HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_03 11 1986subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
MARCH 11, 19$6
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 9 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the previous meeting were read and
approved.
III. Members Present:
IV. Members Absent:
John Schlereth
William Ketcher, Chairman
Jerilyn Nicholson
Ida Boles
Betty Sipes
Richard Massie
Fred Perkins
Dorothy Arnett
David Jones
Jim Summerlin
Bill Rector, Jr.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
FOR
March 11, 1986
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Zoning Case No. Z- 38 -8 -A (5210 Mabelvale Pike)
B. South Park Street Duplex CUP (Z -4600)
C. Granite Ridge Subdivision
PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1. Pleasant Valley Office Park
2. Whispering Pines Subdivision
3. Langston Acres Preliminary
4. Marvin Bass Industrial Acres, No. 2
5. Burnt Tree II Preliminary
1
REVISED PRELIMINARY /REPLATS:
6. Burrows - Graham Commercial Subdivision Revised
Preliminary
7. Pleasant View Revised Preliminary
8. Tucker's Commerical Acres, Lot 2
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
9. 10,310 Markham "Short- Form" PCD (Z -4619)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
10. Southridge CUP (Z -4590)
11. Country Cousins CUP (Z -4615)
12. Point West CUP (Z -4616)
13. Mount Calvary Missionary Baptist Church CUP
(Z -4617)
OTHER MATTERS:
14. Jordan Lot - Split
March 11, 1986
Item No. A - Z- 3808 -A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
J.T. Jaynes
Same
5210 Mabelvale Pike
Rezone from "R -2" to 110 -1"
Office
1.0 acres +
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Residence and Office, Zoned "C -1"
East - Multifamily and Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone approximately one acre to
"O -1" for an unspecified office use. The property is
located north of Mabelvale Pike and east of Geyer
Springs in an area that has a mix zoning pattern. The
zoning is primarily single family residential to the
west and nonresidential to the east and northeast
along Mabelvale Pike. The site abuts "C -1" zoning on
the south and "C -3" on the east with "R -2" to the west
and north. The land use is predominantly single family
residential with the exception of several tracts of
land that front Mabelvale Pike which have office and
commercial uses on them. Also, there is a multifamily
project in the immediate vicinity and a school to the
west. This property and the "C -1" piece are one tract
so it appears that the site in question has some
nonresidential potential if properly developed. A
freestanding or separate project on the rear portion is
not the most desirable approach for developing the
land.
2. The site is vacant and flat. The "C -1" tract has a
single structure on it with an office and residential
uses.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
March 11, 1986
Item No. A - Continued
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. In March 1982, an application was filed to rezone the
entire 1.93 acres to "C -1" for commercial and
multifamily uses. The proposal was to convert the
existing residence into an antique shop and construct
some multifamily units on the rear portion. At that
time, the owner had no specifics about the number of
units or the type of development. ( "C -1" permits
multifamily units per the "R -5" district.) Several
residents attended the hearing and voiced their
concerns over a reclassification that permitted
apartments. During the hearing, it was pointed out
that the existing multifamily units created some
problems for the residents. They indicated that they
had no real objections to the proposed commercial
development fronting Mabelvale Pike. Because of the
uncertainty with the multifamily proposal, staff
recommended that only the south 175 feet be rezoned.
Both the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors
approved the staff's recommendation of the 175 feet.
This figure came from the depth of the commercial use
on the tract to the east. The area zoned "C -3"
directly to the south of the "R -5" is used for part of
the multifamily project that fronts West 51st Street.
7. As was the case in 1982, staff is concerned with the
rezoning of the rear portion of this tract. The owner
has stated that some type of office is the intended
use, but as with "C -1," multifamily units are permitted
in the "0 -1" district. Being removed from Mabelvale
Pike, the property has poor visibility which is
normally desired for a nonresidential use. Staff feels
that there are several issues such as access and the
property's relationship to the single family
neighborhood that needs to be addressed prior to
development occurring. Also because of being a single
tract of land, the property should be developed under a
unified site plan. Staff suggests that a PUD for the
entire site be utilized to allow further development of
the property. A PUD would present an overall scheme,
address the concerns mentioned by staff and tie down
specific uses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "O -1" request as filed at
this time.
March 11, 1986
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 28 -86)
The applicant, J.T. Jaynes, was present. There were 10
objectors in attendance. Mr. Jaynes spoke and gave a brief
history of the previous rezoning application and discussed
the current proposal. He then presented his reasons for the
"O -1" rezoning and said that he desired the highest and best
use for the land. Mr. Jaynes said that there was a natural
buffer to the west that could protect the single family area
and indicated that he had a conceptual plan for the entire
tract including the "C -1" portion. There was a long
discussion about the property and utilizing the PUD process
for the site. Louise Johnson, representing the residential
neighborhood, spoke in opposition to the request. She
described the area and said that she had problems with any
non - single family use that would generate more traffic and
people. There were additional comments made about the
various issues. A motion was then made to defer the request
for 45 days to the March 11 meeting, convert the application
to a PUD and waive any additional filing fees. The motion
was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. (The
owner /applicant is to renotify the property owners.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 11 -86)
Bob Richardson was present and indicated that he was
representing the owners of the property in question. There
were 6 to 7 objectors in attendance. Mr. Richardson spoke
and brought the Planning Commission up -to -date on the issue
including the various parties that had been involved. He
also discussed the previous rezoning application and
described the area. Mr. Richardson then addressed the
drainage and other concerns of the neighborhood. There was
a long discussion about the property. Mr. Richardson said
that it was not "R -2" land and "O -1" was appropriate because
it was a transition type zone. He also indicated that the
Jaynes, the owners, should be allowed to proceed with some
type of development. At this point, there were a number of
comments made by both the Planning Commission and
Mr. Richardson who said that an office use on the property
was possible. Louise Johnson and Katherine Hood voiced
their opposition to the zoning request. Ms. Johnson
discussed the need for a site plan and all the possible uses
that had been proposed by the Jaynes in the past.
