HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_04 19 1988subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
APRIL 19, 1988
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being nine in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
Minutes of the previous meeting were not presented
for approval.
III. Members Present: D. Jones
B. Rector
M. Miller
S. Leek
R. Collins
T.G. Jones
R. Massie
F. Perkins
J. Nicholson
Members Absent: J. Schlereth
W. Riddick
City Attorney
Present: Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
APRIL 19, 1988
Deferred:
A. Hilaro Springs Apartments
Preliminary Plats:
1. Sandpiper West Subdivision
1A. Z-4297-A - R2 to MF-18
2. Block 2, East Palisades
3. Point West, 3rd Addition
4. West Ivesville Subdivision
S. Flintridge Business Addition
Planned Unit Development:
6. Hinson Woods Addition "Long Form" PRD (Z-5013)
7. B. C. Auto Plaza - "Short Form" PCD (Z-4997-A)
8. Andover Square Phase IV (Z-2409-C)
9. Bill F Jo Lusk Subdivision "Short Form" PCD (Z-5003)
10. Polk & Kavanaugh "Short Form" (Z-5004)
11. Prospect Terrace "Short Form" (Z-5005)
Site Plan Review:
12. Village Shopping Center Addition
13. Agape Church C.U.P. (Z-3789-C)
14. Miss Selma's School C.U.P. (Z-5002)
Other Matters:
1S. Springtree Village - Final Plan Approval
16. Stacy Street & Nichols Street Abandonment
17. Polk Street Abandonment
18. Z-4229-A - Rezoning - PRD to R2
19. Bowman Road Traffic Issue
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME: Hilaro Springs Road Apts.
"Short- Form" PRD (Z-4986)
LOCATION: Immediately adjacent and
west of 9400 Hilaro
Springs Road
OWNER:
Andy Jones
ENGINEER:
John Dillinger
P.O. Box 9425
Little Rock, AR 72219
Phone: 375-0688
DEVELOPER/APPLICANT:
Hunter Stuart
2816 Painted Valley Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Phone: 227-3415
AREA: 1.72 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R -2" to PRD
PROPOSED USE: Apartment Complex
A. Proposal/Request
1. To construct a 32 unit apartment complex.
2. To provide a secure family environment with
playground equipment for the children, and
exercise area for the adults and designated areas
for family enjoyment and outdoor cooking.
3. Construction shall be of wood frame with cedar
siding and trim. The buildings will be two-story,
with slab foundations. The roof will be
composition fiberglass shingles.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
4. Development Data
8 - one-bedroom units
24 - two bedroom units
32 total
Parking Spaces - 48 with 2 for handicapped
B. Existinq Conditions
The area is composed of mixed residential uses. The
site abuts a single family subdivision on the west, and
a single residence on the southeast. Apartments are
located to the northeast. A structure of undetermined
use is located to the northwest.
C. Issue/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design
1. Provide individual and total square footage for
units.
2. Staff lacks excitement about location of
playground equipment and required buffer area.
3. Provide information as to date property sold. It
appears that a plat may be needed.
4. A minimum of 10' required between buildings.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Entryway needs to be 27'.
2. Right-of-way dedication required - 45' from
centerline.
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until comments addressed.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The Committee raised questions about the proposed
density, the surrounding uses and the splitting of the
original ownership. It was thought that the project
was too dense at 18.6 units per acre.
The applicant was asked to seek participation of the
abutting property owners in a preliminary plat, since
the land was illegally subdivided into three sites.
Sewer plan must be submitted to LRWU for approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff recommended denial of the project, due to the density,
departure from the Land Use Plan, lack of recreational
space, and a fear of adverse impact to the single family
area to the west.
Mr. Hunter Stewart represented the applicant. He stated
that they had reduced the units from 32 to 30 and moved the
playground equipment and widened the entrance from 29' to
40'. Engineering requested that the drive be widened to
45'. The applicant discussed providing the required
right-of-way for Hilaro Springs and deferring the
improvements until further development of the other
ownerships.
Ms. Judy Oswald, a resident of the area, felt that Southwest
Little Rock did not need another apartment complex, and
urged the Commission to vote accordingly.
It was decided that the item should be deferred so that the
applicant could address the issues relating to density,
platting, recreational amenities, area, access, and
buffering.
A motion for deferral to the April 19 meeting was made and
passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant submitted a revised plan. The Committee felt
that the plan addressed the issues brought out at the
previous Planning Commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present. The Commission briefly
discussed the issue and placed it on the consent agenda.
The item was approved subject to: the agreed upon screening
of the dumpster.
The Commission voted to approve the application by 9 ayes,
0 noes, and 2 absent.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME: Sandpiper West Addition
LOCATION: East of Bowman Road
DEVELOPER:
Winrock Dev. Co., Inc.
2101 Brookwood Drive
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 663-5340
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates, Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 47.58 acres NO. OF LOTS: 90 FT. NEW ST.: 3,980
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: "R-2"
A. Proposal /Request
To plat 47.58 acres into 90 lots for a single family
development.
B. Existing Conditions
Site is located in an area that has developed as
single family. Previous phases of the same
subdivision are located to the east. The floodway and
floodplain are located on the southern portion of the
property.
C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design
1. Floodway dedication according to approval by
Parks and Engineering/priority one open space
indicated on Parks Plan.
2. Show building line for Bowman Road.
3. Dedicate area in floodplain to prevent no man's
land.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
4. Notify abutting property owners.
D. Engineering Comments
Collector intersection at Bowman and Ridgewood should
be three lanes for a left turn lane. Widen it to
36 feet due to fast moving traffic. This would enable
traffic to access Bowman more easily.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
The redesign of Ridgewood is an effort by the
developer to accommodate thru-traffic from Bowman Road
to The Summit development.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
It was decided that the applicant would: (1) reflect
the agreement with the Parks Department on the plat;
(2) contact the Property Owners Association; (3) and
revise the building line on Bowman Road to 35 feet.
