HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_06 11 1985subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSIO N
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 11, 1985
1:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 9 in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
Th e minutes were read and approved.
III.Members present:
Members ab sent:
v.City Attorney:
Jerilyn Nicholson, Chairperson Jim Summerlin John Schlereth Betty Sipes Bill Rector, Jr. William Ketcher, Jr. Dorothy Arnett D.J. JonesIda Boles
Richard Massie John Clayton
Pat Benton
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
June 11, 1985
Deferred Items:
A.Troy's "PRO"
Plats -Preliminary/Replat/Revised Final:
1.Pecan Lake Addition Preliminary
2.Otter Creek Community, Phase VII Preliminary
3.Replat of Lot 317 -Kingwood Place
4.Pleasant Valley Manor -Revised Final
Site Plan -Multiple Building Site Review:
5.Glenlakes Apartments -Site Plan Review
Site Plan -Zoning Review:
6.St. Vincent Guest House (Z-3001-C)
Planned Unit Development:
7.Chandlers' "PCD" (Z-4450)
8.The Heights Theatre "PCD" (Z-2827-A)
9.Apartments for the Elderly "PRO" (Z-4451)
10.Whitbeck "PCD" (Z-4449)
Conditional Use Review:
11.Watson and Taylor (Z-4243-A)
12.South Temp le Church of God in Chirst (Z-4456)
13.Otter Creek Racquet Club (Z-4457)
14.Ca pitol Avenue (Z-445 8)
15.Town e Oak Drive (Z-4460
16.Church of God (Z-4397)
Building Line Waiver:
17.Rex Wilkins -Building Line Waiver
----
''"-••"'/
June 11, 1985
Summary -Continued
Right-of-Way Abandonment:
18.Secluded Hills/Cecil Drive Street Closure
19.East 7th Street
20.Hermitage Road and Attached Side Road
Other Matters
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Madden Chapel "Revised PCD" (Z-4253-A)
Parkway Place Drive -Sidewalk Waiver Request
Penzel Place Final -"PUD" Extension Request
Plantation House "PRO" -"PUD" Extension Request
Hinson Road (Z-3889-A) -Request to Rezone from "PRD" to "MF-6"
First Baptist Church -Revised Conditional Use Permit
Claremore Court -Site Plan Review
Bernard and Marzella Ray -Illegal Lot Transfer Review
Vera Perser -Discussion on Alleged City Planning Violations
Ginny's Vineyard "Revised" Site Plan Review
Prospect Terrace Replat, Lot 38R
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -File 380
NAME: Troy's "PRO" ( Z-44 0 2)
LOCATION: Three blocks east of Chicot on Mabelvale Cut-Off
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Troy and Kitty Br aswell Robert Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: 664-0003
AREA: 12.54 acres NO. OF LOTS: 35 FT. NEW STREET: 1800
ZONING: "R-2" to "PRO"
PROPOSED USES: Mixed Office/Duplex/Fou r-Plex/Ro ller Rink
A.
B.
c.
Site History
None.
Development Objectives
1.To promote a mixed use project of two family an dmultifamily units with fu ture development ofoffice uses.
2.To allow for reasonable development of this landwhile not committing the City to the roller rinkarea (n onconforming) in Tract C to a co mmercialuse past the useful life of the rink.
Proposal
1.The platting of 12.53 acres into 32 lots for theprovision of 96 duplex/fourplex units, two tractsas quiet office use an d to allow continued use ofa portion of the site as a roller rink for thecontinued life of the use.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Contin ued
D.
2.Project data:
Parcel Use Size
Tract A Quiet Office 1.14 acres Tract B Quiet Office 1.1 acres Tract C Skating Rink 1.7 acres
Lots 1-16 Dupl ex 1,080 to 2,160 SF ea. Lots 17-32 Fourplex 5,672 to 11,35 2 SF ea.
3.The proposed density is 11.2 units per acre.
Engineering Comments
1.Improve Mabelvale Cutoff to minor arterialstandards.
2.Submit internal drainage and detention plans.
E.Analysis
This project is bounded by single family on the northand west sides and mu ltifamily on the ea st. TheSuburban Plan recommends residential use for the area.
Staff has several major concerns with the project.First of all, we are not willing to endorse the rollerrink and office use as a PRD. The applicant ha srequested that this should be called just a PUD. Staffprefers that Tract C be extracted from this proposaland that Tracts A and B be used for residential use asrecommended by the plan.
Secondly, staff is not plea sed with the physical designof the project. The system of access involves a lot ofpavement and creates double frontage lots, and thelayout provides lots with only 104 feet of depth forfour units/parking. It is requested that the applicantredesign the project in a manner that is suitable forthe requested density. This should involve larger lotsfor the multifamily units, elimination of Lot 16 andpipe stern access and consider making Lots 10 through 16larger with the access redesigned.
June 11, 1985
SUBD IVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
there was already a crime problem due to the existing apartments in the area. Mr. Arthur Hengel of 6720 Mabelvale Cutoff objected to office use, complained of drainage and noise from the existing skating rink and the unrespo nsiveness of the owner to the neighbors' concerns.
One Commissioner pointed out that there appeared to be a bad community relations problem.
The Commission requested additional information as to how the property had been recently divided and requested that the applicant try to explain the proposal to the neighborhood before the next meeting.
A motion for a 30-day deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Several issues were identified:
(1)Wastewater Comments -Requested restriction of densityto "MF-6" due to sewer problems.
(2)Division of Ownership -Roller rink property wasillegally subdivided and sold with no dedicated streetfrontage.
(3)Neighborhood Concerns -Included discussion ofaddressing neighborhood concerns about noise fromroller rink during this approval. The applicant wasasked to provide a fence around the project. He feltthat one was not needed adjacent to the existingmultifamily development.
(4)Use -Included a discussion of staff's recommendationaTscouraging support of office and the nonconformingroller rink as a part of this application since officeand commercial uses can't be a part of a "PRO"application and the Suburban Plan recommends onlyresidential uses in this area, so a "PCD" designationwould also present a conflict.
(5)Design -Staff suggested, due to possible maintenanceproblems of the center area, that it be eliminated, acul-de-sac be added and that the lots be deepened onboth sides.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
The applicant is also reminded that this is a lo ng-form PRD, and he should follow the su bmission requirements in the ordinance. The PUD process requires sp ecifics as to what will be required. His plan indicates that he may provide one or two story structu res. Exactly what will be constructed? Also, landscaping plans will show the building area/open space and a time table for development should be su bmitted.
F.Staff Recommendation
Staff reserves comments until the plan is redesigned.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Commi ttee discussed the appl ication. Staff gave fu rther suggestions for the redesign of the project. They included moving the parking to the rear, extracting Tracts A and B from this application, and location of the dump sters. The applicant agreed to meet with staff before the 14th for further suggestions.
Water Works -Pro-rata charge applies on Mabelvale Cutoff. Water main extension would be required to lo t line of Lots 10 through 16.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-14-85)
Mr. Bob Richardson represented the appl icant. A revised plan and several alternates were presented shortly before the meeting. Staff's recommendation was for deferral due to an inadequate amount of time for review of the revised plans.
Numerous persons from the neighbo rhood were present an d in opposition. Ms. Carla Bruton who resides on the co rner of Elmore and Warren objected based on the proposed rental us e and a fear of adverse effects on their property values. They sub mitted a petition with 238 signatures opposing the project. In addition to similar co ncerns expressed by Ms. Bruton, Ms. Bessie Yount complained about the existing skating rink, drainage problems, existing co ngestion on roads and in the schools and problems with the existing apartment project in the area. Ms. Jean Lowe added that
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
there was already a crime problem due to the existing apartments in the area. Mr. Arthur Hengel of 6720 Mabelvale Cutoff objected to office use, complained of drainage and noise from the existing skating rink and the unresponsiveness of the owner to the neighbors' concerns.
One Commissioner pointed out that there appeared to be a bad community relations problem.
The Commission requested additional information as to how the property had been recently divided and requested that the applicant try to explain the proposal to the neighborhood before the next meeting.
A motion for a 30-day deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Several issues were identified:
(1)Wastewater Comments -Requested restriction of densityto "MF-6" due to sewer problems.
(2)Division of Ownership -Ro ller rink property wasillegally subdivided and sold with no dedicated streetfrontage.
(3)Neighborhood Concerns -Included discussion ofaddressing neighborhood concerns about noise fromroller rink during this approval. The applicant wasasked to provide a fence around the project. He feltthat one was not needed adjacent to the existingmultifamily development.
(4)Use -Included a discussion of staff's recommendationdiscouraging support of office and the nonconformingroller rink as a part of this application since officeand commercial uses can't be a part of a "PRD"application and the Suburban Plan recommends onlyresidential uses in this area, so a "PCD" designationwould also present a conflict.