Ms. Johnson also said that the existing structure on the
front of the site had five units in it. Mr. Richardson then
addressed the Planning Commission again. He said that the
building had 2,400 square feet with five apartments and an
office in it. There was a discussion about the setbacks,
March 11, 1986
Item No. A - Continued
buffers and utilizing a PUD for the development of the
property. Ms. Johnson then answered some questions and said
that the neighborhood would want to review any proposed site
plan for the property. Some more comments were made
including amending the application to exclude 15 feet on the
north and west sides from the rezoning. Mr. Richardson
agreed to amending the application to include a 15 -foot
"R -2" strip on the north and west sides with "O -1" for the
remainder of the property. A motion was made to recommend
approval of the request as amended with a 15 -foot "R -2"
strip on the north and west sides and "0 -1" for the balance.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noe, 2 absent and
1 abstention (Richard Massie).
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME:
South Park Street Duplex
Conditional Use Permit
(Z -4600)
LOCATION: Just South of 22nd Street on the
West side of South Park Street
(2224 South Park Street)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Miriam Ford /Garland Ford
PROPOSAL:
To convert an existing 2,140 square feet single family house
to a duplex and pave three parking spaces on land that is
zoned "R -3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site location
Adjacent to a residential street (South Park).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The property adjacent to the south is used as a duplex
while the surrounding adjacent uses are single family.
The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding
area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The proposal contains one paved access (South Park
Street) and three paved parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
5. Analysis
The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding
area. The proposal to renovate the existing structure
will enhance the neighborhood as the structure is
currently condemnable condition. The applicant needs
to be advised that he will be required to meet City
landscape requirements.
6. City Engineering Comments
The parking area should be approved by the Traffic
Engineer prior to construction.
7. Staff Recommendation
The staff recomends approval as filed and: (1) reminds
the applicant that he will be required to meet City
landscape requirements; (2) approval is subject to City
Engineering comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff's
recommendations.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 11, 1986)
The applicant was not present. The Commission voted 8 ayes,
0 noes, 3 absent to defer the application until the
March 11, 1986, Planning Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The item was not discussed.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (March 12, 1986)
The applicant was not present. The Commission voted 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent to defer this application until the
April 8, 1986, Planning Commission Meeting.
B
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C
NAME: Granite Ridge Addition
LOCATION: North side of Woodyard Road,
approximately 300 feet from
Southwest intersection of
Dixon Road and Woodyard Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Metropolitan Trust Co. Thomas Engineering Company
3901 McCain Park Drive 3810 Lookout Road
No. Little Rock, AR 72116 North Little Rock, AR 72116
Phone: 758 -1212 Phone: 753 -4463
AREA: 28.86 acres NO. OF LOTS: 63 FT. NEW STREET: 3,425
ZONING: Outside City
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Existing Conditions
This area is currently located in a community outside
of the City that is mainly composed of single family
and industrial uses. The land involved is wooded and
elevations range from 300' to 370'.
B. Development Proposal
This proposal contains 28.86 acres, 63 lots and 3,425
linear feet of new street. Sewer will be provided by
septic tanks.
C. Engineerinq Comments
(1) Right -of -way and boundary street improvements will
be required of Woodyard Road. The right -of -way is
a total of 50', and a paved width of 27'.
Therefore, one -half of the street improvements and
right -of -way dedication will be required.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
(2) Stormwater detention required on -site.
D. Analysis
This site is located in a mining area which is
experiencing some development pressure. The applicant
should provide: (1) proof of percolation on sample
lots and provide a State Health Department letter;
(2) change the name of Castle and Callen Drives; and
(3) look at the elimination of part of Gurden Drive in
Block 4 and the provision of a cul -de -sac. Staff feels
that the lots are a little small for septic tanks.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant, Mr. Basil Shoptaw, agreed to provide the
requested cul -de -sac, but reported that he hadn't gone to
the Health Department as of yet. The applicant asked for
reduced street standards. It was requested that he meet
with Engineering and discuss street standards and meet with
the State Health Department also.
Water Works - Main extension required plus an acreage charge
of $100 per acre will apply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for deferral, as requested by the applicant, was
made and passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of
the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 11 -86)
By request of the applicant, a motion for deferral was made
and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
March 11, 1986
Item No. D - Z -4609
Owner: Lorin and Cecelia Fleming
Applicant: Same
Location: Sardis Road South of Alexander Road
Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -4"
Purpose: Office Warehouse
Size: 3.0 acres +
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Industrial, Zoned "R -2"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
East - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to rezone the site to "C -4" for an
office warehouse development. The property is located
on Sardis Road in an area that is primarily residential
with a high percentage of the land vacant. Directly
north of the tract there are two nonconforming light
industrial uses and the "C -3" location at the southwest
corner of Sardis and Alexander Roads is a convenience
store. That is the extent of the nonresidential uses
in the immediate area.