The City Engineers recommended that Ridgewood would be
a collector since it is expected to function as one.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present. The request was
represented by Ron Tyne and Joe White.
The staff presented its recommendation and suggested that
the Commission deal with the deficient notice issue by
voting on a motion to waive the bylaw requirement. A
motion to waive the requirement was made and passed by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
The Commission then opened the hearing on the plat request.
The staff recommendation was discussed with the result that
the applicant agreed to the several items which were:
(a) 36' pavement at Bowman Road, end of Shady Creek Drive;
(b) the floodway be dedicated plus the floodplain on the
north side of the floodway, (c) show 35' building line on
Bowman Road.
A motion was then made to approve the plat as modified,
subject to the staff recommendations.
The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
April 19, 1988
Item No. 1A - Z-4297-A
Owner: Winrock Development Company
Applicant: Joe D. White
Location: Bowman Road (at Panther Creek)
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "MF-18"
Purpose: Multifamily
Size: 9.3 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone 9.3 acres on the east side of
Bowman Road from "R-2" to "MF-18." The site is
situated just south of where Panther Creek crosses
Bowman Road, and all the land is located between the
creek and Bowman Road. Zoning in the area is "R-2,"
and the most significant land use is the Sandpiper
Subdivision located to the east and northeast. Other
land uses include scattered single family units and a
nonconforming auto repair garage at the southwest
corner of Bowman Road and Gilbert Drive. In addition
to the existing development, a high percentage of land
is still vacant, including a large tract to the south
and the land across Bowman Road to the west.
2. The site is vacant and increases in elevation from east
to west with the high point being in the southwest
corner of the property. Along the east side of the
site, there is some floodplain involvement, and the
Panther Creek floodway forms the eastern boundary of
the tract under consideration.
3. Bowman Road is classified as a minor arterial which
requires a minimum right-of-way of 80 feet, so
additional dedication of right-of-way will be required.
April 19, 1988
Item No. 1A - Continued
4. Comments from Engineering include:
• Street improvements and right-of-way dedication
for Bowman Road.
• Dedication of the established floodway.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. In 1984, a rezoning application was filed for
approximately 27 acres, including the parcel in
question. The initial request was for "MF-12" and
"MF-18" which was amended to reduce the "MF-18" area
and change the "MF-12" to "MF-6." Also, 5.5 acres were
to be rezoned to "OS." There was strong opposition
from the residents of the Sandpiper Addition to the
rezoning proposal. Objectors were concerned with
inadequate buffering, property values, and traffic.
The rezoning proposal was finally withdrawn from
consideration at the request of the owner. Staff
supported an "MF" classification for the land between
Bowman Road and the creek with an "OS" area providing
a buffer for the tracts to the east.
7. Staff feels that an "MF-18" reclassification is a
reasonable option for the land because of being
adjacent to a minor arterial and the creek providing an
adequate buffer for the lots to the east; this position
is similar to the one taken on the 1984 proposal.
Another factor that needs to be taken into
consideration is the topography which does not lend
itself to a single family detached development, but
rather some type of attached structural arrangement.
One issue that should be resolved prior to taking any
action on the "MF" rezoning is the future extension of
Ridgewood Road. Residents of Sandpiper have always
been concerned about the alignment of Ridgewood and how
it will tie into Bowman Road. The concern has to do
with a direct route through the subdivision and the
potential for increasing traffic flow. A preliminary
plat has been filed for the area between Bowman Road
and Forest Brook Court in the Sandpiper West Addition,
which should adequately address the street issue. One
final item is the Master Parks Plan which identifies
Panther Creek as Priority One open space with an
average floodway width of 175 feet and a buffer zone of
50 feet.
April 19, 1988
Item No. 1A - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the "MF-18" request be deferred to the
April 19 subdivision hearing so the proposed rezoning and
preliminary plat can be reviewed at the same time.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 5, 1988)
Staff reported that the applicant submitted a letter
requesting that the item be deferred to the April 19, 1988,
meeting as suggested by the staff. A motion was made to
defer the rezoning request to the April 19th meeting. The
motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2
absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 19, 1988)
The applicant, Joe White, was present. There was one
objector in attendance. Staff recommended the "MF-18"
rezoning subject to additional right-of-way dedication for
Bowman Road and dedication of the floodway and the
floodplain area north of the floodway. Mr. White addressed
the Commission briefly and agreed to the right-of-way and
floodplain dedications. Harold Lipke, adjacent property
owner to the west, objected to the rezoning. He said it
would devalue his property and the site should be left "R-2"
Single Family. Additional comments were made about the
I-430 Plan and the future alignment of Bowman Road.
Mr. White addressed Bowman Road and said there will be very
little change in the alignment. There was a long discussion
about the various issues. A motion was made to recommend
approval of the "MF-18" request subject to dedication of
additional right-of-way for Bowman Road, the floodway, and
the floodplain area north of the floodway. The motion
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME: Replat Lot 4, Block 2, East
Palisades Addition
LOCATION: #15 East Palisades
DEVELOPER:
AMR Realty
Heritage Center East
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 375-0378
ENGINEER:
Pat McGetrick
11225 Huron Lane, #200
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: 223-9900
AREA: .9 acre NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Proposal/Request
1. To plat .9 acre into three lots.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an existing single family
area. It consists of a single, brick structure.
There are no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks on Scenic
Drive.
C. Issue/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design
1. Notice to neighborhood.
2. Waiver of street improvements must be requested
if desired.
