HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_08 12 1986subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING
AUGUST 12, 1986
1;00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 11 in number.
II. Minutes of the Previous meeting
The minutes were read and approved.
III. Members Present:
W. Riddick III
J. Schlereth
R. Massie
B. Sykes
J. Nicholson
W. Rector
W. Ketcher, Chairman
D. Arnett
D. J. Jones
I. Boles
F. Perkins
City Attorney Present: Steve Giles
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
August 12, 1936
Deferred Items
A. Taco Bell - Markham Street - "Short -Form PCD" (Z -4654)
B. Geyer Woods Addition - "Short -Form PRD" (Z -4668)
C. Burnt Tree II - Preliminary Plat - Sidewalk Waiver
Request
D. Hillsborough Subdivision - Phases VI, VII and VIII
r_.. Hillsborough Subdivision - Phase IX
F. McMinn Replat
G Roberts Company - "Long -Form PRD`° (Z- 4403 -A)
H. Kanis Road Shopping Center - "Long -Form PCD"
(Z-- 4663 -A)
I. Asher Avenue - CUP (Z -4682)
J. Turtle Creek Street Abandonment
Preliminary Plats
1. Barrow Plaza Addition
2. Hays Subdivision
3. Huntington Revised Subdivision
as Point West - Third Addition
S. Pleasant Heights Addition - Phase I
6. Ridgewood Addition - Revised Preliminary
7. St. Anne's Subdivision
g, Shinall Meadows Subdivision Preliminary
9. Southwest City Commercial Subdivision
Site Plan Review
10. Sheraton Court - Phase II
11. River hills - Phase II
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES - CONTINUED
August 12, 1986
Planned Unit Development
12. Express Properties - "Short -Form PCD" (Z -4703)
13. Marriott Courtyard Hotel - (Revised Garden Plaza)
"Short -Form PCD" (Z- 4485 -A)
14. Parkside Addition - "Long -Form PRD" (Z -4705)
15. Paul C. Watson - "Short -Form PRD" (Z- 4079 -A)
16. Snider - "Revised" PCD (Z- )
17. Whitewater - "Short -Form PCD" (Z -4704)
Conditional Use Permits
18. Agape Church - CUP (Z- 3789 -A)
19. Bible Church of Little Rock - CUP (Z- 4032 -A)
20. Southern Technical College - CUP (Z- 4687 -A)
21. Washington Street Day -Care - CUP (Z -4702)
22. Unity Church - CUP (Z -4706)
Building Line Waiver
23. Roy Kumpe - Building Line Waiver
Other Matters
24. Alley Closure ° Cottingham Addition
25. Subdivision Platting Variance Request
26. Planning Discussion of Moving Meetings to 6 p.m.,
Tuesday
27. Proposed Plan Amendment to the Otter Creek Plan
28. Proposed Plan Amendment to I -430 Plan
29. UPS Site Plan Review
30. Streamlining the Development Process
August 12, 1986
) SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME:
Taco Bell - Markham Street
"Short-Form" PCD (Z -4654)
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
c/o Donna McCurty Arthur Thomas
Taco Bell Phone: 753 -4463
76066 Pebble Drive Taco Bell
Ft. worth, TX 7611_8 817 -5100
Phone: (405) 324 -5444 c/o Jerry Hunt
AREA: NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USES: Commercial - Restaurant
A. Plan Objectives
1. To improve the use at this location by developing
a new restaurant that will blend in with the earth
tone environment, instead of the existing unkempt,
small rental homes and an institution known as
Peck's, which is in dire need of repair.
B. Proposal
The construction of a tan stucco Taco Bell Restaurant
on a 92° x 250° corner lot. The building will consist
of 28° x 70° of space with 60 parking spaces.
Landscaping will consist of a 4 -foot wide strip around
the property and a 6 -foot fence on the east property
line to buffer the existing apartments. New curb and
gutter will be installed on the entire site. The
ingress and egress on Markham is a controlled single
driveway for improved traffic control.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME:
Taco Bell - Markham Street
"Short- Form" PCD (Z -4654)
DRVRLnPRR - RNMNER'R e
c/o Donna McCurty Arthur Thomas
Taco Bell Phone: 753 -4463
7606 Pebble Drive Taco Bell
Ft. Worth, TX 76118 817 -5100
Phone: (405) 324 -5444 c/o Jerry Hunt
AREA: NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USES: Commercial - Restaurant
J A. Plan Objectives
1. To improve the use at this location by developing
a new restaurant that will blend in with the earth
tone environment, instead of the existing unkempt,
small rental homes and an institution known as
Peck's, which is in dire need of repair.
B. Proposal
The construction of a tan stucco Taco Bell Restaurant
on a 92' x 250' corner lot. The building will consist
of 28' x 70' of space with 60 parking spaces.
Landscaping will consist of a 4 -foot wide strip around
the property and a 6 -foot fence on the east property
line to buffer the existing apartments. New curb and
gutter will be installed on the entire site. The
ingress and egress on Markham is a controlled single
driveway for improved traffic control.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
C. Analysis
A proposed commercial use at this location was rejected
previously due to its noncompliance with the
Heights /Hillcrest Plan. Staff opposes the project
based on the proposed use and design.
The site is not adequate to place the required lanes
and provide for stacking distance. The plan also
impacts the residential area to the north and does not
allow adequate buffer areas on the east. Engineering
reports that the Traffic Engineer's review is a must,
due to numerous design problems.
D. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was asked to work with the City and Traffic
Engineers to resolve design issues before the public
hearing. The basic problem was identified as use, since the
proposal does not conform to the Heights- Hillcrest Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86)
A motion for a deferral, as requested by the applicant, was
made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of
the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 10 -86)
A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10
ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6- 26 -86)
The applicant was present and offered a number of revisions
to the site plan. These were: (1) elimination of the first
parking space off West Markham, (2) moving the menu board to
allow additional stacking space for the driveway and
adjustment of the handicap parking, ( 3) a gate to be added
to the fence along the east property line to provide access
to the adjacent apartments as a courtesy to those residents,
(4) the addition of a new retaining wall and drainage
improvements along the east line and north portion of the
site. These items were identified by the applicant as
generally being supported by Mr. Koornstra of the Traffic
Engineer's Office.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7 -8 -86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors
present. Several letters and phone objections were noted
for the record. The Planning staff restated its
recommendation of denial based on the Heights /Hillcrest Land
Use Plan, the entrusion into an established residential
area and poor site design possibility. The applicant was
present and offered an overview of the project and the
j latest revisions. He addressed the letter of opposition by
1 August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
noting that the person has moved and is selling the
residence. A general discussion then followed involving
access, nonconformity and plan provisions for land use along
West Markham Street. A motion was made to approve the
application as filed. The motion failed for lack of an
affirmative vote, but received the majority cast.
Therefore, the item is automatically deferred to the
August 12, 1986, meeting as required by By -Laws. The vote
on the motion 5 ayes, 2 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstaining (John
Schlereth) and 1 open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (7- 31 -86)
There was no further review of the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff's recommendation was reported to be unchanged. It was
still felt that this proposal represented an unacceptable
departure from the_LUP adopted by the City Board.
Mr. Mike Berg and Mr. Bill Hastings, of
Rector - Phillips -Morse were both present in support of the
application. They submitted a petition with 12 signatures
of property owners residing in the area of Peck's Drive -In.
It stated their strong support of a "family restaurant,"
which would "result in the removal of the blighting effects
of the existing establishment," and one that "would not be
objectionable." They expressed confidence that the Planning
Commission and the Little Rock Board of Directors supported
them in their desire to improve their neighborhood.
Commissioner Rector stated he would abstain from
consideration of this time because the agents for Taco Bell
worked for Rector - Phillips- Morse, and he is currently on the
Board and an officer for that Corporation. Commissioner
Schlereth stated that he was abstaining because his place of
employment has a lessor or lessee arrangement with Taco Bell
at another location.
No one was present in opposition. A motion for approval as
revised, was made and passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 noes and
2 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME:
Geyer Woods Addition
"Short -Form PRD" (Z -4668)
LOCATION: East Side of Geyer Springs Road,
South of Palo Alto and North of
Rinke Road
nL'VL'T (lDLID . HDr=TMVrM .
Geyer Woods Development Eddie Branton
Corporation 707 Wallace Building
Suite 412, Union Sta. Sq. Little Rock, AR 72201
Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372 -4730
Phone: 378 -7542
AREA: 3.42 acres NO. OF LOTS: 24 FEET NEW ST.: 995
1 ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Townhouses /Paired Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Development Objectives
(1) To develop a unique, narrowly- shaped and difficult
piece of property into a townhouse development.
B. Development Proposal
(1) The construction of 15 two story zero lot line
buildings, with two units per building on 30 lots
and 3.438 acres. Density equals nine units per
acre. Two parking spaces per unit are provided.
A typical unit will consist of 520 square feet of
ground floor area with 240 square feet of carport.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
(2) Ratio of building to land 1 to 4.1.
(3) Development schedule - Work on the project will be
started within 60 days after final approval of the
project and be completed within 18 months.
(4) A standard 20 -foot street with a 40 -foot
right -of -way will be provided with a hammerhead
turnaround for the residence and service vehicles.
C. Analysis
The applicant has indicated in his submission that he
is attempting to develop property that has been passed
over and isolated and that also has development
constraints due to the need for extended utility
service lines and the narrow width of the property.
Thus, the only practical and economically feasible
means of development of the property was through the
PUD process with a townhouse style of residence.
Staff recognizes these facts; however, the project
still represents an unacceptable density. The PUD
guidelines specify a certain percentage of the property
to be devoted to landscaping, open space and
recreational areas. Staff recommends complete redesign
of the project to accommodate the stated guidelines. A
landscaping plan should be sumbitted also. Sidewalks
should be indicated. A 50 -foot right-of-way dedication
on Geyer Springs is requested. The proposed street is
inadequate. At least 27 feet is requested, with a
reduction to 24 feet if possible. Please specify the
height of buildings, submit stormwater detention and
calculation requirements.
Staff supports the use of the project, but feels that
redesign would create a more desirable living
environment. It may be possible to design the road to
go straight along the southern portion of the property
with clusters of units to the north. The applicant is
asked to get Fire Department approval.
D. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
l
Item No. B - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of
the item.
Water Works Comments - On -site fire protection may be
required.
Sewer Comments - No plans submitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 10 -86)
The applicant was present. A motion for a 30 -day deferral
was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1
absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6- 26 -86)
The applicant was present and offered comments to the effect
that he had addressed major concerns of staff as to density,
street alignment and cul -de -sac turnaround. He further
stated that he had devised a siting scheme to avoid a linear
housing alignment. That is to say that the building lines
will be varied to encourage the structures to be offset.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7 -8 -86)
The applicant was present. There were several objectors in
attendance and five addressed the issues. The staff offered
a new recommendation in support of the project and
affordable housing. The objectors speaking were
Mr. Hunter Douglas, Jim Irwin, Betty Carter, Charles
Phillips and Danny Sullivan. Their comments concerned
neighborhood composition, the current overbuilt apartment
circumstance in the neighborhood, economic loss to current
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
owners and the absence of benefits. Mr. Phillips gave a
brief history of the neighborhood. Betty Carter discussed
traffic congestion and the effect on pedestrians as well as
automobiles. A lengthy discussion followed resulting in a
general understanding that more contact between the owner
and the objectors was needed prior to resolution of this
proposal. A motion was made to accept a request of the
applicant for a deferral to August 12, 1986. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open
position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
A revised plan was submitted, which eliminated the park,
pulled the cul -de -sac away from the eastern property line,
and reduced the number of lots.
WATER WORKS - An 8 -inch water
15 and/or 2b feet easement is
installation. An existing 12
Springs Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
main extension is
required from main
inch is located in
required. A
Geyer
The applicant was present. Approximately 18 persons were
present in opposition. Staff explained that the applicant
had submitted a revised plan eliminating the park area,
pulling cul -de -sac away from the eastern property line and
reducing the number of lots to 20. Staff recommended denial
of the application based on noncompatibility of lot sizes.
It was explained that further examination revealed the
average lot sizes in the area were from 8,000 to 9,000
square feet versus that of 4,000 square feet in this
proposal.
The application was presented by Mr. Randy Frazier, an
Attorney, and Mr. Clint Cavin, Developer. Mr. Frazier
expressed concern over Staff's change in recommendations.
He felt that the Developer had "bent over backwards" to
accommodate the wishes of staff and the neighborhood. He
felt that the units consisting of 13,000 square feet would
sell for approximately $45,000 to $50,000 and that this
would address the City's concern over affordable housing.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
that the Commission should base its decision on that of land
use and not that of demand. Commissioner Schlereth agreed,
but also felt that the cost of the amount of street to be
built could not be allocated over the 9 or 10 single family
homes the property could support. He pointed out that the
real issue could be whether the property should be developed
at all.
Mr. Douglas stated that they had offered to buy the property
at a "reasonable price" but could not and would not buy at
the $60,000 the developer asked. Mr. Frazier felt that this
project would not be developed and managed like the Woodland
Ridge project.
Both sides were complimented on good presentations.
Finally, a notion for approval was made but failed to pass
by a vote of 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C
NAME:
Burnt Tree II - Preliminary
Plat - Sidewalk Waiver Request
LOCATION: West of Windsor Drive
APPLICANT: Mr. Bob Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664 -0003
REQUEST: Waiver of the sidewalk requirements in the
subdivision.
A. Staff Report
The applicant, Mr. Bob Richardson, is requesting a
' waiver of sidewalks in this subdivision. He states
that this phase services only 19 lots and the total
length of the street is only 800 feet, which is only 50
feet longer than the length of the cul -de -sac without a
waiver. He states that he "can see no reason to
classify this street all the way from Winborough and
Phase I as a minor residential street."
B. Staff Recommendation
Denial of the request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was informed that the item would be discussed
at the Planning Commissiom meeting.
