HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_12 17 1985sub,,..,.
__ ....._..
/-. --.._
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
December 17, 1985
1:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being 11 in nu mber.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved asmailed.
III.Members Present:
IV.City Attorneys Present:
John Schlereth Betty Sipes Will iam Ketcher Ida Boles Dorothy Arnett David Jones James Summerlin Jerilyn Nicholson R ichard Massie Fred Perkins Bill Rector
Mark Stodola Pat Benton
j
1
--v
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
TENATIVE SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ITEMS
December 17, 1985
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Green Mountain Plaza (Z-3315-C}
B.Your Care Stereo (Z-4561}
C.Ruthie's Day-Care (Z-4557}
D.Lavilla PCD
E.Security Storage Revised Site Plan
F.Riverfront Drive at Turtle Creek Lane (Z-4572}
G.First Baptist Church
PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1.Glen Eagle Preliminary
2.Ecumenical Retirement Center Addition (Tracts 2-R, 4and 5}
3.Echo Valley Court Addition Preliminary
4.Otter Creek Indu strial Park
5. Otter Creek, Phase 8
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
6.Hunter's Glen Apartments (Long-Form} "PRO" (Z-4587}
7.1011 Welch Street (Short-Form} "PRO" (Z-4467-A}
SITE PLAN REVIEW: (Multiple Building Site}
8. Riverwalk Village Apartments "On The River"Riverdale Addition (Tract A-3}
9.Noble Site Plan Review
SITE PLAN REVIEW: (Zoning}
10.Southwest Hospital (Z-4532-A)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
11.Mark ham Street Baptist Church (Z-1701-A)
12.Cloverdale Assembly of God (Z-4237-A)
13.South Highland Baptist Church (Z-4584)
14.St. Theresa Church (Z-4586)
BUILDING LINE WAIVER:
15.Mallard Building Line Waiver
16.Steve McDonald Building Line Waiver
REZONING ISSUES:
17.Z-3862-A Parkway Drive, North of Rock Creek Parkway(PRD to "MF-12" and "C-3")
18.Z-4092-A Fairview Road and Pleasant Ridge RoadNorthwest Corner ("MF-12" to "0-3")
19.Z-4569 I-30 Frontage Road and Warehouse RoadNorthwest Corner ("R-2" to "C-4")
20.Z-4581 12903 I-30 ("R-2" to "C-4")
21.Z-4582 1418 Chester ("C-3" to "R-4")
22.Z-4585 624 E. 21st {"R-4" to "C-3")
SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
23.Z-4579 5708 Meadowlark
ADDITIONAL ITEMS:
24.Kingsrow Drive Partial Parallel Closure
25.Goodyear Conditional Use Permit {Z-4578-A)
26.Marlowe Manor Addition Replat {Lots 223R and 224R)
27.Gelco Space Site Plan Review
28.Tice Short-Form PCD (Z-4573-A)
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME: Green Mountain Plaza Conditional Use Permit (Z-3315-C)
LOCATION: The SE Corner of the Intersection of Green Mountain and Rainwood Drives (11,715 Rainwood, Suite #6)
OWNER/APPLICANT: The Robert East Co./Mark Green
PROPOSAL:
To convert an existing suite to allow an auto electronic sales and installation service in an existing strip center that is zoned "C-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1.Site Location
2.
Located at the intersection of two collector streets(Green Mountain Drive and Rainwood Drive).
Com patibility with Neighborhood
This property is part of an existing strip commercialcenter and has commercial uses located adjacent to thenorth and south with multifamily to the west and vacantproperty located to the east. The proposed one bay useis compatible with the surrounding area.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
4.
The strip center contains approximately 100 parkingspaces and two access drives (one on Green MountainDrive and one on Rainwood Drive). The service bay ofthis proposed use will take access from a service drivelocated on Rainwood Drive.
Screening and Buffers
The site has existing landscaping.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
5.
6.
Analysis
This proposal is for conversion of an existing building within a strip shopping center. The staff foresees no adverse impact to the surrounding area. The applicant needs to submit a revised site plan which includes the specific location of the proposed use within the strip center.
Engineering Comments
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to submit a revised site plan showing the specific location of the proposed us e.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was no t present. The item was no t discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. A request was made to defer this item to the December 17, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent to defer this item as requested.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (12-6-85)
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations. The Commit tee requested infor mation from the staff regarding the parking capacity of the entire strip center and the current us age of the center (the number of restaurants).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objec tors. The staff stated that the applicant had submitted the ne cessary notifica tion and as well as the revised site plan. Staff recommended approval. The Commission then voted -8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent to approve the application as recommended by staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
December 17, 1985
SUBD IVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME: Your Car Stereo Conditional Use Permit (Z-4561)
LOCATION: The West Side of s. Unversity Just South of 12th Street (1612 S. University)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Dorothy and Leon Prickett/ Mark Green
PROPOSA L:
To convert an existing one-story 1,600 square foot building to allow an automob ile electronic sales and se rvice on land that is zoned "C-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1.Site Location
2.
3.
4.
Adjacent to a major arterial (South University Avenue).
Compatibility with Neighborhood
The proposed use is abutted by commercial uses on thesouth and east, an office use to the north and a singlefamily use to the west. The single family use isapproximately 20 feet above grade. There should be noadverse impact to the surrounding area.
On-Site Driv es and Parking
This property is served by two means of access. Oneaccess drive is located on South University. Thesecond access is by traversing within the existingstrip of commercial center located to the north. Theapplicant states that this site contains 19 parkingspaces.
Scr eening and Buffers
The scre ening fence is in place on the west propertyline (see comment No. 2).
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B -Contin ued
5.Analysis
6.
The staff foresees no adverse impac t to the surro und ingarea. The applicant does ne ed to revise the site planto illustrate the location of the vehicle bays and theparking area. And finally, the applicant needs tounderstand that all work on vehicles should beperformed inside the building.
City Engineering Comments
No adverse comments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan illustrating the location of the vehicle bays and the parking area� and (2) perform all work on ve hicles inside the building.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The item was not discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. A request was made to defer this item to the December 17, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent to defer this item as requested.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (12-6-85)
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no ob jectors. The staff stated that the applicant ha d submitted the ne cessary notifications and had also submitted the revis ed si te plan. Staff recommended approval. The Commission then voted 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent to approve the application as rec ommended by staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C
NAME: Ruthie's Day-Care Center Conditional Use Permit (Z-4557)
LOCATION: Th e North Side of E. 4th Street Just West of Fletcher Street (2014 E. 4th Street)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Robert Lee Higgins
PROPOSAL:
To convert an existing single family structure (958 square feet) to a day-care center by constructing an 852 square foot addition and four parking spaces on land that is zoned "R-4."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1.
2.
3.
Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (East 4th Street).
Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is abutted by duplex uses on the east and west, by vacant land to the north (levee), and single family to the south. The existing structure is a burned out condemned structure. Any remodeling or reconditioning would be an improvement to the surrounding area. The applicant is attemp ting to renovate this structure and initiate a day-care center for 20 children. Staff supports the improvement to this property.
On-Site Drives and Parking
The applicant has proposed one 9-foot access drive (East 4th Street) and four paved parking spaces.
4.Screening and Buffers
The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan.
December 17, 1985
SUBD'IVISIONS
Item No. C -Continued
5.Analysis
6.
Staff supports the ref urbishing of the existingstructure. St aff also feels that a day-care center for20 children would not be detr imental to the surroundingarea. The applicant does need to re vise the prop osedparking area to include the necessary maneuvering area.Staff also feels that a 6-foot privacy fence ar ound thechildren's play area would lessen the impact toadjacent properties.
City Engineering Comments
The backyard fence needs to be moved cl oser to thebuilding in order for access into the parking area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan which includes an enl arged maneuvering area for parking; (2) construct a 6-foot privacy fence around the children's play area, and (3) comply with City engineering comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff's recommendat ions. The applicant was inf ormed that the nearest fire hy drant was 500 feet away and that his insurance would likely be higher as a result.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. A request was made to defer this item tp the December 17, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent to defer this item as requested.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (12-6-85)
The applicant was not present. There was no discussion of the issue.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objec tors. The Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent to approve the application as recommended by staff, reviewed by the Su bdivision Commit tee and agreed to the applicant.
December 17 , 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D -File No. 614
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
La Villa Office Park "Short-Form PCD" (Z-4565)
Approximately 100 feet east of the intersection of Kanis and Shackleford
ENGINEER:
Diversified Developers Inc. Edward G. Smith & Associates 9501 Rodney Parham, Ste. 6 401 South Victory Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR 72201 225-3657 37 4-1666
Area: 1.97 acres No. of Lots:
ZONING: "0-3"
PROPOSED USES: Office Warehouse
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRAC"r:
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
A.DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES:
1 Ft. New St.: 0 feet
1.To provide small business owners, such as carpetsales, plumbers, construction companies, officemachine sales, repair services, vendors, etc.Those office and storage are repair facilities.
B.PROPOSAL:
1.Construction of 18 office warehouse units on1.97 acres and containing 1500 square feet.
2.The buildings will be placed 5 feet apartrather than within two long buildings dueto the terrain variation which slopes southto north.
3.A typical floor plan will contain 600 square feetof office space/900 square feet of warehouse spaceor a ratio of 33.3 percent to 66.6 percent, thismay vary according to the user.
4. Parking consists of 66 spaces with the possibilityof a limited number of visitor spaces between thestreet and first buildings on each side.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D -Continued
5.Development will start in about 12 months,beginning in mid-December 1985.
6.Construction to be of exposed aggregateconcrete tilt wall with comp osition roof andredwood/stucco/glass fronts.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
D.
1.Access design must be redesigned and coordinatedwith Traffic Engineer.
2.Show preliminary detention, volumes and areas.
3.Show landscaping on south and west boundaries.
4.Close adjacent 30 foot street or provideboundary street improvements.
ANALYSIS:
This item has been filed as a "PUD" since office/ warehouses are not allowed in "0-3" zoning. Staff has no objections to use if the project is properly done, otherwise this would constitute an imposition of commercial conditions in an area of uses.
Staff is not pleased with the proposal. First of all, the Ordinance requires at least a 10-foot separation between buildings. The site appears to be over-built, the 15-foot circulation drive behind the building and parallel to the street are too narrow. A one-way circulation for 400 feet with one way out is not acceptable. Please reduce the number of structures and redesign with a central service area and parking up front.
There is a 30-foot unplatted drive abutting this property that serves several other ownerships. The status of the roadway needs to be established.
E.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deferral until issue is addressed.
'·...__-.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The main issue discussed involved the proposed design of the project and use of the site. It was generally felt that the project was too dense and that a quasi industrial use may not be appropriate for this location. The applicant agreed to submit a revised plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not in attendance, there was no review of the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-17-85)
The applicant was not present. made and passed by a vote of:
J
A motion for withdrawal was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
Decem ber 17, 1985
Item No. F -Z-4572
Owner: Pleasant Valley Inc.
Ronnie Hall Applicant:
Location: Riverfront Drive at Turtle Creek Lane
Request: Rezone from "O-2" to "MF-24"
Purpose: Multifamily
10.95 acres
Vacant
Size:
Existing Use:
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Multifamily, Zoned "PRD"-Vacant, zoned "O-2"-Arkansas River, No Zoning-Vacant, zoned "O-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The request is to re zone the property in question to"MF-24" to allow approximately 250 units. The site islocated in the Riverdale area of the City and adjacentto the Arkansas River. The northern portion of theRiverdale, north of Turtle Creek Lane, is beingdeveloped for multifamily units at a density of about20 units per acre. To the south of Turtle Creek Lane,the zoning is primarily nonresidential with "O-2,""O-3," "C-3" and "I-2." There are also two tractszoned for medium to high density re sidential uses,"MF-18 and "R-6." The land use is mixed wit h theresidential to the north and nonresidential to thesouth. Based on the existing development pattern s inthe area, a multifamily rezoning and use areappropriate for the property.