D. Engineering Comments
Dedicate right-of-way on Palisades Drive to
residential standards. Other Engineering comments
will be provided at the meeting.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to Engineering's comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to add five-foot dedication and show
the drainage easements between the two lots. He also would
submit a letter if a waiver of improvements was desired.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present. The Commission briefly
discussed the issue and placed it on the consent agenda.
The item was passed subject to: installation of street
improvements.
The Commission voted to approve the application by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME: Point West, 3rd Addition
LOCATION: Kanis and Bowman Roads
DEVELOPER:
ERC Properties, Inc.
115 South Waldron #102
Fort Smith, AR 72913
Phone: 452-9950
ENGINEER:
Pat McGetrick
11225 Huron Lane, #200
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: 223-9900
AREA: 38.1 acres NO. OF LOTS: 56 FT. NEW ST.: 6200
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request
1. To plat 38.1 acres into 156 lots and 6200 feet of
new street for single family development.
B. Existing Conditions
The site is located in an area in which new single
family construction is occurring.
C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design
1. Notices to abutting property owners.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Clarify alignment of Gamble Road.
2. Submit grading and detention plans.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that the alignment of Gamble Road
was taken from a previous plat approved on this property in
July 1986. This plat increased the amount of lots by six.
The item was reviewed by the Committee and passed to the
Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present. The Commission briefly
discussed the issue and placed it on the consent agenda.
The Commission voted to approve the application by 9 ayes,
0 noes, and 2 absent.
SUBDIVISIONS
ITEM NO. 4
NAME: West Ivesville Subdivision
LOCATION: 4005 MontgomerY Road
DEVELOPER: Dennis Smith
4005 Montgomery Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
Jessie Reed
4100 Lacy Lane
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER: William Graham, Jr.
100 N. Rodney Parham
Little Rock, AR
AREA: 2.53 NO.OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Staff Repot
This request was prompted by a request for City water. The
applicant has requested water twice previously. In 1975 and
again in 1986, he was refused due to the failure of his
property to abut a public street. This proposal represents
a request to plat Mr. Smith's ownership along with a 20'
pipe stem, which is replatted from Lot 4 of Jessie S. Reed
Subdivision.
B. Engineering Comments
None
C. Staff Recommendation:
Approval
D. Subdivision Committee Review
Water Works reported that this site would have inadequate
fire protection and required an extension of an 8 inch line.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
D. Subdivision Committee Review
Water Works reported that this site would have
inadequate fire protection and required an extension
of an 8" line.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present. The Commission briefly
discussed the issue and placed it on the consent agenda.
The Commission voted to approve the application by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME: Flintridge Business Addition
LOCATION: Flintridge Drive and I-430
DEVELOPER:
Lewis Realty & Assoc.
6701 West 12th
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 666-4455
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates, Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 32 acres NO. OF LOTS: 13 FT. NEW ST.: 1150
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE:
A. Proposal /Request
1. Replat 32 acres into 12 lots for an unspecified
use.
2. Waivers include length of cul-de-sac and sidewalk
construction on Flintridge Court.
B. Existing Conditions
This property is bordered by I-430 on the south.
Single family homes are located to the north, across
Flintridge Drive.
C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical /Design
1. Submit information on plans for development and
purpose for plat.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Inadequate access and terrain for this
development.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
E. Staff Recommendation
Deferral until rezoning filed. Plat is premature
until zoning is established. Staff is reluctant to
support this plat with the "I-2" designation.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that his purpose for filing this
plat was to identify any issues that staff, the Planning
Commission, and the neighborhood might have regarding the
plat. Some Committee members agreed that the plat was
premature. Staff was concerned about the proposed
industrial use in close proximity to the existing
residential area. The applicant was instructed to work
with Engineering regarding revisions to the street and
their comments regarding access.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present. The Commission briefly
discussed the issue and placed it on the consent agenda.
The Commission voted to defer the application to the
May 31 Planning Commission meeting. The vote was 9 ayes,
0 noes, and 2 absent.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME: Hinson Woods Addition
Long-Form PRD - Z-5031
LOCATION: East Side of Hinson Road
DEVELOPER:
B.G. Coney
10500 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 224-3062
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates, Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 10.0 acres NO. OF LOTS: 40 FT. NEW ST.: 1500
ZONING: "MF-6"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Proposal/Request
1. To plat 10 acres into 40 lots for single family
develop at four units per acre.
2. The area per dwelling will consist of
approximately 1800 square feet. The development
will be served by 45-foot public street with
25-foot pavement and 12-foot private drives to
the rear of the units.
B. Existing Conditions
The site is located in an area that is composed of a
variety of residential uses.
C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design
1. Lots 20-25 appear to be more than three times as
deep as they are wide. Explain.
2. Check with Parks for any floodway dedication.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
See Engineering about Hinson Woods Drive and Hinson
Woods Place. Centrally located access point
preferred. Also discussed access circulation and
street width. Build loop street to residential
standards.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was instructed to meet with Engineering and
resolve their comments. The engineer, Mr. Joe White, said
that no floodway was involved in this project, but the
creek would be channelized.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present. Mr. Joe White was
present, representing the developer. The staff offered its
comments and recommendation which reduced to: approval
subject to dedication of any floodway land encroaching upon
this tract, plus resolving the traffic issues identified by
City Engineer Don McChesney. These issues were: (a)
pavement width on internal streets, (b) need for proper
loop street, (c) only one access onto Hinson Road, and
(d) eliminating the traffic island.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
A general discussion followed, wherein the traffic issues
were set aside except that the traffic island will be
removed. The floodway was determined to be a need by the
City Parks Department and will be dedicated. Mr. White
pointed out that the southern street will terminate at the
property line, with a brick wall along the property line to
prevent any access to Hinson Road. A motion was then made
to approve the PRD with the agreed upon changes. The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME: B.C. Auto Plaza
Long-Form PCD (Z-4997-A)
LOCATION: SW Corner of Rock Creek Parkway
and Gamble Road
DEVELOPER:
Floyd Fulkerson
1075 Union Bank
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 376-4432
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates, Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 6.90 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW ST.:
ZONING: "C-3 "/ "O-3"
PROPOSED USE: Car Sales
A. Proposal /Request
1. To develop 9.35 acres for a car dealership.
2. Development Proposal
(a) Building
- Service ........... 39,600 sq. ft.