} August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval of the request was made and failed by
a vote of 3 ayes, 5 noes and 3 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 26 -86)
The Committee briefly discussed whether the staff had
researched the issue on the adjacent street sidewalk. The
applicant was present and maintained that a waiver was
granted. Staff was directed to continue its research and
respond on the matter at the meeting on the 8th.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7 -8 -86)
The applicant was present. The staff reported that the
record did not reflect a waiver having being granted on the
sidewalk. The engineer maintained that a waiver was
granted in the Burnt Tree Phase 1 plat to the east. Henk
Koornstra of the Traffic Engineers Office requested that
the record reflect that he strongly encouraged sidewalks
wherever possible and required by ordinance. The Commission
discussed the request jointly with Item 8 on this agenda.
The Commission determined that a deferral of both items was
in order. A motion to defer this matter to August 12, 1986,
was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent
and 1 open position.
SUDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (7- 31 -86)
There was no further discussion of this item.
WATER WORKS - Water main extension required. Maximum floor
elevation is 550 feet at this time.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Attorney George Pike stated that
the applicant felt that sidewalks were waived previously and
it was unfair to be asked to put in sidewalks now that the
area was built. This would cause a hardship since it would
necessitate tearing up existing driveways. A motion for
approval of the sidewalk waiver failed to pass by a vote of
0 ayes, 11 noes, and 0 absent.
A motion was made and passed for approval of the following
agreement: (1) the building of sidewalks on the north side
of Windsor Road (Lots 1 -10, extended through Burnt Tree);
(2) with sidewalks to be built up to the existing driveways
on Lots 1, 6 and 8 and to be constructed adjacent to the
curb instead of the property line. The vote: 11 ayes,
0 noes, 0 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D
NAME:
Hillsboro Subdivision
Phases VI, VII and VIII
LOCATION: North off Beckenham
TIFVFT.r)DPP • PWnTWPPP.
Kelton Brown, Sr. Robert J. Richardson
13700 Beckenham 1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 225 -2111 Phone: 664 -0003
AREA: 40 acres NO. OF LOTS: 75 FT. NEW ST.: 4,060 LF
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Site History
This plat was approved in 1984 with Phase VII being
final platted as Burnt Tree Phase I.
B. Staff Report
This is a request for revision of an approved
preliminary plat. The purpose is to accommodate a
realignment of Beckenham at its westernmost end,
realign Brightstone intersection to Beckenham Cove, and
to all for an access street (Brissle Pine), stub to the
west of Beckenham Cove, 160 feet north of Brightstone
(Brissel Pine is part of the preliminary plat
submission for Hillsboro, Phase IX). Two more lots
have also been added due to the realignments of the
street; and to effect a more desirable layout.
C. Staff Analvsis
The applicant is asked to demonstrate how the
additional lots affect the hillside regulations.
Redesign of Lot 60 to eliminate the angular pipe stem
is suggested as this would provide a more radial lot to
the street centerline and eliminate the potential for
property line dispute in the future. Sidewalks are
required on all appropriate streets.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D - Continued
They are especially needed on Beckenham, which is a
collector street.
D. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to minor design
changes noted and sidewalks as required by ordinance.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6- 26 -86)
The plat was briefly discussed with several items in the
staff write -up needing clarification. Once resolved, the
plat before the Committee had no significant issues.
Wastewater noted that easements should be clearly delineated
and dimensioned on the plat. Water Works noted that Lots
29, 47 and 68 through 73 and all of Phase VIII cannot be
served with water until a main installation requirement has
been met.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7 -8 -86)
The application was represented by Mr. Bob Richardson.
There was one objector present a Mr. Price representing
Melvin Bell, the owner of a large Tract lying adjacent to
the west. Mr. Price offered concerns about what he believed
to be the realignment of a collector street which might
cause problems or hinder the development of Mr. Bell's
property. He stated Mr. Bell had limited access at this
time due to some of the previous stub streets provided by
the developer of Hillsboro Subdivision. He further stated
that in one instance, one of the streets stops short of the
dedicated right -of -way, thereby limiting access to the
physical improvements. The staff offered its recommendation
of approval subject to the minor points raised earlier, but
asked that the Planning Commission clarify whether the
sidewalk requirement is applicable. We believe the record
which does not reflect a waiver having been granted.
Mr. Richardson offered additional comments in response to
the several statements by Mr. Price and staff.
1
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D - Continued
He indicated that the Beckenham alignment had moved very
little or not at all from its previous preliminary plat
approval. He questioned dealing with the sidewalk issue on
this plat inasmuch as it is a simple reconstruction of a
preliminary approved earlier. He restated his belief that a
waiver was granted. He clarified for all concerned that his
design changes from the existing preliminary are to
accommodate an access to the 30 acres his client owns which
will be Phase 9 of Hillsboro. This access is necessary
because Beckenham Drive is interrupted at the Barrow
property line and there is no other access at this time.
After a lengthy discussion of the plat, the Commission
determined that a deferral of this item was in order since
there were questions to be resolved and the owner does not
propose immediate development. A motion was made for
deferral to the August 12, 1986, agenda. The motion passed
by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
A revised plan was reviewed, which modified Phase VI as
follows: (1) 6A (11 lots), 6B (13 lots) and 6C (15 lots);
(2) The alignment of a lot line between Lots 59 and 60 was
corrected. The remaining issue involved a request for a
waiver of sidewalks.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Attorney George Pike stated that
the applicant felt that sidewalks were waived previously and
it was unfair to be asked/to put in sidewalks now that the
area was built. This would cause hardship since it would
necessitate existing driveways. A motion was made and
passed for approval of the plat subject to the building of
sidewalks on the north side of Windsor Road (Lots 1 -10,
extended throughout Burnt Tree); (2) with sidewalks to be
built up to the existing driveways on Lots 1, 6 and 8 and to
be constructed adjacent to the curb instead of the property
line. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Kelton Brown, Sr.
13700 Beckenham
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 225 -2111
AREA: 40.3 acres
Hillsboro Subdivision
Phases IX
West Side of Hillsboro
Phase VI
T7 711l1 T 'Kill T77l
Robert J. Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
72212 Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664 -0003
NO. OF LOTS: 62 FT. NEW ST.: 3,100
ZONING: Single Family
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Delete Sidewalks
A. Existing Conditions
This site is located in a residential area. Elevations
range from 450 feet to 600 feet.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is asking to plat 40.3 acres into 81 lots
and 3100 linear feet for single family use. The
average lot size will be 20,742 square feet and the
minimum 14,400 square feet. A hillside analysis
indicates that the minimum size of the lots and area of
slopes greater than 18% is 13,000 square feet.
A waiver of sidewalk requirements is requested due to
the fact that sidewalks do not exist throughout the
subdivision, except in common areas. Further
justification offered indicates the steep grades
encountered in the subdivision.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E - Continued
C. Analysis
Staff recommends denial of the request for a waiver of
sidewalks. The main issue to be discussed involves an
area of lots served by a private street. It should be
decided whether or not this should be public or
private. As a private street, this easement should be
at least 45 feet in width with a 24 -foot pavement. The
private access easement makes Lots 8 -12 double- frontage
lots which are discouraged by ordinance. Staff
recommends public street access to lots in the area of
61, 27 and 28.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approved, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6- 26 -86)
This applicant requested deferral of the plat until
August 12 in order to address the design concerns raised by
staff and his property owner.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7 -8 -86)
The applicants request was accepted. A motion for deferral
was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent
and 1 open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
(7- 31 -86)
The applicant requested withdrawal of his request for a
waiver of sidewalks. The revised plan was reviewed, which
eliminated the cul -de -sacs and private loop road and
included a public loop road in its place. The main issue
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E - Continued
was identified as the alignment of the Beckenham collector
with the property to the north. Both engineers have reached
an impass (see No. 5 Pleasant Heights Subdivision). The
Engineering Department was instructed to determine which
alignment was better, based on traffic and buildable
design. Staff was asked to obtain an opinion from the City
Attorney's Office giving guidelines as to how to make this
decision.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote 11 ayes,
0 noes, 0 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F
NAME:
T,nC AT Tnm
DR.VRT.nPRR -
Joe Groseclose
93185 I -30
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 562 -6570
:VI
ZONING: "C -4"
McMinn Replat
9900 I -30
ENGINEER:
Jack Wilks
SURVEYOR:
Ben Kittler
NO. OF LOTS: 8
FT. NEW ST.:
PROPOSED USES: Open Display - Warehouse - Retail
A. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area that is composed of
industrial, commerical and some mobile homes.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting to subdivide 7.88 acres
into 8 lots. Lot 2 is to be used for a freight
sales / frontage /warehouse /office /retail sales
development.
C. Analysis
The proposal, as submitted, is deficient. The Engineer
and owner is asked to set a meeting with Staff to
discuss this proposal. The plat must be redesigned to
comply with the Subdivision Ordinance. Some basic
preliminary information not submitted are the
preliminary certificates, property line radius,
contours and drainage information. Street improvements
will be needed.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F - Continued
D. Staff Recommendation
Deferral until issues resolved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6- 26 -86)
The Committee agreed a deferral to August 12 is appropriate
with a resubmittal of this subdivision plat in conformance
with the ordinance. Water Works reports that there are
line, fee and easement issues attached to this area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7 -8 -86)
The applicant was not present. The Planning Commission
determined that a deferral was in order. A motion to defer
until August 12, 1986, was made and passed by a vote of 8
ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (7- 31 -86)
Since the applicant was not present, there was no further
review of the application.
WATER WORKS - A 12 inch water main is proposed. A 15 foot
easement is required along I -30, the east 15 feet of Lot 2
and the north 10 feet of Lot 2, and the west 15 feet and the
south 15 feet of Lot 4; also, an acreage charge of $150 per
acre plus a pro rata charge of $15 per foot will be
required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for withdrawal of the application was made and
passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G
NAME:
T.(lr A T T f1N
Joel Komer, President
J. Roberts Co.
5050 Quorum Drive
Suite 635
Dallas, TX 75240
Phone: 214 - 458 -1756
AREA: 12 acres
ZONING: PRD
J. Roberts Co. "Long -Form PRD"
(Z- 4403 -A)
I -430 and Kanis - West Side
of Aldersgate
Summerlin and Associates, Inc.
1609 Broadway
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 376 -1323
NO. OF LOTS: 1
PROPOSED USES: Apartments
FT. NEW ST.: 0
A. Developmental Concept
(1) To provide housing facilities to serve the needs
of the increasing employment base being created by
extensive commercial and retail development in the
immediate vicinity; and to address the apparent
need for upgrading the area.
(2) To help the City begin upgrading and redeveloping
this area by introducing a new and affordable
quality community.
B. Development Proposal
(1) The construction of 16, three -story buildings (in
two phases) on 11.68 acres.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G - Continued
(2) Quantitative Data
(a) Phase I
Unit Area Count
Al
489 square
feet
48
A3
628 square
feet
72
B1
774 square
feet
24
B2
918 square
feet
48
Total -
192 Units
Parking
- 308
(b) Phase II
Unit
Area
Count
Al
489 square
feet
24
A3
628 square
feet
72
B1
774 square
feet
24
B2
918 square
feet
60
Total -
180 Units
Parking
- 271 cars
(3) Miscellaneous Data
(a) Recreation Building ........ 3,200
(b) Net Land Area .............. 5,885
11.68 Acres
Total Building Coverage ....90,512
17.790
Paving Coverage ...........188,175
36.98%
Outdoor Recreation Area ... 54,350
10.685
Landscape Open Space ..... 175,848
34.56%
(4) Developmental Time Frame
Construction should begin within six to nine
months and be completed within 24 to 30 months.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G - Continued
C. Analysis
Staff feels that the major issue is density. The
proposed density is 31.8 units per acre. The applicant
has used a higher density that usually gains our
support infill and central city sites. The maximum
density that staff will support is 18 to 24 units per
acre in a well designed livable environment. It should
be noted that sewer service to the site was an issue
the last two applications and this user proposes to
increase the impact.
It has been noted that all buildings along the
interstate are too close to the property line and
Building B -2 is located in what is the detention area
agreed upon on the previous proposal that was approved
on this site. Engineering requests that use of this as
a detention area be retained, and that the area be
increased for stormwater and erosion control. The
entrances could be increased by one. Please submit
building elevations, floor plans, and show the cut line
for the cross section.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to reduction in density commensurate
with the approved land use plan and resolving drainage
concerns.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6- 26 -86)
This application was discussed at length with primary
consideration given to drainage and density. The proposal
offered deals with detention in a fashion that Public Works
does not view as meeting the silt and sedimentation control
needs previously identified. The appropriate location for
such control is the southwest corner of the site. The
developer will look at alternative approaches and report on
the 8th. He will review his position on density relative to
the elimination of units and /or buildings and reduction from
31 plus units per acre to the neighborhood of 24 units per
acre. Water Works reports that on -site fire protection
systems should be shown on the plan. Also, that $150 per
acre charge applies. Wastewater reports that a main
extension is required to serve the site and a capacity
contribution fee is required.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7 -8 -86)
The applicant advised staff prior to the meeting by letter
that a deferral is needed in order to restructure the
application due to the original developer dropping out of
the issue. The owner of the land and a new developer will
refile for the August 12, 1986, meeting. A motion for
deferral was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2
absent and 1 open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITEE REVIEW: (7- 31 -86)
The Engineer for the project presented a new plan for a new
applicant that reduced the density to 25.6 units per acre
and 288 units. He also informed the Committee that a
portion of the property had been lost due to that owners
} unwillingness to participate. Deferral of this proposal was
discussed, since it had not been submitted for staff review
prior to this meeting.
WATER WORKS - On -site fire protection plus acreage charge.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. H
NAME: Kanis Road Shopping Center
"Long-Form PCD° (Z- 4663 -A)
LOCATION: North Side of Kanis, 1500'
West of Bowman Road
nL rn,r r% in L' n . Tnnvrmc r+m .
Investment Dev. Concepts Bozeman, Wooldridge & Assoc.