(5)Design -Staff suggested, due to possible maintenanceproblems of the center area, that it be eliminated, acul-de-sac be added and that the lots be deepened onboth sides.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
(6)Water Works
(a)The applicant was asked to get with this utilityand discuss recent concerns regarding pipe stemlots and placement of water hydrants.
(b)Prorated charges will apply on Mabelvale Cutoff.Water main extension would be required to lot lineof Lots 10 and 16. Our policy requires each lotto have frontage on the water main to which it isconnected. This would also require the skatingrink on Tract "C" to relocate its service to theproposed main adjacent to its east proper ty line.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were numerous persons present in opposition from the neighborhood. Mr. Richardson, the applicant, submitted a revised plan that: (1) showed two lots where there was previously space in the median; (2) restricted roller rink area to duplex in the future; (3) proposed only duplexes on the remainder of the property; 4) proposed Tracts A and Bas office use; and (5) rearranged parking to the rear of some units. He also submitted a study as requested by the committee.
An additional request for deferral was made by the applicant. Staff opposed the deferral based on there being sufficient evidence to hear the item. The chairman called for a motion to defer. None was made. The applicant then amended his application to withdraw Tracts A and B or rezone them to duplex.
The neighborhood's concerns involved: (1) opposition to a change in zoning since there was already an abundance of rental units with a 10 percent vacancy rate in close proximity; (2) fear of increased traffic, noise and crime; and (3) a feeling that the situation with the roller rink was created by the owner. Mr. Victor McKristy of 15 Warren Drive felt that the project would have a very detrimental effect on his property, which is adjacent to Lots 2 and 3. Before he bought his home, he came down to the City and checked the surrounding properties and noted that they were zoned for single family . He felt that he had bought dependent upon the zoning laws protecting his interest. He felt that the Planning Commission should accept its responsibility to protect those laws and exercise its authority to keep the land single family. A petition was submitted with 700 names in opposition.
·-�-
' ., -.-
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
A motion for approval was made, but failed to pass by a vote of: 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. The reason for denial was due to a feeling that the developer had created his own problems.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME: Pecan Lake Addition Preliminary/Site Plan Review
LOCATION: 200 feet NE of Highway 5 and Herndon Road
DEVEL9}PER: ENGINEER:
Ernie Matkins Superior Federal 500 Br oadway Little Rock, AR
Robert D. Holloway, Inc. 200 Casey Drive Maumelle, AR 72118 Phone: 851-3366
AREA: 10.616 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 3 Tracts FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "0-3"
PROPOSED USE: Personal Care Retirement Center
A.
B.
c.
Site History
During rezoning of the property, the City Board required the "OS" strip around the pro perty.
Existing Conditions
The land is located in a rural type setting with the most predominant use being single family. The site is vacant with gentle slopes.
Development Proposal
This is a request to replat a 10.6 acre tract into three lots instead of the two approved previously to allow for better use of the property due to the natural terrain. The applicant plans to use Tract 1 for a church, Tract 2 for a personal care retirement fa cility and Tract 2-A for future office development.
Variances requested include:
1.The parking requirement for nursing homes; and
2.Lot width on Tract 2.
The applicant is asking to provide one space for two beds instead of the usual one space per one bed, since experience has taug ht him that the required amount of parking is unnecessary, due to the fact that most of
"--·
· ... -,
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 -Continued
D.
E.
the clients do not own cars. He feels that approval of the request will allow for more green area and less water runoff from parking lots. The lot width variance request is from 100' to 150' on Tract 2. It is desired because of the location of the facilit y on the rear portion of Tract 2 and the need for a service/access entrance. This will give Tract 2-A an increase in frontage for future developable area.
Engineering Comments
1.Dedicate rig ht-of-way along Stagecoach Road toarterial standards. Improve St agecoach Road toarterial standards; an in-lieu contribution willbe required on Phase I and perhaps for the fulldevelopment.
2.Sub mit internal drainage plan.
Analysis
Upon staff's discussion of the it em, it was discovered that there needed to be ome clarification of the proposed use. The applicant is requested to specifically describe the intended use for Tract 2, so that an adequate assessment of the project can be made. Added information is needed regarding building/u nit specifications, elevations, breakdown on oc cupancy and handicapped access. Staff recommends that notice be given to the neighborhood since they have been active on previous actions in the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deferral until additional information is re ceived.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that the use would be a person al care retire ment center or convalescent home, not a nursing home and that no unit specifications were needed because the site only had one building. He stated that they preferred to keep the "dog leg" on Tract 2 since it would mean keeping the lake frontage and staying off the main road. Staff supported the waiver request. The applicant was asked to provide staff with the additional site plan infor mation.
Water Works -Frontage charge would apply.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No . 1 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff reported that additional site plan information was not needed since the applicant had identified the submission as involving only a plat. A motion for approval was made and pass ed with a vote of: 9 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent.
·. ____,,
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 -File No. 45MM
NAME: Otter Creek Commu nity, Phase VII
LOCATION: North End of Davis Cup Lane
ENGINEER: DE VEL�PER:
Rock Venture Manes, Castin, Massie, McGetrick 2501 Willow c/o 2501 Willow NLR, AR 72115 Phone: 758-1360 North Little Rock, AR 72115 Phone: 758-1360
AREA: 11.46 acres NO. OF LOTS: 32
ZONING: "R-2"
FT. NEW ST.:
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A.
B.
c.
D.
Site History
None.
Existing Conditions
The land involved is located in a single family subdivision. It is currently undeveloped, consisting of trees and mature vegetation.
Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 11.461 acres into 32 lots for single family use and 2,000' of ne w street. A waiver of sidewalks is requested, but the app licant is asking that the internal pedestrian walkway system be continued as shown on the plat.
Engineering Comments
Submit internal drainage and detention plan.
E.Analysis
This submission represents an added phase of a plannedsingle family community which has been before th eCommission many times. Staff's on ly request is for thecontinuance of the permanent open space along theinternal pedestrian system as was done in previousphases.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
, __
--
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 -Continued
G.Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant agreed to continue to permit open sp aceareas along the internal sidewalk sy stem.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 -File No. 385
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELf.?jPER:
Sally E. Treece 365 North Ridge Rd. Little Rock, AR
Replat of Lot 372 -Kingw ood Place
NE End of North Ridge Road
ENGINEER:
Ben Kittler, Jr. 28 Dena Drive Little Rock, AR Phone: 888-3960
AREA: 1.32 acres
ZONING: "R-2"
NO . OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW ST.: 0
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A.
B.
Site History
None.
Existing Conditions
This property is located in an area of older single family homes. It is located at the end of a cul-de-sac (North Ridge Road) on its southern border and is located between other single family homes on the east and west. The site slopes sharply downward to Glenwood Drive on its northern border. A one-story brick home fronts on North Ridge Road.
C.Devel opment Proposal
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a lot intothree lots for single family use. The minimum lot sizewill be 19,000 square feet or larger. He feels thatthis does not differ greatly from other lot sizeswithin the same Kingwood Place Addit ion and issubstantially larger than other lots across one of thestreets, which are 8,750 square feet. Utility servicewill be from existing facilities.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 -Continued
D.
E.
Engineering Comments
Access plan for Lots 372-B and 37-C is requested.
Analysis
This submission represents a request by the applicant, who lives in the existing structure on the site to subdivide the remainder of her property on the rear into two additional lots for single family developm ent. Staff has been told that the Bill of Assurance has expired. Evidence of this fact mu st be submitted. St aff is also concerned that access may be difficult from Glenn Road. The applicant is asked to demonstrate access.
F.Staff Recommendation
Deferral until information requested is received.
G.Subdivision Committee Review:
The applicant agreed to:
(1)Demonstrate the means for access to the lots.
(2)Provide staff with a hillside analysis.
(3)Provide evidence as to the expiration of the Bi llof Assurance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not in attendance. Numerous persons were present in opposition from Glen Drive, Kingw ood and Foxcroft areas. Staff reported that there had been no communication from the applicant since the Subdivision Committee meeting. A motion for denial of the application as filed was made and passed by a vote of: 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 abse nt. The reasons for denial were stated as: (1) failure of the applicant to respond to request of staff and the Subdivision Co mmittee; (2) a concern that access onto Glen Drive would set a precedent for other existing lots to do the same; and (3)proposal is out of character with the neighborood.
Finally, a motion for approval was made but failed to pass by a vote of: 0 ayes, 8 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention.