2.The site is vacant and flat.
3.There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Planrequirements associated with this re quest.
4.There have been no adverse comments from the revie wingagencies as of this writing.
December 17, 1985
Item No. F -Continued
5.There are no legal is sues.
6.The property was originally zoned "MF-18" but it wasrezoned to "0-2" in 1981. That re zoning in cludedapproximately 40 acres wit h a majority of the landbeing zoned "MF-18" and the balance "R-6" prior to therezoning action. There is no documented ne ighborhoodposition on the site.
7.The prop osed mu ltifamily project is compatible wit h thearea and staff supports the use but at a lower density.Staff feels that the "MF-24" density is too hi gh forthe site and suggests "MF-18" as being more appropriateand which also maintains the density le vel in the area.An "MF-24" development could possibly over build thesite and require a hi gh percentage of land to beutilized for build ings and su rface areas. Wit h therequested density, the property would lose many of thenecessary amenities such as gree n areas and lower thelivability of the project. The Heights/Hillcrest Planoriginally showed a multifamily use for the location,but was amended to office after the "O-2" re zoning tookplace.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends an "MF-18" re classification as being more appropriate for the property.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11-26-85)
The applicant, Burton Speights, was present. There was 1 objector in attendance. Staff modified its recommendation to support to "MF-24" rezoning based on a site plan, but suggested that the it em should be deferred because of a notification question. Mr. Speig hts discussed the notification issue. He said that a se cond notice was mailed which corrected the first notice and that he personally notified all of the property owners by phone. Mark Stodola, City Attor ney, sp oke on the notification is sue. Pet er Hoover, representing one of the property owners, asked that the request be deferred because of the notification question and to ha ve more time to review the proposal. He also asked if signs were ever posted on the property. Ronnie Hall, an engineer, said that he was not sure if the signs were ever placed on the property. There was a long discussion about the various is sues. A motion was then made to defer the request to the December 17, 1985, Planning Commission Meeting. The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
December 17, 1985
Item No. F -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-17-85)
(The first action taken by the Commission was to defer the item to 2 p.m.) The applicant, Burton Speights, was present. There were three objectors in attendance. Mr. Speights discussed the proposal and the hi story of the Riverdale area. He sa id that the location was appropriate for a mu ltifamily project because of the existing development and that it would not cr eate an y problems su ch as traffic. There were some comments made about the Heights/Hillcrest Plan. Mike Ritz re presenting the owners of the Brightwater Apartments spoke in opposition to the rezon ing. He asked why cha nge the area now wit hout doing compre hensive plan. Mr. Ritz expressed concerns over the stability of existing zoning lines and the potential for commercial rezonings in the fu ture. He also objected to the proposed three story units adjacent to the Brightwater project. There was a long discussion about good planning and the need to maintain plans by Mr. Ritz. Pete Hoover then addressed the Commission and objected to the rezoning. He pointed out that the Heights/Hillcrest Plan es tablished public policy in 1981 and the City in dicated in 1983 that there would be no more multifamily zoning in Riverdale. Mr. Ho over also reinforced Mr. Ritz's comments and sa id that a plan change should only be accomplished if it meets a public need. The Planning Commission then voted on the "MF-24" request as filed. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The rezoning was approved.
December 17, 1985
Item No. G -Z-4562
NAME: First Baptist Church "Long-Form PRD -Planned Residential District" (Z-4562)
LOCATION: West side of Hinson Road, lying between Pebble Beach Subdivision and Windsor Towne Homes
OWNER/APPLICANT: Various By Floyd Fulkerson for First Baptist Church
PROPOSAL:
A Planned Residential District to develop a 117-acre site for church use as a sanctuary and ancillary activities.
A.Development Objectives/Historical Background
B.
(1)To provide expanded facilities for the church andits ministeries. First Baptist Church hasexperienced dramatic growth in membership inrecent years. Membership has increased from 2,650in 1974 to 3,955 in 1985. Since 1983, the Churchhas been forced to hold dual Sunday Schools, dualworship services and remote parking in an attemptto alleviate crowded conditions. It has beenpredicted by their long-range planning committeethat by 1991 the Church wo uld be completely out ofspace. Expansion at the present location wasdetermined to be impractical. The Church has beenat its present location since 1974, when it movedfrom a downtown location at 12th and Louisianawhere it was originally established in 1858.
Existing Conditions
This site is located in western Little Rock on 117 acres that is nestled between two residential developments, Pebble Beach Subdivision on the north and Windsor Court Towne Homes (condominiums) on the south. The predominant land uses in the area consist of both detached single family and att ached mu ltifamily structures. Forming the eastern boundary of the site is a sliver of land involved in a previous density transfer (Z-2848-E) and then Hinson Road, a major arterial street that is planned to connect northward with Taylor Loop Road, which intersects with State Highway No. 10. To th� west of the site, lies acres of undeveloped property on which there has been some ta lk of future development.
December 17, 1985
Item No. G -Co ntinued
The land itself,· currently includes an abundance of mature veget ation which consists of ha rdwood and evergreen trees. It has been characterized by the applicant as possessing a "distinctive topography" with slopes on the north one-half of the site varying between 6 and 10 percent, an d between 10 and 19 percent on the southern one-half. The soil is rocky and both the floodplain and floodway are apparent on the property. There are about 15 out-parcels within the site that are not owned by the applicant.
Two existing streets, Montvale and Valley Park Drive, abut the property on the north. The Master Street Plan indicates that Montvale should be extended as a collector running through the site to connect with Beckenham Drive. Also, an arterial street is planned near the western boundary of the property.
C.Proposal
(1)Phase I
(a)Sanctuary -Will seat 4,000 persons, have achoir area for 300, music rehearsal area andhave approximately 46,000 square feet and be75 feet in height. Use will be for worship,Bible study and mu sical presentations.
(b)Educational Space -Two, four-story buildingsadjoin the sanctuary. Each building will be100,000 square feet and 50 feet high. Useswill be for Sunday School, Bible study, andother educational ministeries meeting throughthe week.
(c)Fellowship Hall -Will serve 1,000 people forfamily dinners, banquets and other relatedmeetings. It will be equipped with kitchenand food service program and consist of50,000 square feet with a height of 25 feet.
(d)Administrative Area -Church administrativeoffices/support services such as a printshop. These will be housed in the samebuilding as the fellowship hall.
(e)Parking -Eleven hundred spaces with ampleprovisions for the handicapped.
December 17, 1985
Item No. G -Continued
(f} Water Retention System -2.5-acre lake proposed to handle retention requirements for the entire property. The area around the lake will be developed in a park-like atmosphere. The floodway along Hinson Road will be adhered to and improved. All fi nal details and calculations will be in accordance with the City Drainage Ordinance.
2.Phase II
(a} Additional Sanctuary and Educational SpaceParking -Parking will be provided as dictated by the growth of worship and educational attendance.
(b)Christian Family Life Center -The firstfloor will consist of 40,000 square feet andbe 35 feet high. Uses to include gymnasiumfor exercise classes, volleyball, basketball,skating and jogging track with a seatingcapacity of 1,250. Also to include exerciserooms, game room, ceramics, arts and crafts,dressing rooms and equipment, three racquetball courts, a testing room for evaluation ofthe physical condition and health ofindividuals, space for Bible study and childcare and olympic-size swimming pools with sixlighted tennis courts.
(c)Football/Soccer Field -Seating for 1,200people and to be used for soccer matches bystudents of the Arkansas Baptist SchoolSystem. May also be used as a football fi eldfor Arkansas Baptist High students. Thefield will be lighted and used occasionallyfor evening soccer or football games. Anoutdoor running track will be available forjoggers and walkers who live in thecommunity.
(d} Park/Softball Fields -Two softball fi elds with park and playground area for children. Use will be by the church and its expanding outdoor recreation ministry. The field will be lighted and set back 450 feet from the north property line.
December 17, 1985
Item No. G -Continued
(e)Amphitheater -There will be seating for upto 1,250 people, and it will be usedperiodically for Sunday evening worshipservices, picnics and retreats. The areawill have a 60-foot radius with parkinglocated at the retreat center. Theamphitheater will set back 450 feet from thenorth edge of the property.
(f)Retirement Housing -To include 100 unitsranging from 1,000 to 1,500 square feet andcomposed of one and two-bedroom units.Housing types will be a mixture of duplexesand row housing.
(g)Independent Elderly Living Unit -To include100 units housed on six floors, andconsisting of 900 square foot units withkitchen facilities. A cafeteria will beprovided. This will be designed as analternative to retired individuals who don'tdesire to live in retirement homes. Thefirst floor will contain 20,000 square feetand height is to be 75 feet. Parking willinclude 58 spaces.
(h)Retreat Center -There will be a maximum of36 units with two double beds and individualtoilet facilities. The center will alsocontain two dormitory rooms for 20 people ineach room with gang showers and toiletfacilities. The center will also havekitchen and dining room facilities for 150and several meeting rooms.
The use is to be for retreats and conferenceson some weekends and during the week forspiritual development and maturity. Therewill be 100 parking spaces. The size of thefacility will be 225' x 75.'
(i)Other Information
Buffers -A minimum of 100 feet ofundisturbed, heavily wooded buffers willborder the site. Also, there will be a20-foot buffer around all out-parcels.
December 17, 1985
Item No. G -Continued
D.
( j )
Access -Hinson Road will be widened to accommodate ac celeration, deceleration, an d left turn lanes. Internal circulation will be provided by private streets, except for Montvale Drive. Valley Park Drive will be used for fire access only.
Landscaping -Plans for each phase will be included.
Signage -An identifying tower or cross will serve as a landmark for the facility. There will also be a lighted sign near the main entrance to the campus on Hinson Road. Small direction signs will be used on Montvale Drive and on the internal private drives. There will be signs on all the build ings. All signs will be in co mpliance with the City of Little Rock Sign Ordinance.
Dev elopment Timetable
Late 1986 -beginning of prel iminary site work
Spring 1987 -construction of 250 car parking lot
1989 -Phase I construction with completion to be in 1981
1991-92 -Construction of Phase II
Engineering Comments
(1)The applicant should furnish a traffic impactstudy on Hinson and adjoining neighborhoodcollectors.
(2)Two entrances will be needed on Hinson Road. TheCity Engineer and Traffic.Engineer are concernedabout adjoining collectors and high trafficgenerating activities. They suggest that the hightraffic generated be placed as close to HinsonRoad as possible. If the stadium is down-sizedand no intermediate or high school is to belocated on the site, the north-south collectorshould be maintained. If an intermediate or highschool or other high tr affic generator is to belocated near the proposed north-south collector,the north-south collector should be connected to
December 17, 1985
Item No. G -Continued
the adjoining Subdivisions. The ea st-west collector should be maintained, with the applicant dedicating the required ri ght-of-way.
E.Analysis
Due to the definite impact on the surrounding area andthe varied amount and complexity of issues involved,staff sugges ted to the developer that this it em befiled in accordance wit h the Planned Unit Developmentprocess, so that certain aspects of the proposal couldbe tied down. The actual filing has been done in asimilar fashion as some other large projects in whichthe Commission approved the developmental concept only,conditioned upon the return of the applicant for reviewof the specifics of each phase. In this instance,First Baptist Church has been requested to providespecifics for Phase I and gain conceptual approval onlyfor Phases II and III. This means that the uses willbe identified for Phases II and III, but the actualintensity of the uses are uncertain. When specificplans for each of the later phases are worked out, theapplicant will renotify the neighborhood and return tothe Commission. He will not, however, be allowed tosignificantly increase the numbers that are specifiedif this is approved.