2. The property is vacant and heavily wooded. It is also
part of a larger 10 acre tract of land.
3. Sardis Road is identified as a minor arterial on the
Master Street Plan. The recommended right -of -way for a
minor arterial is 80 feet so some additional dedication
will be required.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
March 11, 1986
Item No. D - Continued
5. There are no legal issues.
6. Staff has received some informational calls concerning
this request. The property was annexed into the City
in 1979.
7. The request to "C -4" rezoning is in conflict with the
Otter Creek District Plan and staff does not support
the request. In addition to the plan issue, the
rezoning could create a significant spot zoning which
staff does try to discourage as much as possible. The
Otter Creek Plan identifies a large light industrial
area north of Alexander Road which a majority of the
land is already zoned. A high percentage of that land
is vacant and staff feels that those properties should
be developed prior to other locations being rezoned for
heavy commercial and light industrial uses. The need
for more nonresidential zoned land has not been
established at this time, and the site appears to be
removed from what would be considered more viable "C -4"
or "I -2" locations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C -4" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 25 -86)
The applicant, Lorin Fleming, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Fleming described the surrounding area and
the nonconforming uses to the south and north of his
property. He indicated that he owned the entire 10 acres,
but his immediate plans were only for the front three acres.
There was a long discussion about several issues including
the Otter Creek District Plan and Mr. Fleming's plans for
the remaining portion of the property. Because several
Commissioners were unfamiliar with the area, a deferral was
suggested so the Commissioners could visit the site and view
the other land uses. Mr. Fleming agreed to a deferral. A
motion was made to defer the request to the March 11, 1986,
meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent and 2 abstentions (Jerilyn Nicholson and
John Schlereth).
March 11, 1986
Item No. D - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 11 -86)
The applicant, Lorin Fleming, was present. There was one
objector in attendance. Mr. Fleming spoke about the area
and described the nonconforming uses. There was a long
discussion and comments were made by several commissioners
about the area also. Sharon Priest then spoke in opposition
to the rezoning request. She said she and her husband had
purchased five acres along Sardis Road within the last year
and the neighborhood had a potential for quality residential
development. She said that there were some nice homes in
the area and made some comments about the proposed south
loop which had caused some confusion about the rezoning.
Jim Lawson of the City Planning staff discussed the future
alignment of the south loop and its effect on the Otter
Creek District Plan. Both Mr. Fleming and Ms. Priest made
some additional comments. The Planning Commission then
voted on the "C -4" request as filed. The vote: 0 ayes,
9 noes and 2 absent. The rezoning request was denied.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Terry Wood, Inc.
c/o Barnes, Quinn, Flake
and Anderson
First National Bank Bldg.
Little Rock, Arkansas
Pleasant Valley Office Park
Rodney Parham Road and
'Cantrell Road
ENGINEER:
Garver & Garver
P.O. Box C -50
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 376 -3633
AREA: 23 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4
ZONING: 110 -2"
PROPOSED USES: Office Park
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
FT. NEW STREET: 1500
Internal pedestrian circulation in lieu of sidewalks.
A. Existing Conditions
This property is located on land that is generally
flat, and in an area that is developing and /or
developed as offices. Systematics is located to the
south. Sidewalks exist on Rodney Parham.
B. Development Proposal
This proposal is for the development of 23 acres of
property into four lots for office use. The amount of
new street proposed is 1,500 feet. The applicant has
asked to provide an internal pedestrian circulation
system in -lieu of sidewalks.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
C. Enqineerinq Comments
1. Resolve Pleasant Valley farm road improvements
issue.
D. Analysis
Staff agrees with the applicant that sidewalks in some
areas of the development would be useless. When each
lot is brought to the Committee for site plan review as
required by "0 -2" requirements, the pedestrian walkway
system will be reviewed. Sidewalks, however, should be
continued along Rodney Parham Road where needed.
A note should be placed in the Bill of Assurance and on
the plat stating that the southerly stub street is to
be constructed to a point 200 feet short of the
property line. The street should be extended when the
property is developed.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant stated that there was an existing private
agreement between him and the property owner to the
south that required him to pave within 200° of the
property.
The main issue discussed involved a potential traffic
problem regarding the alignment of a signalized
intersection with property to the west. Commissioner
Massie felt that some consideration should be given to
this problem in order to prevent a situation like this
one further west where there is a traffic signal at
Southridge and another at Pleasantridge Road, only 2001
away.
I
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
Engineering stated that Pleasant Valley Farm Road was a
state right -of -way and did not need to be improved by
the developer.
Utility Comments: Water - 101 sanitary sewer easement
required across Lot 3. Capacity contribution analysis
required. Sewer - 1201 main extension required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant and his engineer were present. Staff
recommended approval, subject to resolution of the Pleasant
Valley Farm Road and Rodney Parham Road traffic issue.
During the previous agenda session, there was some
discussion of the alignment of Anderson Drive with a
projected roadway to the west.