"----
\,. --
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 -File No. 181-B
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELfl)PER:
Jim Hill Const. Co. and Joe Hughes Const. Co. Little Rock, AR
Pleasant Valley Man or -Lots 1-44
Rocky Valley Drive at Rocky Valley Cove
ENGINEER:
Garver and Garver P.O. Box C-50 Little Rock, AR 72203 Ph one: 37 6-3633
AREA: 11.27 acres NO. OF LOTS: 44 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Side yard encroachment for raised pati o
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request to revise a final plat by estab lishing side yard setbacks as shown on the enclosed fi nal plat. The proposed side yard will be al' side yard along one side of the lot extending from 10' beyond the front yard setback to 30' from the rear lot line. The remainder of the side yard setback lines will be the no rmal 10 percent of the lot width.
This request is to allow the construction of a raised pati o deck to within l' of the lot line. It applies to all lots except Lots 5, 6, 9, 20, 24, 25, 28, 32, 38, 42 and 44 which have side yard easements pro hibiting this concept.
The applicant is also requesting that no fi nal plat be reco rded at the courthouse, although he will record an amended Bill of Assurance.
ENGINE ERING COMMENTS:
None.
'--·
·...._ __
June 11, 1985
SUBD IVISIONS
Item No . 4 -Continued
ANALYSIS:
Staff has no problem with the request; however, the applicant should file a revised final plat at the courthouse.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments .
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to: (1) provide some criteria for the deck in the Bill of As surance and plat, and (2) file a final plat at the courthouse.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant submitted a revised plan in accordance with the Subdivision Committee's wishes. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 -Fil e No. 386
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVEL�PER:
Texas Western Realty Diamond Shamrock Tower 1717 N. Harwood St. Suite 2730 Dallas, TX 75201
A.Site History
None.
B.Development Proposal
Glenlakes Apartments
West of Bowman Road at Hermitage
1.The construction of 300 apartment units on 21.7acres.
2.Unit Distribution:
Bldg. No. of Unit Unit Type Units Type Size
1 6 A (1-Bedroom) 719 sq. 2 8 B (2-Bedroom) 870 sq. 4 D-1 (!-Bedroom)707 sq. 3 4 D-1 (!-Bedroom)707 sq. 8 D-2 (2-Bedroom)664 sq. 4A 6 E (2-Bedroom)1177 sq. 4 C (!-Bedroom)996 sq. 4B 6 E (2-Bedroom)1177 sq. 2 C (1-Bedroom)996 sq.
Unit Distribution -Continued
No. of Total Total Area/ Total Ground Bldgs. Units Build ing Area Coverage
12 72 4,314 51,768 28,368 10 120 9,7 88 97,880 48,940 3 36 8,1 40 24,420 12,2 10 4 40 11,046 44,184 17,384 4 32 9,054 36,216 17,384
Total 33 300 254,468 124,286
ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 -Continued
C.
D.
E.
3.Parking will consist of 489 spaces.
4. The owner is planning to lease the dwelling unitswith tenant rights to own all common areasincluding amenities.
Engineering Comments
1.Design of intersection of private entrance st reetand Bowman Road is requested; the site distanceappears unsafe to the north.
2.Preliminary plans for Bowman Road improvementsreflect a 7-8' cut at your entrance drive.
3.Entry road should be a private st reet.
Analysis
Staff is not opposed to the concept presented; however, additional information is ne eded. The applicant should provide dimensions on all drives and from buildings to property lines as required by the site plan submission requirements. Also, the parking layout or typical should be shown; the central core loop should be widened to 24' and made to tie into the private st reet; 20' is acceptable for all other drives. Even though the area abuts single family, the 6' fence may not be needed on the west, if the 50' area is left undisturbed.
Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to co mments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to comply with st aff's suggestions; however, he was informed that if drainage requirements interfere in the permanent buffer area, then a fence will need to be erected.
Water Works Comments -A 12" water main extension and 6 or 8" on-site fire line and on-site fire hydrants will be required.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The developer was represented by his architect, Brooks Jackson, and his attorney, Brad Walker. Engineering reported that the site distance problem was solved and that negotiations with Mrs. Scott were still going on about access to her property on the north.
Ms. Kate Keller of the Point West Subdivision expressed a concern that the 50-foot buffer remained uncut. The developer stated that the trees would be undisturbed. If they were disturbed, Ms. Keller was asked to inform Mr. Kenny's Scott office.
A motion for approval was made, subject to: (1) the applicant agreeing not to remove any trees, and if any are removed, to replace them; and (2) if negotiations breakdown with landowner to north, the final approval is to be given by the Engineering Department. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME: St. Vincent Guest House -Site Plan Review (Z-3001-C)
LOCATION: Southeast corner of Markham and University
OWNER/APPLICANT: E.B. Cabe Management Corporation/Flake & Co. By: Nat Griffin
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 72-room guest house in a four level structure with 79 parking spaces provided.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.
2.
Site Location
This site is one of the few remaining buildable areas within the St. Vincent Hospital complex. It lies on a tree covered site with good access only to the hospital drive on the east. The site has some grade change but is not severe in the area of the building site.
Compatibility with Neighborhood
The adjacent lands are all developed as intense commercial or medical related facilities. War Memorial Park golf course lies to the south across Capitol Avenue.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
4.
The drives and parking plan appear functional and takeadvantage of the difficult terrain. Ten of theproposed parking stalls are to be placed beneath thebuilding with 44 open spaces. The remaining 25 spaceswill be leased from the hospital parking area.
Screening and Buffers
There are no specific requirements; however, thisproject will expose the hi ll mass and some of theexisting development to University. This project willeliminate a significant portion of a mature growth oftrees on the existing site.
\.._./
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 -Continued
5.Analysis
There are a couple of areas such as landscaping and retention of trees which the plan does not address adequately. The site plan offered reflects two parking layouts, one with parking on the west side of the building and one without. This should be resolved inasmuch as 16 of the 79 spaces are involved. Access to the site appears to be adequate for automobiles, but review for Fire Department access should be made. Further, an on-site fire hyd rant plan should be added to the site plan. Provisions should be made for access by all public utilities.
Engineer Comments
1.An internal drainage plan to include detention.
2.Submit design of driveway to Traffic Engineeringfor review. Our concerns are in the area of site distance for vehicles exiting from the guest house.
3.Participate in the curb realignment in thevicinity of the intersection of the hospital entryand University Avenue. The requirement to bediscussed prior to the Planning Commissionmeeting. Contact Traffic Engineer at 371-4858.
6.Staff Recommendation
Approval of the site plan, subject to resolution of the issues outlined in the analysis which in general are (1)parking, (2) access, (3) landscaping, (4) on-sitefire system, (5) street improvement, (6) drainageplan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
The application was represented by Mr. Nathaniel Griffin. Mr. Griffin made a presentation in which he identified the use more clearly as to the type of oc cupancy. He discussed the parking arrangement, clarifying which plan was appropriate for the application. The plan being identified as the one reflecting the parking spaces on the west si de of the building. The applicant indicated that the hospital would be receptive to becoming involved in the improvement issue at the intersection of Capitol Avenue and University. The Committee raised concerns about the overlap of parking
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 -Continued
requirement due to the 25 spaces off site being leased from the existing hospital use area. Mr. Griffin was instructed to research and report to the Commission on the effects on the total site of the use of these parking sp aces. Mr. Griffin also agreed to meet and discuss access and fire systems with the Traffic Engineer and the Fire Department.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The application was presented by Mr. Nat Griffin. There were no objectors present. The Planning staff offered brief comment relative to the remaining issues to be resolved, these being primarily parking access and University Avenue construction. Mr. Griffin made a presentation in whic h he offered written assurance from the hospital that the 25 spaces leased for hospital use would not affect the hospital parking requirements. He stated that a parking report indicated 2400 existing sp aces on the hospital si te primarily in a parking deck which meets the Zoning Ordinance requirements. This number leaves a residual number of 300 plus sp aces. He stated that in a peak hour the hospital need is approximately 15 percent less than the 2400. The 25 parking stalls to be leased represent .01 percent of the total on-site present parking.
Mr. Griffin also provided assurance that he had worked out the access and other issues associated with the si te plan, including the contribution of funds to a public works project on Capitol Avenue at Univer sity Avenue. He also stated that a traffic analysis reveals that the hotel would add approximately 20 to 25 trips per hour to the University access at Capitol Avenue. This was determined by a Traffic Engineer to be an acceptable level.