Upon initial review of the project, st aff identifiedseveral issues to be resolved/discussed. They include:
( 1 ) Montvale Collector Extension
Of ut most importance to staff is the maintenance of this street on the Master Street Plan. It will serve as the only collector for a mile between two arterials. It is badly needed to tie large areas of developing tracts together and to prevent possible future damage to the pu blic in relation to emergency access and increased traffic. There is a great public need for this collector to prevent existing collectors from functioning as arterials, which is evident on Brookside Drive and Pebble Beach Drive. Staff has faced this issue repeatedly. Most of the public do not want collectors through their neighborhoods. They must, however, be built somewhere in western Little Rock to provide adequate cross-flow between areas and to prevent increased traffic problems or bottlenecks from developing on streets that are not designed to carry such a capacity of traffic. It is better to plan and develop collectors at
December 17, 1985
Item No. G -Continued
certain points throughout an area to relieve pressure, than to have it built to standards that are inadequate to carry the capacity of traffic that the area demands. In other words, regardless of whether Montvale is physically built as a collector, there will still be a demand for one in the area. Excess generation of traffic is softened by tying collectors together. Other things in the public interest to consider are ease of police, fire and sanitation access and the fact that areas of steep terrain need good connecting streets. Staff would rather see the recreational uses eliminated than lose the collector street.
(2)Height of Structures
The applicant has been ask ed to maintain a 35-footheight throughout the site, submit profiles ofbuildings and provide some indication of thenatural existing elevation and proposed finishedelevation and to reduce the independent elderlyliving unit building from six stories.
(3)Phasing
Due to the location of the Master Street Planthrough the site, staff recommended changes in thephasing of the original plan. Since the need forthe church and related parking is most immediate,staff recommends this as Phase I and Lot 1.Phase II would consist of retirement housing inthe southeast corner toward Hinson Road, theretirement housing in the central area of thesite, the Christian Life Center and IndependentElderly Living Unit and stadium. Phase III wouldinclude the soccer field, amphitheater and retreatcenter. Everything west of Montvale would be aseparate lot also.
(4)Plan Modifications
Staff originally requested moving the retreatcenter to a central location and placingrecreational uses and elderly housing toward therear of the project. The idea was abandoned sincethe applicant preferred that the elderly beintegrated into the activity life of the community
December 17, 1985
Item No. G -Continued
and that the retreat center be located on the hilltop with hiking trails around it. Staff realized the sensitive nature of the topography and that the applicant may have problems shifting the buildings around.
Staff also recommended that the softball fields and stadium be eliminated or scaled down and that the applicant propose locations for accessory commercial refreshment stands.
(5)Landl ocked Parcels/Other Ownerships
Staff determined that the location of theseparcels in the buffer areas was acceptable sincethe parcels are zoned for single family. Theapplicant, however, must indicate on the site plana legal access easement of at least 20 feet forsmaller parcels and 40 feet for the largerparcels. Also, the applicant was asked to removethe softball field from an out-parcel sincedesigns over someone's ownership cannot beapproved.
(6)Buffer/Treatment of Specific Areas
Staff originally questioned the 10-foot easementon the north that intrudes into the proposed100-foot buffer, but since it is existing(Riverside Cable TV), staff decided that thebuffer area did not need to be increased. It isrequested that a minimum of 100 feet be retainedaround the site, all on-site utilities be placedoutside the buffer area, and that a sedimentationand erosion plan be submitted so that raw, loosedirt from a hill mass will not seep into drainageareas and cause problems for the neighborhood; andthat a specific treatment plan on all exposed cutsbe submitted.
(7)Sewer
There is still a sewer density restr iction on thissite which is a part of Sewer District 222.
(8)TDR
There is a portion of property on the eastern edgeof the site that was involved in a Transfer of
De cember 17, 1985
Item No. G -Continued
Development Rights. The restrictions and covenants on that portion need to be lifted.
(9)Other Issues
There is a statement in the write-up that says,"other educational ministeries" will be meetingthroughout the week. The applicant needs toclarify what "other" means and provideclarification on whether this involves a school orday-care and give its size and the operation.Also, staff requests information on the trafficvolume at peak times. The applicant is asked toinclude all comments from the reporting agencieson a revised plan.
F.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Numerous persons were in attendance. The majority were in opposition to the proposal, althoug h there were some residents present in favor of the request.
Staff gave a presentation that involved four of its members: Mr. Gary Greeson, Pl anning Director; Mr. Richard Wood, Chief of Current Planning; Mr. Jim Lawson, Chief of Advanced Planning; and Ms. Bernadette Be ttard, Subdivision Ad ministrator.
The PUD and regular zoning procedures were explained. It was pointed out that this submittal was somewhat less than what was usually received in a long-form PUD due to time constraints and a 10 to 15 year time frame, resulting in a failure of the applicant to provide all of the required dimensions and details relating to building location, parking, landscaping, etc. The project was described as being "in fixed form, but not in detail." It was staff's opinion that the proposal would be developed at a lesser density than that which is legally allowed by the existing zoning, since "MF-6" allows 702 units per acre.
December 17, 1985
Item No. G -Continued
Mr. Jim Lawson explained street and use plans for the area. He stated that Beckenham, the plan for the south end of the property, would be built as the land develops , and tie in to a north/south arterial which is called the west belt and will tie in to Highway 10. Montvale is shown on the Master Street Plan as a collector. He cautioned that it is important to have connecting streets that feed traffic into arterial streets in residential areas for better traffic circulation. The Land Use Plan, he explained, shows single family attached on a portion of the site and single family detached for the remainder.
The applicant's request for deferral was discussed. It was agreed that the application would be deferred, but that the issues would be discussed.
Staff's recommendation was stated as approval, subject to:
(1)Submission of more details on Phase I and II before theplan goes to the Board meeting.
(2)The endorsement of the specific approval of the usesand locations of all subsequent phases, which have beenrevised to include 13, with final details to be broughtback to the Commission.
(3)All structures on higher elev�tions only be limited to35 feet.
(4)The support of two access points on Hinson Road.
(5)Maintaining the Montvale collector.
(6)Modification of Phase 8 so that land-locked pa rcels notbe included in the softball field.
(7)Reduction of softball fields to one, wit h no lights orPA system.
{8}Submission of sedimentation and erosion plan.
(9)Explanation of "other ministries."
Mr. Calvin Hagan, a deacon and long-range planning study committee member, was the initial spokesman for the church. He apologized for not following proper procedure and stated a willingness to work with the neighbors regarding their concerns. He stated that theirs was a Christian Life Ministry that ministers to the whole family, not only on
December 17, 1985
Item No. G -Continued
Sunday morning, but throughout the entire week. The ministry has been working so well until there is a definite need to plan for expansion as evidenced by the present Sunday morning parking of about 85 to 100 cars at Coy's Steakhouse. He also stated that they ha d already responded to neighborhood concerns by removing the stadium and reducing the high rise. Also, the front 37 acres could legally su pport a church now, but the church preferred to present the comprehensive plan to the neighborhood, instead of doing it parcel by parcel. He felt that a deferral was needed so that more of the neighborhood concerns could be addressed. Mr. Hagan explained that an elementary school with a maximum of 500 students was planned.
Mr. Greg Simmons of Peters and Associates presented the results of a traffic study. He felt that the present zoning generated 4,000 vehicle trips per day, while the proposed plan would generate only 1,750 at peak hours. Also, single family homes generate 10 to 11 trips per day while retirement units generate 3 trips per day. The study did not include any consideration of the impact of Montvale or Beckenham. Both the commissioners and some of the neighbor hood felt that it was very necessary to include this information.
Mr. Chris Barrier represented 20 of the families. Their single-most concern was the building of uncertainty and conflict into the proposal. They felt that if these uncertainties were built in, then protection should also be built in. He called three property owners to give practical views of the situation. They were: (1) Mr. Bob Tyler, an environmental scientist of 13 years with the State Highway Depa rtment. He felt that more consideration should be given to the impact on the area when Hinson becomes a through street to Highway 10, since Pulaski Academy currently creates traffic problems at certain times of the day.
(2)Mr. James Rengers, lives adjacent to Taylor Creek.He expressed concerns about runoff from the massive amount of pavement proposed. He felt that the holding pond would not help those at the lower end since it was at a higher elevation. (3) Ms. Linda Phidke lives near the corner ofMontvale and Pebble Beach. She was concerned about traffic.
Engineering addressed the questions raised. Also, the Commission responded to a question about traffic generation. The maximum amount of trips per day generated on the total 117 acres is approximately 422. The "MF-6" portion would generate a maximum of 222 trips a day and the back portion 200.
December 17, 1985
Item No. G -Continued
Other residents spoke also. Mr. Elvin Ray was concerned about present on-street parking by Fellowship Bible Church. Mr. Bill Morris represented about 50 families abutting the development. He stated that 300 persons had signed a petition in opposition. The reasons for this varied, but there was unanimous sentiment that the project was being hurried. Mr. Morris requested that the project be deferred for more than 30 days since the church had in excess of 30 days to prepare it.
The minister of the church felt that 30 days was reasonable. He felt that some members of the neighborhood would not be pleased no matter how long it was delayed, since he had been told to do the project out at the Johnson's Ranch instead of the proposed site when he approached the neighborhood about what he could do to resolve some of their concerns.
Mr. Merle Lewis, the architect, stated that they would try to address the traffic answers and detention requirements.
The issues to be resolved were identified as the impact of traffic on Montvale and Hinson, parking, retention plans and whether due process had been followed.
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:
The main issue discussed involved traffic. Mr. Greg Simmons and Mr. Ernie Peters reported that their study showed that the Montvale collector was not needed. It was determined that further traffic information should be presented before the next public hearing.
AMENDMENT TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION:(11-26-85)
Based upon the traffic projections submitted by Peters and Associates and consultation with the Public Works Department, staff recommends that approval be given to removal of the Montvale collector from the church's site plan. The traffic volumes projected by Peters and Associates does not justify the requirement of a collector street. Also, removal of the collector would reduce the impacts of the development upon existing and future residential areas adjoining the site. However, if the westerly phases of the church property are not developed as
December 17, 1985
Item No. G -Continued
specified and the property is sold for residential development into lots, the collector street should be required as shown on the Master Street Plan. Residential development as a subdivision would make the collector necessary to provide for adequate traffic flow, ease of movement between residential areas, and efficient provision of City services such as garbage pickup and fire protec tion. If the City Board approves removal of the collector street for the church development, the Master Street Plan can be appropriately amended.
With regard to the proposed softball fields, based upon consultation with the Parks and Recreation Department, staff recommends that the two ballfields be approved subjec t to the following conditions: (1) lights not be higher than 50 feet; (2) yellow sodium lights with visors be utilized; (3)no public address system be provided; (4) seating forthe ballfield be shown on the site plan; and (5) the finaldesign of the ballfields be reviewed and approved by theCity Parks and Recreation Department.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were three attorneys that represented various parts of the neighborhood in attendance. They were: Chris Barrier, Philip Kaplan and John Lessel. Mr. Bill Morris also spoke in behalf of the ne ighborhood. Their main argument was that the neighborhood's interests were not represented at this meeting, thus the proposal should be deferred. They felt that a previous agreement between the church and the neighborhood had not be adhered to; therefore, the legal interest of the neighborhood was not represented at the meeting. The attorneys felt that the church had renigged on the agreement. The church fe lt that they had not.
A debate was held on whether the item should be granted a deferral and whether or not the Commission should consider a private agr eement between the two parties. City Attorney Mark Stodola felt that there was enough "dictum" in the Ordinance to support Commission consideration.
Finally, a motion to defer the item to December 17 was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention.
A motion for a resolution to send this item to the City Board on December 17 was made and passed by: 10 ayes, O noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention.
December 17, 1985
Item No. G -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff reported that its recommendation remained the same: however, a question had arisen relative to the extent the City should be involved in the agreement between the property owner and the neighborhood.
Mark Stodola, City Attorney, said he had reviewed the restrictions to be placed on the deed. He clarified the City's involvement as limited to open space and land owned in common. He felt that the City was not a party to the restrictions and the portion that prohibited a street from going across the property. One commissioner wanted to clarify that the Commission's vote would not incorporate this agreement since it was between the property owners and the developer.