The Engineer, Mr. Ronnie Hall, proposed that the plat be
approved, subject to the applicant satisfying the traffic
engineer that turning movements at the intersection of
Pleasant Valley Farm Road and Rodney Parham Road be resolved
prior to final platting of the first lot in the subdivision,
and they would come back if there was an impasse.
Mr. Henk Koornstra, Traffic Engineer, was concerned that a
median had not been agreed to. Until this is done, all
other alternatives should be kept open, since other
solutions are possible to address the issue, and not just
turning movements at this intersection. Mr. Koornstra
requested that the approval be conditioned on solving the
traffic issue, not just the intersection problems.
The issue was complicated by the fact that there was another
owner, Mr. Charlie Taylor, which would be impacted by any
median agreement.
The applicant also submitted a phasing plan as follows:
Phase I - Final plat, Lot 1 - April 1986
Phase II - Anderson Drive street construction - summer 1986
Future phases - plat Lots 2 -4 as single lot subdivision
final plats
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
The Commission thought that it was important to tie the
construction of Anderson Drive to some timetable.
A motion for approval was made, subject to: (1) satisfying
traffic control situation at the corner of Pleasant Valley
Farm Road and Rodney Parham Road prior to final plat for Lot
1, with the understanding that an impasse means that the
issue would be brought back before the Commission; and
(2) Phase II would be completed by December 31, 1986.
The vote was: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME:
LOCATION:
T1F.VF.T.OPPR
Dillon Construction Co.
10,421 West Markham
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 224 -6035
Whispering Pines Subdivision
Chicot Road at Bunch Road
RNnTNRRR
Manes, Castin, Massey and
McGetrick
2501 Willow Street
Little Rock, AR 72115
Phone: 758 -1360
AREA: 23 acres NO. OF LOTS: 108 FT. NEW STREET: 4550
ZONING: 11 R- 211/1'MF- 1211/ 1' C -2"
PROPOSED USES: Residential
A. Existing Conditions
This property is located in a rural, single family
area. The land involved was at one time part of a
country club. The current zoning consists of "R -2,"
"MF -12," and "C -2."
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting to plat 69.7 acres into 108
lots of single family development. The amount of new
street includes 4,550'. No variances are requested.
C. Engineering Comments
Street improvements are required.
D. Analysis
This submission represents a new
on property that has been before
times for platting and rezoning.
no problems with the proposed us,
advised that all of the proposed
plan for development
the Commission several
As before, staff has
a. The applicant is
street names are
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
duplicates and will have to be changed. Check with
David Hathcock at 371 -4808.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
Staff requested that the lots on Castle Valley reflect
30' building lines since it will be built to collector
standards and that appropriate building lines be
reflected on the tracts. The applicant agreed to
staff's requests, including revising the street names.
Utility Comments: Water - Water main extension
required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval, subject to staff's comments was made
and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME: Langston Acres
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Yarberry and
Warren Drive
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
William Granger Richardson Engineer
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664 -0003
AREA: 1.3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 8 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R -7A"
PROPOSED USES: "R -7A"
A. Existing Conditions
This property is located in an area composed of single
family homes. The land is flat. Modular homes are
being built in the immediate vicinity.
B. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to replat which was originally four
very deep lots, so as to provide a platted access
easement off Yarberry and create three lots from the
rear of the original four.
C. Engineering Comments
None.
D. Analysis
Staff prefers that the access easement be 45 feet
instead of 25 feet. A turnaround is requested.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
F. Subdivision Committee Review
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a
revised plan reflecting a 451 access easement. Due to
the fact that the revision of the easement interferred
with the ability to build on Lot 9D, it was decided
that a 351 easement with a hammerhead at the end would
be permitted.
Utility Comments: Sewer - Sanitary sewer easement
required across west end of Lot 13B.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval of the revised plan was made and
passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Emmett Jones
8819 Arch Street Pike
Little Rock, AR 72206
Phone: 568 -3160
AREA: 3/4 acre
ZONING: "C -4"
PROPOSED USES:
Lot 2 -R, Marvin Bass
Industrial Subdivision
65th Street and Wakefield Drive
PWnTMPPD-
Marlar Engineers
6318 J.F.K. Boulevard
North Little Rock, AR 72116
Phone: 753 -1987
NO. OF LOTS: 1
Wholesale car lot
FT. NEW STREET: None
A. Staff Report
This lot was originally part of five acres. At the
time of platting, the developer platted buildable areas
on each lot.
The applicant now hopes to replat the lot to conform
with the building setbacks for "C -4" zoning, instead of
those originally platted.
There was a previous rezoning case on this property, in
which there may have been deals made with the abutting
single family neighborhood to the south. Staff will
report on this at the meeting. Staff recommends a
50 -foot building line on the south side.
B. Engineering Comments
None.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
March 11, 1986
1
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
D. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant was instructed to notify residential
property owners abutting his property. He also asked
for a 25' setback instead of the 50' requested by the
staff. The Committee felt like this was an issue to be
resolved by the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval was made and passed, subject to:
(1) reduction of the front building line to 25 —foot
landscaped area; and (2) 50 -foot area designated as buffer
and building line and 6 -foot fence adjacent to the
residential area. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Kelton Brown, Sr.
