HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_11 12 1985subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
NOVEMBER 12, 1985
1:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being 11 in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were not ap proved.
III.Members present:Ida Boles Fred Perkins Dorothy Arnett Jerilyn Nicholson, Chairperson Richard Massie David Jones Bill Rector, Jr. William Ketcher Betty Sipes Jim Summerlin John Schlereth
IV.City Attorney present: Mark Stodola
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
Next Month's Meeting Dates: December 17, 1985
Filing Date: December 16, 1985
Planning Commission Meeting: December 17, 1985
Board of Directors Meeting: December 3 and 17, 1985
TENTATIVE SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
November 12, 1985
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Seaman "Short-Form PRO" ( Z-4522)
B.Security Storage Revised Site Plan Review
C.Z-3633-A Hinson Road, North of Windsor Ct.
D.Spears "Short-Form PCD" (Z-4551-A )
E.Z-4452, 1700 East 2nd Street
PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1.Aspen Highlands Preliminary
2.Hinson Place Preliminary
3. Coyne Su bdivision
4. Point West Second (Revised)
5. Riverfront Addition (Revised) -Tracts SA , SB and 4R
PRELIMINARY/SITE PLAN REVIEW:
6. Los Cuartos Airport Addition
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
7.Hunter's Ridge Apartment "Long-Form PRO" (Z-4523)
8.Highway 10 Apartments "Long-Form PRD" (Z-4524)
9.Snell Office Building "Short-Form PCD" (Z-4525)
10.Main Street Project "Long-Form PCD" (Z-4563)
11.Edgerstoune "Long-Form PRO" (Z-4564)
12.LaVilla Office "Short-Form PCD" (Z-4565)
SITE PLAN REVIEW: (Multiple Building Sites)
13.Park Plaza Shopping Center -Additions and Alterations
14.Little Rock Industrial District -Lot 26
15.Amerisuites
_.
SITE PLAN REVIEW: (Zoning)
16. Thurmond Development Corporation {Z-3599-A)
17 . Arkansas Children's Hospital (Z-4336-A)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
18.Roy Rogers C.U.P. (Z-2477 -A)
19.Cottondale Lane Office/Warehouse C.U.P. (Z-3202-B)
20.Green Mountain Plaza C.U.P. (Z-3315-C)
21.Bragg Street C.U.P. {Z-4528-A)
22.Ruthie's Day-Care Center C.U.P. (Z-4577)
23.Your Car Stereo C.U.P. {Z-4561)
24.Central Baptist Church C.U.P. (Z-4567)
BUILDING LINE WAIVER:
25.Arby's Roast Beef -Building Line Waiver
26.Tschiemer -Building Line Waiver
OTHER MATTERS:
27 . Gay Place -Street Name Change
28.Pinedale Cove -Sidewalk Waiver Request
29.Adoption of the 1986 Calendar
30.Koger Office Properties Phasing Revision Request
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -File No. 597
NAME: Seamon "Short-Fo rm PRO" (Z-4522}
LOCATION: SW Corner of Farris and Shadowlake
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Merlin Seamon Merlin Seamon 209 1/2 W. 2nd St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-6092
209 1/2 w. 2nd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-6092
AREA: 3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R-2" to "PRO"
PROPOSED USE: 8 Triplexes
A.
B.
c.
Site History
This property has been platted as Lots 1-16, Block 4, Gibralter Heights, less and except Lots 2 and 3, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Developmental Concept
1.The construction of rental units which will appealprimarily to senior citizens and the handicapped;however, tenants will not be limited to thesegroups.
2.To develop the property at a density that would besimilar if developed as single family.
3.To design the units like single family residencesand the color as earth tones in order that theyblend into the wooded environment.
4.To preserve the natural beauty of the site.
Proposal
1.The construction of 22 units and 8 triplexstructures on three acres.
2.The replatting of 16 lots into one lo t.
, ___ .
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
3.Development Statistics
(a)Unit No.
24
Unit Type
2
(b)Parking provided consists of 36 off-streetspaces.
D.Engineering Comments
E.
1.Detention required.
2.One north/south street to be left open.
Analysis
The applicant needs to submit a site plan on a certified survey and provide dimensions relating to the structures, between the structures and between structures and property lines.
There is an existing right-of-way through the property. Streets are to be abandoned according to the Gibralter Heights Plan. A one lot final replat will be required because of the reduction in lots and right-of-way abandoment. The applicant is asked to reconsider the design of those stalls backing into the internal drive. A 6' board fence and appropriate screening will be required where adjacent to residential zoning.
F.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to submit a revised plan with added dimensions. He explained that the stalls were designed as they were since the internal drive was not a public street. Staff still felt that a safety factor was involved, especially at the entrance to the project. The applicant was asked to meet with the fire chief regarding their request of a larger cul-de-sac radius.
Water Works -On-site fire lines and fire hydrants may be required.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present but had sent a letter to the staff requesting a 30-day deferral. Staff reported that the letter was sent within the required time period. Several residents of the neighborhood were in attendance. They were concerned about the applicant's proposal to close Farris Street. Mr. Roy Jones stated that the street was physically unopened but provided access to land that he owned.
A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, O noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Committee that Mr. Seamon had requested deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-15-85)
A motion for deferral as requested by the applicant was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTE REVIEW:
Mr. Seamon reported that he was unable to get the cooperation of abutting landowners for the closure of Farris Street and he couldn't afford to build the street due to its location down a drainage way. He requested a waiver of street improvements. The Committee advised him to meet with Engineering regarding the request.
The applicant agreed to submit a revised plan demonstrating the redesign of the project without the land area from the street closure.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11-12-85)
The applicant was present. Due to the problem the applicant was experiencing, a motion for a 60-day deferral was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISI ONS
Item No. B -File No. 527-C
NAME:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
STAFF REPORT:
Security Storage Revised Site Plan
I-30
Chuck Ruskus
This is a request to revise an approved site plan by adding two buildings: (1) a 50' x 160', (2) a 40' x 120' for use as warehouse/storage space, and (3) revising the location of the parking area for the RV's.
Staff has no problems with the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not at the Subdivision Committee meeting, the item was not reviewed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for deferral of the revised plan was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to submit a revised plan that showed a 10-foot minimum separation between buildings and gain FireChief approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11-12-85)
By request of the applicant, a motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent.
November 12, 1985
Item No. C -Z-3633-A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
West Little Rock Company
Floyd Fulkerson
Hinson Road north of Wi ndsor Court
Re zone from "MF-6" to "R-2"
Single Family
37.5 acres +
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North -Single Family, Zoned "R-2"South -Vacant, Single Family and Multifamily,Zoned "R-2" and "MF-6"East -Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"West -Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone the 37.5 acre tract from "MF-6" to "R-2." The property is located in our area of west Little Rock that has "MF-6" and "R-2," but it appears that the "R-2" is more suitable for this site. Staff does support the request and would like to point out that the necessary road improvements to Hinson Road are still to be undertaken even with the "R-2" classification.
Engineering comments are:
(1)Floodway and floodplain of Taylor Loop Creek arelocated on the east property boundary.
(2)Boundary street improvements are required to completeHinson Road.
(3)Access locations should be addressed.
(4)Check with Parks Department for green fingerrequirements.
November 12, 1985
Item No. C -Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "R -2" request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 24, 1985)
The applicant, Floyd Fulkerson, was present. Mr. Fulkerson requested that the rezoning be deferred to the November 12, 1985, meeting. A motion was made to defer the item as requested. The motion was approved. The vote -9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11-12-85)
Staff reported that the owner had submitted a letter requesting that the rezoning be withdrawn. A motion was made to withdraw the item as reques ted. The motion passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent.
--
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D
NAME: Spears P.C.D. (Short-Form) File Z-4451-A
LOCATION: 12123 Kanis Road West of Bowman Road
DEVELOPER: Bank & Business Form by Jerry Spears, President
Area: 1.13 acres No. of Lots: 1 New St.: None
ZONING: "R-2" Single Family District with nonconforming "C-4" District use
PROPOSED USES:
To maintain the current business forms activity with expanded floor space of 5000 square feet to produce a total of 9000 square feet.
1 •
2.
Site History
This lot was annexed to Little Rock in the recent referendum as a nonconforming use. The lot was classified "R-2" Single Family upon annexation, thereby precluding the issuance of building permits for the proposed expansion. An attempt at rezoning the lot to "C-4" Open Display District on October 29, 1985, resulted in a conversion of the request to this "PCD" request.
Development Objective
To expand a business which is involved in business forms as a distributor of the forms and supplies. The use requires a small warehouse to maintain certain supplies and paper stocks. The majorit y of the products supplied are brokered. The business employs one person who spends a percentage of his day in the warehouse, but is not a full time assignment.
3.Parking
The existing office structure requires 10 spaces, 9 areprovided. The proposed building being a warehouserequires 8 spaces, 9 are provided. Therefore, the 18 required stalls are available.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D Continued
4.Engineering Comments
Kanis Road lying on the North boundary of this tract isan arterial street on the City master street plan.This street requires an 80-foot right-of-way with a48-foot pavement. The topography in this area mayrequire that the owner contribute in lieu ofconstruction, this will be decided by the CityEngineer. Sidewalk and handicapped ramps are required.