Mr. Calvin Hagan of the Church reported that they were favorable to the agreement. Mr. Bill Morris of the neighborhood gave support to the agreement and requested the Commission's approval, subject to the agreement. He was informed by the Chairman that the City was not a part of the agreement, so the motion could not be conditioned as requested.
Mr. Don Lessel stated that the basis of neighborhood approval of the project is the fact that they had entered into an agreement. He requested that this agreement be made and placed in the permanent files.
Commissioner Rector stated for the record his feelings that the residents that live along Pebble Beach would one day regret that there will not be a montvale collector, and this was an example of the public overcoming the good planning process. The Chairman echoed support for his comments.
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention.
FikST BAPTIST CHURCH
PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMEN T
Revisions and Explanations ot Changes Made in the October 24, 1985 Project Summary
PAkl' ONE: RE VISONS IN TliE PLANNED lJNIT DEVELOPMENT
1.Listed below is an estimated timetable in which the phases ofthis project may be built. lbese estimates are subject to revisondue to the future growth ot the church and its ministries.
Phase Number
II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII
Description Parking Sanctuary/Educational Water Retention Lake Chapel Educational Building Christian Family Life Hetirement Ho using Park/Softball Fields Elderly Living lJnit Amphitheater Retreat Center Deleted Storage Building
Est. Starting Date 1986-1987 1989-1991 1989-1991 1993-1995 1993-1998 1993-1998 1995-2000 199.3-1998 1995-2000 1995-2000 2000-2005
1993-1998
2..l>hase II --Paragraph two of the October 24, 1985 projectsummary describes the educational building as a space that "willbe used for Sunday School, Bible Study, and other educationalministries that will meet throughout the week." This statementhas been further defined as "Sunday School, Bible Study, and oneor two hour Bible Study type meetings that will meet at varioustimes during the week."-.3.Phase VIII Park/so±tball fields. The church plans to havetwo softball fields, but because two outparcels have not beenacquired at this time, the submitted plan only reflects onesoftball field. After these outparcels are acquired, the churchwill ammend this plan to include the second softball field. Thesoftball fields will be lighted, and have bleacher seating for 50people at each field. There will be no public address system.
4.l:'hase XII Retirement Housing. This retirement housing hasbeen deleted so that a second entrance on Hinson Road can beadded�
5.Future �ducational Building --The PuD indicates the...__, potential location ot tuture educational buildings that areattached to the educational.buildings shown in phases two andfive. These buildings woul d be cantilevered over the parking lotssometime after 2000.
·_.-.
6.Access --The access paragraph on page six of the October 24,1985 project summary is revised to include a second entrance onHinson Road shown on the �ovember 20, 1985 PUD. This revisionalso -shows the location of Beckenham, an East-West collectorstreet that is shown on the master street plan. The MontvaleDrive connection to the �orth has not been included in the plan bymutual agreement between the neighborhood and the church. Thecity staff and public works department. after reviewing submittedtraffic studies. are also recommending that Montv ale be omitted.
PART II: CONCERNS OF NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS
1.Undisturbed Bufter --The undisturbed buffer paragraphs onpage six of the October-24, 1985 project summary are modified toinclude the following: "the church will implement a planting plan that will consist of a heavy planting of evergreen trees in the 100 foot undisturbed buffer on the North-East corner of the property. The church will also incorporate an earth berm that is shown on the plan that will be topped by landscaped shrubs."
The eastern border of the property will be landscaped, with a concerted effort being made not to remove any trees from this area.
2.Junior/Senior High School or College --The church is willingto include in the bill ot assurance that we will not have aJunior/Senior High School or College at this location.
3.Montvale Drive --The church agrees with the residents thatMontvale Drive is not desirable and has not shown this street onthe PUD.
4.Water Retention --Water retention data has been sub mittedto the City Public Works Department. The retention pond will notonly handle this project's runoff, but will also reduce peak flows��rrently coming across the property. The church's full-timemaintance staff will insure that the lake is clean, control waterfluctuation levels in the lake, and spray the lake regularly tocontrol mosquitos.
2
TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Total Daily Trips
Church Develoarent Residential Developrrent Street Sunday Weekday Plan A Plan B Weekday Weekday
Hinson Road 3464 1267 4200* 3768* Montvale Road 733 458 650 1040 Vallev Park Drive 0 0 0 950
Total Trips Durinq Peak Hour
Church Develooment Residential Develoarent Sunday Weekday Plan A Plan B Street Weekday Weekday
Hinson Road 1400 127 420* 380*Montvale Road 205 46 65 100 Valley Park Drive 0 0 0 100
*Including traffic from Montvale Road and Valley Park Drive via Pebble BeachDrive or Beckingham Drive.
Assumptions:
1.Trip Gen erati on Rates from Institute Q.f Transportation Engineers .'.fi.iJ2Generation Reoort. 1983: or Institute .Q.f Transportation Enqineers ParkingGeneration Rerort. 1985,
2.Church development assumes fu l 1 development of 11 7 acre si te as shown onSite Plan •
3.Resi dential development assumes 80-acres of R-2 si ngle fami ly detachedhousing with a density of 3 dwelling units per acre (240 units); and
4.37 acres of MF-6 residenti al condominiums with a density of 6 dwelling unitsper acre (222 units).'
(
•
r-·--·----·'ii-
LEWIS ARCHITECTS INC.
Q PETERS & ASSOCL'\TF.S
£NGINE.l:RS, INC.
unt. lkoc:l. Arl1t11H
:;19 BISHOP STRUT
( (
.•· ,·l
.......... ,· -. -··-
SITE PLAN FIGURE
(
LEWIS ARCHITECTS INC.
Q PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEEJ.S, INC.
Llnlo Rod, A,k�,.,.,
(
819 BISHOP STREET ROCK , ARKANSAS
LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS
-----· -_ ....... ____ ---.:::---.�-=-==-----... -----·
24-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
TRAFFIC VO LUMES FOR CHURC H
DEVELOPMENT -SUNDAY FIGURE
(
LEWIS ARCKllECTS INC.
Q PETERS & ASSOCIJ\TF.S
£NGJNr£lS, tNC.
U1tlo llock, Arko111u
(
ROCK , ARKANSAS
819 BISHOP STREET • LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS
···-.. ----··---·· .. __ .......--. ·---· --�---··· -· ..... -.... _.·--·-·· --···,.. ,_
24-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR CHURCH
DEVELOPMENT -WEEKDAY FIGURE
( ,.
(
L � 800'> 80 --·----··-·r ··-.,
(
N
···------;;:;;;;:;.�.--· -----�-----· . ···------r------.. __ ---. ·---. ' l
24-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
IQ PETERS & ASSOCIATESENGINEEllS, INC.
L111l1 llod. 11, .......
TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEV ELOPMENT PLAN "A" -WEEKDAY FIGURE
(
(
90
Q PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEEllS, INC.
Uttlo a.cl,, AlunoH
(1
(
\.
----··----------------
... ·. --·-r��::::-:�-�� -==---_)
24-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
TRAF FIC VOLUMES FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN "8" -WEEKDAY FIGURE
(
December 17 , 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Wickard and Company i2 Innwood Circle Little Rock, AR 72211 224-0330
Gleneagle Preliminary
Southwest corner of Hunter's Glen Boulevard and Napa Valley Road
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith & Associates 401 Victory St reet Little Rock, Ar 72201 374-1666
AREA: 8.5 Acres No. of Lots: 32 Ft. New Street: 1,550
ZONING/EXISTING ZONING:
PROPOSED USES:
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1.
2.
A.
B.
c.
Building setback lines on corner lots.
Lot widths on corner lots.
Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area of mixed residential uses. The most predominant use, however, is single family detached. The land is vacant with elevations ranging from 500 feet near the northeastern corner to 555 feet.
Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing to plat 8.5 acres into 28 lots. Approximate lot size average is about 60' X 130'.
Engineering Comments
None.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 -Continued
D.Analysis
First of all, the applicant has not submitted a coverletter explaining the type of development proposed.Staff assumes that the project is for single familydevelopment with private drives. If this is the case, then support is given for the proposed concept; however, some design modifications are recommended. Building lines of 10 feet are shown, which are not adequate. At least 15-foot building lines should be shown on all corner lots.
E.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to resolution of issues raised.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant clarified the proposal as involving the single family development with public streets and private alleys. He agreed to conform to staff's suggestions. Engineering stated that they would provide comments at the meeting regarding the design of the proposed radii.
Water Works -An 8 inch and a 3 inch water main extension is required.
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, 1 absent and 1 abstention.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME: Ecumenical Retirement Center Addition (Tracts 2R, 4 and 5)
LOCATION: 2700 block of Aldersgate Road
ENGINEER: DEVELOPER:
E.R.C. Foundation c/o Tom Buford Marlar Engineering 5318 J.F.K. 300 Superior Federal Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 North Little Rock, AR 72116 753-1987
AREA: 16.3 Acres No. of Lots: 3 Tracts Ft. New Street: 0
ZON ING/EXISTING ZONING:
PROPOSED USES: Retirement Center
Point access VARIANCES REQUESTED:
A.
B.
c.
Ex isting Conditions
The site is located in an area that is used for single family development or as an elderly retirement center. The parcel involved is vacant.
Development Proposal
The applicant is asking to plat 16.3 acres for the purpose of construction Phase III of the Good Shepherd Ecumenical Retirement Center on Tract 4. A previous plat was approved in 1982 for Phase II. Lot 2R is a replat of Lot 2 of that plat, adding a land-locked piece, which is formed by Tract 4 to Tract 2.
There will be no new street dedication as the project will have access through Tract 1 of the same development. Tract 4 will have point contact with Shackleford Ford, but·vehicular access will be provided through the existing drives in Tract 1.
Engineering Comments
1.Show access to eac h of Lots 2R, 4 and 5.
2.Detention is required.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 -Continued
D.Analysis
The applicant is asked to provide more clarification onpoint contact with Aldersgate. Also, a plattedeasement to be shown on this plan is requested fromTract 4 through Tract 1 to Aldersgate.
E.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to show the existing access easement on the plat. He felt that additional revisions may be needed and agreed to get these to the staff in a timely fashion. The applicant was asked to research the reason for "point-contact" on Aldersgate Road.
Water Works -An 9 inch water main extension and on-site fire service will be required from the southeast corner of Tract 1.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A revised plan was submitted. made and passed by a vote of: A motion for approval was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Stewart & Associ ates Inc. 416 N. Pierce P.O. Box 7244Little Rock, AR 72217227-7534
Echo Valley Court Preliminary
West Little Rock (end of Echo Valley Drive)
ENGINEER:
Sam Davis 5301 W. 8th Little Rock, AR 72204 664-0324
AREA: 1.33 Acres No. of Lots: 5 Ft. New Street: 100
ZONING/EXISTING ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: Residential
None VARIANCES REQUESTED:
A.Existing Conditions
B.
c.
The site is on a wood ed tract located at the south endof a cul-de-sac in a developed area of single familyhomes. The project will abut Ludington Heights on thesouth, Colony West Park on the west, Echo Valley andManor Addition on the north and property owned byNewman McGee, Jr. on the east. A ditch exists on thesoutheastern portion of the property. Elevations rangefrom 440 feet to 446 feet.
Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting to plat 1.33 acres intofive lots for single family use. A ditch on theproperty is proposed to be relocated.
Engineering Comments
Highly sug gest that minimum floor elevations for Lots2, 3, 4 and 5 be a minimal of 2 feet above the bank ofthe ditch to the rear of each lot.
�
'-'.
'----'
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 -Continued
D.Analysis
Staff encourages the applicant to work closely with theCity engineers to alleviate any drainage problems.
E.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to work with the City Engineer on drainage.