- Office & Sales .... 14,500 sq. ft.
(b) Parking ............. 704 cars (ouside)
10 cars (showroom)
(c) Open Landscape Area .. 21%
B. Existing Conditions
The land is currently vacant. It is bordered by West
Markham Street on the south, Gamble Road on the east
and Rock Creek Parkway on the north. A single family
brick home exists south of Markham. Nickell Street, a
40-foot right-of-way which has been closed, runs
through the property.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design
1. Provide information on plat regarding closure of
Nickell Street.
2. Use-contrary to plan for area.
3. Submit landscaping plan.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Street improvements on West Markham Street. See
Engineering.
2. Access will be limited to right turn only onto
Rock Creek Parkway because of future development
of median.
3. Sidewalks on all streets.
4. Improve all boundary streets.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial, based on departure from Land Use Plan, which
recommends "C-3" /General Commercial, as opposed to
"C-4" Open Display. Staff fears that the proposal
will lead to other auto and display type uses on the
Parkway. This use is inconsistent with the Parkway
environment. Staff suggests locating this type of use
east of Bowman Road.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was instructed to: (1) get with Engineering
and discuss their comments and the median on Rock Creek
Parkway; (2) submit grading plan and cross-section; (3)
provide landscaping materials that won't catch trash and
rubbish as much as that proposed; (4) give detail on
treatment of west side of property; and (5) indicate
whether security fencing would be provided.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 19, 1988)
There were no objectors present. One letter of objection
was received. Mr. Joe White was present representing
Mr. Floyd Fulkerson, the applicant.
Mr. White offered comments on the site location, access to
West Markham Street, and the staff request for a 50-foot
buffer. He stated that the developer needed access onto
Markham Street as well as Gamble Road and the Parkway. He
indicated that the applicant could live with a 40' buffer
as that would only cost one row of parking spaces. This
40' would be measured from the current right-of-way line.
Mr. Fulkerson then offered his comments on the staff
recommendation as they mainly related to access onto the
Parkway.
Mr. Don McChesney, City Engineer, presented his thoughts on
the median that he is requesting in the Parkway, and other
points associated with access to this site and their effect
on the Parkway.
Mr. Joe White then offered comments on the design of the
Parkway and points of turning movements allowed. He also
discussed history of zoning and commitments made.
After a lengthy discussion of the issues, the Commission
determined that the applicant would do the following:
(1) Provide 40' buffer on the south side with one access
point allowed as shown on the plan.
(2) Change the planting material along the west line from
the trees and grass indicated on the Landscape Plan,
to an evergreen screen to provide an opaque barrier at
maturity.
(3) No music or continuous programming over the P.A.
system. The P.A. system to be directed inward toward
the building in order to be least offensive.
(4) Access onto the Parkway to be permitted as shown on
the plan without a left turn. Right turn in and out
curbs to be installed to enforce the right turn dual
lanes.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
(5) The owner to locate the access to Rock Creek Parkway
at least 300' from Gamble Road.
(6) The owner is instructed that if a median is required
at some future time, he /she will participate by paying
for the owner's pro rata share of the median cost,
subject to final determination by the City.
(7) The owner shall support the final decision of the City
regarding a median. The owner is placed on notice
that no guarantee of a median cut is granted.
(8) Provide a minimum 60' dedication for the Parkway
measured from the centerline of the right-of-way.
The conditions were placed in a motion for approval. The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME: Andover Square Phase IV
Revised PRD (Z-2409-C)
LOCATION: East Side of Andover Court
DEVELOPER:
Bailey Corporation
3rd and Gaines
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 374-0394
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and Associates
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR
AREA: 1.59 acres NO. OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW ST.:
ZONING: PRD
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Proposal/Request
1. To revise an approved PRD for attached
condominium units to provide six single family
lots.
2. The lot sizes will be a minimum of 7,920 square
feet and have unit sizes ranging from 1700 to
2200 square feet. There will be two-car garages.
B. Existinq Conditions
The site is located in an area that is developed as
residential. Elevations range from 472 to 522 feet.
C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design
1. Submit cross section of site.
2. Address differences between the new plan and
original plans regarding buffering, parking, and
landscaping. Explain any changes relating to
Phase II.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
3. Clarify phase of development.
D. Engineering Comments
Submit drainage and detention plans.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to addressing staff comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed by the Committee and passed to the
Commission. The applicant indicated that he may ask for a
deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present. The Commission briefly
discussed the issue and placed it on the consent agenda,
for purposes of withdrawal as requested by Mr. Joe White.
The Commission voted to withdraw the application by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
SUBDIVISIONS
ITEM NO 9
NAME: Bill R. & Jo Lusk "Short-form" PCD (Z-5008)
LOCATION: 100' north of Cantrell on west side of Pinnacle
Valley
DEVELOPER: Bill R. Lusk
#7 Berwyn Drive
Little Rock, AR
72207
ENGINEER: Sam L. Davis
5301 W. 8th St.
Little Rock, AR
72204
664-0324
AREA .92 acres _NO., OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET 0
ZONING: R -2 PROPOSED USES: Car Wash & Retail /Office
A. Proposal/Request:
1. To develop .92 acres into a commercial development.
2. The existing frame building of 2,393 sq. ft. which
will be used as an antique shop (80 %) and office space
(20 %) .