5.Staff Analysis
This planned unit development is a conversion from the"C-4" rezoning request from October 29. The conversion and subsequent review by the staff reveals no issues of significance. The only point of concern we have is that the parking lot be properly paved, marked and landscaped. The building proposal presents little or no concern except that the owner should realize that the rear 80 feet or so of his site may be inaccessible since no vehicle access is shown on the parking layout. The owner should clear his plans with the Little Rock Sewer and Water Utilities.
6.Staff Recommendation
The staff recom mends approval of the planned commercialdistrict as proposed subject to the following:
1.The filing of a dedication deed for right-of-wayalong Kanis Road to provide for the minimum of 40feet from the centerline. This dedication shouldoccur prior to the passage of the PUD Ordinance bythe City Board.
2.Provision of landscaping and handicapped accesswithin the parking ar ea.
3.Discussion withdetermining thefor Kanis Road.to the buildingrecommended.
the City Engineer for purposes of appropriate in lieu contribution This contribution to be attached permit inasmuch as a plat is not
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was pres ent. -There were no objec tors in attend ance. The Planning Commission briefly dis cussed the proposal. A motion was made to recommend approval to the City Board of Direc tors su bject to the items co ntained in the staff recommendation. The motion pa ssed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
"----··
October 29, 1985
Item No. E -Z-4552
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Melvin Bell and C. Randolph Warner, Jr.
Melvin Bell By: Robert Newcomb
1702 through 1714 East 2nd
Rezone from "R-4" Two Family to "C-3" General Commercial
FOP Lodge
.75 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Arkansas River, Unclassified-Vacant, Zoned "R-4"-Vacant, Zoned "R-4"-Vacant, Zoned "R-4"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone the site to "C-3" to permit a lodge for the Fraternal Order of Police. The property is located at the end of E. 2nd with the Arkansas River on the north side and vacant land on the other sides. The developed properties in the area include residential, com mercial and industrial. The zoning pattern is very mixed with "R-4," "C-3," "I-2" and "I-3" with the residential primarily located to the south of E. 2nd and east of Bond Street. St aff feels that the rezoning and use are compatible with the area and su pports the rejµest. The "C-3"reclassification will not impact any of the surrounding property, and it is an appropriate location for the use.
En gineering reports that street improvements will be required.
The Master Parks Plan identifies this section of the Arkansas River as Priorit y 2 Open Space. This is envisioned to be part of any overall open space system along the river and tie the various recreational facilities on the Arkansas River together.
October 29, 1985
Item No. E -Continued
Water Works reports that 8-inch extension will be required from 3r d Street in order to provide adequate fire protection.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends appr oval of the "C-3" rezoning as reques ted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-29-85)
The applicant was present. There were no objec tor s in attendance. The staff repor ted the failure of the applicant to properly notify adjacent owners as required. The applicant stated that he would accept the deferral to November 12. A motion to defer was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, l ab sent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11-12-85)
The applicant was present. There were no objec tors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the request as filed. The vote: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 -File No.
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Danny Thomas Company 212 Center, Suite 400 Li ttle Rock, AR 72201 374-2231
Aspen Highlands -Preliminary
North of Woodland Hills
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith & Assoc. 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666
Area: 22.4 acres No. of Lots: 70 Ft. New St.: 2,800 feet
ZONING: "PRD" to "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT:
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
A 15-foot building setback lines.
A. Existing Conditions
B.
c.
This plan is located in an area that is composed of detached and attached single family homes. The land was originally approved through the PUD process for attached units.
Development Proposal
This is a proposal to develop 22.4 acres into 70 lots for single family development. A building setback waiver is requested on some of the lots.
Engineering Comments
1.Street name change -do not use Willow Oak Court.
2.Detention required •
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 -Continued
D.Analysis
Staff has no problems with the proposed development.It is comp atible with the uses in the area and to theplan that was origin ally approved. The applicantshould submit a hillside analysis, file appropriateforms to rescind the PUD to "R-2" zoning and provide anupdate on the recreational facilities and the PropertyOwners' Association. In areas with 18 percent naturalgrade, there is an automatic reduction to 15-footbuilding lines.
E.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to change the name of the street now designated as Willow Oak. He explained that the request for 15-foot setbacks conformed to the automatic reduction ruleand that as soon as Phase I is completed, the recreationalfacilities will be buil t.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACT ION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent.
...._,·
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVIS°IONS
Item No. 2 -File No.
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Northwest Properties Inc. 262 South Shackleford Little Rock , AR 72211 224-3055
Hinson Place -Preliminary
North of Pulaski Academy
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith & Assoc. 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666
Area: 9.83 acres No. of Lots: 40 Ft. New St.: 1,160 feet
.ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES:
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRAC'l':
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
1,1 50 cul-de-sac street.
A.· Site History
B.
c.
D.
An application for rezoning to office on this propertywas recently denied by the Commission.
Ex isting Conditions
This site is located north of Pulaski Academy and between two residential subdivisions. There are existing single family homes on the property.
Development Proposal
This is a request to divide 9�83 acres into 40 lots for single family development. New streets consist of 1,160 feet.
Engineering Comments
1.Boundary street improvement and right-of-waydedication, curb/gutter, drainage pipe andwidening •
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 -Continued
E.
2.Show drain age easements and facilities.
3.Show detention calculations and areas.
4.No private drives in the buffer.
Analysis
First of all, the applicant needs to change the name of the Subdivision, since there is already a Hinson Place Subdivision. Staff is concerned about the design. The plan is incompatible with the area due to the fact that the lots are smaller than existing platted lots in the area, some of which abuts this Subdivision. The 12-foot private drive around the project goes for toogreat a distance around the project to be a one-way.It is suggested that a connector be inserted betweenLots 10 and 11 and 30 and 31, neighboring propertyowners be notified and the existing condos, adjacentacreage and structures need to be shown on the plat.
F.Staff Recommendation
Deferral of recommendation until points addressed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to revise the plan as requested by staff and notify all property owners abutting the site. After being informed of Wastewater Utility's comments, the applicant requested approval of the project, subject to the lifting of the sewer moratorium on December 18.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACT ION:
Staff reported that it was against the project based on incompatibility with the area. The applicant was represented by his engineer, Mr. Joe White. Mr. White stated, realizing that the Commission does not base decisions on pecuniary matters, that the hard cost of the lots would be $20,000, and would make the sales price of each in the $32,000 to $35,000 category. The developer planned to build traditional single family detached homes of 2,000 square feet and lot sizes of about 8,400 square feet. He asked the Commission to judge comp atibility on the fact that the Pleasant Valley Bill of Assurance which required a minimum of 1,600 square feet per house and his project had
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 -Continued
2,000 square feet. The proposed lots had a minimum of 8,400 square feet in Pleasant Valley has a minimum required of 65-foot lot widths.Mr. White felt that being harmonious or compatible does not mean that all things have to be the same. His dictionary described harmony as a combination of parts into a proportionate or orderly whole, which is what he felt he had proposed.
Staff reported that Pleasant Valley to the east had an average lot size of 21,124 square feet, Pleasant Valley estates to the west had 16,487 square feet and Marlowe Manor to the southwest had 11,600 square feet.
There was discussion on the definition of compatibility and whether or not it could be defined in terms of lot measurements. Mr. Gary Greeson, Planning Director, felt that just lot sizes were not a determining factor, but whether or not the project adversely effected the area.
There was discussion about filing the project as a PUD to allow for more flexibility. Mr. White felt that the shape of the land did not lend itself to flexibility. Also, that a precedent had been set in the area for the type of development proposed. The existing project mentioned was on Napa Valley Road across from Countrywood and it is built on 60' x 175' lots, and the homes are 1,980 square feet and sell for $1 48,000. The proposed lots ar e 60' x 150'.
There were several persons from the neighborhood in attendance. Mr. Jerry Griffiths of 25 Casca de Drive presented a petition with 27 signatures opposing the proposal. Mr. Ron Fuller of Master Circle pointed out that this proposal proved that the owner planned to carry out her "economic threat" made at a previous meeting.
One commissioner pointed out that the price of lot versus the size of the lot should be used to determine compatibility. Another felt that the ring drive around the project was not harmonious with the surrounding area.
Commissioner Massie felt that a PUD was preferable, since it would provide certain assurances in a situation where there is an existing subdivision which may be adversely effected by cars and lights encroaching on the privacy of their backyards. He felt that a PUD would tie down the size of the units, placement on the lots and the screening. Also, this was not a typical subdivision plat, due to the size and shape of the property, the excessive cul-de-sac needed for access and the ring road.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 -Contin ued
shape of the property, the excessive cul-de-sac needed for access and the ring road,
Finally, a motion for denial was made and passed by a vote of: 1 aye, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention. The reasons for denial were stated as: {1}non-harmony of the proposalwith the surrounding area ba sed on ordinance provisions; (2)location of driveway around the project; and {3} refusalof the Commission to give overriding consideration to theeconomics of the proposal.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 -File No. 611
NAME: Coyne Subdivision Preliminary
SE Corner of Sam Peck and Cantrell Road LOCATION:
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
James A. Coyne Route 1, Box 100 Roland, AR 72135
Sam Davis & Assoc. 5301 West 8th Little Rock, AR 72204 664-0324
Area: 4.67 acres No. of Lots: 2 Ft. New St.: 315 feet
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: "O-2"
PLANNING DISTRICT:
C-ENSUS TRACT:
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
A.