Water Works -An 8 inch main extension is required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 17 , 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Otter Creek Development Co. Robert Light c/o Friday Law Firm First National Bank Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 376-2011
Otter Creek Industrial Park
Mabelvale West Road and I-30
ENGINEER:
Garver & Garver Engineers 11th and Battery Little Rock, AR 72203 376-3633
AREA: Acres No. of Lots: 49 Ft. New Street: 2900
ZONING/EXISTING ZONING: "I-2"
PROPOSED USES: Light Industrial
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Allow 1000-foot cul-de-sac
A.
B.
Ex isting Conditions
This site is located southwest of the City in an area that is developing as industrial and that is immediately east of Interstate 30 .
Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing a plat of 159.59 acres; however, a portion of the preliminary has been approved. The purpose of this submission, staff assumes, is to add a 41 acre site to the original plat for a large distribution facility.
C.Engineering Comments
D.
Will be given at the meeting.
Analysis
Staff would like for the applicant to clarify hisproposal. Is this revision solely for the purpose of the addition of the 41 acres? There is a possibility that floodplain and right-of-way dedication will be needed depending on the explanation given.
E.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 -Continued
SUBDIVISION COM MITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant stated that the revision was solely for the purpose of adding the 41 acres and that the rig ht-of-way or the interchange would be dedicated when the lots adjacent to it or platted or when the Otter Creek Mall is done.
Water Works -A 12-inch water main extension is required to serve the lots as platted. Relocation of a 16-inch main at the interchange may be required. An acreage charge of $150 per acre will apply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff reported that a revised plan had been submitted that provided a 50-foot access easement to the Affiliated Food Store site. Staff felt that the easement should be built as an industrial street. The Commission disagreed since it was not a means of primary access.
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME: Otter Creek Preliminary Phase VIII
LOCATION: Otter Creek Subdivision -Southwest intersection of Fawntree and Otter Creek
DEVELOPER/ENGINEER: Manes, Castin, Massie & McGetrick 2501 Willow North Little Rock, AR 758-1360
AREA: 1.38 Acres No. of Lo ts: 3 Ft. New Street: None
ZONING/EXISTING ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1.
A.
B.
c.
Waiver of lot width and lot length ratio on Lot 776 and 777.
Existing Conditions
This proposal is located in an area developed as single family. It is currently wooded and is abutted by a drainage and utility easement/common open space on the west. Collector streets abut the north and east.
Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing to plat 1.38 acres into three lots for single family use. A waiver of sidewalks along the existing streets is requested due to the fact that sidewalks have been constructed along the rear lot lines of the lines in a previous phase of construction. A waiver of the lot width and lot length ratio on Lots 776 and 777 is requested due to the unique configuration of the existing parcel of land.
Engineering Comments
The two northern lots are close to a floodplain1 therefore, check with the City Engineer's Office before construction for the most current floor elevation requirements.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 -Continued
D.Analysis
Staff has no problems with the request for waivers.They are viewed: (1) a continuation of an internalpedestrian walkway system and (2) necessary due to lotconfiguration. The applicant is advised, however, that30 foot building lines are required on residential lotsthat abut collector streets.
E . Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed by the Committee. No problems with the waiver or proposal was found, provided the applicant revise the plan to reflect 30-foot building lines.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed, provided that the plan is revised to reflect a 30-foot building line. The vote: 9 ayes, O noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Napa Valley Venture #2 Financial Center Little Rock, AR
Hunter's Glen "Long-Form PRD" (Z-4566)
West end of Hunter's Glen Boulevard
ARCHITECT/APPLICANT:
Brooks Jackson Architect , Inc. Cantrell Place Bldg. -Suite 320 2311 Biscayne Drive Little Rock, AR 72207 227-8700
AREA: 20 Acres No. of Lots: 1 Ft. New Street: 0
ZONING/EXISTING ZONING: PRO
PROPOSED USES: Apartments
A.Development Objectives
(1)To provide a high quality multifamily development thatwill consist of a variety of living units and buildingsthat are compatible with the surrounding area.
(2)To exceed the minimum landscaping requirements.
(3)To provide a 50 foot open space area adjacent to singlefamily property.
B.Proposal
1.The construction of 298 units on 20 acres.
2.Unit Breakdown:
TYPE SIZE
lBR/lBA 715 lBR/lBA 810 2BR/l 3/4BA 950 2BR/2BA 1090 2BR/2BA 1190 3BR/2BA 1425 ClubhouseTotal
NO. OF UNITS
36
42 100 48 52 20
298
TOTAL AREA
25,740 34,020 95,000 52,320 61,880 28,500 5,000 302,460
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff's recommendation was stated as approval of the revised plan that included a request for abandonment of the portion of Hunter's Glen Blvd. The applicant had a problem with the notices, but the Commission decided to hear the case after seeing a show of hands of those that had not received formal notice. There were eight people that were not notified.
Mr. Steve Cleary represented the developer, Mr . Melvin Bell. He gave an overview of the project and some of the history of the site. A meeting with some of the residents of the neighborhood had been held; however, no final agreement had been reached. He felt that most of his opposers were from Marlowe Manor to the west, even though vehicles would not be funneled into that area. Henk Koornstra, Traffic Engineer, felt there was no problem with traffic.
Several persons spoke in support of the neighborhood. Mr. Scott Levinger, an attorney, represented Mr. Bob Wickard, Marlowe Manor and Countrywood. He was opposed to the use of the project and stated existing traffic problems. A petition with 240 signatures was presented.
Mr. Garland Benz, a Marlowe Manor resident, felt that a 1981 ordinance (14,122) authorizing a previous PUD on the site was sold to the property owners with several restrictions that should be taken into consideration. They were: (1) no more than 112 single family units, (2) no single unit shall be smaller than 1,250 square feet, (3) average unit size should be smaller than 1,450 square feet and (4) for owner occupants only.
Mr. Bob Wickard, developer, contractor and resident of Countrywood, felt that this was spot-zoning and not in keeping with the neighborhood. He felt that the density and three story height of the buildings encroached on the privacy of the residents.
Mr. Tom Oliver of 1608 Jennifer Drive felt that this was a radical departure from the previous agreement on density in the area.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 -Continued
Mr. Allen Gold of Ridgehaven Road on the south side of the project questioned the Commission on its hearing of the item even though one entire boundary of the project did not receive legal notice. Another resident stated opposition to the project in behalf of the Marlowe Manor Property Owner's Association.
The applicant felt that Mr. Wickard had the option of developing this land as condos, but didn't. He also felt that this project was no different in the amount of areas devoted to building and pavement than the Gleneagle project. He asked staff to speak on the density.
Staff pointed out that the plan was generally compatible with the area, and the applicant had done an excellent job designing the project so as to protect the abutting single family areas.
Mr. Cleary requested deferral of the project because of the notice problem. The neighborhood representatives objected since they felt that the request was a technical maneuver to delay opposition. Several neighborhood residents had a problem with the next meeting date due to an inability to be present.
No motion for deferral was made. A motion for approval was made, but failed to pass by a vote of: 0 ayes, 7 noes, 1 absent and 3 abstentions.
The reasons for denial were stated as incompatibility with the surrounding areas, density, and type of housing units proposed.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
D orothy Duckett 9502 Warden Road N.Little Rock, AR 72116834-0575
Welch Street "Short-Form PRD" (Z-4467-A)
1011 Welch Street
ENGINEER/SURVEYOR:
Dillinger Incorporated P.O. Box 9425 Little Rock, AR 72219 562-1998
AREA: .18 Acres
EXISTING ZONING:
No. of Lots: 1 Ft. New Street: 0
PROPOSED ZONING:
PROPOSED USES:
A.Pro posal
"R-4"
"PRD"
Tri-plex
1.To construct a two story tri-plex on a lot 50 x 158feet.
2.The provision of five parking spaces.
B.Eng inering Comments
None.
c.Anal ysis
This items was originally reviewed as a rezoningrequest. The Commission recommended that it be·reviewed as a "PRD." Staff requests that the applicantrevise the parking spaces and get traffic's ap proval.
D.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
··�
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The proposal was discussed. Staff modified its position to require 25-foot striped parking spaces off the alley. The applicant agreed to the request.
Water Works -An acreage charge of $150 per acre will apply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
\, . ....-,
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME: Riverwalk Village Apartments "On The River" Tract A-3 Riverdale Addition Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Riverfront Drive at Turtle Creek Lane
DEVELOPER:
David Carl 12634 W. Ella Houston, TX 77077 71 3-688-9191
ENGINEER:
Garver and Garver 11th and Battery Little Rock, AR 37 6-3633
AREA: 10.9 5 Acres No. of Lots: 1 Ft. New Street: 0
EXISTING ZONING:
PROP OSED ZONING:
PROPOSED USES:
A.Proposal
"0-2"
"MF-24"
Apartments
1.The construction of 248 apartment units wit h 14buildings and one office on 10.95 acres.
2.Project data:
3.
Density Building -24 units per acre-6/3 story buildings-8/2 story buildingsRecreational -2 pools -4 spas-1 tennis courtParking -419 provided
Unit Breakdown
Type # of Units Size
A 64 668 B 60 740
C 48 688 D 32 1,048 E 32 998 F 12 1,108 248
Total Area
42,752 44,400 33,024 33,536 31,936 13,296 198 ,944 S.F.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 -Continued
B.
c.
4.Handicapped units -22
Engineering Comments
No adverse comments.
Analysis
A related application for rezoning has been filed on this tract. The applicant is asked to: (1) get a permit for the Corps of Engineers for the location of the deck over the levee; (2) show the sump pump area; (3)revise parking stalls backing into entry and checkwith Traffic Department; (4) provide another entryway;and (5) provide landscaping plan to break up areas ofelongated parking lots. Staff feels it may be betterto put the tennis courts where there are buildingslocated near the sump pump area.
D.Staff Recommendation
Approval of the proposed density if la ndscapingprovided.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
A revised plan was submitted that eliminated the sump pump. The applicant was requested to check with Traffic on the entrances to Riverdale and the design of parking and to locate dumpsters of the plan.
Ot her revisions to the plan include:
Land area: 10.95 acres Total building square feet: 203,015 square feet Total building footprint: 85,667 square feet (not including patios) Building coverage: Parking required: Parking provided:
18 percent 378 spaces 408 spaces (8 7 compact, 321 full size)
Buildings 1-6 3 story buildings Buildings 7-14 -2 story buildings One story building -office/clubhouse
15 buildings -252 units + office/clubhouse
----
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 -Contin ued
Unit Type No.
A 64 B 74 C 64 D 32 E 16 F 12
sguare Foot Total sg:uare
678 43,392 762 48,768 698 44,672 1,048 33,536 998 15,968 1,146 13,752
Subtotal 200,088
Office/clubhouse 2,927
Total 203,015
Water Works -On-site fire protection will be required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Foot
The applicant was present. There were objectors to the rezoning present (see item F for further details). Staff recommended approval of the site plan, subject to specifying the location of the dumpsters. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Earl Noble 3715 S. University Little Rock, AR 72204
REQUEST:
Noble Si te Plan Review
3501 Mabelvale Pike
ENGINEER:
Finley Williams 210 Victory Little Rock, AR
To construct a new building (60 x 100 feet) on a site containing a nonconforming residence.
AREA: 1 Acre
EXISTING ZONING:
PROPOSED USES:
Proposal:
No. of Lots: 1
"I-2"
Industrial
Ft. New Street: 0
A.
1.The construction of a building approximately 60 x 100feet on 10.95 acres for industrial use.
2.
B.
Parking will consist of 21 spaces.
Engineering Comments
None at this time.
C.Analysis
Staff has no problem with the request.
D.Staff Recommendation
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant stated that he wished to rent the proposed building to an industrial use that conforms to the present zoning. Also, that he wanted to make the minor revisions to the plan before the Public Hearing. Engineering agreed with the applicant that right-of-way had already be given, but requested street improvements. Some comments from the Corps of Engineers is also needed.
·"'-'.December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 -Continued
Water Works -An acreage charge of 150 feet per acre will apply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Southwest Hospital Site Plan Review (Z-4372 -A)
The Intersection of Mabelvale West Road and Otter Creek East Blvd.