A lengthy discussion followed of the parking requirements, the affect on the total project and on the hospital function. That discussion was followed by a lengthy discussion of whether the proposed use was appropriate or even permitted within the "O-2" Office District. The Planning staff stated that it felt that the use fell within the accessory or ancillary use provisions of the ordinance as a customary activity. Staff based this inter pretation on the existing structure of the "O-2" District which provides for a broad array of accessory activities both detached and in primary buildings further that the "O-2" District was designed for hi gh intensity large st ructural involvement. The hospital/hotel accessory use was determined to be primarily an ancillary activity inasmuch as the majority of
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 -Continued
the units would be devoted to residential service of the hospital. The result of this discussion was that the applicant accepted the staff and Commission view of this use being permitted in "0-2" with an understanding that in certain circumstances involving development financing, there may arise circumstances where persons may be uncomf ortable with the zoning and site plan as approved. A motion was then made to approve the re vised site plan subject to documenting the case file record with a copy of the various lease instruments associated with the parking an d development (the re vised plan includes the Fire and Public Works comments, additional utility comments as previously noted). The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstention (William Ketcher).
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 -File No. 387
NAME: Chandlers' Short Form "PCD" ( Z-4450)
LOCATION: 901 State Street
ENGINEER: DEVELj'i'.jPER:
Adolph Chandler Henry N. Miller #8 New Haven Ct. Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: 224-4389 and 372-7118
7544 York Street Clayton, Missouri 63105 Phone: (314) 863-1128
AREA: .8838 acre NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: Existing -"I-2" Proposed -"PCD"
PROPOSED USE: Office -Production and Warehouse
SPECIAL REQUEST:
1.
2.
A.
B.
Setback of second level along 9th Street from existing building at State Street to east corner of propose d new structure 25' west of Gaines Street. Variance will be 7' above curb at that corner.
Zero setback on south and west property lines.
Site History
An alley abutting the site was recently reviewed by the Commission for abandonment.
Development Objectives
1.To rehabilitate a deteriorated church structurefor use as office s, light in dustrial production(above parking garage) and warehousing on .8 acre.
2. To clean and restore brick exterior and replacesouth plastered wall with precast decorativefinished columns and glass panels.
3.To provide an eastward expansion which includes aparking garage, warehouse sp ace, tenant recreationroom and mechanical, electrical equipment roomwhich will access from 9th Street.
·,"-.__.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 -Continued
4.To provide 60 percent of sp ace for lightcommercial production, more specifically -commercial art production, and 40 percent for anuncommitted use that will be re served for acompatible business .
c.Proposal
1.Uses will be as follows:
2.
Use
OfficesLight IndustrialWarehouse
Size
6,044/300 15,980/600 4,500/2,000
26,524 sq. ft. of leasable space
Parking
20 .15 26.63 7.25
54.03
Perimeter Treatment -Entire property will have a m1n1mum of 5' sidewalk adjacent to the existing curb on all abutting public streets. In addition, landscaping will include two roof gardens of approximately 50 square feet.
3.Phasing Plan
Phase I -Rehabilitation of church plusconstruction of parking garage, warehouse,exercise and equipment plus all site finishes andborder treatment.
Phase II -Production building (upper structure).
4.Time Frame
Phase I -Planning design and permits -4 months.
Phase II -Construction plus Phase I -10 to 12months.
Phase III -Construction Phase I and II -12 to 15 months.
D.Eng ineering Comments
1.Repair and replace curb/sidewalks on 9th, Gainesand State Streets.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 -Continued
2.Submit internal drainage and detention plans.
E.Staff Analysis
Staff is not opposed to the developmental co ncept. Wewould like to encourage the applicant to pursuepurchasing the parcel on the west owned by the City in order to provide more land area for this site.
Actually, surplus of parking is provided since officesrequire one space per 400 square feet, instead of 1 per300 used by the applicant.
F.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff explained that the application also included a re plat of existing lots. The applicant agreed to identify specific uses and pursue the purchase of the City's abutting ownership.
Water Works Comment -If the building is to have a fire sprinkler system, it would be best for it to co me off the 12" main in Gaines Street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME: The Heights Theatre "PCD" ( Z-2827-A)
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Flake & Co./Geo. Wells P.O. Box 990 Cromwell, Truemp er, Levy, Parker and Woodsmall Little Rock, AR 72203 Phone: 376-8005 #1 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-2900
AREA: 1.19 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: Existing -"R-2" Proposed -"PCD"
PROPOS ED USE: Shopping Center
A.
B.
Site History
The current development consists of a theatre originally constructed in 1945 and an adjacent restaurant. The theatre consists of a projection booth on the second level of 1,371 square feet, a theatre area of 9,759 square feet and the restaurant on the ground floor consists of 4,254 square feet.
Dev elopment Proposal/Obj ectives
1.The renovation of an existing theatre/restaurantof 15,384 square feet into 16,263 square feet fora shopping mall with a possible office useupstairs and retail shops downstairs, all on 1.19acres.
2.To provide a covered corridor separating theexisting lobby area from the remainder of thebuilding so that pedestrians from the parking lotcan have better access to storefronts facingKavanaugh Boulevard, which will result in a lossof 500 feet from the original square footage.
3.To provide a potential office or restaurantupstairs with access from a stairway off theparking lot and to increase this area to 4,121square feet.
·'-._,.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 -Continued
C.
D.
E.
4.Parking will consist of 66 spaces on-si te.
5.The tenant mix will be comparable to the existingneighborhood. The proposed uses will conform tothe "C-1" and "O-3" Districts.
6.Time frame for development:
(1)October 1, 1985 -acquisition of ti tle byFlake and Company stockholers;
(2)Commencement of construction -immediatelyafterward;
(3)Completion/opening by February 1, 1986.
Engineering Comments
Comments to be provided at the meeting.
Analysis
Staff is favorable to the concept presented. The proposed parking conforms to the required amount of spaces, namely 1 per 400 square feet for office and 1 per 300 square feet for commercial; however, the requirement for restaurants is 1 per every 100 square foot of space will not be met if the projection booth is converted to a restaurant. The applicant is also requested to explain the access to the rubbish.
Staff Recommendation
Approval, sub ject to comments made.
F.Subdivision Committee Review:
The applicant was requested to provide staff withinformation regarding the maximum amount of sq uarefootage to be devoted to restaurant use before thepublic hearing.
' .. _____ ,..,
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. George Wells represented the developer. Numerous residents from the neig hborhood and mer chants of the area were present. The main concerns of the residents were possible adverse impacts to their property values and fear of an increase in traffic along their streets due to a shortage of parking. The merchants were also concerned about the lack of parking. Staff reported that letters of opposition had been received from:
(1)W.W. and Vera Pate of 5722 Stonewall -"in vehementopposition" to the change in use: and
(2)Mr. Lawrence A. Parker of 5723 Stonewall, who felt that(a)notices were improper and untimely: and (b) theBill of Assurance restricted Lots 134 and 135 of ForestHeights Place to single family residential use on ly .
Mr. Parker requested that there be no exit onto Stonewall or Forest Heights, there be a suitable and properly maintained tree and shrub buffer strip and that some consideration be made to prohibit the parking of commercial, employee and customer autos in and along the residential streets in this area, as well as all other residential areas of the City.
The Commission felt that proper notice had been given since the intent of the notice requirement was to inform the public even though the applicant had failed to get the notice receipt stamped with a date indicating mailing 10 days before the public hearing. Staff determined that the amount of parking sp aces wer e short nine spaces since the applicant was now proposing 4,254 square feet of re staurant space and 16,263 of retail. It was determined that to conform to requirements the restaurant space would have to be reduced to approximately 1,88 0 square feet. The applicant agreed to reduce this type space. However, he felt that persons concerned were trying to penalize him for the lack of parking, which is an existing and widespread problem through the area. He was also concerned that any meeting with the residents be productive. The residents gave him this assurance. Theresa Elkins, Director of the Heights Merchants Association, offered to host the meeting.
Finally, a motion for a two-week deferral was made and passed, subject to: (1) a meeting with the ne ighbor hood,and (2) a meeting with the Traffic Engineer. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
',..__,,,..·
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 -File No. 389
NAME: Apartments for the Elderly Long Form "PRO" (Z-4451)
LOCATION: NW Corner of Ridge Haven an d Napa Valley
APPLICANT:
DEVELOPE R:
Napa Valley Venture c/o P.O. Box 5730 Little Rock, AR 72215 Phone: 224-7500
Burton Speights
ARC HITECT:
Bill Brown 700 Walnut St reet Cincinnati, OH 45202
AREA: 9.40 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.:
ZONING: Existing -"MF-6"Proposed -"PRO"
PROPOSED USE: Elderly Retirement Village
0
The applicant has requested that this it em be withdrawn.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME:
LOCATION:
AGENT:
DEVELOPER:
Frank L. Whitbeck Savers Federal Bldg. #1134 Littl e Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-5512
Whitbeck -Short Form "PCD"
(Z-4449)
SE Corner of Walnut and "A"
Kim Taylor Keller -372-5525
ARCHITECT:
Ross McCain Phone: 372-5961
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and Associates 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666
AREA: .13 acre NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: Existing -"R-3" Prop osed "PCD"
PROPO SED USE: Office
A.Site History
B.
c.