B.
c.
Ex isting Conditions
This property is located on land with elevat ion ranging from 372 to 400 feet. There is evidence on both floodplain and floodway on the site. An existing creek is proposed to be relocated close to the middle lot line. The property abuts the YMCA located to the south of the site, and it is currently zoned "R-2" (Single Family).
Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 4.67 acres into two lots for commercial use. New streets consist of 315 feet. Phasing of improvements on Hig�way 10 is requested.
Engineering Comments
1.Highway 10 -50-foot right-of-way and in-lieucontribution for boundary street improvements.
2.Sam Peck Road -boundary street imp rovements forcollector road from Highway 10 to existingcurb/gutter of YMCA to the south.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 -Continued
3. The Highway 10 intersection is requ ired to be constructed with a minor realignment to make a true "T" intersection. A 3-lane section is required for a turning lane. Coordinate design and construction with the Tr affic Engineer.
D.Analysis
The Subdivision Ordinance prohibits the phasing ofcommercial subdivisions of 20 acres or less. Staffsuggests that all right-of-way be dedicated and thatimprovements be made on Lot 1 when it is final platted.
It is suggested that access on Highway 10 be limited,with a curb cut on Sam Peck only, and that a 10-footvehicular pro hibition zone be platted.
E.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that the site would be used for office and expansion of the YMCA. It was agreed that improvements on Lot 2 and "T" intersection would be done when that lot is final platted. The applicant understood that site plans were req uired in "0-2" zoning and the provisions for the prohibition zone were to be made in the Bill of Assurance as well as reflected on the plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A motion for approval, subject to comments made at the Subdivision Committee was made and passed by a vot e of: 11 ayes, O noes and O absent.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 -File No. 54-H
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Point West Joint Venture III 212 Center Street Little Rock, AR
Point West Second Add'tion -(Revised)
Point West Drive and Kanis, South of Kanis
ENGINEER:
Marlar Engineering Co. North Little Rock, AR 753-1987
Area: 9.2 acres No. of Lots: 35 Ft. New St.: 850 feet
ZONING: "R-2 " and "R-3"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family Attached
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT:
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
A.
B.
Staff Report
This submission represents a request for revision of an improved preliminary plat for single family development. The request includes: (1) changing Lots F, G, H, Jand a portion of Lot L, formerly zoned "MF -18" and "MF-24" to 35 additional single family lots. Lot Lis reduced in size and platted for commercial use. (2) Pinto Point and Bay Cove are added and Wagonwheel Court is extended by 150 feet to add an additional 850 lineal feet of minor residential streets.
Engineering Comments
Change the name of Bay Cove.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 -Contin ued
C.Analysis
Staff has no problems with the request provided theproperty is zoned in accord ance with the lot sizesproposed.
D.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that a request for "R-3" zoning had been submitted and would be either approved or denied before the November 12 public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applic ant was present. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 -File No. 58-B
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Maury Mitchell 212 Ce nter, #400 Little Rock, AR 72201 374-2231
Riverfront Addition (Revised) (Tract SA, 5B and 4R)
South end of Cottondale Lane
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith & Assoc. 401 South Victory Little Ro ck, AR 374-1666
Area: 4.87 acres
ZONING: "C-3"
No. of Lots: 4 Ft.New St.: 0
PROPOSED USES: Office (Warehouse)
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT:
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
Change rear line to 12.5 feet.
A.
B.
Staff Re2ort
This is a request to revise an approved plat by splitting Tract 5 into lots and adding 50 feet of Tract 4 to Tract 5. The newly created lots are Tracts SA, 5B and 4R.
Engineering Comments
Minimal floor elevation shall be shown on each of the tracts for preliminary and final plats. See City engineers for elevation.
c.Analysis
The applicant would like to replat this property forthe sale of one of the lots. He is asked to explainthe location of paving over the easement.
D.Staff Recommendation
Reserved until further information received.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was rev iewed by the Committee and passed to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, O noes and 1 absent.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 -File No. 613
NAME: Los Cuartos Airport Addition Pre liminary/Site Plan Re view
LOCATION: SW Corner of I-440 and Bankhead Drive
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Edward Lynn/Henderson Tim Johnson/Smith, Roberts, Properties Johnson 3800 North May, Suite 500 Oklahoma City, OK 73112 (405)949-9100
3800 North May, Suite 500 Oklahoma City, OK 73112 (405)755-2094
Area: 2.41 acres
ZONING: "C-3"
No. of Lots: 2 Ft. New St.: 0
PROPOSED USES: Hotel (�ot 1)/Office (Lot 2)
A.
B.
Proposal
1.The platting of 2.41 acres into two lots forcommercial use and site plan review of a multiplebuilding site for a hotel with 128 units.
2.Proposed parking consists of 143 spaces.
Engineering Comments
1.Show detention calculations and area.
2.Right-of-way and boundary street improvements onEast 33rd.
3.Right-of-way and boundary street improvements onboundary street on we st side of property.
4.Main driveway and access to front is poor.Coordinate redesign traffic engineer.
5.Landscape buffers inadequate.
'---.-,·.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 -Continued
c.Analysis
This is a dual submission consisting of a preliminaryand site plan. Since the property is zoned "C-3," both lots must meet the 14,000 square foot requirement.
The applicant is asked to tie down the internal ac cess to the restaurant with the plat and clarify a total square footage and square footage per building. Staff came up with a total of 20,160 square feet.
D.Staff Recommendation
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was asked to meet with Engineering to: (1)resolve Engineering comment No. 3 since the applicantfelt that it's impractical to build this street; (2) resolvelocation of drive at least 100 feet from the corner orrequest for a variance; (3) provide landscaping strip andscreening in conformance with the City's LandscapeOrdinance; (4) provide additional data on site plans;(5)show platted access ea sement between Lots 1 and 2.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff recommended approval of the plat and waiver, subject to working out the street issue with Engineering.
Mr. Tim Johnson represented the developer. He stated that he had been unable to reach Engineering to work out problems with the riffel street.
A motion for approval was made and passed, subject to the resolution of the street issue before the building permit is received. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 -File No. 609
NAME: Hunter's Ridge "Long-Form PRD" (Z-4523)
LOCATION: North side of State Hwy. 10, app roximately one mile west of I-430
DEVELOPER/AGENT: ENGINEER:
Louis A. Bunche/Crow-Starnes-Stovall & Daniels, Inc. Western Land Company #12 Edgehill Little Rock, AR 664-0955 or (214) 823-2804
Area: 13.69 acres No. of Lots: 1 Ft. New St.: 0
A.Proposal
1.The construction of 164 units of apartments on a13.69 acre site at 12 units per acre.
2.Project Data Total Unit � Unit No. S9.Ft. S9.Ft.
A-1 ·· lBr/lB 40 514 20,560
A-2 lBr/lB 40 594 23,760
A-4 lBr/1B 40 703 28,120 B 1B r/Den/1B 20 864 17,280 B-1 2Br/2B 16 912 14,592 2Br/2B 8 1,017 8,136
3.Parking -246 spaces.
4.Site usage -building coverage •..•.• 1.57 acres
s.
Drive and parking
Common open space
•••••••••• 11. 5%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • . •19. 0%
•••.••••.•69. 5%
2.6 acre s
9.52 acres
13.69 acres
Landscaping will be acc ording to the City Ordinance.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 -Continued
B.Engineering Comments
1.Recommend middle drive be deleted with access to clubhouse provided internally.
2.Right-of-way of 50 feet required. Boundary streetimprovements are required to be in-lieu.
3.Show preliminary detention calculation of areas.
C.Analysis
Staff's major concern involves the proposed drive. Weconcur with Engineering's suggestion that the middledrive be eliminated. Greenery is preferred in that location. A 24-foot private street should be cleared with the Fire Department. The parking layout should be shown. Use is not a problem at this location since the Highway 10 Plan recommends multifamily. Buffers are not a problem since there is a 75-foot natural green belt along the northern boundary. The closest building to the northern boundary is set back approximately 150 feet. The applicant seems to think that this setback and a grade of 35 percent along the northern border keeps the rooflines of the development below elevations of the Walton Heights residents.
D.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant clarified this submission as involving a preliminary plat also. The staff informed that a one-lot final would be needed before a building permit is received. The major issue discussed involved the central dri ve. The applicant felt that it would not coincide with the high traffic use of the other drive since it would only be used for general buisiness and 18 parking spaces. He was asked to meet with Southwestern Bell to resolve their re quest.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff reco mmended ap proval, subject to: (1) obtaining authorization from the Sewer Department and (2) submission of a one lot fi nal plat.
Mr. Jim Lawson gave staff's views on the proposed use. He felt that a mu ltifamily use was appropriate for the site.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 -Continued
Staff also off ered no ob jection to the center drive.