Southwest Hospital/Hospital Designers Inc., Roy P. Poggianti
To construct a three story hospital (115,696 square fe et total), a one story fa cility that surrounds the ho spital on three sides and 269 parking spaces on 26.75 acres of land that is zoned "O-2."
ANALYSIS:
This application meets all the major criteria of an "O-2" district site plan wit h the exception of buffers. The site plan needs to be revised to reflect a 25 foot undistu rbed buffer adjacent to all boundary streets as re quired in the "O-2" di strict.
CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Various issues that were discussed at pr evious meetings have not been satisfactorily resolved in this submittal. The applicant needs to meet with the City Engineering staff immediately.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan that includes the required 25 foot undisturbed buffer on all boundary streets: and (2) meet with the City Engineering Staff to resolve all engineering issues .
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff rec ommendations. The City Engineering Staff stated that there were some design cr iteria, dedicati on requirements, and various other engineering issues that needed to be addressed. The applicant agreed to comply. The staff stated that the Waterworks required an on-site fire
Decem ber 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 -Continued
protec tion sy stem and that the Sewer Department asked for additional information regar ding capacity requ irement s.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objec tors. The staff stated that all ou tstanding issues ha ve been resolved. The Commis sion then voted 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 ab sent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Su b division Commit tee, and agreed to the applicant.
\ ... ___ ...
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME: Markham Street Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit (Z-1701-A)
LOCATION: The SW Corner of Wedgewood and West Markham Street (9701 West Markham Street)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Markham Street Baptist Church/ Rex Crane
PROPOSAL:
To remove four existing st ructures (8,800 square feet), to construct a two story classroom fa cility (34,272 square feet), a si ngle st ory fellowship hall (4,000 square feet) and to construct an additional 82 parking sp aces.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
2.
3.
4.
Adjacent to an arterial (Markham Street) and tworesidential streets (Wedgewood Road andMeadowbrook Drive).
Compatability with Neighborhood
The church is an existing use. The church issurrounded by si ngle family uses wi th office use to thenorth and a commer cial use located to the west. Thechurch is representative of the mixed use area that isdeveloping along the Markham Street frontage.
On-Site Drives and Parking
The existing facility has access from west MarkhamStreet and Wedgewood Drive. The proposal co ntains 80existing parking spaces (the nor th si de ofMarkham Street, the west si de of Meadowbrook Drive).Future parking plans inc lude the construction of 147parking spaces east of Wed gewood and 25-30 spaces on the so uthwest portion of the existing site. Planscalled for the elimination of the parking area north ofWest Markham Street.
Screening and Buffers
No landscape pl an has been su bmitted.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 -Continued
5.Analysis
The church use is an existing use in a mixed use ar ea.The staff feels that the renovat ions could be animprovement. The applicant ne eds to su bmit a landscape plan illustrating how the single family area to the south will be screened.
6.City Engineering Comments:
The City Engineers request that the applicant meet withthem to discuss reconstruction of West Markham Street(tapering of West Markham Street -50 feet} beginningeast of the proposed driv eway.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit alandscape plan: and (2) comply with City Engineering requirements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations. The staff st ated that Arkansas Power and Light had served no tice that relocation of service would be requ ired. The Committee also asked the applicant to meet with any neighbors that might objec t to their pro posal prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The applicant was also told to file a replat of the existing building line.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objec tors. The Commission voted 9 ayes, O noes, 2 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, re viewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME: Cl overdale Assembly of God Church Conditional Use Permit (Z-4237-A)
LOCATION: The SE Corner of Frenchmans Lane and West 83rd Street (6111 West 83rd Street)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Cloverdale Assembly of God Church/Lee Lemon
PROPOSAL:
To receive approval for a re vised conditional use permit that includes moving the playground from the West 83rd Street area to a new lot that has been included in this proposal. The new lot will contain additional parking (43 spaces) and a bus garage. The applicant is also re questing two driveways on West 83rd Street and that Hinkson Road be made a two way street. The property is zoned "R-2"/C.U.P.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
2.
3.
4.
5.
Adjacent to Cloverdale Elementary School in a mixed usearea.
Compatability with Neighborhood
This si te is compatible with the surrounding area.
On-Site Drives and Parking
The proposal asks for one additional dr ive onWest 83rd Street and adds 43 additional parking spacesto the originally approved plan (total parking sp acesapproximately 275).
Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
Analysis
The st aff supports the revised cond itional use permit.The applicant needs to submit a revised si te plan thatincludes the dimensions of all buildings and alandscape plan.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 -Continued
6.City Eng ineering Comments:
(1)Reduce the existing driveway on West 83rd Street to 15feet in width for approximately 25 feet and sign it as one-way, in.
(2)Reduce access points to 2 on Hinkson Road.
*NOTE -The applicants need to pursue the changing ofHinkson Road to a two-way street as a noncommis sion matterwith the Engineering staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan that includes the dimensions of all structures and incorporates the changes req uired by the City Engineering St aff; (2) comply with landscape re quirements; and (3) comply wit h City Engineering comments 1 and 2.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to co mply wi th staff recommendations. The Waterworks stated that an on-site fi re protection system would be required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and agreed to by the applicant.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME: South Highland Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit (Z-4584)
LOCATION: The NW Corner of Dover Drive and West 36th Street (10200 West 36th Street)
OWNER/APPLICANT: South Highland Baptist Church/ Burt Taggert and Associates, Steve Barker
PROPOSAL:
To construct ad ditions (in two pha ses): Phase I contains a two story educational building (14,045 square feet) and will increase the existing sa nctuary capacity to 392 and the parking ar ea to 82 spaces; and Phase II which will contain a new 15,000 square foot sanctuary (one story -capacity 1,000) (steeple -90 feet in height) and expand the pa rking area to 217 spaces. The property is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1.Site Location
2.
3.
4.
5.
Located on an arterial (West 36th Street) and aresidential st reet (Dover Drive).
Compatability with Neighborhood
The current si te is compatible wit h the surroundingarea.
On-Site Drives and Parking
This site has one existing access (Dover Drive) and onefuture access (West 36th Street). Total parking willbe 217 spaces.
Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
Analysis
The staff has no objections to this proposal. Theapplicant needs to be ad vised that a landscape planwill be required.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 -Continued
6.City Engineering Comments
No adverse comments. All pa rking and lands cape requirements to be applied.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply wit h staff recommendations. The Water Works stated that an on-site fire protection system may be required. The staff stated that Arkansas Power and Light ha d said that service relocation would be required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no ob jec tors. The Commission voted 10 ayes , 0 noes , 1 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, revie wed by the Subdivision Commit tee and agreed to by the applicant.
·-._...
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME: St. Theresa Catholic Church Conditional Use Permit (Z-4586)
LOCATION: The South Side of Baseline Road West of Geyer Springs Road (6311 1/2 Baseline Road)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Diocese of Little Rock/ Philip Hargrave, and Leo Hiegal, Architect
PROPOSAL:
To construct a one story educational classroom facility (13,622 square feet) on 7.381 acres of land that is zoned "R-2." (Church and sc hool facilities are currently in place.)
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Site Location
Adjacent to an ar terial street (Baseline Road).
Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is surrounded by commerical uses to the north and east, vacant land to the west, and single family uses to the south. This site has a large vacant area between the church facility and the si ngle family located to the south. The use is compatible with the surrounding ar ea.
On-Site Drives and Parking
This site is se rved by three access drives on Baseline Road, and contains 163 parking spaces.
Screening and Buf fers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
Analysis
The st aff has no objections to this proposal. The applicant ne eds to be advised that they will be required to meet City landscape requirements.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 -Continued
6.City Engineering Comm ents
(1)Dedicate drainage easement west of the new add ition.
(2)Detention is required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) meet City landscape requirements: and (2) comply with City Engineering Comments 1 and 2.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations. The Waterworks stated that on -site fire protection may be required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, an d agreed to by the applicant.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15
NAME: Mallard Building Line Waiver
LOCATION: East Palisades Drive
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Rod Mallard Olan D. Wilson 7423 w. 12th 210 S. Victory Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 72201 664-2090 375-7222
REQUEST:
Encroachment into an established building setback area.
A.
B.
c.
Existing Conditions
This pr oject is located in an area composed of single family homes.
Development Proposal
This is a pr oposal for modification of an existing building line to accommodate a proposed ca rport. Th e eaves of the carport will set back 4 feet fr om the property line and the columns will set back 8 feet.
Engineering Comments
None.
D.Analysis
Staff is unwilling to support the application as filed:however, support will be given to a single wide ca rportwith no more than a 2 foot or 3 foot extension beyondthe building line. Also, sta ff recommends the pa vingof a single la ne only, instead of the whole frontyard.
E.Staff Recommendation
Denial of the application as filed.
-�
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that the waiver was necessary due to a dire need for off street parking, since persons in the area did a lot of entertaining. He was asked to notify his neighbors.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. The Commission decided that the application should be deferred or withdrawn depending upon what contact with the applicant revealed. The motion was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
NAME:
LOCATION:
McDonald Building Line Waiver
7424 Grace Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Steve McDonald, Jr. 7424 Grace Road Little Rock, AR
G.A. Denim 718 w. Markham Little Rock, AR
REQUEST:
To encroach into an area established by a platted building setback.
A.
B.
c.
Existing Conditions
This site is in an area developed as single family homes.
Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting to enroach 15 feet into an area establi shed by a 25 foot building line for the construction of a garage. He feels that the encroachment is necessary to allow construction that will protect him from the elements and house his van, which is equipped for handicapped persons.
Engineering Comments
None.
D.Analysis
Staff is unwilling to support any enclosed st ructure atthe intersections due to visibility problems. Theapplicant mu st justify a need for additional garage.Perhaps a single garage on the north side of theproperty behind the storage area mi ght resolve theproblem.
E.Staff Recommendation
Denial of the application as filed.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Engineering felt that there was a possible sight distance problem. Further information will be provided at the Public Hearing. The applicant was asked to notify his neighbors residing on Lots 290, 295, 240 and 247.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant and staff worked out an agreement where the garage would encroach no more than 13 feet into the building line. A motion for approval was made and passed, subject to: (1) notification of the neighbors and (2) the new agreement. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
December 17, 1985
Item No. 17 -Z-3 862-A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Parkway Village, Inc.
Don Chambers
Rock Creek Parkway and Parkway Drive
Rezone from "PRD" to "MF-12" and "C-3"
Multifamily and Commercial Developments
9.1 acres ("C-3" -1.7 acres and "MF-12" -7.4 acres)
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North So uth East West
-Vacant, Zoned "MF-12"-Open Space, Zoned "R-2"-Multifamily, "MF-18"-Multifamily, Zoned "PRD"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The request is to rezone a nine-acre tract to "MF-12"and "C-3" for multifamily development and anunspecified commercial use. The proposal is to re zone1.7 acres which has frontage on the Rock Creek Parkwayto "C-3" and the balance, 7.4 acres to "MF-12." Theproperty north of the Rock Creek Parkway will takeaccess off Parkway Drive. (Parkway Drive is alignedwith Parkway Place.) The site is located in the RockCreek Parkway area and part of a large pi ece of landthat was zoned "PRD" about three years ago for theParkway Village facility. The retirement center iscompleted for the most part and is a mix of attachedresidential units. The land to the east and north iszoned for multifamily development with a project underconstruction on the site to the east. The multifamilydensity in the area ranges from 12 to 18 units per acrefor proposed and completed projects. A developmentpattern has been established over the years wi thmultifamily uses north of the Rock Creek Parkway andthe nonresidential zoning south of the parkway. A highpercentage of the existing zoning was acc omplishedthrough the Rock Creek Plan which was adopted when thearea came into the City.
December 17, 1985
Item No. 17 -Continued
2.The site is vacant and wooded. There are some gradedifferences on the property which could place someconstraints on certain types of development.