Burnt Tree, II
West end of Windsor Drive
ENGINEER:
Richardson Engineers
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 664 -0003
AREA: 40.3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 19 FT. NEW STREET: 950
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: "R -2"
A. Existing Conditions
This property is located in an area composed of single
family and attached single family uses. The land is
wooded and consists of elevations ranging from 580 feet
to 600 feet. Windsor Drive dead -ends at the eastern
boundary of the property.
B. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 40.3 acres into 19 lots for
single family development. The amount of new street
proposed is 950 feet. Access is to be provided by the
extension of Windsor Drive terminating into cul -de -sac.
C. Engineering Comments
None.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
D. Analysis
Staff has no problems with the plans for development,
provided Fire Department approval is obtained for the
northwestern bulb.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant explained that this plat represents a
compromise regarding the limiting of development to 19
lots on Windsor Drive. No issues were found.
Utility Comments: Water - Water main extension
required. Maximum floor elevation is 550' at this
time.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Williams & Jones Co.
208 Medical Towers
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 227 -8048
Burrows - Graham Commercial
Subdivision, Revised Preliminary
Plat, Lot 2
Southeast corner of Bowman
and Mara Lynn Roads
loots O.13iai =7
Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson
and Associates
P.O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 375 -5331
AREA: 4.5 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C -3"
PROPOSED USES: General Commercial
A. Staff Report
This is a proposal to revise an approved preliminary
plat by resubdividing Lot 2 into five commercial lots.
The smallest lot will be approximately 35,770 square
feet and the largest lot will be about 43,080 square
feet.
Staff has no problems with the request, provided that
the applicant understands that the only changes made in
the preliminary, as previously approved, are the
subdivision of these five lots.
B. Engineering Comments
Work out original preliminary street grades with
Engineering.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
D. Subdivision Committee Review
Engineering revised its recommendation by stating that
there were no street issues at this time. Staff
requested that the applicant locate curb cuts and plat
a vehicular prohibition zone. He was asked to work
with Henk Koornstra, Traffic Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 11, 1986
t
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME:
T !\/1 T M T f% XT
DEVELOPER:
Woodlawn, Inc.
Markham and State
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 372 -7700
Pleasant View Revised
Preliminary
Northend of Sugar Maple Lane,
Northwest of Sam Peck Road
ENGINEER:
011en Dee Wilson
212 South Victory
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 375 -7222
AREA: 1 acre NO. OF LOTS: 12 FT. NEW STREET: 250
ZONING: "R -21'
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Staff Report
This is a request by the applicant to add one acre to
an existing single family subdivision. This tract will
add an extra 12 lots to the subdivision. The amount of
new street to be provided is 250 feet.
Staff has no problems with the request.
B. Enqineerinq Comments
None.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
D. Subdivision Committee
Staff was requested to research plans for the extension
of Peckerwood Drive. The applicant was asked to submit
a hillside analysis.
Utility Comments: Water - Extension of main required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff reported that Peckerwood Drive was on the Master
Street Plan and would affect this Plat. Engineering stated
that they wanted the street to remain on the plan. The
application was represented by Mr. Dee Wilson. A hillside
analysis was not submitted.
A motion was made for a deferral, subject to: (1) the
applicant meeting with Engineering and working out the
street problem; and (2) submission of hillside analysis.
The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER /AGENT:
Jim Nosari
Trammel Crow Company
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 565 -6644
Tucker's Commercial Acres
Northwest corner of Jamison
and Stenger Road
ENGINEER:
Garver & Garver
P.O. Box C -50
11th and Battery Streets
Little Rock, AR 72203 -0050
Phone: 376 -3633
AREA: 7.38 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "I -2"
PROPOSED USES: Television studio
A. Staff Report
The Television Corporation of Arkansas, an independent
station, is installing facilities for a studio at the
Little Rock Corporate Center and for a 1,910 -foot
transmission tower at Redfield. These facilities will
begin broadcasting in April.
The applicant is asking to replat a 40 -foot setback to
allow room on the end of the building, 25' x 60', for
construction of the tower and microwave dish necessary
for the operation of a T.V. station at this location.
B. Staff Analysis
During a recent Board of Adjustment hearing, the
applicant did not mention the microwave dish. Staff is
favorable to the replatting to allow the T.V. tower;
however, the dish should be reviewed by the Board of
Adjustment. It is up to the applicant to indicate to
that board why it can't be located elsewhere.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
C. Engjneering Comments
None.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
E. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant stated that he had applied to the Board
of Adjustment, but the meeting had not yet been held.
The Committee was most concerned about surrounding
property owners not being aware of the plans for the
site. He was asked to notify persons affected if the
Board of Adjustment meeting was not held before
March 11th.
Utility comments: Water - On -site fire protection may
be required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The -tower was approved by the Board of Adjustment. A motion
for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
McClellan Development Co.
2207 Hidden Valley
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 225 -5569
10,310 Markham "Short- Form" PCD
(Z -4619)
10,310 Markham Street
Peters Engineers
AREA: 3.5 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: 110 -3"
PROPOSED USES: Car phone installation
A. Proposal
1. To obtain PCD approval for an office building on
3.5 acres.
2. To lease 8,000 square feet of the total 50,000
square feet as a car phone installation business.
B. Engineering Comments
None.