320 Executive Court 320 Executive Ct., Suite 301
Suite 301 Little Rock, AR 72205
Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 227 -9490
Phone: 227 -9490
AREA: 7.05 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.:
ZONING:
PROPOSED USES: Shopping Center
A. Developmental Concept
(1) To develop a site to protect the privacy of the
adjoining neighbors.
(2) To develop a nicely designed center that will have
a positive impact on the neighborhood, and provide
the residents with needed shopping facilities.
B. Development Proposal
(1) The construction of a one -story front arcade
commercial shopping center.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. H - Continued
(2) Quantitative Data
Total Parking Spaces - 242
C. Analysis
The applicant has been asked to renotify the
neighborhood, submit a grading plan, provide stormwater
detention volume calculations, and an 80' right -of -way
on Kanis Road. Sidewalks are required. The entrance
needs to be redesigned to 18' to 20' and the
landscaping plan approved for year round quality of
screening. There should be low level lighting directed
toward the pavement. Please provide information on the
percentage of food sales - grocery or restaurant.
Finally, rear building or roofing treatment may be
provided by use of a Mansard roof that hangs down 3" or
4" and hides air and heating equipment.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to resolving issues raised and
modifying the site plan to add those solutions plus
location of dumpster sites, provision of notice to
neighborhood and location of on -site fire service
system.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6- 26 -86)
The discussion on this item centered on those items raised
by staff and Water Works. The applicant was instructed to
review options on location of dumpsters, provide information
on the hillside cut and the rear drive. This information
should be prepared for presentation to the Commission on the
8th. Wastewater reports that a main extension is required.
Sq. Ft.
Acreage
Lot Size
307,098
7.05
Building Coverage -
Leasable
63,657
1.46
Arcade (covered walks)
5,744
0.13
Paved Area
134,752
3.09
Landscaped Area
102,945
2.37
Total Parking Spaces - 242
C. Analysis
The applicant has been asked to renotify the
neighborhood, submit a grading plan, provide stormwater
detention volume calculations, and an 80' right -of -way
on Kanis Road. Sidewalks are required. The entrance
needs to be redesigned to 18' to 20' and the
landscaping plan approved for year round quality of
screening. There should be low level lighting directed
toward the pavement. Please provide information on the
percentage of food sales - grocery or restaurant.
Finally, rear building or roofing treatment may be
provided by use of a Mansard roof that hangs down 3" or
4" and hides air and heating equipment.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to resolving issues raised and
modifying the site plan to add those solutions plus
location of dumpster sites, provision of notice to
neighborhood and location of on -site fire service
system.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6- 26 -86)
The discussion on this item centered on those items raised
by staff and Water Works. The applicant was instructed to
review options on location of dumpsters, provide information
on the hillside cut and the rear drive. This information
should be prepared for presentation to the Commission on the
8th. Wastewater reports that a main extension is required.
a
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. H - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7 -8 -86)
The Planning Commission was advised by staff that the
applicant had mailed notices with an error in the date of
hearing. The Commission recommended that deferrral until
August 12, 1986, is in order. A motion to defer was made
and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open
position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (7- 31 -86)
There was no further review of the item.
WATER WORKS - On -site fire protection is required plus a pro
rata charge of $12 per feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Ralph Boseman, was present. He reported
that he had submitted the requested contour and water
retaining studies. He explained that they were short of
the landscaping plan which would be provided before the City
Board meeting.
Ms. Virginia Valmar of 117 Point West Circle, spoke for the
neighborhood. She stated their alarm at the prospect of
residential property in the nieghborhood between Kanis and
Point West being sold and rezoned in the future; even though
this proposal was already zoned commercial. She submitted a
petition of several names expressing this concern. The
property is on the north side of Kanis and is currently for
sale,
Ms. Kay Kelly of 17 Woodhill Drive, also spoke. She pointed
out that they could have opposed this rezoning, and did
initially, until they took the time to speak with the
applicant and express their concerns about buffering the
area adjacent to Point West. She felt that he had been very
cooperative in providing the wall and trees that they had
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. H - Continued
requested. She felt that they will vehemently oppose any
other rezonings of single family or multifamily in the
area. They stated that they were very pleased with the
Applicant and hoped he would continue to be a good neighbor
and provide a commercial center that wouldn't reduce the
quality of life for his neighbors in the adjacent community.
They stated support for the shopping center only because of
their belief that a unified, tastefully designed development
through the PUD process would be superior to patchwork
development.
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. I
NAME: Asher Avenue - Conditional Use
Permit (Z -4682)
LOCATION: The Southeast Corner of Manor
Road and Asher Avenue
(8421 Asher Avenue)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Rayburn Burris /Marcus Miles
PROPOSAL: To obtain a conditional use permit which would
allow the continuance of a 1400 square feet auto repair
garage and an adjacent used car sales.lot on land that is
zoned "C -3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to an arterial street (north, Asher Avenue).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is abutted by commercial uses on the
north, west and east. A single family use is located
to the south (the houses as well as both commercial
uses are owned by the same person). The proposal
contains nothing that does not already exist. The
staff does not foresee any adverse impact to the
surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The entire area in front of the auto repair garage is
paved. The pavement extends into Asher Avenue. The
used car lot is also paved and has a paved access on to
Asher Avenue.
August 12, 1986
} SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. I - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
5. Analysis
The proposal will not change anything that does not
already exist. The property is surrounded on three
sides by commercial uses. The staff does not foresee
any adverse impact to the surrounding area as a result
of this proposal. The applicant will, however, be
required to meet City landscape requirements.
6. City Engineering Comments
The applicant will be required to dedicate the
necessary right-of-way to a total of 50' on their side
of Asher Avenue.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) meet
City landscape requirements; and (2) dedicate the
necessary right -of -way on Asher Avenue.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to make an effort to
comply with staff recommendations. The applicant stated
that he would meet with the Environmental Codes staff about
potential landscape requirememts and that he would ask the
owner of the property to dedicate the necessary right -of -way
on Asher Avenue.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. I - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7 -8 -86)
The applicant was not present. The staff stated that they
had not received proof of notice and recommended deferral of
this item until the August 12, 1986, Planning Commisison
meeting. The Commission voted 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent
to defer this item until the August 12, 1986, Planning
Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (7- 31 -86)
The applicant was not present. The item was not discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 12 -86)
The applicant was present. Staff stated that the applicant
had not met proper notification procedures. The applicant
stated that the owner would not dedicate the required
right -of -way on Asher Avenue. The Commission stated that
they could not endorse this project without the required
street dedication. The Commission then voted 10 ayes,
0 noes, 1 absent to defer this item until the September 9,
1986, Planning Commission meeting.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. J - Other Matters - Street Abandonment
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
Turtle Creek Drive
South of St. Charles Boulevard
1/2 Block East of Napa Valley
Road
Agape Church, Inc.
To abandon the right -of -way
and combine with abutting
church land holdings.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
None inasmuch as the Agape Church has acquired all of
the abutting lands to the south, east and west. These
lands have been incorporated into the church site.
This street is not needed as an access to the church
properties.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no requirements.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
None, inasmuch as the neighborhood streets have been
platted and constructed to City Master Street Plan
requirements.
4. Characteristics of Right- of -Wav Terrain
A standard residential street of 27 feet in width and
129 feet in length. There is a minor grade rising from
7.... L. L... L,
M1-
.. 7.. ,
the north to the south. I��e right-of-way �s currently
out of use by the public, although the physical
improvements are to City standard.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. J - Continued
5. Development Potential
This street was platted for purposes of access to later
phases of the Turtle Creek residential subdivision.
These phases did not occur inasmuch as the Agape Church
acquired those lands from the developer. Therefore,
this street serves only two platted lots which are now
vacant.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The areas to the east and north are built up as a
single family neighborhood. To the south lies a church
and a large parking lot, on the west a vacant lot on
Napa Valley Road. No adverse effect is expected.
7. Neighborhood Position
None is expressed. None expected.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
The only comment received of a negative nature was from
the Little Rock Fire Department. They have stated they
oppose this action.
9. Reversionary Rights
This right -of -way will revert to the church as the
single abutting owner. The church holds title to lots
on both sides as well as to the south.
10. Public Welfare and Safetv Issues
(1) The abandonment of this unopened and unused
segment of street 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 access to an area along
St. Charles Boulevard which could prove hazardous
and possible vehicle congestion at a busy
intersection.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. J - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends a denial of this abandonment
based on the objection of the Fire Department. In the event
that resolution of that problem can be gained by the date of
the Planning Commission meeting, we will support the
abandonment conditioned on the following items:
(a) Retaining utility and drainage rights within the
Ordinance;
(b) The removal of all vestiges of the existing street
within what will become the right -of -way of St. Charles
Boulevard across the intersection.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. The Planning staff offered a modified
recommendation in light of the developing opposition from
the Turtle Creek neighborhood and the Fire Department's
objection to abandonment. The recommendation encouraged a
30 -day deferral or until June 10, 1986, in order to provide
sufficient time for the church and the various neighborhood
leaders to work out differences. The applicant agreed to
the deferral. A motion was then made to defer this matter
to the June 10, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. The
motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 noes.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 10 -86)
The Planning staff reported to the Commission that the
petitioner had held meetings with the neighborhood for
purposes of resolving the conflicts. As a result of
discussion with the neighborhood and with staff, a formal
request was made in the appropriate time and fashion
requesting a deferral for 60 days to the August 12 meeting.
After a brief discussion, the Commission voted unanimously
to recommend the deferral to the August subdivision agenda.
The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. J - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 12 -86)
The applicant was present. There were several objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion of the issues of
notices on the attending conditional use permit, it was
determined that a deferral of this item would be in order.
A motion was made to defer this request to the regular
Subdivision nearing date on September 9, 1986. The motion
passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 noes.
)
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME:
LOCATION:
n vll,rvr nnvn.
Big K Developers, Inc.
c/o Richardson Engrs.
AREA:
10 acres NO. OF
"0- 3"/"MF -12"
PROPOSED USES: Mixed Used
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
Barrow Plaza Addition
John Barrow at Labette, West
Side
Richardson Engineers
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664 -0003
TS: 7 FT. NEW ST.: 630'
A. Existing Conditions
The land involved is located in an area that is
primarily developed as single and multifamily; however,
there is some office zoning along Barrow Road.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting to plat 10 acres into seven
lots for office and multifamily use. The amount of new
street will consist of 630 linear feet. The proposal
includes the extension of Labette, a 60' right -of -way
to the west. Lot 1 of this plat is to be used for an
office /unloading /sorting facility (see No. 12.).
C. Engineering Comments
1. Show location of Parkview Drive and the street to
the south.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
D. Analysis
The applicant has identified this as an
office /multifamily plat, which makes it a little
difficult for staff to determine which bulk and area
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance apply. Those
office and multifamily zonings crossed the proposed
lots. It is recognized that a mixed use PUD
application has been submitted for Lot 1. The
applicant must designate his plans for the remainder of
the plat. If for some reason approval is not obtained
for Lot 1, please indicate the desired use. Notices to
adjacent landowners are required.
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until further info received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed that he would work out the zoning,
construct Labette all the way to the west property line and
that notices would be sent.
WATER WORKS - Water main extension required.
SEWER - Add easements required across Lots 1, 6 and 7.
Sewer main extension required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Kelton Brown, and his engineer, Mr. Bob
Richardson., were both in attendance. Discussion regarding
Federal Express "PCD" (see #12) was held first. His
proposal was to be located on Lot 1 of that proposal. The
application for #12 was withdrawn. Staff informed the
applicant that the lot sizes were inadequate for "MF -12"
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
zoning. The applicant was asked to submit a revised plan
with the appropriate lot sizes for the next meeting.
A motion for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed by a vote
of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME:
LOCATION:
nPUP r.n) , n .
Block Realty
3900 Rodney Parham
Little Rock, AR 72202
Hayes Subdivision
Rodney Parham and Woodland
Heights Road (northwest corner)
Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson
and Associates
P.O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 375 -5331
AREA: 4.779 acres NO. OF LOTS: 5
ZONING: 110 -3"
PROPOSED USES: Office
A. Existing Conditions
FT. NEW ST.: 0
This site is located in an area that is developing as
offices. Two buildings are constructed in the location
shown. Building 3 will be constructed shortly. All
streets have been improved, utilities installed, and
drainage improvements completed.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant has submitted a request for
preliminary /final approval of five lots for office use.
Three of the lots are for office and two are for
parking lots, which have been designated in the the
Bill of Assurance as nonbuildable areas. The owner
intends that these lots never be built upon. The Bill
of Assurance prohibits future expansion of the
bu
tJU 11U d i Slg s
C. Engineering Comments
Any access location on Woodland Heights must be
approved by the Traffic Engineer.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
D. Analysis
The Commission previously approved the site plan for
placement of the three buildings indicated. Due to
requirements of the lender, a plat must now be
involved. Staff has no problems with the combined
preliminary /final request, even though the plat exceeds
the four lots required. Since there was prior review
of the site, no adverse effects are expected.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to revise the Bill of Assurance to
include restrictions on the use of Lots 4 and 5 as common
areas. This was done in response to a concern raised about
some assurances that the areas designated as common areas
would remain as such in the future.
WATER WORKS - An additional public fire hydrant will be
required.
SEWER - A 10 inch sanitary sewer easement is required around
both sewer lines crossing the property. Their exact
location must be seal verified.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 11 noes, 11 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME:
Huntington Revised Subdivision
LOCATION: Cantrell Road at Pinnacle Valley
Road
DEVELOPER- ENGINEER:
Thorpe Properties Manes, Castin, Massie
FirstSouth Bldg. and McGe trick
Suite 1401 2501 Willow
Little Rock, AR North Little Rock, AR 72115
Phone: 758 -1360
AREA: 20.88 acres NO. OF LOTS: 33 FT. NEW ST.: 2,587
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES:
Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
Waiver of sidewalks along streets in favor of interior
sidewalk plan as shown on preliminary plat.