Mr. David Henry represented the applicant. He felt that the drive was necessary, since it allowed non-residential traffic to be separated from residential. Also, he felt that modifying the drives location may af fect building placement since the topography is difficult and may interfere wit h the buffer between the project and Walton Heights.
Mrs. Jannette Straub and Mr. David Groon, from the neighbor hood, were in attendance. It was felt that there were enough apartments along Highway 10.
A motion for approval, subject to staff's comments was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 -File No. 610
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Steve Clary/Melvin Bell 525 Louisiana Little Rock, AR 72201 376-9071
Highway 10 Apartments "Long-Form PRO" (Z-4524)
North of the intersection of Highway 10 at Sam Peck Road
ARCHITECT:
Brooks-Jackson Architect, Inc. 2311 Biscayne Drive, Suite 320 Little Rock, AR 72201 227-8700
Area: 22.35 acres No. of Lots: 1 Ft. New St.: 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: Multifamily
PLANNING DISTRICT: Highway 1
CENSUS TRACT: 42.03
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
A.DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE:
1. To provide a high quality multifamily complex witha variety of living units and building compatible with the surrounding area.
B.PROPOSAL:
1.The construction of 264 units on 22.35 acres.
2.PROJECT DATA:
UNIT TYPE SIZE
lBR/lBA 675
lBR/lBA 825
2BR/l 3/4BA 925
2BR/2BA 1025
2BR/2BA 1125
Clubhouse
Total
UNIT NO.
32
56
104
48
24
264
TOTAL AREA
21,600
46,200
96,200
49,200
27,000
10,000
250,200
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 -Continued
3.Total parking .••.••••• 396 spaces.
4.Landscaping will exceed requirements.
5.Development schedule is to begin construct ion inJanuary of 1986 and to be completed inapproximately one year.
6.The dwelling units will be leased with tenantrights to all common areas including amenities.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1.Coordinate main access alignment withSam Peck Road with the Traffic enginnerand the Coyne Subdivision Engineer (Sam Davis).
2.Highway 10 in-lieu contributions for stre etimprovement.
3.Provide public turnaround adjoining thesecurity gate.
4.Security gate entrance west of main entrance -if not guarded or card system, use fire departmentcrash gate.-If guarded or card system, provide more stackinglength out of right-of-way
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S GENERAL COMMENT:
Appears to be insufficient parking around the clubhouse.
D.ANALYSIS:
Staff is mainly concerned about density and design. It is felt that the structural density is inappropriate in the areas of higher elevations. The project is dense in areas of difficult terrain and there is an excessive amount of pavement. The applicant is asked to get Fire Department approval on the grades of drives, some appear to be 26 to 28 percent. Also, provide a public turnaround or crossover due to the location of the security house.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 -Continued
E.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deferral until issues are addressed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to provide st aff with a revised plan addressing its comments and work with the Traffic Engineer on intersections.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A revised plan was submitted which addressed the issues ra ised by the sta ff.
Members present from the neighborhood included Mrs. Jannette Straub of The Walton Heights Property Owners Association and Mr. David Groon, a resident of Highway 10. They stated concerns re lative to the use of the property.
A motion for approval was made and passed, su bject to: sewer authorization, (2) submission of a one-lot final (3) conformance with Traffic Engineer's comments. The 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 abstentions.
( 1 ) plat, vote
.'-',
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 -File No. 617
NAME:
LOCATION:
AGENT:
Jim Mitchell/Frankie Snell Snell Prosthetic & Orthopedic Lab 3924 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72205 664-2624
Snell Of fice Building "Short-Form PCD" (Z-4525}
SE Corner of University and "F" St reet
ENGINEER:
Brooks-Jackson Architect, Inc. Cantrell Place Bldg., Suite 320 2311 Biscayne Drive Little Rock, AR 72207 227-87 00
Area: .565 acres No. of Lots: 5 Ft. New St.: 0
ZONING: "0-3"
PROPOSED USES: Of fice
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT:
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
A.DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES:
1. To provide an expanded facility for a prosthetic and orthotic laboratory which strives to help those afflicted with crippling diseases, traumatic accidents and birth defects and assist them in achieving a more functional lifestyle.
B.PROPOSAL:
1.The construction of a 5500 square foot buildingon .565 acres.
2.Uses consist of 3000 square feet -which includeswaiting area, examination/treatment rooms, andgeneral/executive office space. The remaining2000 square feet will be for lab purposes, suchas thermo plastic vacuum forming, plasticlamination, shaping of wood and forms, sewing,etc. Tool/machines include band saws, routers,sewing machines, drill presses, sanders andothers. (6 0 percent office space/40 percent
lab space).
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 -Continued
3.PARKING/DRIVES:
Employee parking will be partially under thebuilding on the east side at the lower levelwith access from "F" Street. We propose tofill the front portion of the lot so thatclient parking will be a� the same level asUniversity for ease of ingress to the building.
4.Development construction will begin January 1986,and be completed about eight months afterward.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1.Boundary street improvements required on"F" Street.
2.Show preliminary de�ention calculations andareas.
3.Internal traffic flow through covereddrive through is not acceptable.Coordinate access with Traffic Engineer.
D.ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requested to eliminate the sixparking spaces in the northern row and place thecanopy and main entrance at the opposite end sothat some stacking will be possible. As presently designed, if one or two cars are in the drive it will be blocked. "PUD" approval was requested since "O-3" zoning would not permit this use due to the manufacturing involved.
E.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to: (1) provide a one-lot final plat;(2)meet with Water Works regarding their comment;(3)screen all residential areas� and (4) check with Trafficon visibility.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There we re no objectors. A motion for appr oval was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 -File No. 615
NAME: Main Street Project "Long-Form PCD" (Z-4563)
LOCATION: From 12th St reet to 14th Street between Louisiana and Scott
AGENT: ARCHITECT:
David Fitzhugh David Cowlin and B.L. Gaskin BCCLW Architects Madison Financial Corp. 16th and Main P.O. Box Drawer 3019 Little Rock, AR 72202 374-4743 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-6671
Area: 3.08 acres No. of Lots: 21 Ft. New St.: 0 feet
ZONING: "HR" and "GB" to "PCD"
PROPOSED USES: "O-3" and "C-3"
A.Development Objectives
1.To create an office and commercial enclavecomprised of renovated existing buildings withfree-standing and infill new construction, allknitted together by common paving materials,landscaping and streetscape elements.
2.To respect the Main Street facades of thebuilding.
3.To inwardly orient the project opening to andcentered on a new pedestrian alley with symbolicgateways at either end of 13th Street.
4.To unify the project by complying with theStreetscape Ordinance.
5.To include part of the project in a CBID.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISION S
Item No. 10 -Continued
B.
c.
D.
Proposal
1.
2.
The provision of office and commercial uses in four phases on 3.08 acres.
To achieve a sense of place and provide greater security, the project proposes to narrow 13th Street between Main and Louisiana and incorporate the north/south alley running parallel to these streets allowing parking on 13th Street and pedestrian use of the alley.
Project Data
1.Commercial
a.Renovated structures:Initial commercial use General business and retail
Sales -18,300 S.F.21% Restaurant 4,581 S.F.4%
b.New construction:Infill commercial 4,000 S.F.4% New building commercial (would like option to build office) 9,000 S.F.10%
Total 35,881 S.F.41%
2.Business
a.Renovated structures:53,657 S.F.59%
88,538 S.F.100%
3.Parking -263 spaces
Engineering Comments
1.
2.
Coordinate all parking lot and closed street geometrics with the Traffic Engineer.
Remove or fill tanks with material acceptable with the Traffic Engineer at old service station at 14th and Louisiana.
··-.._..,
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 -Continued
3.Close alley one-half way south of 13th withbarricade of trees and shrubs and place ahammer-head turnaround south of barricade.
E.Analysis
Staff is generally supportive of the project, but it isawaiting specific comme nts from the Capitol ZoningDistrict sta ff relative to uses, structuralinvolvement, parking, street closu res and designelements. Everything south of 13th Street is in theCapitol Zoning District. 163 parking spaces areneeded.
F.Staff Recommendation
Reserved until further comments received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Mr. Ron Newman of the Capitol Zoning District and the applicant were present. Mr. Newman suggested that the lot in the southwest corner be eliminated from the proposal and felt that parking was sufficient for the overall project. Staff requ�sted one-lot final plat for the various lots.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. David Fitzhugh of Madison Savings and Loan and the architect, represented the application. Mr. Ron Newman of the CZD was present. One concerned property -owner was in attendance.
Staff reported that Henk Koornstra, the traffic Engineer, requested that the plan be modified to allow for no exiting in the intersection of Louisiana and 13th Street and no backing into Main Street. Staff reported that the ap plicant had failed to file the petition to close the alley between 12th and 14th Streets and the plan shall be revised to delete the western most parking lot as requested by Mr. Ron Newman. Mr. Newman explained that he had requested deletion of the parking lot because of its encroachment into the immediate re sidential area.