D.
A pl an for a two-story, three-unit town housedevelopment on this site was approved on May 15, 1984.
Pr oposal
1.The use of a 695 square foot structure on .13 acreas quiet office.
2.The provision of three off-stre et parking sp aces.
Engineering Comments
Improve "A" Street to mi nor residential standards.
Analysis
The applicant proposes to use the structure as office space for one tenant; therefore, he believes that there will be no increase in traffic on Walnut Street (or "A" Street). The natural features of the property are to be retained. Due to the numerous co mmercial and office
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 -Continued
uses in the immediate vicinity, the current "R-3" zoning is no longer feasible, and feels that the proposed use is quieter than "R-3" and it is the highest and best use of the property.
Staff's position is not favorable to the proposal due to its intrusion into the single family area. The Heights/Hillcrest Plan designates up to 200' from Markham as for nonresidential use. Due to the abundance of office zoning along Markham, st aff se es no need to extend this type of use any further nor thward. The applicant is asked to clarify where the four sp aces are to be provided as shown on the site plan or three to be provided as mentioned in this letter.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denial.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff reported that the applic ant had requested deferment of the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made for a 30-day deferral as requested by the applicant. It was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Watson and Taylor -Conditional Use Permit (Z-4243-A)
North of the intersection of Kanis and Barrow Roads
Watson and Taylor Construction, Inc./Ronald R. Carman
To construct six buildings with a mix of office/office warehouse/self storage on a site currently zoned "C-3" and "C-4" Commercial.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
The subject site is a cleared tract of land lying alongJohn Barrow Road between a re sidential development onthe north and a commercial office strip along KanisRoad to the south. The land has a significant gradechange fall ing from ea st to west. The site has verylittle vegetation.
2.Com patibility with Neighborhood
The neighborhood on the north has opposed commercialusage of this land in the past. However, with ea ch ne w attemp t at development, the interest has diminished. As of this writing, we have not received a call . The remaining abutting lands are zoned and developed as office or commercial usage with some vacant office zoned land.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
The parking and driveways internal are generallyadequate. However, some modification is ne eded in thetwo points of street access. The commercial plat ofrecord on this site provides two drive ac cess points as does the existing approved conditional use permit plan.These two points of access are located away from thecorners in order to avoid si te distance problems on thesouth and conflict with traffic si gnals on the north.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 -Continued
4.
5.
Screening and Buffers
The north line of this site is the only required 6' screening line, and there are problems with providing this screening. There currently exists an Ar kla Gas easement paralleling the north property line in su ch a location as to cause concern for placement of landscaping or physical improvements such as the fence.
Analysis
The staff finds few problems with the proposed layout as drafted. The north and south orientation of the buildings should in some way offset the effects of the close proximity to single family use. As noted above, the internal drives are generally adequate bu t probably fail the test of large trucks such as Fire Department equipment. Some of the turns appear to be in ne ed of a larger radius. The Planning Commission should discuss the use structure of Building A as it appears to be office use only which is not a permitted use in the "C-4" District.
Utility Comment
Fire Department requires on-site fire system for their review. Bell Telephone Company requires ea sements.
Engineer Comment
Submit internal drainage and detention plan. The Traffic Engineer has concerns about site distance at the southernmost driveway. Contact Traffic Engineer at 371-4858.
6.Staff Recommendation
Approval of the conditional use permit subject tomeeting the requirements of the utilities, Fire andPublic Works Departments, also the use question on Building A.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
The applicant was present as was Mr. Chris Barrier. He was instructed by the Commit tee to follow through on the several points in the staff analysis and be prepared to address the screening and landscaping issues identified by the staff. Mr. Barrier stated that he and his client would meet with
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 -Continued
the appropriate parties as soon as possible to determine resolution of the landscaping and screening issues. He further stated that the design on the driveways was an issue that they could resolve at that point. The applicant clarified the use question on Building A. After a br ief dis cussion, the Committee determined that it was a permitted use in that each of the office spaces would, in fact, involve warehouse relationships.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Summerlin) to approve this application as recommended by staff and reviewed by the Subdivision Committee.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME: South Temple Church of God in Christ -Conditional Use Permit (Z-4456)
LOCATION: 2623 Arch Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Sterling Dickson/Debbie E. McGowan
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 55' x 55' building addition to an existing building for purposes of a church with a seating capacity of 100 persons. There are 22 parking sp aces re quired. A proposal to purchase the next lot to the north for parking has been offered.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.
2.
Site Location
The site chosen is a former co mmercial building site which has existed for many years. The present building encroaches upon Arch Street right-of-way 2.4'. The current gravel parking probably served the needs of a small retail store but presently offers problems for access. A residence is nearby on the south with a property line drive. The neighborhood is mixed residential with one, two and multifamily units nearby.
Compatibility with Neighborhood
Inasmuch as the current building is comm ercial, the church will aid in a return toward compatibility with the neighborhood. There are several commercial buildings to the south along Arch Street and two bl ocks to the north is Roosevelt Road commercial area.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
The parking lot will not work as presented due to thedepth of setback and Landscaping Ordinancerequirements. The south driveway entry will be poor at best, and if one way out, it co uld possibly be dangerous. A total redesign is in order.
...__.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 -Continued
4.Screening and Buffers
The site should provide 6' opaque fencing on the north,east and south sides of the parking lot.
5.Analysis
This site has many problems for conversion of use andaccess. We feel that only through a complete redesignof the project can these difficulties be overcome. Themost significant issue is the ne ed to remove 10' ormore of the existing building in order to clear theright-of-way for Arch Street as an arterial. Thesetback of 25' on the proposed addition could possiblybe reduced to 15' or 20' to accommodate the parkinglayout. A two-way drive could be devised at the northcorner or use a one-way flow around the building.
Engineer Comment
Dedicate right-of-way to arterial standards and providean in-lieu fee for street improvement along Arch.Access and parking cannot be approved due toinsufficient space for two-way traffic and landscaping.Submit internal drainage plan and detention plan.
Utility Comment
None.
6.Staff Recommendation
Deferral of the request in order to permit time for aredesign of the site.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
The applicant was present. He stated for the record that the church now is the owner of the adjacent lot on the north and that the church could place its parking and access upon that site. Bob Lane addressed the issues of building encroachment into the street right-of-way as well as the requirement of the Master Street Plan for dedication of additional right-of-way. After a brief discussion of the issues in this request, the applicant was directed to work with the staff and with his engineer for pu rposes of preparing a new site plan involving the ne wly acquired lot.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 -Continued
This site plan would deal with the dedication of right-of-way on Arch Street except in the area of the building intrusion. It would also deal with the appropriate landscaping screening and access. The owner accepted instruction from the Committee that if he could no t resolve the issues in the form of a new plan then the application would be deferred.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Planning Commission voted 9 approve this application as reviewed by the Subdivision
There were no objectors. ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent to recommended by staff andCommittee.
The
---
-,,,_
June 11, 1985
8UBDIVI8ION8
Item No. 13
NAME: Otter Creek Racquet Club -Conditional Use Permit (Z-4457)
LOCATION: Intersection of Cherry Stone Drive and Otter Creek Parkway (1400 Otter Creek Parkway)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Otter Creek Homeowners' Association/Ronald Pierce
PROPOSAL:
To construct a new swimming pool and an addition to the existing clubhouse.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.
2.
Site Location
The site is generally flat with natural foliage apparently well selected for the existing use. The site has frontage on a collector street which affords good traffic and pedestrian access and separation from adjacent residential.
Compatibility with Neig hborhood
The use was designed and constructed as an integral part of the community. Compatibility is not an issue in this case.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
4.
5.
This proposal will not require involvement in drivewayor parking nor are changes contemplated.
Screening and Buffers
There will be no additional requirement inasmuch as thesite is adequately provided and no new parking isproposed.
Analysis
The project as filed leaves little or no room forcomment. The only suggestion we will offer will bethat the Commission require a more detaileddimensioning of the proposal for building permitpurposes.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 -Continued
Eng ineer Comment
Submit internal drainage and detention plan.
Utility Comment
None.
Fire Department requires further review of the plan.
6.St aff Recommendation
Approval as filed, subject to more dimensions on theplan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
The applicant was present. No problems were evidenced. Bob Lane discussed the detention requirement and clarified the matter as to the involvement by the owner in this ordinance requirement. The project engineer agreed to review this matter with Bob Lane. The applicant was directed by the Committee to provide additional details as to dimension on the structure and other imp rovements and to discuss with the Fire Department any ne eds they may ha ve prior to the meeting on the 11th.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 application as recommended Subdivision Committee.