3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.There is no documented neighborhood position on thesite. The property was reclassified to "PRD" aboutthree years ago for a large retirement project.
7.Because of the land use patterns and the plan for thearea, staff supports an "MF-12" rezoning for the entiretract and no "C-3." The Suburban Development Planshows only multifamily use north of the parkway in theimmediate vicinity and staff believes that type ofenvironment should be maintained. Recent amendments tothe adopted plan did not affect this area but ratherlocations at the east and west ends of the parkway.Based on the amount of vacant commercial land just tothe south of the property under consideration, thereappears to be no demand or need for additional "C-3"sites. One of the primary goals of the original RockCreek Plan was to control development along the Parkwayand that should be enforced by denying the "C-3"request. There is an adequate amount of commercialland in the area that is accessible to most of theresidents that live along the Rock Creek Parkway.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of "MF-12" but denial of the "C-3" request. Staff suggests that "MF-12" reclassification for the entire tract as being more appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Don Chambers, was present. There were no objectors. Staff informed the Commission that the owners had requested to delete the area west of Parkway Drive from the application. Mr. Chambers said that was correct and went on to discuss the proposal for "MF-12" and "C-3." He said that the "C-3" location was desirable because of being very accessible. There was a long discussion about the area
December 17, 1985
Item No. 17 -Continued
and other commercial locations. Mr. Chambers then agreed to amending the request to "MF-12" for the entire tract east of the street. The Planning Commission then voted on the amended application. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (David Jones}.
.. -.
December 17, 1985
Item No. 18 -Z-4092-A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Robert M. Cearley, Jr. and Chester D. Phillips
Robert N. Cearley, Jr.
Fairview Road and Pleasant Ridge Road
Rezone fr om "MF-12" to "0-3"
Office Development
6.2 acres
vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Vacant, Zoned "PRD"-Single Family, zoned "R-2"-Vacant, "MF-6 11
-Vacant, Zoned "PRD"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The request before the Planning Commission is to rezonethe Cedar Branch Subdivision from "MF-12" to "O-3" foran office use. The property is platted for low den sitymultifamily development, but all lots are vacant. Thesite is situated at the northwest corner of Fairviewand Pleasant Ri dge Roads in an area that ha s a mix ofzoning and land use. The zoning includes "R-2," "PRD,11 "MF-6" and "O-3" with primary land use being singlefamily residential. There are some nonconformingcommercial uses to the southeast and a high percentageof the land is still vacant including an existing "O-3"tract. The immediate area appears to be better su itedfor a mix of residential uses with single family to thesouth and higher densities to the north of PleasantRidge Road. This is due to the property's locationwhich does not have a great amount of visibility whichis needed for a viable office development.
2.The site is vacant, wooded and increases in el evationfrom east to west.
\ .......
December 17, 1985
Item No. 18 -Continued
3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.There is no documented neighborhood position on thesite. The property was rezoned to "MF-12" in October of 1983.
7.Staff's position is that the property is better suitedfor multifamily development and does not support the"0-3" request because the property is too isolated foran office project and the request is in conflict withthe adopted plan. The property is removed from morevisible nonresidential locations and does not lenditself to office development because of that factor andthe existing development pattern. The SuburbanDevelopment Plan identifies an area to the eastprimarily between Woodland Heights and Rodney Parhamfor office development. Staff views that as being amore desirable location. The Highway 10 Study whichwas never formally adopted by the City Board ofDirectors also recommended a multifamily use for thissite with office development being to the east andsoutheast. The existing "MF-12" is compatible with thearea and should be maintained.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "0-3" request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff informed the Planning Commission that the owner/applicant had submitted a written request for a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the January 28, 1986, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 17, 1985
Item No. 19 -Z-4569
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Exi9ting Use:
Warden Motors, Inc.
Brad Walker
I-30 Fr ontage Road and WarehouseRoad -Northwest Corner
Rezone from "R-2" to "C-4"
Auto Dealership
6.85 acres
Auto Dealership
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Vacant, Zoned "R-2"-Interstate Right-of-Way, Zoned "R-2"-Commercial, zoned "R-2," "C-3" and "C-4"-Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-4"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone an existing auto dealership, a nonconforming use, from."R-2" to "C-4." The site is located along I-30 in an area that has a mix of zoning. A majority of the properties that have I-30 frontage are zoned either "C-3," "C-4," or "I-2." The land to the north is "R-2," and some of it is still undeveloped. The rezoning is compatible with the area, and staff supports the request. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the location for strip development and "C-4" is an appropriate reclassification for that type of land use pattern.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "C-4" as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the request as filed. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 17, 1985
Item No. 20 -Z-4581
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Lois Harber and Troy Hood
Same
12903 I-30
Rezone from "R-2" to "C-4"
Auto Sales and Service
10.8 acres
vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Interstate Right-of-Way, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "R-2"-Commercial, zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request to rezone approximately 11 acres to "C-4" for auto sales and service. The property is located on the south side of I-30 east of the count y line where a majority of the land is still vacant. Recent rezonings in the area have been for "C-4" to allow us es si milar to the one being proposed with this request. The Otter Creek District Plan identifies the location as mixed co mmercial/industrial so the "C-4" rezoning is comp atible with the plan, and st aff supports the request.
One item that will have to be resolved prior to the property being rezoned is the status of the floodway that cr osses the southeast corner of the si te. With other rezoning proposals in the area, the City has requir ed the landowners to dedicate any land that is in the floodway. A recommendation concerning the dedication will be developed prior to the public hearing. Also a high percent age of the proper ty is in the floodplain so those requirements will have to be met for any construction that takes place on the tract.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-4" rezoning.
December 17, 1985
Item No. 20 -z-4581
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicants, Loi s Harber and Troy Hood, we re present. There we re no objectors. Staff discussed the floodway issue and said that the City's position was to rezone it to "OS" and that the ow ners dedicate the floodway to the Cit y. There wa s some discussion about the floodway and flood plain. Both Ms. Harber and Mr. Hood indicated that they agreed wit h the staff's recommendation. Staff infor med the ap plicants that they ne eded to co ntact the City's Engineering staff regarding the floodway issue. The Commission voted to recommend approval of "C-4" and "OS" for that portion of the tract in the floodway. The vote: 8 ayes, O noe s and 3 ab sent.
December 17, 1985
Item No. 21 -z-4582
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
B.L. Murphree
Same
1418 Chester
Rezone from "C-3" to "R-4"
Duplex
0.16 acres
Duplex (nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North -Single Family, Zoned "C-3"South -Commercial, Zoned "C-3"East -Single Family, Zoned "C-3"West -Single Family, Zoned "R-4"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The property is currently occupied by a nonconforming duplex with single utility meters. The request is to rezone the lot to "R-4" to allow the meters to be split, and this will place the duplex in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. The property was zoned to commercial a num ber of years ago through an urban renewal project for a neighborhood shopping area, which has never really been established. All the lots on the west side of Chester are occupied by residential units with the exception of the lot directly to the south which has a commercial use on it. Residential use of commercially zoned lots in the area is very common and appears to be more appropriate for a majority of the lots. The "R-4" rezoning is compatible with the area, and staff supports the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "R-4" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the application as filed. The vote: 10 ayes, O noes and 1 absent.
December 17, 1985
Item No. 22 -Z-4585
Owner: Charles A. Johnson, Jr.
Same Applicant:
Location: 624 East 21st
Request: Rezone from "R-4" to "C-3"
Purpose: Office and Commercial
0.17 acres Size:
Existing Use: Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North -Single Family, zoned "R-4"South -Church, Zoned "R-4"East -Single Family, Zoned "O-3"West -Single Family, Zoned "R-4"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The request is to rezone the lot to "C-3" for a smallreal estate office and either a beauty sa lon orday-care center. The property is located at thenorthwest corner of Bragg and East 21st, one block westof I-30. The neighborhood is zoned primarily "R-4"with "O-3" across Bragg and "C-3" further to the eastand to west along East 21st. The uses includeresidential and nonresidential with a large publicfacility, a job training center east of the property in question. North and south of East 21st, theresidential character of the neighborhood appears to bevery stable with almost no encroachment ofnonresidential zoning. Along East 21st, there is a mixof both land use and zoning with a 1-1/2 block "C-3"strip to the west that was esta blished years agothrough a plan. The goal of the plan was to concentrate the commercial zoning at one location andcreate a neighborhood center. That pattern has no tbeen disrup ted with the exception of "O-3" and "C-3" to the east between Bragg and Vance Streets.
2.The site is a typical residential lot with a si nglestructure on it.
December 17, 1985
Item No. 22 -Continued
3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agen cies as of this writing.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.Staff has received some calls in opposition to therezoning. There is no documented hi story on the si te.
7.The need for additional commercial zoning in theneighborhood is not present because of theunderutilized commercial area to the west where somebuildings are vacant, and the 1-1/2 block st rip is amore appropriate location for commercial uses. Becauseof the existing "C-3" area and the potential foradverse impacts on the ne ighborhood, staff does notsupport the rezoning request. In ce rtain nei ghborhoodssuch as this one, commercial uses and zoning sho uld berestricted to spec ific areas. and not be allowed to beestablished at locations based solely on rezoningapplications. Staff feels that a "C-3" rezon ing isinappropriate for this corner but recognizes the si tehas probably been affected by its location and ha s somenonresidential possibilities. Because of the usesmentioned by the applicant, staff su ggests that an "0-1" rezoning is more desirable for the pro perty."0-1" would allow the applicant to use the si te for theproposed uses and also have less of an impact on theneighborhood. The Zoning Ordinance states that "thearea standards provided in the 11 0-1" Districtanticipates that office uses will be located inestablished areas of the City and in cl ose pro ximity to apartments and other residential uses.' Based on this,an "0-1" rezoning appears to be compatible wit h thesurrounding neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATOIN:
Staff recommends approval of an 11 0-1 11 rezoning and not "C-3" as requested.
December 17, 1985
Item No. 22 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Charles Jo hnson, was present. There were 6 to 7 objectors in attendance. Mr. Johnson addressed the Commission. He indicated that he wanted a "C-3" zoning because there were more options available and thought it was a reasonable lo cation for a nonresidential rezoning and us e. Barbara Phillips then spoke in opposition to the request. She read a petition which was presented to the Planning Commission and co ntained approximately 67 signatu res. Ms. Phillips said that rez oning would cr eate parking problems for Bragg Street and it would impact re sidential properties in the neig hb or hood. She went on to sa y that the area was a good st able si ngle family ne ighborhood. Tr uman Mitchell indicated his opposition to any re zoning proposal. He said that there were too many problems with the lo cation and it should be maintained as a residential property. Mr. Jo hnson then spoke again. He sa id that some of the immediate neig hbors had no problems with the rezon ing and agreed to amending the request to "0-1" as recommended by staff. Sa ndy Rogers opposed the rezoning and made some comments about children in the area. She also said parking was already a problem. Mr. Jo hnson said that the property could accommodate the parking. There were some additional comments made about the various is sues. The Commission then voted on the "0-1" request as amended. The vote: 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. The rezoning was denied.
December 17, 1985
Item No. 23 -Z-4579
Owner: Daniel K. and Irma L. Carrigan
Irma L. Carrigan Applicant:
Location: 5708 Meadowlark Drive
Spec ial Use Permit Request:
Purpose: Da y-Care Family Home (10 children or less)
Size: 0.41 acres
Existing Use: Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request before th e Planning Commission is to grant approval of a special use permit to allow a day-care family home. The Zoning Ordinance defines a day-care family home as:
Any facility which provides family-like child care in the care giver's own family residence in accordance with provisions of licensing procedures esta blished by the state of Arkansas and which serves no more th an 10 children inclu ding the care giver's own children. Said facility must ob tain a special use permit in all zoning ordinance where day-care centers are not al lowed by right.
The special use permit process is to provide a method of control if a certain type of land use is not requiring a full review but some re view which allows for determination of appropriateness within a neighborhood.