A. Staff Report
This is a request to revise an approved preliminary,
due to the acquisition of additional properties to the
east, which changes the total layout of the
subdivision.
This proposal involves the platting of 20.88 acres into
33 lots and 2,587' of new street for single family use.
A waiver of sidewalks along streets in favor of an
interior sidewalk plan as shown in the preliminary is
requested.
The original approval includes 16.189 acres and 24
lots .
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
B. Engineering Comments
Street improvements in right -of -way on Highway 10 are
required to match the Highway 10 improvement plans by
the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department.
C. Staff Analysis
Staff is not favorable to the request for an interior
sidewalk system. Sidewalks must be built on Highway
10. The applicant has failed to include the floodway
within his ownership on this plat, as was done
previously. Please explain. This floodway must be
dedicated to the City.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Engineer explained that the floodway was not owned, due
to a trade -of made when additional property to the east was
acquired. He also explained that the interior sidewalk
system leads into the recreational area. Water and sewer
main extensions are required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Massie) .
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Point West Joint
Venture, III
212 Center Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Point West Third Addition
Approximately 1,000' West of
Intersection of Point West Drive
and West Glen
Ln w7 /" T w'r rn rn I
Marlar Engineering Company, Inc.
5318 JFK Boulevard
North Little Rock, AR
Phone: 753 -1987
AREA: 38.1 acres NO. OF LOTS: 147 FT. NEW ST.: 5,850
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area that consists of single
family development and uses. Elevations range from
400' to 4701.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 38.1 acres into
147 lots and 6,200 linear feet of new street. He
requests that the street classification be approved as
shown and stated that preliminary street and drainage
plans were being submitted to Public Works.
C. Engineering Comments
Stormwater detention nale-n1at-ions and lot-At-ion of
detention facilities are required on the preliminary
plat.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
D. Analysis
This submittal represents the third phase of an
existing single family development. Staff's major
concern is the relationship of this plat to a collector
street (Gilbert) shown on the Master Street Plan. The
applicant's engineer is asked to show where Mesquite
Circle would connect with the proposed collector.
Check with Mr. David Hathcock (371 -4808) about new
street names for Pecos Trail and Pecos Cove. He has
stated that these are conflicting names. Notices are
required for adjacent properties in excess of 2.5 acres
or greater.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant submitted a drawing that indicated the
alignment of the proposed collector in relation to his
property. He agreed to make notations to the plan
indicating that Mesquite would be built as a residential
street and sidewalks provided west of Ranger Road. Mesquite
would be a minor residential east of Ranger Road. Water
main extension required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
i
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Darbe Development Co.
12,015 Hinson Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
Phone: 376 -8142
Pleasant Heights Subdivision
West of Hillsborough
RNaTNRRP
Edward G. Smith and Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374 -1666
AREA: 50.0 acres NO. OF LOTS: 73
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES:
Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Existing Conditions
FT. NEW ST.: 7,200
This property is located to the west of areas that are
primarily developed and developing as single family.
The First Baptist property abuts on the north,
Beckenham and Hillsboro connect on the west and Marlowe
Manor, 5th Addition borders on the southeast. The land
involved consists of a large amount of unplatted
property that is very steep. Elevations range from
550' to 817.7'.
B. Development Proposal
This is a submittal to plat 50 acres into 73 lots and
7,200' for single family use. The applicant is asking
that all sidewalks be waived, except for those required
on collector streets. Reasons for requesting included:
1 ` the steepness of the property, ( 2 ` problems with
side hill cuts, which will be compounded by sidewalks;
(3) lack of sidewalks in adjacent developments; and (4)
lots in Pleasant Heights are extremely, thus
eliminating density.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
C. Engineering Comments
(1) The engineer should work in conjunction with the
adjoining property owner's engineer in order for
Beckenham Drive to be properly aligned. As of
this date, there is another preliminary plat that
shows Beckenham Drive which does not match on the
Section 31 line.
(2) Intersection designs on two of the streets
connecting with the collector street on this plat
are not acceptable due to the street grades at the
intersections.
(3) Stormwater detention calculations and location of
facilities shall be shown on the preliminary plat.
D. Analysis
Staff views this submission as inadequate based on the
technical requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
There was not a sufficient attempt to dimension lots,
right -of -way width, building lines, etc. The applicant
is asked to explain his actual submittal, since only a
small portion of the property has been divided into
lots. Staff is reluctant to support a plat with this
much of open space. Access should be shown to any
landlocked parcels. Noticeis required. A 30' building
line is required on collectors.
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until further information provided.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The issue was identified as the alignment of Beckenham from
the south, with this proposal. This applicants Engineer,
and Mr. Bob Richardson, Engineer for the Hillsborough
Subdivision that abuts on the south, had reached an impasse
as to the location of this Street. Mr. Richardson stated
that Mr. White's alignment would cause him to lose 12 lots.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
Mr. White felt that Mr. Richardson's alignment makes it
financially impossible to build on both sides of the
street. The City Engineering Department was asked to
determine from a purely traffic and buildable design, which
alignment is better. Staff was requested to seek an opinion
from the City Attorney's Office as to what is to be used a
guide in reaching a decision.
Other issues identified included the sidewalk waiver
request and the inadequately detailed plan. The applicant
agreed to submit a revised plat and work out intersection
design.
Staff suggested that the Commission endorse only the eastern
portion of this plat. It was felt that there may be
collectors, or other issues to be dealt with on the larger
tract in the future, so there should not be an appearance of
endorsement. The applicant does not know how he wants to
plat the larger area at this time.
WATER WORKS - Phase I - Water main extension required.
Maximum floor elevation is 695 feet, tank site on Lot 493
and 500. Twenty -five ( 25 ) foot easement along the north
line of Lots 501 -504. Map does not show Municipal Water
Works.
SEWER - Sewer main extension required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Staff stated concern with the
plat's lack of: (1) compliance with the technical
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, (2) nonindication
of relationship to future collectors to the west. The major
issue, the alignment of Beckenham, has been worked out with
Engineering prior to the meeting. Information had been
received from the City Attorney's Office stating that the
location of the collector should not be based on who gets
how many lots, but on the best location as related to
engineering design. One concern resident was present.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
Mr. Joe White represented the developer. He stated that no
waivers were requested, and there were two remaining issues:
(1) relation of property to future collectors, (2) lack of
street names shown on the plat. He stated that street names
weren't known at this time, but would be known before the
final plat. He requested that this issue not hold up
approval of the plat. Regarding the former issue: he
explained that there would be connection of this plan with
the area to the southwest, due to the extreme hillsides,
south of the water tank. The area shown as future
development will have access on Parkway Drive through
St. Charles. There will be a major arterial to the west of
the site, but future lot sizes of property in that area were
unknown. He modified his proposal to delete the request for
sidewalk waivers.
Mrs. Kathleen Olsen of #7 Chelsea, president of the
Hillsborough Property Owners Association, was present. The
residents were concerned with the lack of information and
forethought on property to the west. She requested that the
Commission and staff gather more information. She also
feared extension of the Water Works Road, increased traffic
through only one access point, Saddle Hill Drive and
Hillsborough. It was requested that a very detailed Bill of
Assurance be submitted and that the developer indicate how
this plan relates to individuals in Hillsoborough.
There was discussion as to what should be reflected on the
plat in the area identified for future use. Staff wanted to
see a Master Street Plan alignment, and received some basic
information on an estimated number of lots, how the roads
would connect, and phasing. One commissioner questioned
whether or not it was reasonable to tie 73 lots into a
27 -foot street.
Mr. Bob Richardson of the neighborhood requested assurance
that another stub street near Lots 58 and 59 would.not be
extended through Hillsborough. Mr. White explained that it
would not, and that the Water Works Road would not be
extended.
A motion for a 30 -day deferral, so as to provide more basic
information on street alignments to the west, was made and
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
August 12, 1986
�. SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME:
Ridgewood Addition Revised
Preliminary
LOCATION: East Side of Bowman Road
approximately 800' west of
I -430
APPLICANT /ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and Assoc.
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374 -1666
REQUEST: To revise an approved preliminary.
A. Staff Report
This is a request to revise an approved preliminary by
adding one lot and allowing a 15' setback on Lots
20 -33, Block 6 as shown.
B. Engineering Comments
A total of a 90' right -of -way and street improvements t
Bowman Road are required. The plan must conform to the
Bowman Road advance engineering plan. Show stormwater
detention, calculations and location of facilities.
C. Staff Analysis
Staff would like further information on the waiver
request. No justification has been submitted, so there
is no basis from which to make a decision.
Drainage easements are required and the ditch area
should not be platted, but shown as open space. Please
show the tie -in of Ridgewood and Bowman on the east and
west sides. Building lines should be shown and 30'
building lines are required on collectors. The name of
Hickory Hills Court must be changed. See David
Hathcock (371 - 4808).
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to information requested.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant submitted a revised plan of the revised plan
that eliminated the additional lot. He identified the
remaining issues as a 15 foot building setback. He
explained that these were requested due to a need to
recapture 15 feet of property lost because of the
construction of a necessary ditch.
WATER WORKS - Water main extension required. A 20 foot
easement between Lots 24 and 25, Block 6 and a 14 foot
easement between Lot 16 and 17, Block 1 will be required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME:
r n n T m r n TT .
Bill J. Miller
Construction Co.
1303 Biscayne Drive
Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone: 225 -1826
St. Anne's Subdivision
South of St. Charles Addition
c-w7nrrl1-7vn
Edward G. Smith and Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 374 -1666
AREA: 10.4 acres NO. OF LOTS: 16 FT. NEW ST.: 860
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Existing Conditions
This site is located in a residential area. A 100'
AP &L easement borders the property. An unopened 20'
right -of -way borders on the east and Gamble Road, an
unopened 40' right -of -way is platted through the
property. The 100 -Year Floodplain and an area
designated as a City park is located to the south.
B. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 10.4 acres into 16 lots, one
tract, and 860' of new street. There is a request for
15' setbacks on Lots 14 and 15.
C. Engineering Comments
None.
August 12, 1986
) SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
D. Analysis
Staff advises that 20' right -of -way and Gamble Road
should be closed. St. Anne's Court should be
constructed as a 27' street with a 50' right -of -way.
Please submit justification for 15' setback request.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided comments are addressed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that the 15 foot setbacks did not
involve a variance, due to the steepness of the lots, as
allowed in the Ordinance. He felt that a reduced street
standard was acceptable since only 16 lots were served. It
was agreed that a 27 foot street with 45 foot right -of -way
was acceptable. Approval of the plat should be conditioned
on obtaining land to the west, south and east from the City.
WATER WORKS - Main extension required. A 15 foot easement
is needed between lots 12 and 13.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME:
Shinall Manor
LOCATION: Taylor Loop Road
nL'17F T.(1D F D. L'Mn T M V V D.
Tom W. Homes Edward G. Smith and Associates
1920 Jennifer 401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 225 -9728 Phone: 374 71666
AREA: 15.36 acres NO. OF LOTS: 45 FT. NEW ST.: 2,220
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
I
A. Existing Conditions
The site is located in an area that is primarily
developed as rural, single family usage. Structures on
site consist of one single family structure and an old
barn. Elevations range from 330' to 340'. A 50' Arkla
Gas easement forms the western perimeter of the
property.
B. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 15.06 acres into 45 lots for
single family use. A 30' right -of -way dedication and
one -half of 36' pavement is proposed along Taylor Loop
Road.
C. Enaineerina Comments
Stormwater detention calculations are required and the
location of the detentions facilities shall be shown on
the preliminary plat.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
D. Analysis
The applicant is asked to contact the Traffic Engineer
and coordinate access with the preliminary engineering
design for the area. Taylor Loop should be constructed
as a three -lane collector. Lots abutting collectors
should have a building setback of 30'.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant expressed agreement with staff comments.
Water and sewer main extensions are required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME:
Southwest City Commercial
Subdivision
LOCATION: Geyer Springs Road and I -30
T"%VTTL�T nnVn _ c w7r'YATC+nn
Rector - Phillips- Morse, Inc. Edward G. Smith and Associates
P.O. Box 7300 401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72217 Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 664 -7807 Phone: 374 -1666
AREA: 28.28 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING:
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Existing Conditions
The property involved is flat and located in an area
developed by commercial uses. The proposed site is
currently developed as a shopping mall.
B. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 28.28 acres into four lots
for commercial uses.
C. Engineering Comments
Traffic circulation with a subdivided shopping center
will require access easements for the different platted
areas. Contact the Traffic Engineer for further
information.
D. Analysis
Staff has no problems with the request.
August 12, 1986
.� SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to indicate access to each parcel, and
indicate on the plat and Bill of Assurance that the purpose
of the Subdivision is just for sale, and does not interfere
with previous commitments.
WATER WORKS - Line easements are to be retained. Easement
at 7.5 feet each side of mains as laid.
SEWER - Additional easements are required across B -R -4.
Contact LRWU.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Rector).
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME:
TnOAMTnM.
nVvL'r.nDPD .
Norman Holcomb
P.O. Box 7244
Little Rock, AR
AREA: 1 acre
ZONING: "MF -6"
PROPOSED USES:
Sheraton Court, Phase II
NW Corner of Biscayne and
Andover
nTTl�TwT V L'n.
Sam Davis
West 6th Street
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 664 -0304
NO. OF LOTS: 1
Condominium
NOTE: Side yard on west side is 10'
A. Proposal
FT. NEW ST.: 0
1. The construction of 3 two bedroom units with
double garages. The square footage per unit is
1750 feet. The applicant indicates that the
western buildings have side yards of 10 feet.
B. Engineering Comments
Show detention calculations and the location of
detention facilities.
C. Analysis
Staff viewed this as an inadequate submittal. It is
not a certified site plan. For further consideration,
the proper survey /site plan should be submitted.
