 foot x 265 foot structure and three accessory structures, a proposed 150 foot x 290 foot processing facility, a 60 foot x 120 foot receiving facility, a 60 foot x 120 foot shipping facility and a 26 foot x 101 foot addition to an existing facility. The applicant is also proposing to close Taylor Street between West 33rd and i--. West 35th Street. The property is currently zoned "I -2" and "R -2. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: Site Location This site is located at the intersection of five residential streets. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood A food processing plant currently exists on the site. The proposal will orient the most objectionable part of the process away from the existing neighborhood. Industrial uses abut this site on the north and west, office use and vacant land on the south and a church and a single family use is on the east. Approval of this use would be a departure from existing land use policy and is dependent upon the Board of Adjustment's interpretation as to the correct zoning district and the Planning Commission. 3. On -Site Drives and Parkin This proposal will use existing ingress and egress (Taylor Street, Polk Street and West 35th Street). The plan calls for using two existing parking areas on Polk Street and proposes three additional parking areas. Screening and Buffers The plan shows existing landscaping and proposes landscaping for all of the new parking areas. Analysis The staff has some concern about the compatibility of this proposal with the existing area. Staff also needs for the applicant to describe the primary access for the receiving area. The parking areas need to include the number of existing and proposed parking spaces. The ordinance requires 184 paved parking spaces. In addition, the staff feels that the proposed bakery addition is too close to the proposed processing building. Separation of the buildings by a minimum of 10 feet is desirable. The City Engineer's comments are as follows: (1) complete residential street improvements on Polk Street and improve West 35th Street; (2) the proposed buildings encroach in the 25 -foot building setback required along the floodway; (3) submit an internal drainage plan to include detention considerations; and note that all the proposed buildings are in the floodplain; recommended minimum floor elevation is 260.5 feet. 6. Staff Recommendation: The staff withholds recommendation pending the outcome of the Board of Adjustment case and the policy direction of the Planning Commission. A recommendation of approval would be subject to the applicant submitting a revised site plan, including the information required by the staff and the applicant agreeing to meet Engineering comments numbered 1, 2 and 3. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The applicant stated that he had no objection to the staff recommendation with the exception of the building (bakery and processing) separation. He stated that the bakery would be attached to the processing building. Staff stated that a replat would be required to alter the residential lots to industrial platting requirements. Staff also stated that policy required the applicant to dedicate the floodway to the City. The applicant stated that the platting was not a problem and that the dedication of the floodway to the City would probably be o.k. with his client (he will verify it). The Water Works stated an on -site fire system would be required. The staff informed the applicant that a revised site plan would be required, illustrating the necessary changes prior to the Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. The staff stated that the applicant had presented a revised site plan that was acceptable, and also had submitted a dedication deed dedicating the floodway to the City. There were eight objectors present. The objectors stated that the slaughtering process was objectionable and that the odor would be unacceptable. The objectors also delivered petitions opposing the rezoning (158 names) stating that the proposal was: (1) undesirable, (2) produced objectionable odor, (3) was livestock held within the city limits, (4) caused pollution, (5) had inadequate sewer facilities, and (6) opposing the closing of Taylor Street. The staff stated that the Wastewater utility had commented on the need to relocate several existing sewer lines and that they would withhold comment until they had seen specific plans. The applicant then spoke of the concerns of the neighborhood by saying that this process is all enclosed (indoors) as required by the USDA. A lengthy discussion ensued. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 1 noe, 1 abstention (Betty Sipes) to approve the conditional use as recommended by staff and agreed to by the applicant. n 1` March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 -A - Z- 4413 -A OWNER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: PURPOSE: SIZE: Various Owners David Henry 3300 Polk Street (South of Asher Avenue) Rezone from "R -2" Single Family and "I -2" Light Industrial to "I -3" Heavy Industrial Food Processing 7.5 + Acres EXISTING USE: Vacant and Food Processing SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "R -2" and "I -2" South - Vacant, Zoned 11I -2" and Unclassified ^ East - Single Family and Quasi - public, Zoned "R -3" West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" STAFF ANALYSIS• There are many issues involved with this site, but the particular one before the Planning Commission with this request is the consideration of an "I -3" reclassification for the property. The other items under review are a conditional use permit and an interpretation by the Board of Adjustment. The proposal is to rezone the property to "I -3" to allow a meat processing plant with slaughtering taking place on the site. The staff has determined that this type of use requires "I -3" zoning with a conditional use permit. The issue before the Board of Adjustment is to determine whether the proposed use comes under the definition of "agricultural products processing" or "tanning or rendering of animals." The latter definition does include slaughtering. The overriding issue with this site is the appropriateness of rezoning the area to "I -3." The "I -3" Heavy Industrial District "is designed to accommodate industrial uses which involve potentially objectionable uses and to minimize the impact of the various uses allowable in this district on other uses by locating them in areas where their negative influences have least impact." It can be questioned as to whether this particular location meets those crireria. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 -A - Continued With the existing makeup of the area which includes single family residential, the potential for adverse impacts on the neighborhood is present. Also the Planning Commission should keep in mind the desirability of establishing an "I -3" site in this area long -term. Staff in the past has not supported 11I -3" reclassification along the Asher Avenue corridor and remains the same with this request. It appears that the site does not meet the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and staff is opposed to the "1 -3" rezoning. Staff's position is that the area should continue to be a mix of commercial and light industrial uses with the highest zoning classification being "I -2. It is staff's understanding that the neighborhood is against the rezoning and will be present at the public hearing to voice their opposition. The Planning Office has received calls from the area objecting to the "I -3" request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "I -3" rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, David Henry, was present. Three representatives of Rudy's Farm Company were also in attendance. There were eight objectors present. David Henry discussed the 18I -3" request and the proposed use. He described in some detail the operation of the facility. He said two trucks would bring the live animals to the site, and they would be unloaded into an enclosed facility. He then indicated that this would take place two times a day. Mr. Henry also informed the Commission that the current location of Rudy's Farm is in an "I -2" zone and the operation was permitted to expand. Mr. T. Mullins, a resident of the neighborhood, spoke against the use. He said that the plant would produce objectionable odors, and that was the neighborhood's primary concern. He also said that traffic circulation was a problem and that the area's sewer system was inadequate. Mr. Mullins said that the proposed street closure would create problems also. He then presented a petition with 158 names opposed to the rezoning. Objections in the petition included: (1) undesirable for this area; (2) the odor over the entire area; (3) livestock being within the City limits; and (4) pollution from cooking and processing. Jim Shuffield spoke against the use and March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 -A - Continued rezoning. David Henry then addressed the Taylor Street closure and said it should not present any problems for the area. G.A. Walls said that he ws against the rezoning and the use for a number of reasons. There was a lengthy discussion about the unloading of animals and other aspects of the plant operation. Two other persons discussed their concerns and questioned some of the specifics that had been mentioned earlier. The Planning Commission voted on the "I -3" request as filed. The vote: 0 ayes, 11 noes and 0 absent. The rezoning was denied. A motion was then made to recommend approval of "I -2" for the balance of the property and that the recommendation not be forwarded to the Board of Directors until the Board of Adjustment acts on the interpretation request. The vote: 9 ayes, 1 no, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Betty Sipes). The "I -2" rezoning was approved. Street Right -Of -Way Abandonment NAME: Taylor Street and West 34th St. LOCATION: No need South Tyler Street off this right -of -way. Asher Avenue Blocks West of Need for Right -Of -Way Mabelvale Pike OWNER /APPLICANT: Rudy's Farm Sausage Company by David Henry REQUEST: To abandon approximately 35,000 square feet of street right -of -way for purposes of replatting and developing a 4 -block area STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for This Right-Of-Way The Roadway of Taylor Street has been in use many years and is at present in use. Nearby residents have stated that they would like to keep it open. West 34th has not been in use as a street since platting. 2. Master Street Plan This 4 -block area is bounded by 33rd Street, 35th Street and Polk Street on the east. All three of these rights -of -way will require 5 feet additional dedication. A subdivison replat will be required by the conditional use permit and will dedicate the needed right -of -way. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain Generally flat and lying within the 100 year floodplain of Coleman Creek, 5. Development Potential This right -of -way has use only in conjunction with a redevelopment of properties on both sides of Taylor Street. No need expressed for this right -of -way. 3. Need for Right -Of -Way on Adjacent Streets This 4 -block area is bounded by 33rd Street, 35th Street and Polk Street on the east. All three of these rights -of -way will require 5 feet additional dedication. A subdivison replat will be required by the conditional use permit and will dedicate the needed right -of -way. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain Generally flat and lying within the 100 year floodplain of Coleman Creek, 5. Development Potential This right -of -way has use only in conjunction with a redevelopment of properties on both sides of Taylor Street. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect There should be little or none as a consequence of this abandonment. The land use issue will be dealt with in conjunction with the associated conditional use permit. 7. Neighborhood Position All abutting ownerships are participants in the petition. There are several owners in the immediate residential area who oppose the request on the grounds of reduced circulation. 81 Effect on Public Services or Utilities None is expected. This applicant will be required to gain release of easement rights to both streets prior to preparation of the ordinance presented to the City Board. 9. Reversionary Rights The abandoned right -of -way will be released to ownership of the abutting properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This petition is closely tied to the conditional use permit for the Rudy's Farm Sausage Company. That company proposes to replat, redevelop and reuse a former poultry processing facility as a slaughter house and sausage production operation. Planning staff feels that this request is valid and supports the abandonment, conditioned upon the conditional use permit being approved by the City Board of Directors. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 12 -85) The request was presented as part of the discussion of the overall zoning and conditional use proposal presented to the Commission. As a follow -up action on that proposal, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the abandonment as recommended by the staff. The Commission's motion was passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 1 no and 1 abstention. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - File No, G -29 -35 NAME: Pleasant View Subdivision - Lots 440 R and 441 R, Phase VII C - Replat LOCATION: West End of Forest Wood Cove DEVELOPER: ENGINEER /SURVEYOR: Woodland, Inc. 0 en Dee W son Markham & State Streets 212 South Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 372 -7700 375 -7222 376 -3616 AREA: .58 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family A. Site History None. B. Existing Conditions The site is located in an area that is developed as single family residential. It is currently any phase of Pleasantview in which residences are currently being constructed. The lots are now vacant. C. Development Proposal This is a request to replat two lots in Phase VII C of Pleasantview Subdivision. A building line reduction from 25' to 15' is requested on Lot 440 R. The existing grade on Lot 440 exceed 18 percent from front to rear. D. Engineering Comments None, E. Analysis Staff is not opposed to the request. The ordinance allows a lot with a grade in excess of 18 percent to have 15' building lines. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Contined F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed by the Commission and passed to the Committee without adverse comments. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Street Right -Of -Way Abandonment NAME: The alley in Block 112 Original City of Little Rock LOCATION: The south 100.89 feet of the alley between Broadway and Arch north of West 10th Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Jack Oliver and the State of Arkansas by Mehlburger, Tanner and Associates by Robert Brown REQUEST: Abandon the right -of -way for purposes of joining alley with the adjacent lots for use as parking and circulation for a bus station STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for This Right -Of -Way None evident from our review. The three buildings fronting on Broadway now use the north 200 feet of the alley to access West 9th Street. 2. Master Street Plan There are no Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 3. Need for Right -Of -Way on Adjacent Streets There are no right -of -way issues. 4. Characteristics of Right -Of -Way Terrain The land is generally flat and is presently utilized as auto storage for a used car lot. 5. Development Potential The alley can best be used to join abutting lots for a single use development. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect No adverse effects can be expected. The west one -half of this block is mostly undeveloped commercial with warehouse uses on the 9th Street and Broadway frontage. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continued 7. Neighborhood Position None reported. 81 Effect on Public Services or Utilities None reported. However, the right -of -way will be retained as a utility and drainage easement. 91 Reversionary Rights The alley will be equally divided between the abutting owners, inasmuch as the alley was created by the platting of properties on both sites. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff review of this request indicates no problem associated with abandonment of the right -of -way. There is at present a plan for redevelopment of most of this block for new !-� structures and activity areas. The abandonment of the alley would encourage a proper redevelopment of the property. Staff recommendation for approval is conditioned on the retention of the right -of -way as utility and drainage easements. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 12 -85) There were no objectors present. The applicant was present. The Commission briefly discussed the issues and the request. A motion was made to recommend approval to the City Board of Directors. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Street Right-Of-Way Abandonment NAME: Alley in Block 174, Original City of Little Rock LOCATION: The north and south alley between State and Gaines Street south of West 9th Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Various owners by Terry Southall. REQUEST: To abandon the north 1/2 of the alley for purposes of joining the lots for development STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for This Right-Of-Way None evident from our review. The alley is not now open and has not been used as an improved alley in the past. 2. Master Street Plan There are no Master Street Plan issues attendant to this request. 3. Need of Right -Of -Way on Adjacent streets There are no right -of -way issues. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain The alley has a slight rise from the north to the south end. The right -of -way is rubble strewn from recent building demolition. 51 Development Potential The block involved has a total of seven lots remaining after the Interstate 630 right -of -way taking. These lots will be a single marketable unit after abandonment. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The neighborhood is mixed with industrial, commercial and many vacant lots. Some buildings at the present time are in a deteriorated state and abandoned. This action should have no effect on those properties. 7. Neighborhood Position None reported at this writing. 81 Effect on Public Services or Utilities None reported. However, the right -of -way will be retained as a utility and drainage easement. 9. Reversionary Rights The land will revert to the present owners of abutting lots. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff review of this abandonment proposal reflects no problems with the abandonment. This type of abandonment and redevelopment should be encouraged along the north side of the Interstate corridor in order to reclaim valuable properties. The applicant should be aware that, should the lots on both sides of the alley be joined in a common development, a replatting of the block will be required. This requirement is based in the subdivision ordinance and is attached to the fact that the present lotting arrangement is residential and basically 50 -foot lots. Our recommendation of approval of the abandonment should be conditioned upon the retention of the alley as utility and drainage easements. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 12 -85) There were no objectors present. The applicant was present. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval to the City Board of Directors. The motion passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 - Plannin Commission Bylaw Amendment The staff has performed additional review of the bylaw requirements concerning the forwarding of matters to the City Board of Directors. In discussions with Richard Massie, the staff has developed a revised page covering all aspects of this procedure as well as those matters which are not forwarded to the Board. Copies of that material are attached to this agenda. Additional supporting documentation will be provided at the meeting as developed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission determined that due to a loss of quorum that this item should be placed on the March 12th Planning Commission agenda to be dealt with at that time. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 12 -85) The staff made a brief presentation of the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission discussed the matter briefly. A motion was made to approve the changes as written. The motion passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 15 NAME: Walton Park Preliminary LOCATION: NW Corner of Southridge Drive & Highway 10 APPLICANT: Winrock Development Co., Inc. 3201 Old Jacksonville Highway P.O. Box 549 North Little Rock, AR 72115 945 -9400 STAFF REPORT This is a request by the Winrock Development Company to plat 28.57 acres into three (3) lots. The uses will consist of those listed under "0 -2" and "MF -12" zoning districts. New street provided will consist of 350 ft. The request was prompted by several rezoning requests from the previous meeting. Staff's only comment is that building lines should be provided to comply with the appropriate zoning districts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, subject to comments made. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No, 17 NAME: Green Mountain Plaza LOCATION: Southeast corner of Green Mountain and Rainwood APPLICANT: ARCHITECT: Bob East Allison, Moses & Redden 225 East Markham Suite 4001 Heritage East Little Rock, AR 72201 375 -0378 STAFF REPORT: This is a request by the applicant for site plan review of a multiple building site of 1.911 acres for use as a commercial shopping center. Three buildings are planned. The eastern most building will consist of 10,710 square feet. The southern structure will have 81740 square feet and the building on the north, which is for future development, will have 30400 square feet. Parking spaces will number 80. Since this item was added at Agenda Session, Engineering comments were not available. Staff has no problems with the proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to Engineering's comments. PLANNING COMMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N V O T E R E C O R D DATE IQCI I 12 ,1985 ITEM NUMBERS IAMTMn i QTTnnTVTRTnM J/° P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N V O T E R E C O R D DATE IQCI I 12 ,1985 ITEM NUMBERS IAMTMn i QTTnnTVTRTnM Y AYE 0 NAYE A ABSENT A P.LABSTAIN W. Fetcher Y AYE 0 NAYE A ABSENT A P.LABSTAIN fz P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N nn DATE 95 V O T E R E C O R D C L ITEM NUMBERS i1 CflnnTqTT Crnv V AYE 0 NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN MENEEN 0 ME MEIN mom 0 no MENNEN MENNEN J, S-chlereth ©MIENS ■s■■mommo■■ommomm moon��������� ■�������� W. Ketcher MOEN NEE • ©C■oons mo■mommoo■mmom; V AYE 0 NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN There being no further business before the Board, the Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m. Dat w