There were no objector s. The noes, 2 ab sent to approve this by staff and reviewed by the
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME: Capitol Avenue Conditional Use Permit (Z-4458)
LOCATION: The southwest co rner of Valmar and Capitol Streets
OW NER/APPLICANT: Leslie Carter
PROPOSAL:
To recombine the lots for pu rposes of creating two lo ts fronting on Capitol Avenue and construct one ne w duplex. The plan would add a new drive to the existing ho use on the ccrner and provide three off -street parking spaces for cars entering from the alley on the west.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.
2.
Site Location
The site chosen is excellent in that duplexes exist nearby in several directions. Immediately across the street to the north are two duplexes. The site ha s good access and an alley with go od access.
Compatibility with Neighborhood
The only question with compatibility would arise from the Neighborhood Committee for the Woodruff School neighborhood Community Development Block Grant.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
4.
5.
There are proposed four ne w on-site parking stalls aspart of this request. Even though the duplex lo t isall that is to be committed to the "CUP."
Screening and Buffers
These are not issues for a duplex request.
Analysis
This is a simple request with no issues attached ofsignificance. The depth of the parking and the widthof the alley paving are the only points to resolve.The owner apparently has agreed to remove theencroaching carport.
'----··'
'· -�·
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 -Continued
Utility Comment
None.
Engineer Comment
Clarify the proposal for alley improvements for serving the new three car pa rking.
6.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to resolving the alley pa ving is sue,removing the carport across the common lot line withthe lot on the ea st and provision of an 8' minimum sideyard on the alley side of the duplex.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
The applicant was present and stated that he was willing to provide the necessary alley improvements. He fu rther stated he accepted the staff recommendations on the side yard and carport.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 application as recommended Subdivision Committee.
There were no objectors. The noes, 2 absent to approve this by staff and reviewed by the
'-,·
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15
NAME: Towne Oak Drive Conditional Use Permit (Z-4460)
LOCATION: Towne Oak Drive between Rodney Parham Road and Treasure Hill Circle (724 Towne Oak Drive)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Barnes, Quinn, Flake and Anderson, Inc./Ramsay Ball
PROPOSAL:
To construct a building 50' x 100' to house a retail business which rents household items su ch as lawn mowers and garden equipment. Outside display of rental items is proposed.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
The site is an appropriate location for this type ofcommercial use. Similar uses as well as othercommercial activity abut in this commercialsubdivision.
2.Compatibility with Neighbor hood
3.
4.
There are no compatibility issues given a si te in theinterior of a commercial subdivision.
On-Site Drives and Parking
This seems to be the only issue on this proposal withresolution being simple layout change. The number ofspaces are adequate.
Screening and Buffers
None are required; however, landscaping will be dealtwith at the time of the building permit. The applicantshould indicate on this plan those areas in which he will propose landscaping identifying not only locationbut approximate area of cover.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 -Continued
5.Analysis
6.
There are no serious deficiencies in this plan, butattention mu st be given to the location and per centageof open space devoted to permanent display. Parking stalls cannot be utilized for this purpose. The current proposed 18 parking spaces are barely en ough to meet the 17 car requirement. In the redesign of the parking and drive area, care should be taken to assure maintenance of this 17 space requirement.
Utility Comment
None
Fire Department
No comment
Engineer Comment
The proposed parking plan cannot be approved. Four of the parking slots will block the driveway movemen ts. Discussion with the Traffic Engineer is required. Contact him at 371-4858.
Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to resolving the parking and drives issue.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
The applicant was present and stated that he would comply with the staff's request as well as identifying the sidewalk display areas and the areas for landscaping.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objec tors. The Commission voted 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Rector) to approve this application as recommended by staff and reviewed by the Subdivision Committee.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
NAME:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
The Church of God Conditional Use Permit Modification Request File Z-4397
6920 West 65th Street -East of Windsor Drive on the North Side of the Street
The applicant desires to reopen discussion of the physical improvements required in association with the conditional use permit approved by Ordinance No. 14,837 on March 5, 1985.
Statement of the Church Representative
"The Church of God's, 6920 West 65th Street, proposal for a conditional use permit to construct an asphalt drive, a parking lot, a 4,000 square foot education building and a canopy on the rear of the existing building was approved by the Planning Commission on the condition that a 20' access drive on the west side of the property be put in and a parking lot with 60 spaces.
We would like to request a postponement of the 20' access drive and the 60 space parking lot. We now ha ve a dr ive on the east side of the property and a parking lot of 28 spaces. The sanctuary will seat 250 persons without choir area, but we only have 102 members at pre sent. The educational area is much smaller than the sanctuary . We request because of limited funds that we be given permission to construct the educational building and then in the near future complete the 60 spaces and access drive."
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
The applicant was pre sent and presented additional comments concerning the hardship circumstance the church is experiencing. The requirements attached to the conditional use permi t approved in March of this year have placed the church in a position of committing $5,000 to West 65th Street. The commitment to that improvement leaves no funding for the driveway and parking requirements on-site. The applicant stated that he desires additional ti me to comply with the requirements and is not re questing a waiver. The size of the church membership was st ated as the primary restricting factor in raising the funds within a short time and providing the necessary improvements. The Committee directed the applicant to attend the meeting on the 11th and present his request to the full commission.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The church was represented. There were no objectors in attendance. The Planning staff offered additional commentary suggesting that if an extension of time on the improvements was appropriate, that it should be on the street improvement and not the fire access or off-street parking. The applicant offered estimates on the improvements for on-site as being in the neighborhood of $20,000 for a parking lot and the driveway. This figure added to the street improvement in-lieu contribution of $5,000 was more than the church felt it could bear. A lengthy discussion was held with various commissioners offering comments on the projected cost and the equity issues attached to this request. These costs and equity items were deemed important inasmuch as many churches both large and small and nonresidential developers are requested to provide these kinds of improvements. The impact on future resolution of improvement requirements was felt to be significant if this issue was approved. The result of this discussion was that acceptance of a commitment by the church to secure the improvements at some point in the future was appropriate. A time frame of approximately five years appeared acceptable. A motion was then made that the applicant be allowed to postpone putting up the $5,000 in-lieu contribution for a period of five years, but at the same time being required to construct the necessary drives and parking as required by the original application. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 noe and 2 absent.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
NAME: Rex Wilkins -Building Line Waiver
LOCATION: 115 Normandy
Rex Wilkins 115 Normandy APPLICANT/ARCHITECT:
Little Rock, AR 72207
REQUEST: To encroach 6.5 feet into an area established by a 35' platted building line.
A.
B.
c.
D.
Site History
None.
Ex isting Conditions
The site is located in an area of older single family homes. At the rear of the property is a sizable wooded drainage area, previously used as a park, but now within the applicant's ownrship.
Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting to encroach 8' into a 35' platted building line so that he may build a wooden deck at the rear of his house. He requests approval of the waiver to add livable sp ace to the rear of his home due to the slope of the lo t. He feels that there will be no adverse effects since: (1) no residences can exist within several 100 feet of the property line, (2)he holds title to the property beyond the buildingline, and (3) his neighbors at 113 and 117 Mormandyhave no objections.
Engineer ing Comments
None.
E.Analysis
F.
Staff does not feel that there will be adv erse impact;especially due to the applicant's ownership of the landbeyond the building line. The usual procedure for anamended Bill of Assurance and a one lot final platshould be followed.
Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to a one lot final plat.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 -Continued
G.Subdivision Committee Review
H.
Both staff and the Committee agreed that the applicantshould remove the rear building line from the propertysince it served no present purpose.
Planning Commission Action
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
\.._. ..
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 -Other Matters/Street Right-Of-Way Abandonment
NAME: Cecil Drive
LOCATION: South off Shepard Drive and east of Taylor Loop Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Rector-Phillips-Morse, Inc.
REQUEST: To abandon the right-of-way and join with the adjacent lands for redevelopment, the existing right-of-way being approxi mately 433.6 feet in length
STAFF REVIEW:
1.
2.
3.
Public Need for this Right-Of-Way
None has been expressed at this writing.
Master Street Plan
There are no requirements related to this street.
Need for Right-Of-Way on Adjacent Streets
All required street rights-of-way are to be provided by a preliminary subdivision plat which is being developed by this applicant.
4.Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
5.
6.
The street right-of-way is in an area of rollingterrain with some grade falling to the south.
Dev elopment Potential
Apparently none except as the intended plat.
Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The area is predominately rural and residential. Thereshould be no adverse effect.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 -Continued
7.Neig hbor hood Position
None expressed at this writing.
8.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
9.
The standard utility clause will be required in theordinance due to wastewater utility ea sementrequirements.