C. Analysis
This plan was submitted as a request, due to the fact
that the car phone installation business is not allowed
in the current zoning district. The applicant states
that this business will only occupy 4 percent of the
total building and that he will install 6 to 12 phones
daily by appointment only, and he will be open between
8 a.m. and 6 p.m. daily. There will be no auto
storage.
t March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
Staff does not feel that the proposed use will
adversely affect the area; however, basic PCD
requirements must be fulfilled. The site plan must
give details as to the location of this use, and drives
and parking for the total site. Staff asked that there
be no activities external to the building.
D. Staff Recommendation
Deferred until further information is received.
E. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant was not present; however, staff did
explain to the Committee that a site plan reflecting
where the intended use was proposed needed to be
submitted.
Utility Comments:
Sewer - Available, capacity contribution analysis
required. Water - Acreage charge of $150 an acre will
apply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
By request of the applicant, a motion for withdrawal was
made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Southridge Conditional Use
Permit (Z -4590)
Southwest of the intersection
of Rivercrest and Southridge
Drives'
City of Little Rock/
Little Rock Water Works
To construct a 500,000 gallon ground storage water tank (46
feet - 52 feet diameter, 32 feet - 37 feet side wall
height) and a 16 -inch water main extension on land that is
zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
City park land adjacent to Walton Heights Subdivision.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The proposed structure will be constructed downhill and
slightly below grade adjacent to an existing water
tower (approximately 150 feet in height). The staff
foresees no adverse impact to the surrounding area.
The only single family area adjacent to this proposal
is located above grade and to the north.
3. On -Site Drive and Parking
Access will be taken from the existing access easement
located on Southridge Drive.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to screen this project
naturally by using the existing slope and vegetation
(trees).
5. Analysis
The staff does not foresee any adverse impact to the
surrounding area (see comment No. 2.)
6. City Engineering Comments
None.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The staff stated that a 16 -inch
water main extension was a part of this application. There
were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were three objectors
present. Ms. Lyla King, spoke in behalf of the objectors
and stated that they did not want the tank behind their
houses. Ms. King also stated that if it was needed, it
should be placed elsewhere and that there was not supposed
to be any further development upon the City property.
Mr. Gerald Allen (Little Rock Water Works), spoke in behalf
of the proposal and stated that the tank was needed and it
had to be placed where it was being proposed due to
Engineering reasons. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0
noes and 2 absent to approve the application as recommended
by the staff provided the applicant agreed to heavily
landscape the north portion of the tank. The applicant
agreed to the landscaping provision.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Country Cousins Muffler Shop
Conditional Use Permit (Z -4615)
The North side of Baseline Road
just West of Cloverdale Drive
Dr. Herbert Fisher and
Dr. Henry Burton /Glynn Reynolds
To construct a 5,400 square feet building and 16 paved
parking spaces, which will be used as an automobile muffler
and repair shop, on land that is zoned "C -3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a major arterial (Baseline Road).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site fronts on Baseline Road. Commercial uses are
located both east and south, with an office use to the
west, and a multifamily use located to the north. This
proposal is compatible with the surrounding area
provided that adequate care is taken to screen the
multifamily use that is located to the north.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The proposal contains provisions for one 40 -foot access
drive to Baseline Road and 16 paved parking spaces.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that this proposal is compatible with
the surrounding area provided that the multifamily area
to the north is properly screened. The applicant needs
to submit a revised site plan that includes a 6 -foot
opaque screening fence along the north property line.
A curb stop should be included adjacent to the
screening fence. Any proposed outside lighting should
be oriented away from the residential area. Finally,
the applicant needs to submit a landscape plan and also
to specify any auto repair work to be performed in
addition to the installation of mufflers.
6. City Engineering Comments
Submit a traffic circulation plan.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to:
(1) Submit a revised site plan that includes a 6 -foot
opaque screening fence along the north property
line with curb stops for adjacent parking;
(2) Submit a landscape and traffic circulation plan;
(3) Orient all outside lighting away from the
residential (north); and
(4) Specify all auto repair work to be performed in
addition to muffler installation.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The staff stated that the
applicant would need 18 parking spaces to meet the City
parking requirements. The staff also requested that all
exterior doors be oriented away from the residential area
located to the north. The applicant stated that he would
comply with all staff recommendations, except that he wasn't
sure that all exterior doors could be removed from the north
side of the building. The applicant also stated that the
automobile work would be limited to muffler installations
and tune -ups.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The Staff stated that the
applicant had met all Staff and Subdivision Committee
requirements. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent to approve the application as recommended by the
Staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and agreed to
by the applicant.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME:
Point West Conditional Use
Permit (Z -4616)
LOCATION: The Northeast corner of the
intersection of Wood Hill Drive
and Point West Circle
OWNER /APPLICANT:
r�nnr�nnTr _
Point West Property Owner's
Association /Pat James
To construct a neighborhood park on 3 lots that are zoned
"R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent two residential streets (Point West Circle and
Wood Hill Drive).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This proposal is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkinq
There are no proposed drives or parking areas.
4. Screening and Buffers
The proposal contains a screening fence around the
perimeter of the site with the exception of the street
frontage.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
5. Analysis
The addition of a park site in the area of these three
lots will enhance the neighborhood.