The main issue discussed involved a title dispute. Mr. Robert Traylor, President of Arkansas Real Estate Development, Inc., stated that he ow ned some apartments ne ar 13th and Louisiana and he was not notified of the incorporation of his property within the project. He currently has a lawsuit pending ag ainst a Ms. Camino who
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 -Continued
sold the property af ter default. He claims to have repossessed the property.
Mr. Fitzhugh stated that Madison Guaranty was the owner. The City At torney present advised against any Co mmission action on the property until af ter the dispute was settled, which would be in the next two or three months. Mr. Fitzhugh requested action on the proposal provided he delete the disputed portion. Due to the possible lo ss of parking spaces, the Commission felt that staff ne eded to reevaluate a revised proposal so as to ascertain possible impacts to the area.
A motion for deferral for two weeks was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
November 12, 1985
'-" SUBDIVISIONS
\,,_..,·
-.._.,,·
Item No. 11 -File No. 616
NAME:
LOCATION:
AGENT:
David Mccreery/Flake and Company P.O. Box 990 Little Rock, AR 72203 376-8005
Edgerstoune "Long-Form PRD" (Z-4564)
NE Corner of North Martin and "I" Street
ARCHITECT:
Ed Scharff Glascock, Carter, Langford & Wilcox 303 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 376-6671
Area: 7.33 acres No. of Lots: 1 Ft. New St.: 0 teet
ZONING: "R-5"
PROPOSED USES: Condominiums
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT:
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
A.DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES:
1. To provide a development with a "dramatic setting" and with a "spectacular view of Riverdale, the Arkansas River, Big Rock and the adjacent Hills."
2.To provide an ur bane and distinctive livingenvironment which will become one of the City'smost prestigious addresses.
3.To market mainly to higher income individuals40 years of age and ol der, many of whom willbe vacating large homes in the Heights andPleasant Valley area.
4.To comply with the Heights/Hillcrest plan byproviding selective infield develop ment thatis compatible with the existing neighborhoodand will not materially increase residentialdensities.
"-.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 -Continued
B. PROPOSAL:
1.
2.
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
The construction of 26 condominium units in three buildings on a total of 7.33 acres.
PROJECT DATA:
Tract B Cook Alworth Subdivision ••••••• 5.57 acres AP&L easements/Water Works profit •••••• 1.76 acres Total 7.33 acres
Density of own land ••••••••• 4.67 units per acre Density on easement area •••• 3.55 acres
Three structures with 11 units in one, 12 in another and three in the other.
Buildings will be two to three stories and incorporate "Italian architectural style."
Access will be from Martin and Interior Drive.
Parking will consist of two garages under each building and 1 visitor's space per unit along the access drive.
G.Landscaping will be extensive and will addressthe raw and unattractive cut created when theCantrell Road frontage was developed forcommercial purposes ten to fifteen years ago.Internally, there will be patios and pedestrianwalkways.
H.Property Owner's Association will be responsiblefor management and maintenance responsibility.
I.DEVELOPMENTAL TIME FRAME:
1986 -begin construction Early 1987 -first phase completed (easternmost three unit townhouse and the three story twelve unit structure) after 1987 -second phase (eleven unit three story structure near Martin).
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 -Continued
3.
UNIT
2
2
8
6
4
4
4.
UNIT BREAKDOWN:
TYPE NO. OF UNITS SIZE(SQ. FT.) TOTAL
A 2,225 4,250
B 2,687 5,374
C 2,853 22,824
D 2,458 14,748
E 2,687 10,748
F 2,653 10,612 68,556
OTHER DATA:
Total building coverage •••••••••• 31 ,598 Paved areas •••••••••••••••••••••• 38,226 sq. feet Structures and drives constitute ab out 22 percent of the total land area leaving 78 percent undeveloped.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
No adverse comments.
D.ANALYSIS:
This applicant has submitted a condo proposal in anarea of mixed residential uses. He feels that the proposed density is equivalent to or lower than a Single Family zoning district. On September 27, 1985, the Water Commission granted a Developer an easement over their property (1.76 acres), which is currently occupied also by an AP&L easement.
Use of the easement for parking will require authorization from the City Board. Staff requests specific treatment scheme for slope and for a long concrete block wall.
.---. November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 -Continued
Staff is not opposed to the project. The location of garages under the units is a good concept. The proposed de nsity is not a problem, since the property is now "R-5", which al lows 36 units per acre without any review by the Commission. Staff feels the "PUD" process along with the easement provide for a better development than what could legally be built. Thus we are su pportive of the project.
E.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to comply with staff's suggesti ons.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Nathaniel Griffin of Flake and Company and Mr. David Mccreery represented the materials submitted. A representative of Peters and Associ ates, who con ducted a traffic study, reported that their conclusions revealed that North Ma rtin could easily accommodate the additional traffic created by the project. Approximately 208 cars would be generated by the project in a 24 hour period.
Staff reported that a letter from Real Estate Central had been received in opposition.
Mr. Walter Riddick represented the neighborhood. He felt that the issue was not whether the street will have the capacity to carry the added tr affic, but what impact the traffic would have on the neighborhood. He felt that the effect would be de trimental, and the result would be a less pleasant neighborhood. Also, he felt that a Ms. Edwina Walls would be es pecially affected since cars exiting the project would shine their headlights into her li ving room. He stated that there has been a history of apartment buildings in the area that has gradually increased and the neighborhood was "sick and tired of being mutilated."
Other issues raised involved: (1) whether a public utility should be allowed to se ll public land for private development gains: and (2) whether the proposal was appropriate since the easement was not yet owned by the developer. It was determined that the latter was not a problem since the Ordinance allowed another to act as agent if authorized by the owner. It was also pointed out that
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 -Continued
the current zoning allowed approximately 198 units to be placed on the project without the easement.
A motion was finally made for approval, subject to comments made. The vote 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
November 12 , 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 -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 374-1666
Area: 1.97 acres No. of Lots:
ZONING: "O-3"
PROPOSED USES: Of fice Warehouse
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT:
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
A.DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES:
1 Ft. New St.: 0 feet
1.To provide small business owners, such as carpetsales, plumbers, construc tion companies, of ficemachine sales, repair services, vendors, etc.Those of fice 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 the
street and first buildings on each side.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 -Continued
5.Development will start in about 12 months,beginning in mid-December 1985.
6.Construction to be of exposed aggregateconcrete tilt wall with composition roof andredwood/stucco/glass f�onts.
C.ENGINE ERING 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 "O-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.
\
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 -Continued
SUBDIVISION COM�ITTEE 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was requested by the applicant for a 30 day deferral and passed with 11 ayes, 0 noes, O absent.
,,'----'
·-
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 -File No. 612
NAME: Pa rk Plaza Shopping Center/ Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Markham at University
ENGINEER: DEVELOPER:
DeLan International Houston, TX Garver & Garver Engineers P.O. Box C-50
Area: 40 acres
Little Rock, AR 72203 376-3633
No. of Lots: l Ft. New St.:0
ZONING: "C-3"
PROPOSED USES: Com mercial/office
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT:
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
A.PROPOSAL:
1.To expand and improve an existing mall,constructed parking deck and a future officebuilding on 40 acres; and to add a trafficlight near Lee and University.
2.PROJECT DATA:
A.EXISTING SPACE:
Dil lards •••••••••••••• 198,000 square feetOther Retail ••••••••• 215,56 square feet Restaurant •••••••••••• 21,944 square feet Of fice •••••••••••••••• 8,904 square feet
B.PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
443,904 square feet
Existing Dil lards •••••••••• 190,000 square feetAdditional Dil lards •••••••••• 7,099 square feetOther Retail •••••.••••••••• 247,895 square feetCinema •••••••••••••••••••••• 18,900 square feetTotal mall area •••••••••••• 540,824 square feetFuture office building •••••• 50,000 square feet(Estimate only)
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIO NS
Item No. 13 -Continued
Deck and grade parking •••••••• 1,067 spaces Total site parking ••••••••••••• 2,302 spaces
3.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
(A)A traffic study was requested by the CityEngineer and other developers during a meetingover a month ago. Without this study, theEngineering staff will not consider this planfor a full review at this time.
(B)However, a very short look at a few major itemsfollows:
i.Redesign main entrance into Dillards of fWest Markham to proper standards (ErniePeters and As sociates are reviewing theseitems at this time).
ii.A traffic light on University between LeeStreet and West Markham is not desirable dueto dif ficulty in progression time with threelights in one block.
iii.Leave existing access drive open at thecorner of West Markham and University Avenue.The weaving traffic lane can be redesigned onthe northwest corner to make the intersectionwork more efficiently.
iv.The narrow drive north of the proposedparking deck as well as the narrow, sharpradius drives arou nd the east end of thecenter (new Dillards store} provides for poorcirculation.
4.ANALYSIS:
This submission is viewed as an improvement ofexisting facilities. Of course, the major issuewill relate to the traffic flow . The developerwill need to work closely with the City's Engineerson this issue.
The applicant is planning to tear down an existingsavings and loan building and provide a new of ficebuilding in the future and a more northern locationon the site. Staff would like to see some type ofplans for the treatment of the private drive on thenorthern property line.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 -Continued
Indicate whether landscaping or a retaining wall will be provided. Staff also requests negotiation of redesign or elimination of the access drive off Markham through the Engineering Department, in conjunction with elimination of the First Federal Building.