Rever sionary Rights
This has not been determined at this writing. However, the conventional division will probably apply, that being one-half of the right-of-way to ea ch abutting owner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the request, subject to resolving utility easement issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applica nt was present. There were no ob jectors in attendance. A brief discussion was he ld. A motion was then made to recommend approval of the abandonment to the City Board of Directors. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, O noes, 2 absent.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 -Other Matters/Street Right-Of-Way Abandonment
NAME: East 7th St reet
LOCATION: The east 172.5 feet of the north 1/2 feet of the right-of-way ly ing west of Sherman Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Thomas E. Wilkes
REQUEST: To abandon a parallel portion of the existing ri ght-of-way for purposes of development of the adjacent property on the north side of the street
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Public Need for this Right-Of-Way
2.
3.
4.
None expressed at this writing. Public Works concurs with the abandonment.
Master Street Plan
There are no issues attached.
Need for Right-Of-Way on Adjacent Streets
None required.
Characteristics of Right-Of-Way Terrain
Generally flat with street improvements in place.
5.Development Potential
None except as proposed.
6.Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
No adverse effects are expected. Adjacent uses east and west are existing apartment projects and on the south is a mixed residential area.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 -Continued
7.Neighb or hood Position
None expressed at this writing.
8.Effect on Public Serv ices or Utilities
9.
None expected, as all utilities have approved thisproposal.
Reversionary Rights
All of the abandonment is to revert to the owner on thenorth side, being this applicant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval. This abandonment will continue a right-of-way alignment which was begu n with Fowler Square, a project to the west of this site. The abandonment will clear up a site plan problem to permit construction to begin.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no ob jectors in attendance. A brief discussion was held. A motion was then made to recommend approval of the abandonment to the City Board of Directors. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes , 0 noes, 2 absent.
'--
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 -Other Matters/Street Right-Of-Way Abandonment
NAME: Hermitage Road and an unnamed street running south off Hermitage 1/4 mile west of Bowman Road
LOCAT ION: Lying north and west of the intersection of Kanis Road at Bowman Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Parkway West Limited and Marie Scott
REQUEST: Abandon and join with adjacent lands for development as an apartment complex
STAFF REVIEW:
1.
2.
3.
Public Need for this Right-Of-Way
None evidenced, except a small portion of Hermitage immediately west off Bowman Road to be used as access to the proposed project. These rights-of-way have not been in use as public thoroughfares in recent history.
Master Street Plan
No specific need identified.
Need for Right-Of-Way on Adjacent Streets
None indicated.
4.Characteristics of Right-Of-Way Terrain
s.
6.
The area is generally rolling and tree covered.
Development Potential
None except in ass ociation with the abutting lands.
Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
No adverse effects are expected. The abandonment ofthe unnamed street adjacent to Point West Subdivisionwill remove a double frontage relationship.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 -Continued
7.Neighborhood Position
None expressed at this writing.
8.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
9.
No adverse effect reported at this writing.
Reversionary Rights
This is undetermined at this time. This is sue may be resolved prior to the meeting date on June 11. Staff will report at a later time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This request is an integral part of Item No. 5 of this agenda. The only comment we will attac h to our approval recommendation is that all of the Hermitage right-of-way be abandoned in order to properly deal with what the City Engineer views as a private street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present and offered comments to the effect that the abandonment of the entire street right-of-way was now appropriate inasmuch as the is sue was being resolved in conformance with the wishes of the City Engineer. There were no objectors present. There were several parties present as observers als o interested in the attached item on the subdivision site plan for a multifamily development. A brief discussion of the is sue was he ld. A motion was then made for recommendation of approval to the City Board of Directors subject to modification of the request to incl ude the balance of Hermitage Road to its point of in tersection with Bowman Road. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, O noes, 2 absent.
\._,___
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21
NAME:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT/AGENT:
Madden Chapel "Revised PCD" (Z-4253-A)
9612 Geyer Springs Road Litt le Rock, AR Phone: 562-8588
Bill Eichelberger
REQUEST: To revise an approved "PCD" to:
(1)Build a 20' driveway on the east and west sides of thebuilding.
(2)Construct a 23' driveway on the south side of thebuilding which would be within 2' of the pr operty lin e.
(3)To build a 25' canopy on the south side of thebuilding.
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request to revise an approved "PCD" for a funeral home to:
(1)Add a 20' driveway on the east and west sides of thebuilding.
(2)Construct a 23' driveway on the south side of thebuilding which will be wit hin 2' of the property line.
(3)To provide a 25' canopy on the south side of thebuilding.
The reason offered is to provide family cars at the funera l easy access to the family room and to be parked separate from others at the funeral service. A minimum of 23' of parking is needed to ha ve adequate space for two rows of family cars. The two remaining would be for construction of a 6' opaque fence. The 25' ca nopy is needed to provide protection from inclement weather for members of the family. The 22' x 26' canopy on the west side is to provide protection from inclement weather for the pallbearers and the casket as it is moved from the chapel to the hearse.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
None.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21 -Continued
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requested to clarify whether the canopy is cantilevered or supported by poles, and explain why a 23' drive is needed. Staff feels that 18' is wide enough for two cars.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to co mments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present, and the plan was reviewed by the Co mmittee and passed to the Co mmission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. He agreed to co mply with staff's reco mmendation to leave at least a 3' setback on the south. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
June ll, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22
NAME:
LOCATION:
AGENT/ENGINEER::
Parkway Place Drive Sidewalk Waiver Request
Parkway Place Drive -North of West Markham Street Parkway
Pat MeGetrick Manes, Castin, Massie P.O. Box 1035 No rth Little Rock, AR 72115 Phone: 758-1360
REQUEST: No sidewalks on Parkway Place Drive
STAFF REPORT:
The applicant is requesting that he be allowed to waive sidewalks along Parkway Place Drive. He feels that the internal sidewalk system is adequate enough for the development. Staf f is opposed to the request due to the future potential of development north of this project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denial.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Pat McGetrick, was present. There were no objectors. Staff stated its opposition to the waiver request due to the feeling that the sidewalks were needed to link with the development to the north. Finally, a motion for approval was made but it failed to pass by a vote of: 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 23
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Thomas Wilkes 511 East 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72202 372-0861
STAFF REPORT:
Penzel Place Final "PUD" Extension (Z-4075)
NW Corner of East 7th and Sherman Streets
ARCHITECT:
Dietrich Neyland/Joe Johnson The Cromwell Firm #1 Sp ring Street Little Rock, AR 72201
This is a request to extend for one year a PUD approval for 30 apartment units. The plan was approved by the Co mmission on February 14, 1984, and by the Bo ard on March 7, 1984 (Ordinance No. 14,615).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Donald Kirk 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR
ENGINEER:
Richardson Engineers 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 664-0003
STAFF REPORT:
Plantation House "PRD" Extension
Markham at Plantation House Apartment
APPLICAN T:
Mr. Wi llis R. Smith 3602 Doral Little Rock, AR 72212 227-9413
The applicant has asked that he be granted a one year PUD extension for approval of 28 apartment units. Since approval, the property has been sold. The new owners are in the process of working on plans and with investors for development of the property. The project was approved by the Commi ssion on June 12, 1984, and by the Board on July 3, 1984.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
'---
June 11, 1985
SUB DIVISIONS
Item No. 25 -Z-3889-B
OWNER: Floyd Fulkerson
John A. Castin APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
PURPOSE:
SIZE:
EXISTING USE:
Hinson Road East of Windsor Court
Rezone from "PRO" to "MF-6"
Multifamily Units
15.0 acres +
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
STAFF REPORT
Vacant, Zoned "R-2" Residential, Zoned "PRD" Single Family, Zoned "R-2" Residential, Zoned "MF-6"
The request before the Planning Co mmission is to rescind the existing PRD for the property and rezone approximately 15+ acres to an "MF-6" classification. The property was reclassified from "R-2" to "PRO" in March 1983. That action included the tract directly to the south which will remain a PRD and had been previously identified as Phase 1 of the overall project. The PRD approval for the site under consideration was only tentative.
The primary issue involved with this request is the transfer of densities involving four tracts of land along Hinson Road. One of the tracts is the site being considered for rezoning. Based on what has already occurred with the density transfers, an "MF-6" reclassification would be the max imum density allowed on the site in question. To achieve this density, the property would have to gain an additional 60 units from the tract directly to the north. This is assuming that the area has an allowable density of three units per acre. Using figures that the Planning staff has developed, the land to the north has a buildable density of approx imately 120 units on 68 acres or less than two units per acre. The preliminary plat for this addition of
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 25 -Continued
Pleasant Valley, the property to the north, shows 47 lots to be developed. This does appear to permit a transfer of the needed units to the property in question to ac hieve an "MF-6" density or 120 units on approximately 20 acres total. (On the final approved PRD to the south, there are 18 units on 3.5 acres.} This is a somew hat complicated issue but the preceding information should provide the ne cessary background regarding the density limitations in the area.