"MF -6" requires that all interior yards shall have a
depth equal to the height of any proposed building or
structure.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
D. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until requirements complied with.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that he located the buildings 10
feet from the western side yard, instead of 20 feet to
provide a better lay -out. He was asked to notify Andover
Square to the west. On -site fire protection is required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
i
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME:
River Hills, Phase II - Site
Plan Review
LOCATION: SE Corner of Oakwood and
Rosewood Drive
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Norman Holcomb Sam Davis
P.O. Box 7244 West 6th Street
Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR
Phone: 664 -0304
AREA: .9 acre NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R -5"
PROPOSED USES: Condominium
A. Proposal
1. This is a proposal for site plan review of five
additional condominium units on .9 acres. There
are currently three existing units on the
property. Square footage will consist of 1946
square feet per unit.
B. Engineering Comments
Traffic Engineering has serious concerns concerning the
access point onto Rosewood Circle. As shown on the
drawing, there would be a 4° drop from the south curb
line to the north curb line of the access point. This
access point should be redesigned in order to make it
more acceptable. Contact the Traffic Engineer for his
approval.
C. Analysis
The applicant has not indicated how parking needs will
be served. Staff assumes there will be garages.
Please specify. The Fire Chief has requested a
cul -de -sac with a 50° radius for a turnaround at the
end of the interior street.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was asked to meet with the Fire Department
regarding their comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME:
Express Properties "Short -Form
PCD" (Z -4703)
LOCATION: John Barrow at Labette, west
side
A. Development Objective
To provide a postal type facility with inside loading
in a location that is the closet possible location to
the computer generated centroid of the roots of Federal
Express.
B. Proposal
(1)
Building ........................
3700
square feet
(2)
Land area .... .. ...............
2.3
acres
(3)
Parking (on- site)... ..........
89 spaces
(4)
Building to land ratio..........
.36
acres
(5)
Title after development.........
Fee
symbol
(6)
Use mixed - Office area.........
5000
square feet
- sort /loading area...
3200
square feet
(7)
Perimeter treatment - conformance
to
the Landscape
Ordinance
C. Enaineerinct Comments
(1) The Traffic Engineer requires that the Parkview
High School access road be shown on this plat in
order to determine where the locations of the
access points onto Barrow Road will be required.
(2) The Traffic Engineer stated that one access point
only is allowed on Barrow Road. The northern
driveway immediately adjacent to Labette should be
deleted from the plan.
D. Analysis
The major issue concerns land use. The applicant has
indicated that panel type trucks will serve the
facility, with only one tractor trailer rig entering
the property daily.
Staff views the proposal as similar to an UPS facility,
which is considered a light industrial use, thus is
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
inappropriate for the area. The Boyle Park Plan
indicates that the area should be developed
as multifamily. The proposed use will adversely affect
what is now a mixed residential area.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The main issued was identified as the proposed use. During
discussion of the site plan, it was pointed out that the
wash building should not be located adjacent to the abutting
property zoned for residential use.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME: Mariott Courtyard Hotel
(Garden Plaza Revised PCD)
(Z- 4485 -A)
LOCATION: North Side of Financial Centre
Parkway, approximately 600'
west of Shackleford
AGENT: ENGINEER:
Seth Barnhard Edward G. Smith and Associates
401 Victory
DEVELOPER: Little Rock, AR
Phone: 374 -1666
Courtyard Development
c/o Financial Centre
Dev. Co.
P.O. Box 56350
Little Rock, AR 72215
Phone: 224 -9600
AREA: 4.35 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C- 3"/ "0 -3" to PCD
PROPOSED USES: Hotel
A. Development Objective
(1) To develop a hotel resulting from "The Courtyard
Concept," which is targeted toward the moderate
segment of the population. The concept provides
hotels with: (1) attractive, comfortable,
functional rooms; (2) a relaxing, secure
environment; (3) a simple restaurant with good
food; (4) a well managed operation with friendly,
helpful employees; and (5) an affordable price.
B. Proposal
j
(1) The construction of a building for use as a hotel
according to the following:
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
A.
Number of rooms ............... 149
B.
Number of suites ...............
12
C.
Two conference rooms .........
1125
square
feet
D.
Restaurant ....................
1090
square
feet
(46 seats)
E.
Lounge .......................
960
square
feet
(36 seats)
F.
Guest room wings are 3- stories
where
public
areas are 1 -story
G.
Parking ......................
164
H.
Building area ...............
87,000
square
feet
C.
Engineering Comments
(1) The Traffic Engineer requires that the opposite
side of the street on Financial Centre Parkway at
the western access point be shown in order to
determine the proper location for the access point
in regard to the existing median cut on Financial
Centre parkway.
(2) Stormwater detention calculations are required in
the location shown on the preliminary plat.
(3) Right -of -way dedication on Financial Centre
Parkway may be required.
D. Analysis
Staff viewed this
applicant should
screening and any
ratio of building
proposed schedule
completion dates.
as a new application; therefore, the
address plans for landscaping,
other submission information, such as
to land in square feet and the
of development was projected
The applicant has stated that changes from the proposal
that was originally approved on this site include: (1)
the reduction to 3- stories from 5; (2) size reduction
of meeting rooms, restaurant and lounge facility; (3)
reduction of rooms by 59; (4) location of the structure
50' closet to the adjacent single family homes, but
reduction in the scale of the building and no
orientation of rooms toward the neighborhood. The
original plan had one wing facing the neighbors and 100
percent more parking located next to the neighborhood.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
The main issue is the location of the building closer
to the neighborhood than originally sited. Staff
expects some input from residents regarding this
change. More detail is requested on the site plan.
Dumpster locations should be shown and the parking
layout indicated. Please show complete median across
the street and opposite curb and drive.
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until additional information received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant requested a 30 day deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for a 30 -day deferral, as requested by the
applicant, was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes
and 0 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME:
Fletcher Meadows "Long -Form
PRD"
LOCATION: 6th and Fletcher
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
City of Little Rock Edward G. Smith and Associates
City Hall, Room 101 401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 371 -4785 Phone: 374 -1666
AREA: 9.69 acres NO. OF LOTS: 59 FT. NEW ST.: 1,250'
ZONING: "I- 3 " / 11R -4"
PROPOSED USES: Detached Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Development Objective
(1) To stimulate extensive construction of quality
low -cost homes for what is believed to be a
neglected and potentially profitable moderate
income market in older neighborhoods of
Little Rock.
(2) To demonstrate existence of such a market and
economic feasibility of serving it and provide an
attractive addition to the neighborhood.
(3) To stimulate use of large, but undervalued vacant
lots in all the City's older neighborhoods.
(4) To provide basic homes of quality construction,
varied appearance, moderate costs, energy
efficient, little maintenance and that will
accommodate a variety of family sizes and needs.
The units may be 1 or 2 stories.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
(5) To help check the enormous hidden cost to
Little Rock of this investment in its mature
residential areas.
B. Proposal
(1) The construction of 59 homes on 9.69 acres.
(2) Variances from sidewalk requirements, lot size,
street width and structure placement as shown.
C. Engineering Comments
Contact the Traffic Engineer for possible redesign of
curb on 6th Street. This may require right -of -way
dedication and minor reconstruction of 6th Street.
D. Analysis
This is an attempt by the City to develop affordable
housing, which will be constructed by private builders
under contract to the City. David Hathcock recommends
that the name Parkside Drive be changed (371- 4808).
Sixth (6th) Street may need to be straightened out due
to the reverse curves. Staff feels that sidewalks and
normal residential streets should be built.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that sidewalks would cut down on the
amount of pavement on the smaller lots, since conrete pads
for parking would also be provided on each lot. There was
some discussion on constructing streets to 27 foot with 45
feet right -of -way.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
Commissioner Jones stated that he wanted to go on record as
saying that he didn't feel the City should be involved in
any type of development that didn't provide a fairly wide
street for safety reasons, as well as sidewalks, even if its
not required by Ordinance, regardless of whether its in the
western or eastern part of town. He did not like to see the
City getting into what could be substandard development. He
felt that the City was trying to do something much cheaper
than what the private marketplace would do; and to be able
to do that a narrow road, which does not promote safety, is
being placed in a development.
Commissioner Jones made a motion to require sidewalks on all
streets. Commissioner Schlereth asked for a rationale for
requesting the City to do more than the private developer.
Commissioner Jones explained that public policy was
involved, therefore, the City should be doing more than
just- for - profit developers, and that the City should be
encouraging safety and growth and development. He felt that
this was not being done and if the City was going to get
into the business of developing property, that they ought to
be providing an example for the rest of the private
community in their own development. Commissioner Schlereth
disagreed. He felt that the City was obviously the
developer of last resort and would have loved to see some
private developer go down on the East End and develop the
project, but in reality it just wouldn't happen. He
explained that the primary purposes for affordable housing
and if costs are added, the purpose of the project is
defeated.
After a question by Commissioner Massie, staff stated
agreement with the minor street classification. It was
clarified that no waivers were being requested.
Commissioner Jones then stated that it should be realized
then that this was a "shoddy development."
Commissioner Nicholson pointed out that the City was meeting
Ordinance requirements. Commissioner Schlereth stated that
he agreed that the City should have to do what every
developer does, but he disagreed on requiring the City to do
more, especially since they are the only developer
interested in developing the property.
i There was no second on the motion requiring sidewalks
throughout the development, so it died. A motion for
approval was then made and passed to approve the application.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff reported that a waiver of sidewalks and reduced street
standards were requested as a part of this application.
Staff's recommendation was approval, subject to the
applicant providing sidewalks and providing streets with
25 foot - 45 feet.
Mr. Nathaniel Hill, Director of Human and General Services,
and Mr. Joe White of Edward G. Smith and Associates
represented the application. There were some interested
persons present in the audience but no one objected.
Mr. Hill explained that sidewalks would be provided on 5th
and 6th Streets and a 25 foot street would be provided; and
that there was not really a waiver request, since the
interior street could qualify as a minor residential street
as stated in the Ordinance. The minor residential street
classification does not require sidewalks. He also
explained that one of the lots on the east side of the
property was to be used as a walkway to the East Little Rock
Complex.
Commissioner Jones questioned whether or not safety had not
been a consideration when it was decided to use narrower
streets. Mr. Hill explained that parking pads would be
provided on each lot and the purpose was to provide housing
which could be afforded by low and moderate income persons,
and to address a situation which is not currently being
addressed elsewhere in the City. He stated that the object
was to lower the costs as much as possible, and still have a
house that is affordable. The projected cost was stated as
around $35,000.
Commissioner Jones asked Mr. Hill what type of assurances
could he provide that would indicate that the types of homes
proposed would actually be those that are built. Mr. Hill
explained that the City, not private developers, would
design the housing and would construct a model. A developer
would come in and build a particular house, but would not be
at liberty to build what they wanted to. He stated that he
was currently working with HUD and the State Housing
Finance Agency on financing. The City expected to build the
homes and get their money back.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent.
August 12, 1986
j SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15
NAME: Paul C. Watson, Jr. "Short -Form
PRD" (Z- 4679 -A)
LOCATION: 3723 West 11th Street
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Paul C. Watson, Jr. Donald W. Brooks
24 Queenspark Road P.O. Box 897
Little Rock, AR 72207 North Little Rock, AR 72115
Phone: 224 -0896 Phone: 372 -2131
AREA: .14 acre NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R -3" to PRD
PROPOSED USES: Fourplex
REQUEST: Convert existing duplex zoned "R -3" to four -unit
apartment building.
A. Development Objectives
(1) To remodel an existing, condemned 2 -story brick
and frame structure with six small eficiency
apartments and bring it up to City Housing Code
standards.
B. Proposal
(1) The conversion of a structure into 4 efficiency
apartment units.
(2) The provision of 4 parking spaces.
C. Engineering Comments
Permanent landscape shall be shown on the south
property line.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
D. Analysis
The applicant recently applied for rezoning of the
property but was advised by the Commission to file as a
PUD, so there would be some limit on density. The
issue involved parking, since the applicant requests
that he provide 4 spaces instead of the 6 required due
to the location of a large Oak tree in the rear of the
structure. Site investigation revealed a very
impressive old Oak indeed, however, staff cannot
support 4 spaces.
There are other multifamily units in the area.
E. Staff Recommendation
Will comment at the meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The issues were identified as density and parking. Staff
reported that at a previous Commission meeting, the general
feeling was that the proposal could probably be accommodated
with some limit on density.
After some discussion, it was agreed by staff and the
Committee that one parking space could be sacrificed for the
Oak tree. The proposed use, efficeincy apartments, was not
considered to be an intensive traffic generator.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff
recommended approval of the application as filed. A motion
for approval was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes
and 2 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
NAME: Snider "Short -Form PCD"
LOCATION: SW Corner of I -630 and Cedar
Street
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Schneider Corp. James W. Farrar/
4021 West 8th Morris Farrar Architects
Little Rock, AR 72204 914 Barber Street
Phone: 661 -7500 Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 374 -3001
AREA: 107,640 sq. ft. NO. OF LOTS: 18 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USES: Professional office and accessory commercial
as specified in "0 -3."
REQUEST: To amend an approved PCD to provide the proposed
uses described above.
A. Development Objective
(1) To develop a general and professional office park
that is compatible with the residential
neighborhood on the south and west.
B. Proposal
Phase I:
- Existing Building area ................ 16,000
- Proposed new building ..................43,000
- Total building area ....................59,000
- Parking ....... ............................122 cars
Phase II:
- Possible building addition ............ 4,800
- Total building area ....................63,800
I
- Parking ....... ............................169 cars
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
C. Engineering Comments
None at this time.
D. Analysis
This represents the revision of a PUD that was
originally approved in March of 1982. The proposal
then included a hotel, restaurant and apartments.
Staff has no problems with the proposed use. The Fire
Chief has requested 20 foot interior streets and the
alley closure driveway. Further comments made will be
provided at the meeting.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant stated that he would like to close Maryland
Street and the southern alley on the property. He was
informed that a plat needed to be filed to indicate final
composition of lots and right -of -ways. Also, the PCD zoning
needs to be rescinded on the block where a hotel was located
previously, since it has been eliminated from this proposal.