6. City Engineering Comments
None.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The applicant stated that an
amendment to the Subdivision's Bill of Assurance would be
required (to allow a park use) and would be submitted as a
part of this application to the Planning Commission. There
were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The Commission voted 9 ayes, 0
noes and 2 absent to approve the application as recommended
by Staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and agreed
to by the applicant.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
I• a 61DJOR AW
Mount Calvary Missionary
Baptist Church Conditional
Use Permit (Z -4617)
Just East of the intersection
of Edge and Simpson Streets'
(1900 Simpson Street)
Mount Calvary Missionary
Baptist Church /Bettie R. Bledsoe
To construct a 3,200 square feet education building addition
to an existing church on land that is zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (Simpson).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The church is an existing use and is surrounded on
three sides by single family uses and vacant land to
the north. The use and proposed expansion are
compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
Two access drives to Simpson Street currently serve the
site (20 -foot access on the east, 10 -foot access drive
on the west). The site also contains 38 paved parking
spaces.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
4. Screenina and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted, but the proposed
construction area is adjacent to a heavy stand of trees
and a vacant area.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that this proposal will not have an
adverse impact on the surrounding area. The applicant
will, however, will be required to meet City landscape
requirements, as well as City parking requirements.
The sanctuary seats approximately 300 persons which
would require 60 paved parking spaces. The site is
deficient by 22 paved parking spaces.
6. City Engineering Comments
None.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to meet City
landscape and parking requirements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The Staff stated that the
applicant had submitted a letter stating that the church
would construct the necessary parking area and meet City
landscape requirements. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0
noes and 2 absent to approve the application as recommended
by the Staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and
agreed to by the applicant.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME:
Jordan Lot -Split
LOCATION: 508 South Road
DEVELOPER: Larry Jordan
11,810 Pleasant Ridge, #703
Little Rock, AR 72212
Phone: 224 -7130 or 664 -7505
AREA: .33 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Staff Report
This is a request by the applicant to divide Lot 11 in
the Westover Hills Subdivision into two separate lots.
Lot 11 is presently 150' wide. The purpose for the
division is to place a 1,170 square foot home on the
new lot, which will adhere to the setback and side
property line requirements in the covenants and
restrictions of this subdivision.
Staff has asked the applicant to submit a proposal
where the width of the lot at the building line equals
the average width of the lot. This will prevent him
from creating a substandard lot width, as originally
submitted.
B. Engineering Comments
None.
C. Staff Recommendtion
Deferred until additional information is obtained.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
D. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant was asked to submit a revised plan
indicating an average lot width of 60' and notify
neighboring property owners.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff explained that the item was originally submitted as a
lot- split, which is usually a staff matter. The applicant,
however, did not have the required 60' of minimum width on
the western most lot. He was asked to revise his plan so
that the lot averaged 60', and to provide a 10' vehicular
prohibition zone. Due to the circumstances and the fact
that this was an established area, staff decided to place it
on the agenda for Commission review. Neighborhood
opposition is also expected. In response to a question by a
j Commissioner, staff explained that site investigation
revealed that the majority of lots in the area were similar
in size; however, there are larger lots on a private road to
the west. This particular lot was on the border between
both lot sizes. Staff later passed out an area map.
The applicant was present. Several property owners from
Southwood Terrace were present in opposition. Their
spokesperson was Attorney Pat Moran, who resided in the area
with the larger lot sizes ( #2 Southwood Terrace). He stated
that the home sites ranged from 1 to 1.5 acres. He felt
that the lot being split was similiar in size to the larger
lots in the area and the applicant was having a hard time
conforming to the requirements and having to gerrymander the
lot lines to divide the lot because of the location of an
existing single family structure on the property. The
property owners felt that the results would be detrimental.
Mr. Moran stated that it was bad planning policy to go into
old developed areas of town and split up lots just because
they may be technically large enough to qualify. He also
asked that the Commission heed the language of the Bill of
Assurance for the Westover Hills Subdivision that defines a
building plot and states that a "building plat should never
consist of less than one lot as platted on the above
mentioned plat." He felt that this language was unique to
this Bill of Assurance and was placed there for a reason by
the original Developers; who probably knew that large lots
created a tendency for persons to want to split them.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
One Commissioner asked the City Attorney if they could
legally prevent a technically correct lot -split based on
what it is perceived as appropriate for the area. It was
decided that there was language in the Ordinance that lends
itself to discretion in this area. There was discussion
about a proposed Ordinance amendment that was to be placed
in the ordinance to clarify this point; but due to
involvement in a lawsuit and failure to provide specific
language, it had not been done. The City Attorney's Office
had previously agreed that the existing language was
sufficient.
Other property owners spoke. Mr. Henry Broach of
#5 Southwood Terrace, felt that the proposed plan would be a
detriment to the entrance of what is, and has been for 30
years, a very secluded area, with lots of 110' to 150' wide.
His lot is 300' deep because of its location at the end of
street. He objected to the applicant's proposal to "take an
existing, conforming lot and use a very marginal effort
through deviated lines, to satisfy the minimum letter of the
)
law," while at the same time "evading its spirit."
Mr. P. Vinson, Jr., #3 Southwood Terrace, agreed with
Mr. Broach's comments. He felt that the buildable area of
the lot had been utilized, and the remainder represented
the beginning of the buffer that was set aside for the
Subdivision.
The issue of compatibility was discussed. Staff explained
that this lot was not adjacent to any of the larger lots
with existing homes, but to the area platted as open space
on the north side of South Road. It was described as
bordering both the smaller and larger lots.