3. A self-service car wash is proposed with 1' of the
floor elevation below the 100 year flood. All
mechanical and electrical services will be above
flood level.
4. Parking areas will be asphalt with 19 spaces.
5. Dedication of floodway for Isom Creek.
6. 20' additional right-of-way dedication for Pinnacle
Valley Road.
B. Existing Conditions:
The area is generally developed as single family. There
is currently an existing building and a mobile home on the
site. The floodway cuts across the southwestern portion
of this property.
C. Issue/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design:
1) Corner of existing building and parking in floodway.
2) Proposed use is contrary to the Land Use Plan.
3) Applicant should address traffic impact.
4) Submit landscaping plan.
D. Engineering Comments
1) Street improvements required on Pinnacle Valley
Road.
2) Meet Floodplain Ordinance requirements.
3) Circulation needs to be reviewed with Engineering.
The driveway at the north end is too wide.
4) Responsibility for street improvements not to
exceed 15% of cost of the project. Defer improvement
issue to issuance of building permit.
5) More discussion needed on location of street.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Denial based on traffic impact and departure from Land
Use Plan.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There are no objectors present. The petition was
represented by Mr. Randy Treece. Mr. Don McChesney, City
Engineer, presented comments on the street improvements
associated with Pinnacle Valley Road. He indicated that
the County Judge was involved in discussion with the
Highway Department and others relative to widening and
straightening the curves.
Mr. Sam Davis, the project engineer, indicated that 20' of
right-of-way was being dedicated to Pinnacle Valley Road.
Mr. Jim Lawson offered a response to questions about the
Highway 10 Plan and floodplain. Gary Greeson discussed the
plan affects on this site. A general discussion followed
involving the plan content, interpretation of lines for
transition zones and site buildability.
The owner went on record as offering to dedicate the
floodway.
The Chairman asked the owner if a deferral would be in
order. Mr. Treece indicated his client needed some action
at this meeting. He further discussed the mix of uses
proposed and existing, stating some retail was involved in
the new car wash and existing antique sales. The
Commission explained that commercial use was not desirable,
especially within the transition zones.
After a brief discussion of deferral, a motion was made to
defer the request until May 31. The motion passed by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME: Polk and Kavanaugh "Short-Form"
PCD (Z-5004)
LOCATION: 5419 and 5421 Kavanaugh
DEVELOPER:
Ben McMinn
P.O. Box 2438
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 372-5007
ENGINEER:
Dan Stowers, Architect
1516 West 3rd Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 376-3271
AREA: 21,000 sq.ft. NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Office
A. Proposal /Request
1. To develop a 5,000 square foot, two-story
building on 21,000 square feet for use as a
financial institution.
2. Parking will consist of 14 spaces.
3. Landscaping will be heavy on the southern and
eastern portions of the property. The northern
and western sides will also have landscaping.
B. Existing Conditions
This property is located on the corner of Kavanaugh
and Polk. The surrounding uses includes a U.S. Post
Office to the north, residential to the south and
east, and a Safeway Emporium Grocery to the west. An
alley borders the property on the east. On-site are
an existing brick and frame building and a two-story
abandoned apartment building.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design
1. Use not in conformance with plans for the area.
2. Meet with Engineering regarding their comments.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Left turn on Polk may conflict with exit at Post
Office.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial, based on potential adverse effects to
residential area to the east, and departure from Land
Use Plan.
There have been several efforts on the last 15 years
to rezone a portion of this site to several uses, such
as quiet business, a Montessorri School, and apartment
building. The request for use as a school was denied
by the Arkansas Supreme Court. Staff has been
consistent in its efforts to contain nonresidential
development to the area west of Polk Street and south
of Kavanaugh Boulevard. Staff fears that encroachment
into the residential area would create an adverse
domino effect.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The main issue was identified
as the proposed use of the property. The site plan was
observed as technical issues that could be worked out.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were several persons present objecting. Three
persons spoke against the request, and one petition was
filed with over 60 signatures. The application was
represented by Mr. Ben McMinn, one of the owners.
The staff recommendation was read as written in the agenda.
Mr. McMinn made a presentation of his case, history of the
site, and corrections of history stated in the staff
recommendation. The Commission and Mr. McMinn discussed
the development, the design, and possible alternate uses.
The opponents made a presentation. Mr. Steve Nipper stated
his concerns as being: (1) zoning of any kind except
"R-2," (2) traffic, (3) strip zoning to the east.
Mr. Don Barnes, an opponent, stated basically the same
concerns plus the effect on parking which is now deficient.
Mr. Maury Mitchell echoed the previous concerns and gave
the history of former Planning Director's plans for
condominiums that he would have supported.
Mr. Jim Lawson of the staff presented the Heights-Hillcrest
Plan and offered his opinion on the Land Use Plan and
Zoning Plan differences.
Mr. McMinn then offered history of the 1981 attempt at
rezoning to multifamily.
The Commission asked the applicant and neighbors if use was
acceptable instead of a bank or savings and loan office.
Mr. McMinn indicated he would like the bank but might
consider another use.
Mr. Nipper said he didn't speak for the neighborhood as he
was new to the area and couldn't commit. A discussion of
deferral, in which Commissioners expressed concerns about
traffic, access, and the area land use plan.
A motion was made to defer the PUD application until
May 31.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 no, and 3 absent.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME: Prospect Terrace "Short- Form"
PRD (Z -5005)
LOCATION: East of 5506 Edgewood
APPLICANT: Mr. David Scruggs
5506 Edgewood
Little Rock, AR
ENGINEER:
Pat McGetrick
P.O. Box 22408
Little Rock, AR 72221
AREA: 6,266 sq. ft. NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
A. Proposal/Request
1. To construct a 2,000 square foot, two-story,
single family home on a lot that contains 6,266
square feet.