Engineering reported that a lot of traffic problems were
apparent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Applicant and his Architect were present. Some
concerned residents of the neighborhood were in attendance.
Staff reported that Phase I of the proposal was short of
parking; however, there would be adequate parking once Phase
II is constructed. Staff recommended that: (1) Phase I not
be approved without the required amount of parking and that
(2) no closure of Maryland Street be approved until plans
for development of the property south of Maryland be
reviewed.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
Mr. Farrar, the
lack of parking
with Phase II.
story of the of
across Cedar to
constructed.
Architect, explained the project and the
and that the required amount would be met
He offered to remove the additional six
Tice building or use additional property
the east, temporarily, until Phase II is
Mr. Ray Trussman, of the neighborhood, expressed concern
that this proposal would be more intrusive to the
neighborhood than the original PCD approved. It was
explained that it would not, since plans for a hotel have
been dropped. Mr. Ross of 1908 South Elm expressed concern
about the closure of Maryland Street. The applicant
explained that no application for closure has been filed.
His showing of the street closure on the site plan was just
to indicate a long -term goal. He felt such a closure may be
necessary for security, but it would not be pursued until
Phase II is constructed.
The applicant agreed to use the lot across Cedar to
temporarily fullfill parking requirements for Phase II and
to rescind the previous PUD zoning to do so.
A motion to this effect and requiring the submission of a
revised site plan showing the parking layout on the
temporary lot was made. The motion for approval passed by a
vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
NAME:
LOCATION:
AGENT:
Geoff Treece
Phone: 374 -9977
Whitewater "Short -Form PCD"
(Z -4704)
7th and Thayer Streets
DESIGNER:
Paul Davenport
Phone: 376 -4411
Rick's, Inc. /Larry Garrison
7th and Thayer
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 374 - 3801/834 -2122
AREA: 33,298 sq. ft. NO. OF LOTS:
ZONING: 11R -3, 11R -2, "C -3" to PCD
PROPOSED USES: Commercial Restaurant
FT. NEW ST.: 0
A. Proposal
(1) To provide continued use of a commercial
restaurant building on 33,298 square feet.
(2) To provide a paved parking area.
(3) To enhance the site through landscaping, fencing
and paving.
(4) To allow for the addition of a barbeque smoker,
which increases the building size from 2800 square
feet to 2965.
(5) Parking includes 28 spaces.
(6) Landscaping /screening - 6' wooden privacy fence
will be built to the rear and along the south side
of the building and between the existing building
and a house just north of the northern boundary
line.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
(7) Development schedule
- Fencing, landscaping - 1 year
- Curb, gutter and parking lot - 2 years
B. Engineering Comments
(1) No exterior landscaping has been shown around the
parking lot.
(2) Street improvements and right -of -way on Thayer
Street shall be required.
(3) Detention calculations and detention facility
locations shall be shown on the preliminary plat.
(4 ) Parking lot shall be redesigned in the area of the
railroad right -of -way, due to inadequate turning
radius. Contact the Traffic Department.
C. Analysis
This is currently a nonconforming use with a long
history of dealings with the City. Further information
will be provided at the meeting. The parking lot is
inadequate.
D. Staff Recommendation
To be provided at the meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was informed that he needs 30 parking spaces.
Land use was identified as the predominant issue.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff stated its recommendation as denial and explained that
this was a nonconforming use, with no parking that had been
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
expanded without benefit of a building permit. The
expansion was cited by the Enforcement Department. The item
was then taken to the Board of Adjustment for
interpretation. They ruled that it was, indeed,
nonconforming.
Mr. Geoff Treece of Davidson Law Firm represented the
applicant. He explained that they were under contract with
Sims Barbecue, who was operating from an existing slab on
the back of the kitchen of the building. The State Health
Department informed them that it would have to be screened
and covered. They did not feel that it was an expansion
because of the existing slab. After the Board of Adjustment
disagreed, they were informed that their only alternative
was to seek rezoning. He went on to explain that this
proposal added a parking lot with 37 spaces, curb and
guttering and fence. It was an attempt to upgrade the area.
Commissioner Jones identified the issue as one of use and
whether the Commission would allow continued use.
Mr. Treece's response was that they were trying to upgrade
the area and provide the City with a trade -off, or a
concession to the City since they were going to be there
regardless of whatever this Commission took. Their wish,
also, was not to inconvenience their relationship with Sims
Barbecue. If a trade -off was denied, then there would be
still a gravel parking lot and no curb /guttering. He felt
that this was the best use for the property. A revised plan
addressing Engineering concerns was presented. Staff
reported that Mr. Steve Turnaprovitch, who lived next door
to the restaurant, had called and stated opposition.
The neighborhood was represented Ms. Pilachowski of
2612 West 6th Street, a member of the C. D.B.G. Committee of
the area. She explained that they were very upset that the
applicant was asking for approval after the addition had
been made. She felt that this would interfere with traffic,
and parking in the area and be detrimental to the enjoyment
and use of the property of residents in the area. She
disagreed with Mr. Treece's claim that this was the best use
for the property. She felt that residential use was best.
Also, there was a complaint that this was not in the best
interest of the neighborhood since those residents did not
frequent the bar. She felt it served mostly patrons from
other areas like the Heights and Pleasant Valley. Mention
was made of the extreme amount of smoke that was a nuisance
to the area.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
The Commission then entered into a discussion of the issue.
It was noted that it was now zoned for a more intense use
("1-2") than would be provided if this PCD was approved.
One Commissioner felt that previous consideration of this
case yielded a strong stand against commercial rezoning of
the property; thus, resulting in the granting of a
conditional use permit.
Another felt that this submission provided a substantial
difference since it provided an opportunity to upgrade the
area and restrict the use of the property to a less
intensive use by eliminating the "I -2" zoning on the parking
lot property. It was felt that the trade -off presented more
positives than negatives.
Further discussion yielded more comments from the Commission
referring to the extensive amount of time spent considering
the nonconforming status of this property, and expressing
concern that the applicant still constructed an illegal
expansion. It was noted that the industrial use on this
property would not be offensive, since it would probably
consist of a lumber storage yard at the most; and to allow
additional parking would encourage continued success of the
business and create more traffic.
Commissioner Jones felt that the applicant had not held up
their part of the bargain and a dangerous precedent would be
set by giving them credibility through approving commercial
zoning. Commissioner Ketcher felt that the presented a good
use of the land.
A motion for approval was made and automtically deferred for
30 days because of a split vote. The vote: 4 ayes, 4 noes
and 3 absent.
} August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18
NAME:
Agape Church - Conditional Use
Permit (Z- 3789 -A)
LOCATION: The Southeast Corner of Napa
Valley and St. Charles Blvd.
(701 Napa Valley Drive)
OWNER /APPLICANT:
Agape Church /Joe D. White
PROPOSAL: To construct 138 new parking spaces (after
closing Turtle Creek Drive) on three lots (Lots 105, 127,
and 144, Turtle Creek Subdivision) all zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a minor arterial street (Napa Valley Drive)
and a collector street (St. Charles Boulevard).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The three lots are abutted by single family uses on the
north, Church on the south, vacant land on the east and
multifamily on the west. The Church use exists. The
proposed use (parking) would be compatible provided it
was properly landscaped and screened from the single
family area located to the north.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The Church has two existing access drives (Napa Valley
Drive) with no further access proposed. The Church
also has 252 existing parking spaces with an additional
138 spaces proposed.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Continued
M
91
0
Screening and Buffers
The applicant has proposed the construction of a 6'
brick fence (on top of a berm) along the north line of
Lots 127 and 144 as well as the realignment of the curb
along St. Charles Boulevard (plus landscaping). The
proposal also contains landscaping and a 6' brick fence
on the north line of Lot 105.
Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed use is compatible
with the surrounding area due to the fact that all the
single family structures are below grade and the fact
of the proposed extensive fencing and landscaping
work. The staff does, however, have some question
about the possible preclusion of a parking use within
the existing Bill of Assurance. The staff also
recognizes the fact that other land is available for
parking on -site. In addition, the Fire Department will
not recommend approval unless they are assured of
on -site water lines for fire protection (3 fire
hydrants - 1 on the lower portion of each access drive
and 1 adjacent to the Church building). Finally,
approval of this proposal is subject to the approval of
the closure of Turtle Creek Drive.
Citv Engineerinq Comments
Physically close Turtle Creek
curbing and sidewalks on St.
has been shown as a proposed
(if closure is approved).
7. Staff Recommendation
Drive by continuing the
Charles Boulevard which
entrance into the Church
The staff recommends approval of the proposed use
subject to: (1) the applicant agreeing to provide
on -site fire protection for the entire Church property;
(2) the approval of the proposed street closure; (3)
City Engineering Comments; (4) the applicant proving
that the construction of a parking facility is
allowable (as per private restrictions); and (5)
exploration of other possible parking areas on -site.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. The applicant also stated that there were
private restrictions pertaining to the proposed use. The
staff stated that it simply wanted to point out the issue of
private restrictions on the property.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 12 -86)
The applicant was present. The staff stated that proper
notification had not been made and recommended that the item
be deferred on the September 9, 1986, Planning Commission
meeting. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes to defer this
item until the September 9, 1986, Planning Commission
meeting.
j, August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19
NAME:
Bible Church of Little Rock
Conditional Use Permit
(Z- 4032 -A)
LOCATION: The Northwest Corner of
Breckenridge Drive and I -430
(10,618 Breckenridge Drive)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Bible Church of Little Rock/
Olin H. Wright, Architect
PROPOSAL: To construct a one -story addition (9,050 square
feet) (classrooms and nursery) for a school (K -5 years old
through 9th grade /260 students) and to remodel and enlarge
the existing sanctuary (from 425 to 605 capacity) on land
that is zoned "R- 2 " /C.U.P.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to an interstate (No. 430) and a collector
street (Breckenridge Drive).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The Church and the school are existing uses. The
proposed construction is generally oriented away from
the existing single family structures. If the existing
trees and shrubs (especially north and west) are
maintained the compatibility of the proposal would be
greatly enhanced. The proposed use is compatible with
the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
This site has two 24 -feet wide access drives on
Breckenridge Drive. The site also contains 108 paved
parking spaces.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted. The applicant
plans to protect the wooded area located on the north
property line.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed use is compatible
with the surrounding area. The staff is concerned,
however, about landscaping and parking. The applicant
needs to ensure that the existing trees and vegetation
remain along the north and west property line in
addition to meeting landscape ordinance requirements.
The site is also deficient in parking as per ordinance
requirement. The proposal contains 108 parking spaces
while the ordinance requires 121 spaces. The City
Traffic Engineer has asked that 8 proposed or existing
spaces be deleted (located within the easternmost
drive). The applicant has provided a copy of an
agreement which allows the Church the use of
Breckenridge Village parking area on Sundays. The
staff feel that this is an adequate overflow parking
area as long as the church can ensure that their
members park on it.
6. City Engineering Comments
(1) The site does not show any landscaping; (2) the
entrance on the east side of the property should be a
minimum of 20 feet wide - delete parallel parking
spaces.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) leave
the existing vegetation on the north and west property
lines and meet City landscape requirements; (2) delete
8 parking spaces that lie within the easternmost access
drive: and (3) provide assurance that the Church
members use the overflow parking area in Breckenridge
Village.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. Commissioner Rector stated that
Breckenridge Village Shopping Center was about to be sold
and that a written guarantee of parking privileges would be
required from the new owners. The applicant agreed to
comply. The staff also stated that the Water Works required
on -site fire protection. The applicant agreed to comply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 12 -86)
The applicant was present as were six concerned neighbors.
The staff stated that they had received a revised site plan
as well as signoffs from the Water Works /Fire Department.
The applicant stated a parking guarantee from the potential
new owners of Breckenridge Village was not possible until
someone had actually purchased the property. Staff stated
that they had received two calls expressing concern about
the parking around the church property (Mr. Fox and
Mr. Snow). Staff also stated that they had received a
written commitment from the church which indicated methods
that the church would use to encourage members to park in
the Breckenridge parking lot. The staff expressed some
concern about the parking arrangement. Mr. Snow spoke about
parking problems on the street and on Sunday (Breckenridge
Drive). He asked that the parking be eliminated from
Breckenridge Drive on the single family side away from the
church. Another neighbor expressed concern about the size
of the school as well as the parking problems. The
Commission asked the staff about the proposed parking. The
staff stated that the revised site plan included 99 spaces
and that the ordinance required 121 spaces but that the
ordinance allows up to 25 percent of parking to be off -site.
Mr. Jack Larrison, representing the Walnut Valley Property
Owners Association, stated that they did not receive a
notice. The staff stated that the Homeowners Association
was on the abstract list but that no address was given. Mr.
Larrison requested that this item be deferred to allow them
more time to evaluate the proposal. The staff also
requested the applicant to consider what the maximum
enrollment of the school would be. The Commission then
voted 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent to defer this item until the
September 9, 1986, Planning Commission meeting.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20
NAME:
Southern Technical College
Conditional Use Permit
(Z- 4687 -A)
LOCATION: Just North of Lancaster and
West 65th Street
OWNER /APPLICANT: Southern Technical College/
Gene N. Flannes
PROPOSAL: To construct a 7,500 square feet office /storage
building, a 6,000 square feet future office building, and
approximately 227 parking spaces on land that is zoned
"R -2." ( "0-3" and O.S. [north 50 feet] pending).
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The intersection of a principal arterial (West 65th
Street) and a collector street (Lancaster Road).
2. Compatibilitv with Neiqhborhood
The south and west portion of this project is abutted
by commercial uses. The north and east is abutted by
single family uses. The pending rezoning includes a
50° O.S. zone along the north property line. The uses
located on the north of this project are office and
storage, with the associated parking areas. The staff
feels that with the O.S. zone and the proper
lansdcaping, that the proposal will be compatible with
the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkin
The proposal contains three access drives (2 on West
65th Street and 1 on Lancaster Road). The proposal
also contains approximately 391 parking spaces.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that this proposal has the potential to
be compatible with the surrounding area (See No. 2).