Based on a site visit of 5708 Meadowlark Drive, it appears that the proposed use is reasonable for the location and should have mi nimal impact on the surrounding properties. The lot is a little over .4 acre in size so it has adequate yard area and a fairly long driveway which allows for a satisfactory drop off point. Restricting the use to 10
December 17, 1985
Item No. 23 -Continued
children or less the street will be able to accommodate the slight increase in traffic flow.
Staff feels the proposed use is appropriate for the site and supports the special use permit request. As of this writing, staff has not received any adverse comments from affected neighbors.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the special use permit as requested. The vote: 10 ayes, O noes and 1 absent.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24 -Street Right-of-Way Abandonment
NAME: Kingsrow Drive Partial Parallel Closure
LOC ATION: North of Cantrell Road
Lois R. Co ulson OWNER/APPLICANT:
REQUEST: To abandon an 11-foot parallel strip along an 80-foot existing dedicated right-of-way in order to join with an existing service station site
STAFF REVIEW:
1.
2.
3.
Public Need for this Right-of-Way
The existing 80-foot right-of-way was established in the 1950s in order to provide for a sufficiently wide entrance to a very large subdivision lying to the north. This street is the only point of adequate access to a large segment of the Pine Valley Kingwood community. The 80-foot right-of-way is in excess of that normally required for a collector street except that in this instance a designed intersection with left and right turn lanes may be required in the future if this intersection is signalized.
Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan does not provide for a listing of this street as other than a residential street. However, it has existed as an unspecified street on the City's plan for at least 25 years.
Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
The only deficient right-of-way abutting this petitioner's property is Cantrell Road. It is our understand ing at this time that additional right-of-way dedication has been requested by the Public Works Department in their review of the building permit.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24 -Continued
4.Characteristics of the Right-of-Way Te rrain
The existing right-of-way and physical improvements areof moderate to flat gr ade in the area of petitioner'sproperty. The street does, however, fall sharply tothe north and east immediately beyond this site.
5.Development Potential
If abandoned, this narrow strip of land would serveonly the use of the adjacent gasoline retailer. Itwould possibly provide some additional on-streetparking or maneuver space for that use.
6.Neighbor hood Land Use and Effect
7.
At this time, no adverse effect is evident except thatthe potential for pavement widening to accom modatebetter traffic movement.
Neighborhood Position
There has been no response from the neighborhood atthis time.
8.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
The replies from our contact agencies indicate thatutility companies desire retention of this strip forutility easement purposes. We are also advised thatsome utility poles are located in the right-of-way insuch a fashion as they would have to be moved if thissegment of right-of-way became private property.
9.Reversionary Rights
Inasmuch as this is a parallel abandonment, theabandoned portion would revert to the owner on the westside which is this applicant.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24 -Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff in it s re view of this proposal and a recently filed Board of Adjustment variance application ha ve determined that the development proposal as a pa ckage is inappropriate. That includes this abandonment. We would not encourage the loss of this right-of-way given the circumstances of this access point to a large re sidential area. This petition is one of very few of this type whic h has been filed in recent years. Most of these kinds of petitions deal with returning excess rig ht-of-way in those instances where the adjacent properties are physically impacted by drainage utilit y ea sements or an excess ta king in the beginning. In those instances where staff has supported the abandonment of a pa rallel se gment, it has no t been on a collector or arterial street. In this in stance, we see no benefit to the public to trade off 11' of this street to gain right-of-way on Cantrell Road. We view the dedication on Cant rell Road as a conventional requirement of development. The staff, theref ore, re commends denial of this petition.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. The Planning staff offered it s recommendation and additional commentary on the proposal in cluding in formation concerning an allied Board of Adjustment application. The applicant was present, Mr. Coulson, who offered justification for his proposal. A lengthy discussion of the issued followed. It was suggested by Planning Commissioners that with the appearance of redevelopment of this property, that per haps it would be appropriate to defer this pe tition until su ch time as a si te plan could be offered whic h would be justification for the abandonment. A motion was then made to defer this it em to January 14, 1986. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 25
NAME: Goodyear Conditional Use Permit (Z-4578-A)
LOCATION: The Southeast corner of West 12th Street and South University (1201 South University)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Ronald L. Cl ark/Russell H. Cl ark
PROPOSAL:
To construct a retail facility and an auto parts sales and limited service facility (11,840 square feet total) and 38 parking spaces on .8 acres of land that is zoned "C-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Site Location
Located at the intersection of two major art erials (12th Street and South University).
Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is located in the mixed use area. Commercial uses are located to the north and west with si ngle family uses located to the south and east. This proposal is compatible with the Oak Forest neighborhood plan and if properly developed, could be compatible with the su rrounding area.
On-Site Drives and Parking
The proposal calls for one direct access to South University and indirect access to West 12th Street through the adjacent commercial use. Thirty-eight (38) parking spaces have been proposed.
Screening and Buf fers
A landscape pl an has been su bmitted and shows a planter strip between the site and single family areas to the south and east.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 25 -Continued
5.Analysis
The staff is generally supportive of this proposal.The staff does, however have some concerns aboutreducing the impact to the adjacent single familyareas. The staff feels that the site plan should berevised to include a possib le screening fence and amore specific landscape area on the south and east ofthe property. The staff also feels that all outsidestorage should be oriented away from the single familyareas. The site plan meets all other ordinancerequirements.
6.City Engineering Comments
(1)Coordinate right-of-way dedication and boundary streetimprovements with the City Engineering staff based onthe University corridor plan.
(2)On-site stormwater detention is required due toexisting flooding downstream adjoining property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) screen and landscape the adjacent single family areas as outlined; and (2)comply with City Engineering Comments 1 and 2.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations. The applicant also presented a revised site plan which included a screening fence on the south and west property lines. A lengthy discussion en sued over exactly what the proposal was to be. The applicant also agreed to submit a revised site plan that would orient the dumpster away from the single family area and ref lect exactly what they are proposing to do.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 25 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no ob jectors. The staff stated that they had received a re vised site plan that included 20 additional parking spaces, a dum pster site adjacent to the building, a 5,250 square foot basement area under the retail building and a 3,000 square foot basement under the Goodyear Store. The applicant stated that the basement area would be used only for storage. The Commission then voted 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent to app rove the application, including the revised site plan as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Comm ittee and agreed to by the applicant.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 26
NAME:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
STAFF REPORT:
Marlowe Manor Addition Replat (Lots 223R and 224R)
West side of Martha Drive, off Hinson Road
Charles Clifton, Sr. First Realty Company 1824 Hinson Loop Road Little Rock, AR 72212 227-4911
The applicant requests a replat of the lots to allow a 2-foot encroachment into the area established by a 15-footbuilding line and shifting of the property line of Lot 223northward. His explanation is that his crew worked off thewrong property pins and built a house that encroaches on Lot224.The house on Lot 223 is sold and the replat is neededto close. A combined preliminary/final review is alsorequested.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the request, subject to replatting a 15-foot building line.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 17, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 27
NAME:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT/ENGINEER:
Gelco Space Site Plan Review
6404 1/2 Geyer Springs Road
W.B. Tracy 524 Pine Valley Little Rock, AR ( 501)663-4 786
Road 72207
AREA: 1.5 acres
ZONING:
No. of Lots: 1 Ft. New Street: 0
PROPOSED USES:
PROPOSAL:
Tire Shop/Storage of Modular Building
1.The use of 1.5 acres for an existing tire shop and forstorage of modular buildings.
2.Use breakdown:
Existing Sears Tire Store
Total area =25,536 square feet -.59 acres Building =3,200 square feet -13 percent Canopy= 2,000 square feet -8 percent Paved parking/drives =18,575 square feet -73 percent Miscellaneous =1,761 square feet -6 percent
Proposed Gelco space
Total area =38,570 square feet -.89 acres Proposed office =772 square feet -2 percent Proposed paved parking and drives =6,068 square feet -16 percent Unpaved storage area =31,730 square feet -82 percent
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the request, provided no adverse comments are received from Engineering.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
James F. Tice 1101 Rushing Circle Little Rock, AR 72205 661-1101
Tice Short-Form "PCD" (Z-4573-A)
1903 Hinson Loop Road
ENGINEER:
Forrest C. Marlar 5318 JFK Blvd. North Little Rock, AR 72116 (501)753-1987
AREA: .35 acres No. of Lots: 1 Ft. New Street: 0
ZONING: "O-3" to "PCD"
PROPOSED USES: Office/Auto Glass Shop
STAFF REPORT:
This item was originally submitted to the Commission as a request for rezoning from "O-3" to "C-4." The Commission felt that the PUD process would provide a better means of review.
T he applicant is requesting to construct a one story metal building, 60' x 40', for use as an office/auto gl ass shop. Parking spaces were 17.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Although staff finds the site plan acceptable, the recommendation is denial of the rezoning, due to: (1) incompatible with land use plan for the area and (2) objection to "C-4" use, which is supposed to be on a major street (Hinson Loop is a minor street).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed, subject to (1) "O-3" uses only and (2) Office/Auto Glass Shop. The vote was: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
OATEJ)u. /71 l'/96 I
(
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
ITEM NUMBERS
·ZONING_ � SUBDIVISION
MEMBER
J.�,,mmPrl f n
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Sipes
J.Nicholson
w.Rector
W.I<etcher
D.Arnett
D.J. Jones
I.Bo1es
F.Perkins
-
v
,/
t/
t/ v v
�
./
tJ
13 {'�
A , .
,/ ,/
././'
,/ v
,/ v
,/ ,,/
,/ ./
,I v ./,/J ../(
ID ,__ -:, r-. I
v-1 ,/ vi' I/,/ v1
,I ./ v 14 II ,,/ ·v / I
j � ,/ / v
{ ,/ ,/ / I
,I ,I ,/ I ,; J ,/ ,/ v ,I
././ ,/ .I 45v ./ J1, I ,/I I I I ,/
VAYE • NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
7--�4 -� I,,. 7
� ,/� / •,/
� al' ,/ 45 � ,/
,/ /,/ v' � � / ./ ' v ,/ •�
v' / ,/ ./ '�
,/ y"' � ,I •/
../ ,/' ,/ ./ • �
/ / � I k v
,I, � ,/,/� •� / I / I ,/
JB 9 111 1/
,/ .,/' /' ,/
,,,/ ,/.I ,/
/ ./ / ,/
,/ _/ � ,/ v ,I ,I ./
,/ -� � ./
,/ v"' / I/ ,/ .I v
/J. ,/' ,/ 4 �-/ / I I
�
/Z, /.3
.,/ ,/
,/ ,/
,/ .,.,
,/ ,/
/ /
,/ ,I., �
,/ /t" ,// (
(
l'1-
v
.,/
/
.,/
./
/
�
/
./ I
,s
7f
/
,/
.,/ v
,/'
,/
,/
�
,/
( (
DATE:lkc. IZ /�5
PLANNING ·c OM MISSION
V O T E R E C O R D
·ZONING l-SUBDIVISION
MEMBER ,,_ V? IJR 119
J.�11mmarUn "' A,... . .
J.Schlereth v / ,/ /
R.Massie ,/ v' ,/ y1'
B.Sipes v .I / /
J.Nicholson ,/ .; v" �
w.Rector ,/ ./ ,I /
w.Ketcher vi' ,I ii' /
D.Arnett / J I ii
D.J. Jones .J II!; ,/ .;
I.Boles /J A v ,/
F.Perkins ,/ v / ./
ITEM NUMBERS
171) l:JJ �22 I�-:. :_y. [,,:;J#f efll,
.// • I I ,/ /
.// • J ti / ,/
,/ � '/ ./ / ./
././ • I ,/ ,/ /
l I • ./ 7 ,I -�
A / •" { v· /
I v • j j / I I / 'v v I I
A ., ltJ, I IJ A ,I I { I I ' I I
VAYE • NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
1..:1? �R -,, �v' ,,,,
I / I ,// '
/ / I I / I I
II A I I
(�
December 17, 1985
Subdivision
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 P.M.