2. The construction of a swimming pool in the rear.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in a single family area in one of
the older neighborhoods of the City.
C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design
1. Depart from usual lot size for single lot, single
family development.
2. Proposal overbuilds lot.
3. May set precedent for other requests to divide
lots. This could create a congested residential
environment.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
1. Twelve-foot drive appears narrow, may cause
parking on-street.
2. Five -foot additional right-of-way dedication
required.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial based on staff's comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The engineer agreed to widen the driveway and dedicate the
requested five feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were objectors present. The application was
represented by Mr. David Scruggs.
Mr. Scruggs made a presentation. He offered a petition
with 14 signatures of support for his application. He
described his house and pool, the dimensions, height and
relationship to neighbors.
Mrs. Carolyn Gluckman was present to question the project.
She stated that she had not been given the same information
about this case earlier and only at this meeting did she
receive a complete picture. She objected to the two-story
construction with windows. Several Commissioners objected
to the 15' carport setback.
After a brief discussion involving the several parties, a
motion was made to approve the PUD subject to provision of:
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
(1) Six-foot brick wall around the deck and pool,
(2) Access only from the house and front of the lot,
(3) Delete the 15' carport line.
A motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent,
1 abstaining, Richard Massie.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME: Village Shopping Center
Addition
LOCATION: University and Asher
DEVELOPERL
Rector-Phillips-Morse/
United Artists'
Communications
P.O. Box 7300
Little Rock, AR 72217
Phone: 664-7807
ENGINEER/ARCHITECT:
Townley, Williams, Blair
and Associates
18 Corporate Hill Drive
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 224-1900
AREA: 29.8 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: Proposed "C-3"
Existing "I-2 " / "C-3"
PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center
A. Proposal/Request
1. To add square footage to an existing shooping
center on 29.8 acres.
2. Development Data
Existing:
Main Center 79,850 square feet
65,115 square feet
Union Bank 2,155 square feet
Cinema 150 12,800 square feet
159,909 square feet
Mew:
Theatre 40,000 square feet
Option A 22,200 square feet
26,200 square feet
Option B 15,000 square feet
103,400 square feet
Total Building Square Footage ... 263,309 sq.ft.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
Parking ............ 298 cars
Parking Ratio ...... 4.93/1,000 sq. ft.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located at the intersection of two major
arterials. The area is developed as commercial and
has very heavy traffic.
C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical /Design
1. Indicate parking layout.
2. Clarify Options A and B.
3. Meet with Engineering and Parks regarding any
floodway issues.
4. Traffic is a major concern of the area.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Coordination of approval with the State Highway
Department.
2. Address detention concerns with City Engineering.
E. Staff Recommendation
Reserved, until further information is available since
traffic is major concern in this area. Staff cannot
lend support to this item until it is coordinated with
State Highway Department and City Engineer gives his
report.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was informed that the Option A Building at
the rear of the existing shopping center was shown over an
existing easement and contained a main feeder and branch
service to telephone cable; and that Wastewater and Water
Works also had concerns about the building in this area.
He was asked to work with the utility companies to resolve
the issues.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
The main issue was identified as traffic. Comments were
needed from both City Engineering and the State Highway
Department.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The application was represented by Mr. Bill Hastings of
Rector, Phillips, Morse and Mr. Joe White, engineer.
Staff recommended approval of the site plan, subject to
resolution of the traffic issue on Asher Avenue.
There was a lengthy discussion on whether or not the site
plan should be approved, since there were no technical
issues to be resolved, subject to negotiations with the
State Highway Department and the City Engineer regarding
access onto Asher Avenue.
Mr. Coleman of Coleman Dairy stated concerns about access
to Asher from his property. He had no problems with the
site plan.
A motion for deferral of the site plan was made and passed
by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4-19-88)
The Planning staff reported that the site plan was in good
shape except for some utility issues but that the plan is
affected by the unresolved traffic issues. Staff
recommends approval of the plan subject to resolution of
the traffic access problem.
There was one objector present, Mr. Buddy Coleman. The
application was represented by Mr. Bill Hastinqs and Joe
White of White - Daters Engineers. Mr. Hastings offered a
brief statement on the need to progress with the project.
He stated that Mr. Peters, the traffic engineer he had
retained, was present to answer any questions. Mr. White,
the project engineer, offered comments on the need to
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
defer the matter as suggested by several persons pending
the Highway Department and City Engineer working out access
issues. Mr. Coleman, an adjacent property owner on the
east, stated his concerns as being associated with the
access to his dairy facilities and the present plan's
impact. He stated that he had no objection to the site
plan.
Don McChesney, the City Engineer, offered comments on the
traffic issue. The design and effect are all associated.
He indicated that the layout of the project could be
affected by the final resolution of access. He said he
believed that the questions associated with the Highway
Department's concerns could be worked out within 90 days.
The Planning Commission then discussed the pros and cons of
deferral and the appropriate time period.
A motion was made to defer the plan for a period of six
weeks to permit the various parties sufficient time to
resolve the concerns of all involved. The motion included
a provision for additional deferrals without Commission
involvement and as needed to obtain resolution. The motion
passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 5 absent.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME: Agape Church - Conditional Use
Permit (Z-3789-C)
LOCATION: East Side of Napa Valley Road
approximately 750 feet north of
Mara Lynn Drive (701 Napa Valley
Road)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Agape Church /Joe D. White
PROPOSAL:
To construct a three -story (19,992 square feet/36 feet
height) elementary school building (kindergarten through
sixth grade - nine classrooms - 200 student capacity) on an
existing church site that is zoned "R-2" /Conditional Use
Permit.
*Variance request of one foot (height).