The staff, however, needs a revised site plan which
includes the 50' O.S. strip along the north property
line (all existing trees to remain in the O.S. strip).
The applicant also needs to submit a landscape plan.
6. City Engineering Comments
(1) Traffic Engineer recommends that the proposed 24'
wide driveway off Lancaster Road be constructed at the
time of the initial building permit; (2) no landscaping
is shown ont he site plan; (3) Traffic Engineer
requires that only one driveway be constructed to
serve as the West 65th Street entrance; (4) the curb
line should be extended on West 65th Street in order
that a left turn lane from Lancaster Road can be
constructed in the future. The engineer should show
the curb line as projected to Lancaster Road; and (5)
the applicant needs to dedicate the necessary
right -of -way and improve West 65th Street to a total of
five lanes for the length of the frontage of this
property.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the pending "0 -3" and O.S. rezoning
is approved and subject to the applicant agreeing to:
(1) submit a revised site plan that includes a 50' O.S.
strip, the revised dimensions after dedication would be
made and one access drive on West 65th Street; (2)
submit a landsape plan; and (3) comply with City
Engineering Comments Nos. 1 -5.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present.
The utility comments were: (1)
contribution analysis required;
protection required plus a pro
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The item was not discussed.
sewer available - capacity
and (2) water - on -site fire
rata charge will apply.
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
staff stated that the applicant had agreed to comply with
all staff recommendations. The Commission then voted
11 ayes, 0 noes to approve this item as recommended by the
staff.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21
NAME:
Washington Street Day -Care
Conditional Use Permit
(z -4702)
LOCATION: The Northeast Corner of
Washington Street and
West 13th Street
(1221 South Washington)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Sherry Cobb
PROPOSAL: To convert an existing single family structure to
a day -care center (capacity 24 children) on land that is
zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The intersection of two residential streets (Washington
and West 13th Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is surrounded on three sides by single family
uses and by a duplex on the east. A commerical strip
lies just to the north on West 12th Street. The
proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkin
No access or parking area is shown on the site plan.
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21 - Continued
5. Anaylsis
The staff supports the proposed use for this site. The
applicant does, however, need to submit a revised site
plan that includes 5 paved parking spaces and an
access drive. The applicant will also be required to
meet City landscape requirements.
6. City Engineering Comments
The site plan does not show an area for parking nor
does it show the drop -off area.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a revised site plan that includes 5 paved parking
spaces and an access drive; and (2) meets City
landscape requirements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to meet City landscape
requirements and to meet with the City Traffic Engineer to
resolve the access and parking issue.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 12 -86)
The applicant was present. The staff stated that the
applicant was unable to meet ordinary notification
requirements. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes to defer
this item until the September 9, 1986, Planning Commission
meeting.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22
NAME:
T.(lr A T T (l Ai .
OWNER /APPLICANT:
Unity Church
Conditional Use Permit
(Z -4706)
The West Side of Reservoir Road
Just South of Claremore Drive
(2610 Reservoir Road)
Unity Church of Little Rock/
Terry Burruss
PROPOSAL: To construct a 592 square feet
education /multipurpose addition and a future two -story 1,650
square feet addition to an existing facility on land that is
zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a minor arterial (Reservoir Road).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This is an existing Church use that is abutted by a
single family use to the south, vacant land to the
north and west and a lake to the west. The use is
compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
One existing 23° wide access drive (from Reservoir)
serves this property. The site also currently contains
88 paved parking spaces (plus 10 overflow).
4. Screening and Buffers
The site has a 6° board fence on the west property line
and also for a portion of the south line adjacent to a
single family use.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22 - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff feels that a Church use is compatible with
the surrounding area. The staff does not have any
problems with this proposal but does need a revised
site plan which dimensions the proposed additions. The
applicant will also be required to meet City landscape
requirements.
6. City Engineering Comments
From the safety standpoint, the staff recommends the
redesigning of the access drive to Reservoir Road by
relocating it approximately 201 to the south.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant (1) submits a revised
site plan that includes the dimensions of the proposed
addition; (2) agrees to meet City landscape
requirements; and (3) subject to City Engineering
Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE, REVIEW:
The applicant stated that the drive was in place and that
realignment should probably take place in conjunction with
the future reconstruction of Reservoir Road. The City
Engineer agreed and withdrew his comment regarding the
realignment of the existing drive. The staff stated that
the Water Works had said that a water main extension would
be required. The applicant did not understand the comment
by the Water Works but stated that they would check with the
Water Works as well as submit a revised site plan that would
include the dimensions of the proposed additions and
landscaping as per City ordinance requirements.
}
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 12 -86)
The staff stated that the applicant had requested a deferral
until the September 9, 1986, Planning Commission meeting.
The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes to defer this item
until the September 9, 1986, Planning Commission meeting.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 23
NAME: Roy Kumpe Building Line Waiver
LOCATION: 7610 Choctaw Road
APPLICANT /OWNER: Roy Kumpe
REQUEST: To encroach 5 1/2 feet into an area established by
a 25 foot building line
A. Staff Report
This proposal is in an existing single family area.
The applicant is requesting to encroach 5.5' into a 25'
platted building line for construction of a 2- carport
in front of a former garage. The structure will be
20' X 19.5' and will conform to the architectural
appearance of the house with the pitch roof and a gable
front. It will replace a flat roof plastic cover for
two cars.
Staff expects no adverse affects since the carport will
replace an existing car cover, which does not appear
unsightly. The final plat and amended Bill of
Assurance should be filed if approved.
B. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The item was reviewed and passed
to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24 - Allev Abandonment
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
""r%ri"rnm _
W 1/2 of the Alley in Block 31
Cunningham Addition
The east and west alley between
Adams Street and Washington
Street
Baird, Inc.
By: Todd Connelly
To abandon the alley and
return the land to private
usage.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
None inasmuch as it has not been used as an access nor
was it constructed as an alley.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no requirements attached to this request.
3. Need for Right-of-way on Adjacent Streets
All of the abutting streets are appropriate width and
construction.
4. Characteristics of Right- of -Wav Terrain
The right-of-way is overgrown and unusable as a
thoroughfare. There is some grade falling from east to
west.
5. Development Potential
None except as a part of the adjacent ownership.
August 12, 1986
j SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24 - Continued
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
This block contains some residential use but is mostly
vacant with a couple of billboards on the 12th Street
side.
7. Neighborhood Position
None reported at this writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
There are facilities in place which require the
retention of the right -of -way as a utility easement.
9. Reversionary Rights
The right -of -way will become a part of the abutting
ownership which is one owner, Baird, Inc.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
The abandonment of this unopened and unused
right -of -way will return to the private sector a land
area that will be productive for the real estate tax
base.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the abandonment as filed,
subject to retaining utility and drainage easement rights
within the abandoning ordinance.
PT,ANNTNC; CQMMTggTQW ArTTQN s (8-12-86)
There was no one present to represent the application.
There were no objectors in attendance. The Commission
received a letter in the specified time requesting a
withdrawal of this matter without prejudice. A motion was
made to accept the request for withdrawal without
prejudice. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes and
0 noes.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 25 - Subdivision Platting Variance Request
NAM E:
Harold Bristow
LOCATION: 14606 Cooper Orbit Road
REQUEST: To be relieved of the
requirement of filing a
preliminary subdivision
plat and allow lot development
and sales without recording of
the lots.
STAFF REPORT:
This issue first came to our attention in late May of 1986.
The County Planning Office called to report a complaint of a
neighbor that Mr. Bristow had created several lots without
platting. We investigated the complaint and determined that
at least one violation had occurred and that a second was
underway.
A notice was provided Mr. Bristow of his violation.
Meetings were held with the result that'Mr. Bristow
determined that he did not desire to follow all of the
ordinance provisions. He was advised that he had the right
to request a waiver of all ordinance provisions and be heard
by the Commission. The property at issue has potential for
six or seven lots plus the private drive serves two lots
which are severed from the main roadway. The access to
these lots is by a private street, which traverses
Mr. Bristow °s property.
The owner apparently has received review by the Health
Department for installation of septic tanks and will drill
wells for water service. This property is only one - quarter
mile from the City limits and in a rapidly developing single
family area.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 25 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends denial of this request and recommends
that the Commission hold this developer to the standard
requirements of ordinance prior to the sales of lots.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 12 -86)
The applicant was not in attendance. There were no
objectors present. After a brief discussion of the issue,
it was determined that this request should be removed from
the agenda inasmuch as Mr. Bristow has submitted a
preliminary subdivision plat for the September 9 Planning
Commission Agenda. A motion to withdraw the item was made
and passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 noes.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 26 - Discussion of Proposal to Move Planning
Commission Meetings
REQUEST: To hold all Plannning Commission
meetings at night with a 6 p.m.
start -up time
STAFF REPORT
The staff has requested information from various City
agencies and staff members. The comments received at this
writing generally favor night meetings with the exception of
Planning staff, City Attorney and a few others. The primary
concern expressed by the Planning staff is that the two
Planning Commission meeting paired with Board of Director
Public Hearing meeting require the staff to attend late
night meetings on four occasions each month. There are many
plus and minus points to be made with the bulk of those on
the negative side. We have attached information reflecting
the comments we received. The Office of Comprehensive
Planning staff willnot offer a specific recommendation but
will be prepared to respond as needed at the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 12 -86)
The staff offered its report. A brief discussion of the
proposal followed with most of the Planning Commission
members offering their feeling as to the affect on the
Commission and others of holding night meetings. The
apparent concensus was that the Commission was reluctant to
change their meeting time for both public hearings each
month to 6 p.m. There was discussion of the possibility of
beginning the Zoning Public Hearings at a later afternoon
starting time which could offer some possibility of
additional neighborhood participation. Additional general
comments were offered by staff and others. The Commission
determined that it would be appropriate to defer this matter
until the next meeting on August 26th in order to receive
additional material from the Planning staff and allow
additional time to discuss the issues involved.
ITEM NO. 26. - PLANNING COMMISSION NIGHT MEETINGS
PLUS AND MINUS FACTORS
• Public has increased Commission has longer day
opportunity to attend
meetings Staff has longer day
• Staff gains 1/2 day Conflict with events at
for preparation Robinson Center for parking
• Parking problem relieved Increase energy cost for
somewhat building
• Reduce conflicts with Additional staff salary
scheduling costs
• Reduce Commissioners Poor decision making at
business conflicts end of a 15 to 16 hour day
Allow participation by
other City staff unable
to attend day meetings
Evening meetings can be
televised
Late running meetings could
cause hurried review
Restriction of calendar
flexibility in five week
months
Would encourage reduction Many residents won't want
in number of minor issues to come downtown at night
for Planning Commission
review and resolution at Public transit not
staff level available
Potentially less review and
hearing time for "special"
items, Re. Master Street
Plan, Land Use Plans
More citizens present at
meeting will increase
potential for repetition of
complaints and extension of
arguments
Seating capacity limits
hearing attendance
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 27 - Proposed Plan Amendment to the Otter Creek
Plan
The deta
has been
district
Board of
has been
uses.
iled land use plan for the Otter Creek District Plan
used as a guide to direct development in the
area. The Otter Creek Plan was adopted by the
Directors, Ordinance No. 14,820 of 1985. This plan
recently reviewed for possible changes in land
The Otter Creek Plan is proposed to be amended because of
the market demand changes in the area. It has come to the
attention of the staff that the uses of mixed residential,
multifamily and public institutional located north of
Baseline and east of I -30 are more likely to be developed
industrially. One of these areas was recently zoned "I -2."
The plan has been reviewed by the Planning Department and we
recommend approval of the amendment.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were objectors present for the item. The Planning
Commission put this item on the consent agent, and it was
approved 11 ayes, 0 noes.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 28 - Proposed Plan Amendment to the I -430 District_
Plan
The detailed land use plan for the I -430
been used as a guide to direct developme
area. The I -430 Plan was adopted by the
Ordinance No. 14,566 of 1983. This plan
reviewed for amendments in land uses due
in the area.
District Plan has
nt in the district
Board of Directors,
has been recently
to recent changes
It has come to the attention of the staff that the land uses
in the area have become industrial in nature. These changes
lie between Colonel Glenn and Shackleford Road and 36th
Street and Shackleford Road.
The plan has been reviewed by the Planning Department and we
recommend approval of the amendment.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present for the item. The Planning
Commission put this item on the consent agenda, and it was
approved 11 ayes, 0 noes.
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 29 - Other Matters - United Parcel Service Site
Plan
STAFF REPORT:
Attached are the preliminary comments of the Planning staff
on the plans submitted by United Parcel Service to mitigate
the loss of the Pecan trees on their property.
As you may recall, the Commission discussed with
Mr. Poorian of United Parcel Service the actions taken by
his firm which violated the plan requirements of the
Commission.
Mr. Poorian was instructed to develop a mitigation plan for
review by the staff, Subdivision Committee and Commission.
He requested such a plan from his project architect,
however, the plan could not be prepared and submitted in
time for the Subdivision Committee meeting. Ken Scott of
the Public Works Department was furnished copies of the plan
on the day they were received, August 5. Mr. Scott has
prepared several comments on the two options submitted by
UPS. Those comments are attached.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff suggests that the plans submitted be accepted with
modifications as suggested by Mr. Scott. We do not feel
that this totally replaces the loss, but will provide some
long -term benefits for landscaping and screening if
maintained.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 12 -86)
The Planning staff offered the two options prepared by the
architect identifying Option B as the preferred approach.