5.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that landscaping would be provided along the north and agreed to comply with staff's suggestion.
Engineering will present the resul ts of a traffic study at the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Traffic gave its support to the project. A motion for approval was ma de and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent.
Novem ber 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 -File No. 185-G
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVEL OPER:
General Prop erties Inc. P.O. Box 15550 No. Little Rock, AR 72 231 753-3455
Lot 26, Little Rock Industrial District
West 65th Street, 400 feet east of South Hamilton
ENGINEER:
Thomas Engineering Co. 3810 Lookout Road No. Little Rock, AR 72116 753-4463
Area: 17.27 acres No. of Lots: 1 Ft. New St.: 0
ZONING: "I-2"
PROPOSED USES: Warehouse
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT:
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
A.PROP OSAL:
1.The construction of seven warehouses on a siteof 17.27 acres.
B. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1.Show preliminary detention in area ofcalculations.
C.ANALYSIS:
Staff was very inhibited in its review of this itemdue to an inadequate submission. The applicant mustformally submit in a letter the square footage of eachbuilding and identi fy it on the plan by a mark, putlocation map on the plat, show parking layout andstate parking spaces proposed, provide informationon the proposed use (mini -warehouses?), explainhatching on site plan, and confirm acceptance ofinverted crown in parking lot by the City Engineers.
.__,, November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 -Continued
D.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Reserved until further information is received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to provide staff with a revised plan and added info before the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Due to a request by the applicant, a motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 -File No. 601
NAME:
LOC ATION:
DEVELOPE R:
Terry Wolfe/Amerisuites Inc. 313 E. Anderson Lane Suite 201 Austin, TX 78752 {512) 451-5743
Amerisuites/Site Plan Re view
850 feet west of Shackleford Drive and Shackleford Road intersection on south side of Shackleford Drive to NE corner of site
ENGINEER:
Robert M. Brown/Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson & Assoc. P.O. Box 3837 Li ttle Rock, AR 72203 375-5331
Area: 2.5 acres
ZONING: "C-3"
No. of Lots: 0 Ft. New St.: 0
PROPOSED USES: Hotel
PLANNING DISTRICT: II
CENSUS TRACT:
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
A.PROPOSAL:
1.The construction of three buildings with118 hotel/motel suites on a 2.688 acre tract.
2.PROJECT DATA:
Number of units •••••••••••••••••••••• 118Square footage/"G" building ••••••• 48,435Square footage/entry building •••••• 2,775Total gross square footage •••••••• 51 ,370
3.Required parking •••••••••••••••• 130Parking provided •••••••••••••••• 133
'-. --
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 -Continued
B.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
None at this time.
C.ANALYSIS:
The applicant has agreed to provide a revised site planto indicate a pump house to be built near ShacklefordRoad. Also, he has filed a Board of Adjustment requestfor a height variance on one of the buildings that isapproximately one foot over what it .required.
Staff is requesting a treatment plan on a 39 inchraw water line and the provision of 5-foot plansstrips if possible.
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to co mments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to comply with staff's comments and Engineering offered no adverse comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER/APPLICANT :
PR OPOSA L:
Thurmond Development Corporation Site Plan Review (Z-3599-A )
The East Side of Napa Valley Rd. 230 feet South of Hinson Rd.
Roger Thurmond/Terry Rasco of Witsell, Evans, and Rasco
To construct four, two-story office buildings (17,200 square feet and four carports which equal 3,080 square feet) and 54 parking spaces on 1.65 acres of land that is zoned "O-2."
Analysis:
The staff views this proposal as compatible with the surrounding area. The staff does, however, feel that a slight revision in the proposed plan would make it more compatible with the surrounding area. The staff feels that the site plan should be revised by placing the dumpsters on the interior portion of the site. The revised site plan should also show the front 25 feet of the property as an undisturbed landscaped buffer area. The Fire Department has also requested that all drives and access points be shown as a minimum of 20 feet in width.*
*Note:Applicant needs to be advised that platting of the property will be required to sell offices as condominiums.
City Engineering Comments:
(1)Dedicate necessary right-of-way on Napa Valley Road toequal a total of 40 feet; (2) construct one-half boundarystreet improvements (o ne-half of 48 feet) on Napa ValleyRoad; (3) provide centerline vertical profile to determinethe best location for driveway to verify sight distance; and(4)provide preliminary detention calculations and arealocations.
STAFF REC OMMENDATION:
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan that relocates dumpsters toward the interior of the site, illustrates a 25-foot landscape buffer area on Napa Valley Road and redesigns all drives and access to meet a minimum 20 feet in width; (2) comply with City engineering comments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was recommendations. Southwestern Bell Works required an
present and agreed to comply with staff's The staff informed the applicant that required an easement, and that the Water on-site fire pr otection system.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objector s. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent to approve the application as recommended by staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
··......,_,..
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Arkansas Children's Hospital Site Plan Review (Z-4336-A )
The NW Corner of 10th and Marshall Streets
Arkansas Children's Hospital/ Ed Peek of Wittenberg, Delony and Davidson, Inc.
To remove one existing on-site structure and to construct one, four-story medical office building (contains basement -height 60') (120,000 square feet) and 130 parking spaces on 2+ acres of land that is zoned "O-2."
Analysis:
The applicant has stated that the proposed structure (25,500 square feet footprint) will replace existing temporary structures what have a combined footprint of 32,700 square feet for a net footprint reduction of 7,000 square feet which the staff sees as a positive action. The proposal will reduce net parking by 35 spaces. Ordinance requirements are 254 parking spaces for a building of 120,000 square feet. The applicant proposes a total of 124 parking spaces. The applicant needs to spec ify how the parking arrangements will meet City ordinance requirements. A 25-foot undisturbed landscape buffer is required adjacent to all boundary streets.
City Engineering Comments:
The Traffic Engineer has a concern with regard to emergency access. However, if the hospital thinks that they have proper access, the Engineering staff has no problem with the plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit an adequate parking arrangement; (2) revise the site plan to include a 25-foot undisturbed buffer on boundary street (or receive waiver); and (3) note City engineering traffic comments.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and presented parking plans and statistics for the entire Children's Hospital facility. He stated that a total of 679 parking spaces currently existed and that the total would be 692 including this prop osal. The applicant stated that only 573 parking spaces would be required and that the hospital would landscape their parking proposal. The applicant also stated that emergency access would be taken from West 10th and Wolfe Streets area. Staff stated that Southwestern Bell had required access, and that the Little Rock Wastewater Utility would require an industrial permit, and that the Little Rock Water Works required an on-site fire protection system.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no ob jectors. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18
NAME: Roy Rogers -Conditional Use Permit (Z-2477-A)
LOCATION: Just East of the Intersection of Geyer Springs and Forbing Road (7301 Geyer Springs)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Jim Osborne/Maury Mitchell
PROPOSAL:
To convert an existing structure to allow an automobile tune-up service in a 5,000 square foot building (auto parts sales) with 11 parking spaces on a lot that is zoned "C-3" and has previously been approved as a multiple building site plan review.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1.Site Location
2.
Adjacent to an arterial street (Geyer Springs Road).
Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is currently "C-3" and the auto parts salesis in operation. The proposal contains provisions forone service bay. The bay is approximately 50 feet fromthe east property line (mobile home park). Theproperty is surrounded on the remaining three sides bycommercial uses. Staff foresees no problem with thisproposal.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
4.
The site currently contains one access drive toGeyer Springs Road and 11 paved parking spaces.
Screening and Buffers
As mentioned in comment No. 2, approximately 50 feet ofopen space exists between the building and the eastproperty line. A wood screening fence is also in placeon the east property line.
--
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 -Continued
5.Analysis
The staff foresees no adverse impact to the surroudingarea. Staff does, however, wish to specify that theonly use in the service area be limited to an"automobile tune-up." This use also requires six (6 )additional paved parking spaces.
6.City Engineering Comments
1.The Master St reet Plan requires an 80-footright-of-way, but there is questionable need forfurther right-of-way dedication on the site.Therefore, the Planning Commission must waive thisrequirement if so desired.
2.No driveway access to the adjoining private driveto the north of the property.
3.Show preliminary detention calculations and arealocations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) specify that an automobile tune-up will be the only service allowed; (2)submit a revised site plan which includes a total of 17paved parking spaces (and build them); and (3) comply withCity engineering comments Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The City Engineer stated that detention plans and additional right-of-way on Geyer Springs Road was not necessary. The applicant agreed to limit the service to an "automobile tune-up." There was some discussions concerning additional parking. The staff stated that a revised site plan showing six additional parking spaces should be submitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 11 ayes, O noes and O absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
-, __
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19
NAME: Cottondale Lane -Office/ Warehouse -Conditional Use Permit (Z-3202-B)
LOCATION: The Ea stern End of Cottondale Lane
OWNER/APPLICANT: Lincoln Properties/Maury Mitchell
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 13,600 square foot build ing (10,400 square foot warehouse space and 3,200 square foot office space) and 21 parking spaces on land that is zoned "C-3." The applicant is also requesting a replat of this property and a 12.5 foot variance of the rear setback line.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1.