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to an arterial street (Napa Valley Road).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is abutted by vacant land and single
family to the north, multifamily to the south and
west, and vacant land to the east. The proposed use
is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
The site contains two paved access drives to Napa
Valley Road and 326 paved parking spaces. The
proposed construction will eliminate six parking
spaces.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
The site is landscaped and is buffered by open space
(wooded area) located to the north and east.
5. Analysis
The staff anticipates no adverse impact to the
surrounding area as a result of this proposal. The
site is large enough and has good enough access to an
arterial street to accommodate an elementary school.
The proposed structure is also buffered by a heavily
wooded area that is zoned Open Space. The applicant
does need, however, to submit a revised site plan that
contains the dimensions of the proposed and existing
buildings, the playground area, widths of the access
drives, and building setbacks from the property line.
6. City Engineer Comments
Review detention with the City Engineer.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant submits a revised
site plan as outlined above and meets with the City
Engineer to review on-site detention.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. The applicant also stated that on-site
detention had already been provided. There were no
unresolved issues.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present as were two concerned neighbors.
The staff stated that they had received a revised site plan
and recommended approval subject to the applicant not
receiving a certificate of occupancy until on-site fire
protection has been installed. The applicant agreed to
comply. Dr. William Jacobson, president of the Turtle
Creek Property Owners Association, stated they were
concerned about future church expansion. Tim McKenzie of
#23 Turtle Creek Court submitted a letter stating
concern about the future of the lots that the church owns
within Turtle Creek Subdivision. Happy Caldwell, pastor of
Agape, stated that the church had no immediate future plans
for expansion or use of the Turtle Creek lots. He further
stated that the church would work closely with the
neighborhood in the future. The Commission then voted
6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent to approve the application as
recommended by the staff and agreed to by the applicant.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME: Miss Selma's School Conditional
Use Permit (Z-5002)
LOCATION: Southwest corner of Watt and "T"
Streets (7801 "T" Street)
OWNER /APPLICANT: L.A. and Selma Ratley
PROPOSAL:
To place an 1,815 square feet building (three clasrooms/45
student capacity) on an existing school site (kindergarten
through sixth grade - ten classes - 205 capacity) on 1.06+
acres of land that is zoned "R-4."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to two residential streets ( "T" and Watt
Streets).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is located in a mixed use area. The
property is abutted by single family/commercial to the
north, duplex/single family located to the south,
vacant land/commercial to the east, and single family
located to the west. The school is located on a
dead-end street and appears to be generally compatible
with the surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
"T" Street dead-ends into an on-site drop-off area.
The site contains 18 paved parking spaces.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
The site contains a six feet wood screening fence
along the west property line. The south property line
appears to follow a ridge line with the property
sloping northward so that the ridge line acts as a
buffer to the single family rear yards located to the
south.
5. Analysis
The staff recognizes that the school site is located
in the mixed use area (see note no. 2) and feels that
the use is generally compatible with the surrounding
area. The applicant needs to be advised that
landscape requirements will apply. The applicant also
needs to submit a revised site plan that shows the six
feet board screening fence located on the west
property line and the setbacks between the proposed
building and the existing structures.
6. City Engineer Comments
Construct one-half street improvements along Watt
Street (with sidewalk).
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1)
submit a revised site plan as outlined above; (2) meet
Landscape Ordinance requirements; and (3) construct
one -half street improvements along Watt Street.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations except for constructing sidewalks. He was
informed that he could request a waiver of sidewalks at the
Planning Commission meeting. The Committee asked that the
ten parking spaces located on the west property boundary be
clarified on the revised site plan. The applicant agreed
to comply.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
staff stated that they had received a revised site plan but
that it contained a parallel drop-off on Watt Street that
was unacceptable for traffic and safety. The applicant
stated that they needed the drop-off on Watt Street and
that no sidewalk was needed on Watt Street because there
was no foot traffic. The Commission felt that a turnaround
was needed on the south end of the seven space parking area
located on the west property line. The Commission then
voted 6 ayes, 0 noes, 5 absent to approve the application
provided that the applicant submitted a revised site plan
that contained a turnaround for the parking area on the
west property line, no sidewalk on Watt Street, removal of
the parallel drop-off on Watt Street, and a fence along the
east property line on Watt Street.
SUBDIVISIONS
ITEM NO 15
NAME: Spring Tree Village "Long-form" PRD Final Plan
Approval
LOCATION: Approximately 2,000 feet east of the intersection of
Chicot and Yarberry
DEVELOPER: Winrock Development Co.
2101 Brookwood Drive
P.O. Box 8080
Little Rock, AR 72203
663-5350
ENGINEER: White-Daters
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR
72201
374-1666
ARE 9.22 acres NO. OF LOTS: 61 FT. NEW STREET: 1,850
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USE Single Family
A. Staff Report:
The applicant is requesting final plan approval of a small
lot single family PUD that was originally approved on
January 26, 1988.
The Engineering comments from January stated that 5' sidewalks
should be shown at the curb or 4' sidewalks at the property
line. This plan shows 4' at the curb. Staff recommends 80'
access drive to the open space.
B. Staff Recommendation:
Approval
C. Subdivision Committee Review:
The applicant agreed to comply with the comments noted
above.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present. The Commission briefly
discussed the issue and placed it on the consent agenda,
for final plan confirmation.
The Commission voted to approve the plan by a vote of 9
ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Street Right-of-Way Abandonment
NAME: Stacy Street and Nichols Street
LOCATION: Lying between West Markham Street
and the Rock Creek Parkway
OWNER /APPLICANT: Floyd Fulkerson for H. Harley Cox,
owner
REQUEST: To abandon the unused right-of-way
and use in the redevelopment of
the adjacent blocks.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Riqht-of-Way
None evidenced by the staff review.