Option B proposes the installation of significantly more
foilage. The modifications that staff would suggest be
attached include the placement of additional trees in the
second tree line running to the east along Fourche Dam Pike
to the extent of the construction area. There were some
August 12, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 29 - Continued
trees already missing in this area and we do not feel that
beyond the construction boundary that they should be
required to replace what was not there. Additionally, the
requirement along the south property line would be as
proposed. We would suggest an infill planting be
accomplished along the northwesterly corner of the site at
the point where Fourche Dam Pike turns southwest. This
infill would connect the proposed plantings along the
employee parking lot with the plantings extending east along
Fourche Dam Pike. We would recommend that there be no
additional requirement for the typical planting strip along
the property line adjacent to Fourche Dam Pike. The spacing
on the red top Photinia should be 5 feet on center instead
of the 10 feet shown. It was pointed out to the architect
that requirements for landscaping within the parking area
would remain as required by Ordinance. After a brief
discussion of the options presented and receipt of comments
from Mrs. Copper, a neighbor, the Commission determined that
it would accept the staff's recommendation and Option B. A
motion was made to approve Option B as the record mitigation
action. This motion included those comments offered by the
staff. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3
absent.
PLAN A
1. Continue the second row of trees along Fourche Dam
Pike eastward to the limt of construction. The
remaining portion of the 100 ft. strip is to be
seeded with grass. Proposed trees must be 2" in
caliper at planting.
2. All shrubs along Fourche Dam Pike are to be planted 18"
in height at installation and 3 feet apart on center
between the pecan trees.
3. Provide a 4 ft. planting strip along the street side
of the employee parking lot. Provide a shrub every
3 ft. apart, 18" in height at installation.
A. Six percent of the interior area must be
landscaped.
4. Provide a tree every 40 ft. along south property line
in addition to a shrub every 10 ft. where Board of
Adjustment waivered the screening fence.
MWIMI.
1. Contiue the second row of trees along Fourche Dam
Pike eastward to the limit of construction. The
remaining portion of the 100 ft. buffer strip is
to be seeded with grass. Proposed trees must be
2" in caliper at planting.
2. All shrubs along Fourche Dam Pike are to be planted
18" in height at installation and 3 ft. apart on
center between the pecan trees.
3. Provide a 4 ft. planting strip along the street
side of the employee parking lot.
A. Six percent of the interior area must be
landscaped.
B. Provide a 3 ft. peripheral strip around the
boundary of employee parking lot.
Item No. 30 - Streamlininq the Land Use Regulation Process
Staff prepared a report on streamlining the land use
regulation process in Little Rock. The report was also
distributed to persons and other agencies in the community
for review. A memorandum supporting the recommendations in
the report was received from Bob Lane, Public Works
Director.
The Planning Commission is requested to adopt the attached
resolution expressing general endorsement of the
recommendations in the report as recommended by the City
Manager as amended by the Plans Committee and urging the
Board of Directors, City Manager and relevant City
departments, boards and agencies to take appropriate steps
to implement the recommendations in the report as amended.
An action plan for implementation of the recommendations
will accompany the report and the Planning Commission's
recommendations upon submittal to the Board of Directors.
PLANS COMMITTEE REVIEW: (7- 16 -86)
Staff outlined the process for adoption of the report and
reviewed comments received. The Committee discussed the
various comments of others and considered comments and
questions of Committee members. After discussion, it was
the consensus of Committee members (four were present) to
recommend approval of recommendations in the report subject
to the following revisions and additions:
1. Delete the recommendation on Pages 18 and 19 calling
for going ahead with the rezoning of properties after
they are annexed because this could lead to over zoning
in some areas and would reduce citizen involvement in
the rezoning process (due to less notice being
required).
2. The City would establish if possible a coordinating
position in the Office of Comprehensive Planning to
help persons through the process of applying for zoning
and /or subdivision approvals, including the various
approvals by other City departments and utilities. The
reasons for this recommendation are to:
(a) Indicate that the City of Little Rock is favorably
inclined toward growth; and
(b) Overcome the problems associated with
fragmentation of the regulatory process among
different departments, agencies and boards.
r
Item No. 30 - Continued
3. Delete the recommendation on Pages 37 and 38 calling
for actions by the Planning Commission, Board of
Adjustment and Board of Directors by a majority of a
quorum because this could allow decisions by a small
number of people without the benefit of the input of
other Commission and Board members.
4. The Planning Commission and staff should undertake an
extensive public relations effort including speaking at
civic groups, schools, churches and real estate firms.
Consideration should be given to a newsletter and slide
presentation in connection with the public relations
efforts. The purposes of this recommendation are to
better inform the public of what the Planning
Commission and Office of Comprehensive Planning are
doing and to educate the general public concerning the
planning process. The end results would be
streamlining of the regulatory process and reduced
conflict.
5. A better means of posting notice on the site of an
application is recommended so that persons can easily
see the notices. This might include use of a color
that stands out more than the present white background.
6. Guidelines should be established for the appointments
of Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment members
to make certain that there is a good mix of persons
from different areas of the City and with different
points of view. Also, the guidelines should include
provisions for persons with certain technical
expertise (such as an engineer, architect, and realtor)
and a member of the City Board of Directors on the
Planning Commission. The reasons for this
recommendation are to provide for good decisions by:
(a) Having representatives of different areas and
points of view;
(b) Providing for expertise related to subjects
involved in making decisions. Also, by having a
member of the City Board on the Planning
Commission, communication and coordination between
the two boards would be improved.
7. Delete the recommendation on Pages 20 and 21 relating
to applicants preparing the small maps for the Planning
Commission agendas. Instead the Committee recommends
that the Office of Comprehensive Planning require a
standard 11" x 17" format for drawings of small
projects. This alternative would provide for a
standard format that could be easily Xeroxed by staff
Item No. 30 - Continued
and would not place an additional cost burden on the
applicants.
8. Delete the recommendation on Page 25 calling for
utility reviews preferably to be handled by referral
from the Office of Comprehensive Planning. The
Committee recommends that the current procedure of
allowing applicants to walk applications through the
utility review process remain as it is. The reason for
this recommendation is* to leave intact a procedure that
expedites the obtaining of utility reviews when desired
by applicants.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the recommendation in the
streamlining report as amended by the Plans Committee and
recommends adoption of the resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7- 22 -86)
The Planning Commission reviewed the report and discussed
its contents briefly. A request was received from the City
Attorney's Office requesting additional time to review the
text inasmuch as it appeared there might be some problems.
A motion to defer the proposal until the August 12 meeting
was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes,
3 absent.
j August 12, 1986
ITEM NO. 31 - OTHER MATTERS
PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON BYLAW
AMENDMENTS AND NOTICES
PROBLEM NO. 1
Inability of applicants to obtain timely and accurate,
reasonably priced, owner's lists from abstract firms.
PROBLEM NO. 2
Inability of the County Tax Assessor's Office to perform
list preparation for applicants.
PROBLEM NO. 3
Inability of laymen to produce a list of owners from the tax
records.
PROBLEM NO. 4
Inability to perform the required supplemental notice when
problems 1 through 3 prevail. The level of nonservice to
owners.
August 12, 1986
PROBLEM NO. 1 ANALYSIS
REVIEW TIME
The current application review period allows an applicant
approximately 15 to 17 days to obtain a property ownership
list. The preparation and mailing of the materials are
required to be accomplished within this same time frame. An
additional impact is a short month, such as February or a
holiday month.
COST
In the past 5 years, applicants for various zoning and /or
subdivision activitites have experienced an increase in cost
per owner name. This increase is in the neighborhood of 300
percent or more. This cost can and frequently does exceed
$ 8 per owner name. An average number of owners in a
built -up neighborhood is about 25, which will cost up to
$200. These figures are based upon a single residential
lot. A larger tract for multifamily or °commercial zoning
would add additional names.
ACCURACY
The abstract or title company procedure is the only
acceptable ready source of owner names. There are a couple
of means of developing a tax list, but that does not assure
the person paying the bill is the owner of the land.
August 12, 1986
PROBLEM NO. 2 ANALYSIS
REVIEW TIME
The same' time constraints eXist as with abstract companies.
The 2 weeks or less performance time prohibits the County
staff being directly involved in preparation.
COST
This is unknown inasmuch as the County would probably be
required to add new personnel and expand its search
capability.
ACCURACY i-
The County tax records are not accurate enough to provide a
list of owners. The problem is that the record is designed
to reflect who pays taxes, not who owns the land. Many tax
bills are mailed to mortgage companies, banks, or property
managers. A second problem is that the{Fcomputer system
established for the tax records was not designed to be
compatible with the computer that maintains the deed
records. A County employee, after developing a tax list by
legal description, would be required to walk four blocks to
the County Courthouse and trace each description to
determine the ownership.
} August 12, 1986
PROBLEM NO. 3 ANALYSIS
REVIEW TIME
The average applicant is not an attorney or engineer or
person whose work time and activities are compatible with
the working hours of the public offices involved. They
normally do not have time within the two weeks allotted to
accomplish the requirement.
COST
The cost to the lay person may be comparable to professional
help in time and energy especially if deferrals are the
result of poor information and poor notice.
ACCURACY
Most lay persons would need substantially more time to
develop the knowledge and contacts to develop a list with
proper names. The potential for error is always present.
August 12, 1986
PROBLEM NO. 4 ANALYSIS
REVIEW TIME
The most obvious problem when. numbers 1, 2 and 3 prevail is
a hold on any action by the Commission even though all other
elements are equal to Ordinance and Policy. A timely review
and action of a request is not obtained.
COST
The cost to applicants and others involved is immeasurable
and nonretrieveable. The level of nonservice is at present
rather low. The past month's activity indicated one
instance where an abstract company simply could not produce
the list in the required time. There were several instances
of noncompliance because the applicant used bad information
in the notice as mailed, or simply failed to follow
instructions. A third instance involved an applicant who
lost portions of the proof of notice material.
August 12, 1986
RECOMMENDATIONS:
a. Make no changes and leave all of the procedures
and requirements As�is. The current procedure,
although occasionally troublesome, does not
produce a signficant number of bad notices.
b. Modify the procedures and allow certain applicants
to use walk - around notices. This procedure is
used for certain Board of Adjustment cases,
primarily the -residential single lot instances and
does not appear to be a problem. Accuracy is
rarely challenged by the neighborhood.
C. Modify procedures to allow an applicant the option
of using the tax records and developing a list.
The tax office indicates that a lay person could,
with some help, prepare a list that would be
approximately 80 percent accurate. This list
could then be filled in by reviewing abstract
company records. Some minimA cost would remain
for this supplemental information from the
abstract company.
d. Modify the procedures to permit a process where
the City of Little Rock would take bids from
abstract companies each year and consign all of
the notice work to one company. This might make
it cost - effective for that firm by having enough
of the work to assign a person full -time. The
problem with this procedure is that one local
abstractor contacted said he would definitely not
be interested. He pointed out that the per person
cost really isn't enough to cover the time. He
further stated that a significant problem he
experiences is a person asking for lists at the
last minute. It was suggested that if two weeks
or more advance requests were filed, his firm
could respond.
·ZONING
MEMBER
W.Riddick, III-_ _.._
J" Schlereth
Ro Massie
B.Sipes
J.Nicholson
w.Rector
W .. Ketcher
D.Arnett
O. J. Jones
I .. Boles
F.Perkins
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
SUBDIVISION
13 14 15 J it;, VI JP, ;q t.o £" .. J zz i:� �4-oi.5 �b
✓'✓ ✓ ✓ ,/ ✓ ✓ ✓ y/ ✓✓ ✓ /
/ ,/ ✓✓ ✓' / / / / ✓✓ / / /
✓/ !./ \/ / ✓ J ✓' ,// / / / / /
✓/ / ✓✓ I /' v· ✓✓ ✓/
✓✓ ll A t,1 ft / / ' ✓✓-✓A/ lf A A " A-/ ✓ ✓ ✓/ / A-/ ✓✓ ✓I ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓
/ ✓ / / /.// ✓/ ✓
/ / ✓ ,, / ✓ / ,,/ // / / ./ .. /
/ A-It It ✓It ✓ // ✓✓ I+
/' ✓ ✓ ✓ ,// ,/ / / _,/ /
✓AYE NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
3'I �B I olq •' tJo I
v" ✓ ✓
✓-// I ✓
/ I v
✓/ .I ✓
✓ ./It I}
✓/ A /}
/' / /.v'
/ / I V
✓ v/ / ✓
/. / A-ff·
/ / ✓✓
DATE -4_ /� g�
PLANNING ·c OM MISSION
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
-ZONING SUBDIVISION
MEMBER
vJ. Riddick, III -.. --
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Sipes
J"' Nicholson
W., Rector
W .. l-<etcher
D., Arnett
D.J. Jones
I .. Bo1es
F.Perkins
JI
✓
/}J -
I)
tJ
/If;
✓-
✓
✓
ti/
-,,,/
/j C " , -,
A ," II , tJ ,, ff
fl II -,
IJ ti, , ,. "
J)E � G H
✓✓ / / /I v'/ / / ,/ I ✓✓ / ✓ I ✓✓ �/ ✓
/ / / / ✓
/' / / / v
I /" / / v
I / ,/ ✓ / ✓
I ,/ / / ✓
/ / / / JI v i,/ / I ✓
✓AYE @ NAYE A ADS ENT. �.ABSTAIN
I :T I 2.3 if-
✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓
/ ✓ ✓ /'" ✓-y/
✓✓ ✓✓ As ✓
✓ / ✓✓ / / ' ,/ /✓/ / ✓-
✓/ ✓/ / /
✓✓--/ / / /
✓ v/ ✓ ✓-✓✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ / /
II v II ✓ / /
✓✓-✓ / / /
5 lo
✓ ✓
/ /
� ✓
/ /
/ .✓
A ✓ / '/
I ✓.
I ✓--
/J. ✓
/ /
,dR q JO I I IJ...
v ✓ ✓ ✓-✓ 1/
✓-/ ,,,,./· / ✓-4,,/ ,/
bl'/ / / /
/ / / ✓--/ ✓
✓-✓ / ✓ ✓ ✓
.,,/ / l}3 / / A
✓/ / ✓✓ /
✓✓ ✓-_,/ /✓
/ / v ✓/ /✓
/ ..,,< / / ✓---1/-
✓✓ ✓-/ / ✓
August 12, 1986
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Chairman
Date �»
iei;rF-t a