The Commission expressed apprehension in approving lot
splits in a stable neighborhood such as this. Staff gave an
explanation relative to the definition for the width that
could be used as a technical basis for denial.
Finally, a motion for approval was made and denied by a vote
of 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. The reasons for denial were
stated as: (1) compatibility with adjacent lots; (2)
technical violations regarding the lot width; and (3)
possible violation of the Bill of Assurance.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Other Matters - Allev Abandonment
NAME:
Alley in Block 20 of
Fleming and Bradford Addition
LOCATION: The West 150 feet of the East
and West alley lying one -half
block North of Roosevelt Road
between High Street and
Marshall Street
OWNER /APPLICANT: B.J. McCoy
REQUEST:
STAFF REVIEW:
To abandon the current alley
right -of -way and join with
abutting ownership
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
None has been expressed at this writing.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no requirements for the alley. However, the
Public Works Department will need to determine the need
for Roosevelt Road inasmuch as the Master Street Plan
calls for 100 feet of right -of -way.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
None evidenced by this review except on Roosevelt Road.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
The streets are in relation to the property as follows:
on the south, Roosevelt Road is quite steep. The
street lying at the west end of the alley proposed for
closure has a somewhat less intense grade. The street
to the north of the block is a moderately level
incline. The right -of -way terrain within the alley
proposed for closure is somewhat steep in the area at
the east end of the proposal, the grade becoming
somewhat more severe as it approaches High Street to
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
the east. There are no physical improvements in place
in the area of the alley closure. The alley is open
and paved running to High Street on the east.
5. Development Potential
None except as a portion of the abutting lots north and
south.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
No adverse effects should be experienced. The alley
currently dead -ends immediately east of the petitioners
property with an access through a driveway adjacent to
a duplex as well as the eastern connection to High
Street.
7. Neighborhood Position
Comment has not been received at this writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
None except the standard utility clause in the
Abandonment Ordinance. The petitioner has not
presented a development proposal; therefore, there is
no structural involvement to effect utilities.
9. Reversionary Riqhts
All of the alley will revert to this petitioner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval as requested subject to retention
of utility and drainage easement rights.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to recommend the abandonment of
this right -of -way to the Board of Directors. The vote on
the motion: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
FOR THE RECORD:
The following public welfare and safety issues were noted by
staff and the Commission in the review of this item.
1. The abandonment of this unopened and unused segment of
alley right -of -way will return to the private sector a
land area that will be productive for the real estate
tax base.
2. The abandonment will eliminate the potential for the
extension of an alley to Marshall Street which could
prove hazardous to both vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
AGENT /APPLICANT:
STAFF REPORT:
Larry Jordan Building Line
Waiver
7280 Crystal Valley Road
Southside of Crystal Valley Road
west of Plantation Acres
Mr. David Hartsfield
Odessa, Texas
Larry Jordan Beuter Realty, Inc.
122 Tanglewood Center
Little Rock, AR 72207
Telephone No. 664 -7505
This item was brought to the Subdivision Committee by the
Developer's Agent, Mr. Jordan. During a recent closing, it
was discovered that title insurance could not be obtained
due to the location of the existing house over the building
line. The Agent needs to close on the property this month.
Thus, the Subdivision Committee agreed to place him on the
Agenda.
The property involved consists of 132' x 315'. There is an
existinq one -story brick frame home on the lot. It
encroaches into a 25' platted unopened right -of -way on the
eastern boundary. The riqht -of_ -way was originally platted
to serve a residence to the south of this property. It is
currently served, however, by a 20' gravel easement on the
west side of the subject property. There are existing
single family residences abutting on both the east and west
sides.
The issues identified at the Subdivision Committee Meeting
were:
1. The encroachment of the house the full width of the 25'
building line, which leaves no side yards; and
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
2. The use of an illegal easement for access to property
on the south. The applicant was asked to submit a
revised plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deferral until further information is received.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval of the replat was made and passed by
a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
__
DATE��/f�
�
PLANNING ·c OM MISSION
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
·ZONING·SUBDIVISION
MEMBER A g � :1) I 2 3 '-I 0 h ? {j> 9 /{)/J J.c-. ----�--1-i n /I
J.Schlereth / / � • / v ,/ I / / • / / ,/
R.Massie 13 v ,/ • ti 1k / / / V V / / /
B.Sipes / / v , ,/ / ,/ ii ,/ / ./ / / /
J.Nicholson ,/ / v"' •ii ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ / V / / /
I}_ w.Rector n
W.Ketcher , V / • ,/ / ,/ / ,/ / / V / ?
D.Arnett t/ ,/ i/ , / / / / ,/ / V t/ / 1/
D.J. Jones / v / , / v i/ / '/ 4 V �/ / v
I.Boles ,/ � / I / V / V / / V / / v
F.Perkins / � / ,I / v' / / / V �/ / v
VAYE 'ii NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
II /� /3 Ali /6 lb
/I / / i/ • ,/ / / / ,/ ../ V
/ / / , /
/ _/ v , /" /
II / / 0 , / /
/ / ,/ I / /
/ / /', V / /. / i/' ,. ,/ /� / / I I / /
March 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was
adjourned at 4 p.m.
Secretar
Date
V`
airman