2.
3.
4.
Site Location
Adjacent to a collector street (Cottondale Lane).
Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is surrounded by an office use to the north, a warehouse use to the south and vacant property both east and west. The proposed office/warehouse use is compatible with the surrounding area.
On-Site Drives and Parking
This proposal contains one 25-foot access to Cottondale Lane and 21 paved parking spaces.
Screening and Buffers
This site plan contains proposed landscaped areas.
5.Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed use is compatiblewith the surrounding area. Staff supports thisproposal except for the proposed 12.5 feet rear setbackline. The staff feels that due to the possiblebuilding site locations and configuration, the proposedbuilding footprint should be reduced to allow for thefull 25-foot rear setback area.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No . 19 -Continued
6.City Engineering Comments
1.Show the minimum floor elevation for the buildingon the plat. Information on floor elevations canbe obtained from the City Engineer's Of fice.
2.No access is to be allowed via Jesse Road.Construct curb and gutter on the south propertyline to prevent access.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Appro val, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan which reduces the building footprint to meet the 25-foot rear setback line and (2) comply with City Engineering comments No. 1 and 2.
SUBD IVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The staff changed its opposition of access to Jesse Road. It was discussed and generally agreed that a 12.5-foot rear setback was adequate. The applicant stated that some office would front the warehouse space to the rear. The staff advised the applicant to submit a revised site plan including office space fronts in the warehouse space and showing a landscape area along the north property line. The applicant agreed to comply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACrION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The staff stated that they had received a revised site plan and recommended approval provided the applicant agreed to construct an exposed aggregate finish or facade on the north side of the structure. The applicant agreed to comply. The Commission then voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20
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.
3.
4.
Located at the intersection of two collector streets(Green Mountain Drive and Rainwood Drive).
Compatibility 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.
On-Site Dr ives and Parking
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 Ra inwood Drive.
Screening and Buffers
The site has existing landscaping.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 -Continued
5.Anal ysis
6.
This proposal is for conversion of �n existing buildingwithin a strip shopping center. The staf f foresees noadverse impact to the surrounding area. The applicantneeds to submit a revised site plan which includes thespecific location of the proposed use within the stripcenter.
Engineering Comments
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to submit a revised site plan showing the specific location of the proposed use.
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.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21
NAME: Bragg Street Conditional Use Permit {Z-4528-A}
LOCATION: Just South of the SW Corner of 23rd and Br agg Streets (2314 Bragg Street}
OWNER/APPLICANT: Multiple Owners/Arthur Lee Brooks
PROPOSA.L:
To construct a 720 square foot building and 8 parking spaces on land that is zoned "0-1" (barber shop/with four chairs).
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1.Site Location
2.
Adjacent to the intersection of a residential streetand an interstate highway service drive {Bragg Streetand Interstate 30).
Compatibility with Neighb orhood
This property was rezoned from "R-4" to "O-1" at theSeptember 24, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. Therewere no objectors to the proposed zoning change. Thestaff does not foresee the proposed barbershop ashaving a particularly uplifting effect on the singlefamily area, but the site can be developed in a way tominimize the impact to the surrounding area. This siteis abutted by single family to the south and west, avacant lot on the north side, and Interstate 30 on theeast.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
4.
The applicant has proposed one access from Bragg Streetand eight paved parking spaces.
Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21 -Continued
5.Analysis
6.
The staff recognizes the proximity of this lot toI�terstate 30 as well as the "O-1" zoning. The staffdoes feel, however, that action can be taken tominimize the imp act to the surrounding area. Theapplicant needs to submit a revised site plan whichdeletes the first two parking spaces, and shows a6-foot privacy fence on all property lines beginning atthe front 25-foot setback line. The applicant alsoneeds to illustrate drainage (water stops) and agree torestrict all outside lighting. Finally, the FireDepartment has requested that the access drive be aminimum of 20 feet in width.
Engineering Comments
The parking space adjacent to Bragg Street should not be used per Traffic Engineer's comments (too close to the entrance).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, provided by the applicant to agrees to: (1)submit a revised site plan which eliminates the firsttwo parking spaces and allows 20 feet in width for theaccess drive; (2) build a 6-foot privacy fence beginning atthe 25-foot front yard setback line and continuing aroundthe entirety of the property, (3) no outside lighting,(4)show how the drainage will be accommodated; and(5)comply with City engineering comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to submit a revised site plan as requested by staff. The staff then clarified two points. The first clarification was that the 6-foot privacy fence be on only two sides (north and south) beginning at the 25-foot front yard setback line and continuing west to the proposed building. The second clarification was that the building could be lighted (outside), but that lighting should be oriented away from the single family uses. The applicant agreed to comply with both clarifications.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION �CTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22
NAME: Ruthie's Day-Care Ce nter Conditional Use Permit (Z-4557)
LOCATION: The 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.Site Location
2.
3.
4.
Adjacent to a residential street (East 4th Street).
Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is abutted by duplex uses on the east andwest, by vacant land to the north (levee), and singlefamily to the south. The existing structure is aburned out condemned structure. An y remodeling orreconditioning would be an improvement to thesurrounding area. The applicant is attempting torenovate this structure and initiate a day-care centerfor 20 children. Staff supports the improvement tothis property.
On -Site Drives and Parking
The applicant has proposed one 9-foot access drive(East 4th Street) and four paved parking spaces.
Screening and Buffers
The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22 -Continued
5.Analysis
6.
Staff supports the refurbishing of the existingstructure. Staff also feels that a day-care center for20 children would not be detrimental to the surroundingarea. The applicant does need to revise the proposedparking area to include the necessary maneuvering area.Staff also feels that a 6-foot privacy fence around thechildren's play area would lessen the impact toadjacent properties.
City Engineering Comments
The backyard fence needs to be moved closer 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 enlarged 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 recommendations. The applicant was informed that the nearest fire hydrant 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 to the December 17, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent to defer this item as requested.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 23
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
PROPOSAL:
To convert an existing one-story 1,600 square foot building to allow an automobile electronic sales and service on land that is zoned "C-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1.Site Location
2.
3.
4.
Ad jacent 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 Drives 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 com mercial center located to the north. Theapplicant states that this site contains 19 parkingspaces.
Screening and Buffers
The screening fence is in place on the west propertyline (see comment No. 2).
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 23 -Continued
5.Analysis
The staff foresees no adverse impact to the surroundingarea. The applicant does need 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.
6.City Engineering Co mments
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 vehicles 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.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24
NAME: Central Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit (Z-4567)
LOCATION: Between W. 10th and 12th Sts., West of s. Filmore
OWNER/APPLICANT: Central Baptist Church/Lee Clements
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 22,000 square foot addition (750 seat auditorium, office and classroom space) and approximately 81 additional parking spaces to an existing church facility on 4.641 acres of land that is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1.Site Location
2.
This site is located adjacent to a principle arterial(West 12th Street) and a minor arterial (West 10thStreet).
Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property lies in a mixed use area. A commerciallies to the south, a light industrial use to the east,an office use to the west, and vacant land to thenorth. Th e church is an existing use, and the staffforesees no adverse impact to the surrounding area byexpanding this use.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
4.
Two access drives will and do serve this site (West10th Street and West 12th St reet). This site nowcontains 70 parking spaces, but will contain 151 pavedparking spaces when the project is complete.
Screening and Buffers
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24 -Continued
5.Analysis
6.
The staff foresees no adverse impact to the surroundingarea. The applicant does, however, need to submit arevised site plan which shows the setback dimensions ofthe two proposed storage buildings and increases thewidth of the West 10th Street access drive to 20 feet.
City Engineering Comments
1.The traffic engineer requires that the applicantmeet with him as soon as possible to review theoverall traffic flow.
2.Parking spaces and entry drive from 12th Streetare located in the designated floodway of ColemanCreek. Therefore, the applicant must obtain avariance from the Board of Adjustment to use thesespaces and drives. Engineering will support thisif the following items are agreed to: {a) noincrease in the existing ground service within thefloodway area, and no fill to accommodate parking;{b) that the church is made aware that theproposed parking spaces are at an elevation ofapproximately 323 feet to 322 feet M.S.L. The 100year flood elevation in this area is approximately329 feet to 328 feet M.S.L ••
3.Show preliminary detention calculations and arealocations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan that shows the setback dimensions of the two proposed storage buildings, {2) increases the width of the West 10th access drive to 20 feet; (3) comply with City engineering comments Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to submit a revised site plan. There was a lengthy discussion about the parking area being within the floodway of Coleman Creek. The staff stated that their recommendation of approval was subject to the Board of Adjustment approving the variance request for parking within the floodway. The Water Works stated that on-site fire system was required.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no ob jec tors. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent to approve the application as recommended by staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
November 12, 1985
SUB DIVISIONS
Item No. 25 -File No. G-29-44
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
United States Beef Corp. 4909 "A" South Yale Tulsa, OK 74135
Arby's Roast Beef Restaurant -Building Line Waiver
3211 South University
AGENT:
Jerry D. Woodridge/Bosman, Woodridge & Assoc. 320 Executive Ct., Suite 301 Little Rock, AR 72205 227-9490
Area: .66 acres No. of Lots: 1 Ft. New St.: 0
ZONING: "C-3"
PROPOSED USES: Restaurant
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT:
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
To encroach 8.2 feet into a 60 foot platted building line.