The Suburban Development Plan identifies the lo cation for "Single Family Attached" which normally allows densities up to a "MF-6." The plan was amended in January 1983 to reduce the amount of land for "Single Family Attached" in the general area. This was accomplished for the land directly to the east.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, there are still some issues needing clarification and because of this, st aff is unprepared to make a formal recommendation. A recommendation will be presented at the public he aring.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Jack Castin, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. There was a brief discussion about the notices that were mailed to the required property owners. The Planning Commission determined that proper notification was given. Staff then re viewed the case and recommended denial of the "MF-6" request. Mr. Castin then spoke and discussed the previous "PRD." He said that the owner was having a difficult time developi ng the property as a "PRD" and that was the primary reason for requesting a rezoning change to "MF-6." There was a lo ng discussion about the "PRD" approval and what density limits were placed on it. Staff indicated that the project was approved for a maximum of six units per acre. There were several comments made about the differences between a "PRD" and "MF-6" if site approval was necessary prior to any developing occurring on the property. Staff then indicated that they had no objections to the "MF-6" reclassification. At this time, the Planning Commission voted to adopt a resolution recommending that the existing "PRD" be revoked. The vote -9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. The Planning Commission then voted to recommend approval of the "MF-6" rezoning by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The request was approved.
'---··
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 26
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER/APPLI CANT:
REQUEST:
First Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit (Z-4085-A)
901 Calhoun Street
First Baptist Church/Jerry Wooldridge
This applicant desires to present an alternate plan for provision of off-street parking. The request is the result of an attemp t to gain approval from the Board of Adjustment which does not have jurisdiction in the co ndit ional use permit cases. Since receiv ing approval by Ordinance No. 14,542 on November 1, 1983, the church has co mpleted the building improvements involved but has no t begun the parking lot. In fact, the church has sold the two lots at issue in 1983 and acquired two lots acr oss the intersection from the church. The church now desires a six-month extension on the improvements and permission to use the new location. The church has filed a bond securing the improvements in order to occupy the sanctuary.
STAFF COMMENT:
The Pl anning staff view of this request is that the two new lots are perhaps more appropriate due to the proximity to the building served. We feel that the church should move forward taking the appropriate steps to assure the comp letion of these lots within the requested six months. It is our understanding that the church is experiencing some financial difficulties at this time. However, this project was begun over a year and a half ago. We would not encourage an extension beyond that ti me.
SUBDIVISIO N COMMITTEE COMMENT:
The architect, Mr. Woolridge, was present. After a br ief discussion, it was determined that there wer e no significant issues. The church will pave the alley and all street improvements as necessary to provide the access from the alley. Primary street improvements ar e in place. For the record the staff would like to note that if this modification is approved, the Commission will probably want to suggest that the City Board rescind the prior ordina nce for parking on the two lots in the block to the south.
---
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 26 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objec tors in attendance. A brief discussion followed. A motion was then made to recommend approval of the modification subject to the staff comments. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 27 -File No. 515-A
NAME:
APPLICANT/ENGINEER:
Claremore Court "Re vised" Site Plan Re view
Norman Holcomb/Sam Davis
REQUEST: To revise an approved site plan.
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request to revise an approved site plan by relo cating five buildings for condominium use to the eastern side of the northernmost cul-de-sac and redesigning this cul-de-sac. Staff has no problems with the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The application was reviewed by the Committee and passed to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
'-·
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 28
NAME:
LOCATION:
Bernard and Marzella Ray Illegal Lot Tr ansfer Review
1802 S. Elm Little Rock, AR
REQUEST: Planning Commission guidance on illegal lot transfer/ownership.
STAFF REPORT:
The applicants are requesting Planning Commission guidance as to their current predicament. Recently, they boug ht the one-story fram e home shown on the sketch from Mr. Calvin Muldrow. They hired a surveyor who sp lit the lots into two parcels so that Mr. Muldrow's home would be on the lot facing South Elm and theirs would face 18th Street. They have now found out that the house has been condemned and electricity can't be provided. Furthermore, both lots ha ve been made nonconforming with widths and depths of 35' and 7 5 I•
Due to the inadequate lot sizes, staff refused to sign off on the lot split. Upon site investigation, it was discovered that 18th Street is a gravel road and both homes are located approximately 3' from ea ch other. The applicant has asked to find out how long the house on West 18th ha s been on the site since it does not appear to be that old.
The Commission is asked to provide guid ance as to the situation or to direct the City Attorney to pu rsue the matter.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicants were not present, there was no review of the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicants were not present. The Commission voted to defer the item for 30 days to allow the applicants time to contact the staff. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 29
NAME:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
Vera Perser
Gilbert Drive at Bowman Road
Planning Commission review of a subdivision violation issue developed over the last four months wit h a view toward determining whether a violation exists.
HISTORY:
In early January 1985, the Planning staff received complaints from Mrs. Perser's neighbors along Gilbert Drive. The complaints were investigated by staff and county he alth officials. Several apparent violations were noted and the owner directed to pursue her remedies. The staff made contact with Mrs. Per ser and her attorney on several occasions over the past four months wit h results finally coming this month. The owner has been advised through he r attorney that her presence is required both at the meeting on the 30th and on June 11th.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The only comments that staff can offer at this time are: (1)The subject site was in the Little Rock jurisdiction onthe occasion of her original purchase in 1966. (2) Theaffidavits provided do not provide factual evidence ofcontinuance of a nonconforming mobile home park. (3) Thesite does not appear to contain the basic site elements of amobile home park. Neighbors ha ve said they will offercontradictory statements to those filed by the petit ioner.
The issue before the Commission is a request to determine if a violation of the mobile home subdivision regulations exists. At the time of the staff visit to the site, there were three mobile homes on the property. Since that time, one has been removed. The City planning jurisdiction was in place on the occasion of the placement of the first moble home. However, one mobile home is not a violation of the ordinance outside the City limits. When placing the second unit sometime after 1967, the alleged violation occurred. The owner maintains that she does not now and has ne ver
', __..
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 29 -Continued
intended to operate a mobile home park but simply rent a space if someone desired a site.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
The owner was present and offered comment on the issue. A lengthy discussion followed. During the course of the discussion, it was stated by the owner that only two sites were sewered and that water was by an on-site well. There are no City water services available. There are no other structures on the property utilized as residences. However, it appears a vacant commercial building front Bowman Road. The owner was directed to research all possible sources for purposes of developing supporting documentation. The Committee offered several sources and sug gested that she produce more than has been offered verbally .
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The owner was not in attendance. There were several persons in attendance as objectors. Mr. Max Smith, a resident of the area, made brief comments on the violation. He offered photographs back dated to 1975 and several current photographs. A brief discussion followed which involved the staff providing additional backg round and insight into the issue at hand and the resolution which was sought. The Planning Commission determined that inasmuch as the applicant failed to appear and was not represented, that was acceptance of her position of being in violation. A motion was made to declare this to be a violation of ordinance and that the staff take appropriate steps for enforcement. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
June 11, 1985
SUBD IVISIONS
Item No. 30
NAME:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT/ENGINEER:
Mehlburger, Tanner & Assoc. 201 South Izard P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203-3837 375-5331
STAFF REPORT:
Ginny's Vineyard "Revised Site Plan Review"
Northwest of the Intersection of Gamble Rock Creek Parkway
This is a request for a review of a revised site plan of 148 apartment units/daycare center which was originally approved in March of 1984. The modification desired is the deletion of the daycare center and the substitution of six one bedroom apartments in its place. The property is zoned "R-5." Staff has no problem with the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 31
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER/ENGINEER:
Prospect Terrace, Lot 38R Replat
5108 Edgewood
Robert Schultz/Edward G. Smith & Associates 401 Victory Little Rock, AR
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request to replat two existing lots into one and to change an existing 30-foot building line to 25 feet, which is what is required by ordinance. Staff has no objections.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
DATE�� 1\.:BSS
-ZONING
MEMBER
J.
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Sipes
J.Nicholson
W.Rector
w.Ketcher
D.Arnett
D, J. Jones
I.Boles
J; Clayton
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
VOT E RECORD
ITEM NUMBERS
�AYE • NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
) )
oATEjune-I I, '985
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
VOT E RECORD
ITEM NUMBERS
ZONING -SUBDIVISION
MEMBER
J.
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Sipes
J.Nicholson
w.Rector
w.Ketcher
D.Arnett
0.J. Jones
I.Boles
J� Clayton
v"AYE • NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
) ),I
.� ___ ...
June 11, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business before the Commission, the chairperson adjourned the meeting at 5 p.m.
Chairman
Date