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request by a fast-food restaurant to build a greenhouse dining room addition that encroaches 13 feet into a 60-foot building line area. It was prompted due to a need for more seating capacity since the restaurant is now operating at a marginal economical rate.
Staff has no problems with the request since the present building line requirement for this type use is 25 feet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW!
The applicant was present. No problems were found by the Committee.
\,._ ....,
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 25 -Continued
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, O noes and 1 absent.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 26 -File No.
NAME:
LOC ATION:
APPLICANT:
J.C. Tscheimer2112 N. McKinleyLittle Rock, AR664-1325
REQUEST:
Tscheimer -Building Line Waiver
2112 N. McKinley (Lot 53A of the replat of Lots 53-55) of Original Plat, Westover Hills Subdivision to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
To encroach 8.1 feet into a 30-foot platted building line.
STAFF REPORT:
The applicant is asking to encroach 8.1 feet into an area established by a 30-foot platted building line for construction of a carport. Actually, there is only a 3-foot encroachment, since 25 feet is what is the requiredsetback in said Single Family areas. The applicant shouldsubmit a cover letter providing justification for therequest.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to side yards being 7.4 feet from property line.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Since the applicant was not present and had not been to the Subdivision Commit tee meeting and had not completed his submission requirements, a motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item �o. 27 -Other Matters -Street Name Change
NAME:
LOCATION:
PETITIONER:
REQUEST:
Gay Place Street Name Change
South off Lenon Drive and West of North University Aven ue
Paul Martin Fiser, M.D.
To change the name to Lenon Place or Lenon Circle as appropriate.
ABUTTING USES AND OWNERSHIP:
All abutting uses ar e Single Family, principally owner occupied residences.
NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECT:
None except as to street number reassignment.
NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION:
The neighborhood is su pportive of the request. There have been no calls reflecting co ncern.
EFFECT ON PUBLIC SERVICES:
None have been received from co ntact ag encies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff has not received a negative comment from its contacts. It appears that the name change is a lo calized issue. There will be changes for the residents in street numbering. The Public Works Department has performed a review of the present numbering system and has determined that the si ngle digit addresses should be four digit in the 6000 block. The staff recommends ap proval of this change subject to the co mment of the Public Works Department.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The staff advised the Commission that a letter from the applicant had been received requesting that this proposal be removed from the ag enda. A motion was made to withdraw the matter from further co nsideration. The motio n passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 28 -File No.
NAME:
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
STAFF REPORT:
Pine Dale Cove Subdivision
Si dewalk Waiver
Vic Fleming, Attorney
The applicant is requesting that the sidewalks in this approved subdivision be waived. He was informed at the Subdivision Committee meeting to get together with En gin eering before the public hearing and get their comments on the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made, but denied by a vote of: 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent.
Nov ember 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 29 -Other Matters -Calendar 1986
Staff requests adoption of the 19 86 calendar of meeting dates for the Little Rock Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning st aff presented the calendar in first draft to the Commission. There were no comments offered as to the composition of the calendar. Staff recommended its adoption as presented. A motion was made to ado pt the calendar for 1986 as presented by the st aff. The mo tion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 30
NAME:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson & Associates P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203-3837 375-5331
STAFF REPORT:
Koger Office Properties Revised Phasing Request
Shackleford Road and I-430
The applicant is requesting that the approved phasing plan for the preliminary plat of Koger Executive Centre which was reviewed and approved by the Commission in April of 1982 be deleted. Their proposal is to final plat Lots 5-12 on a lot by lot basis. Lots 1-4 have been final platted as Phase I. The reasons for this request are as follows:
1.Due to fluctuating office demands in west Little Rock,greater flexibility in development timing is needed.
2.Due to changing office requirements, different types ofbuildings are needed.
3.Revisions in replats of recorded final plats at laterdates can be avoided.
The applicant assured that the existing preliminary plat will be followed, and there will be no increase in lots. If changes are required, the subdivision regulations will be followed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent.
'-' 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
'--18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
"--"' 35
36
RESOLUTION NO . 7,499
ENCOURAGING ALL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK TO USE THE
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR LEGAL SERVICES.
WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock employs a legal staff to
provide legal advice and services for various boards, commissions
and city departments: and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article III,§ 2-28 of the Little Rock
Code of Ordinances, the City Attorney is required to advise all
committees, officers and officials of the City on any and all
legal questions affecting the City's interest: and
WHEREAS, during the years 1983 and 1984, over $430,000 was
paid by various City boards and commissions for outside lega l
services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS:
SECTION 1. The Board of Directors wishes to express its
intent and desire to reduce the expenditure of taxpayers dollars
on outside legal fees, by encouraging and requesting that all
City boards and commissions use the services of the City's legal
depa_;>IDent whenever possible and practicable.
,,,,,,, SECTION 2. The Board of Directors requests each city Board
and Commission to read this resolution at its next regularly
scheduled meeting and have said reading reflected in their
minutes.
ADOPTED: November 5, 1985
ATTEST: APPROVED: _Q LJ ;,,__f
MAYOR THOMAS A. PRINCE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MARK STODOLA, CITY ATTORNEY
PROPOSED BYLAWS AMENDMENT
ARTICLE IV. MEETINGS
Section A, insert a new subsection 6, reading as follows:
(6)Notice of Amended Rezoning Applications -If an
application for rezoning is amended to a more
restrictive zoning classification by the applicant
or the Commission at a Commission meeting, the
Commission may, by majority vote of the members
present at the meeting, waive the requirements for
supplemental notice to property owners within two
hundred (200) feet of the tract, waive publica-
tion of a legal notice, waive posting of a
notice on the property, and waive the filing
fee. However, if an amendment is made to a less
restrictive zoning classification, the Commission may
defer or require refiling of the application, and
notice shall be required to property owners within two
hundred (200) feet. Publication of a legal notice
and posting of the property shall also be required.
The Commission may waive the filing fee in such case,
by majority vote of members present at the Commission
meeting.
(
DATE 72�1/, /o2;, $5
NING -ti SUBD.
MEMBER A s e,
J.-..,;;;-T;;::..-, 1 in / v �
-/ i/ ,,/J.Schlereth
R.Massie / v/ /
B.Sipes I / /
J.Nicholson / / /
W.Rector v ,/ /
w.Ketcher / / ,/
D.Arnett / v' /
O. J. Jones / J/ /
I.Boles :./ / /
J; Clayton / ,,/ /
(
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
J)E I
/ ,/ v
/ / y
/ ,/ l,.--/
/ / ,/
� ,,/ /v .,// ,,./
I/ / ,/ ,//
/ / /
/ v /
/ / /
/ / /
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
z :3 4 5 k. ·7 ' v' y / v /t � J/ / v -v, / y v/ / 4 •/ .,/' 1,,/ V ,/I,,
� / y"" v v v' ' .,/ / / 1 v , / / .v � v v / / / ,/v , / / k ,_// , ,,/ y / JI j}, ' / V ,/ 1// v v
/fl 9 v J/
� / 1a /v // // /
43 �
� / /v"
II /
/
'VAYE • NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
(
/� // /�I/._� JL/ 14 IL. 17
� / / v / v / /v � / / / / / 1,...-,,,,,,-,
/ / / y"
1.,,. / _.,,.,., -------
/ t/ _..,,.--v' / � V" I/
/ ,// / ,_,,,,,,.--_,,,,. � . L---v / v I,� � I., ,.,..-__,,, � �
/ v � / L---y' :-/ . _,,,,,-.,,..,-
/ -v /_ / / �/ ---:,. ,,,--
/ v _..,,.--v
./ ---,� � ...----;,..-�
k I},-_.,,, v v _.,., :,.,/ /'.,.,,. �
� / ,_,.,,. / L-----v .......... -,,· .,,,.,,-�
/_,
-DATE Ybz;. 1 � 11d2
..
(
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 IA /9 :l1J ;I./ zz Z3 Z</ Z6 '2b :Z7 :ir; o?9 3/)
J.�umme>r H n v" / ,/ � v v / v / v •/
J.Schlereth / ,/ ./ / / / / / i,/ / •/
R.· Massie / "./ ,/ y' y' V v ,/ �/L, ,/ _./", /
.. ( ,,,,, ,. v / // 1,..-/ B.Sipes o// / ,/ / v' / •
/ / v / v / � /J.Nicholson / / / / , /
W.Rector ./ ( / ,/ / / / / ii /, ,,,,-
W.Ketcher ./,/ ,/ / / / / ,/ / ,/ ,/
D.Arnett / ./ / / / / / � I/ /, /
0.-J. Jones i/ A :/ / / / / "/ / / ,,,,,--
/ / / / ,,, /
� / j}· /-I Boles --,/ / / ,/
y' / / v/ ,--v
. ,/ J� Clayton / / / I /
VAYE • NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
--·
November 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.