2. Master Street Plan
These rights-of-way are not Master Street Plan
streets; however, the project does involve a street on
the plan.
3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
Gamble Road lying to the east of this owner's property
is a collector street which will require up to 10 feet
additional right-of-way.
4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
The property is generally rough rocky land which has
been mostly cleared or excavated.
5. Development Potential
None except as part of the adjacent redevelopment.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
Vacant land lies both on the east and west side of
this property with apartment projects along the north
side adjacent to Rock Creek Parkway. A church and
residential uses lie to the south. The two streets at
issue have not been opened and used by the public;
therefore, no adverse affect should be experienced by
closures.
7. Neighborhood Position
None has been expressed at this writing on March 30,
1988.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
None except that utilities will require retention of
easement rights within the ordinance.
9. Reversionary Rights
The rights-of-way will be divided equally to abutting
owners.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
a. The abandonment of these unopened and unused
segments of street right-of-way will return to
the private sector a land area that will be
productive for the real estate tax base.
b. The abandonment will eliminate the potential for
the extension of streets which could provide
hazardous to both vehicle and pedestrian traffic
onto collector and arterial streets.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends approval of the petition subject to
the retention of utility and drainage rights within the
ordinance.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4-19-88)
There were no objectors present. The Commission briefly
discussed the issue and placed it on the consent agenda
subject to the adopting ordinance including easement
protection rights for utilities and drainage. The
Commission voted to approve the application by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Street Riqht-of-Way Abandonment
NAME: Polk Street
LOCATION: North off Hawthorne Street
OWNER /APPLICANT: Dickson Flake for various owners
REQUEST: To abandon the current
right-of-way and return to private
use for access purposes.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right-of-Way
This short segment of Polk Street serves four lots at
present and terminates at a masonry wall. It appears
that the general public does not have a use for this
street. However, a proposed single family development
to the north will require its continuance in the form
of a thoroughfare.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no requirements attached to this issue.
3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
All needed rights-of-way were dealt with on the
St. John's planned unit development plat.
4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
The land is flat and poorly improved as a public
street. It does not have proper curb and gutter or
drainage. It serves only two or three houses at this
time.
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
5. Development Potential
None except as access to the adjoining properties.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
Single family lies to the north, east, and west of the
project involving the abandonment of this street.
Hawthorne Street lies along the south.
7. Neighborhood Position
All of the abutting owners are participants, and no
position has been offered by others.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
None should be experienced. These effects were
cleared in conjunction with the planned unit
development on St. John's planned unit development.
9. Reversionary Rights
The street will revert to each abutting owner in an
amount to be determined by agreement between Mr. Flake
and these property owners with easement rights to
St. John's planned unit development.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
The abandonment of this segment of street right-of-way
will return to the private sector a land area that
will be productive for the real estate base.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the petition subject to the
retention of utility and/or drainage easements within the
right-of-way. Further that, the abandonment be conditioned
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
upon the appropriate reconstruction of the street at
Hawthorne to accommodate a change to a private street. The
staff also suggests that the appropriate agreement for
access between St. John's planned unit development and the
abutting owners be made public record in the City Clerk's
Office and be attached with this abandonment ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4-19-88)
There were no objectors present. The Commission briefly
discussed the issue and placed it on the consent agenda
subject to the ordinance including easement protection
rights for utilities and drainage. The Commission also
included the staff's comments relative to redesign for use
of the street. The Commission voted to approve the
application by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
April 19, 1988
Item No. 18 - Z-4229-A
OWNER: Iron City Land Company
APPLICANT: J. Patrick Manney
LOCATION: 8000 Block of West Markham
REQUEST: Rezone from PRD to "R-2"
PURPOSE: Single Family
SIZE: 2.15 acres
EXISTING USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
South - School, Zoned "R-2"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
West - Multifamily, Zoned "R-5"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The site in question is currently classified "PRD" which
was approved in June 1984, for a development with a total
of 28 units and three detached buildings. The project was
never constructed, and the request is to rezone the
property to "R-2" to allow a single family residence.
There are outstanding issues, and staff supports the
request. (A resolution recommending that the existing PRD
revoked must also be acted on by the Planning Commission at
the public hearing.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "R-2" rezoning as
requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Amos Enderlin, was present. There were
three interested residents in attendance. Staff
recommended approval of "R-2" subject to a 40-foot buffer
along the east side of the property in question. Stephen
April 19, 1988
Item No. 18 - Continued
Giles of the City Attorney's Office addressed the
Commission and discussed a contract that was part of the
previous PRD approval. The contract included covenants to
run with the land and placed certain restrictions on the
PRD such as providing a 40-foot buffer and an opaque
screening fence. Mr. Giles said that the contract referred
to the PRD and if the "R-2" rezoning was approved, the
contract would not apply and, therefore, the
covenants /conditions would not be binding. Mr. Giles went
on to say that a 40-foot buffer would no longer be a
requirement with the "R-2" zoning. Mr. Enderlin addressed
the Commission and said he wanted the property zoned for a
single family residence the same as the Wingate Subdivision
to the east, and his only plans were to build one house.
Mike Lindsey, a resident of Wingate and adjacent to
Mr. Enderlin's property, questioned whether a violation of
the PRD had occurred because Mr. Enderlin had done some
site work and cleared the buffer area. It was expressed to
Mr. Lindsey that no PRD violation had taken place because
the PRD had expired. Mr. Lindsey made some additional
comments about the PRD and the Excavation Ordinance.
Mr. Enderlin told the Commission that no trees were
removed, but he had cleared some of the undergrowth. He
said that there was no excavation of the site, and his
intent was just to build a house. A motion was made to
recommend approval of the "R-2" reclassification. The
motion passed by a vote 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent. The
Commission also approved a resolution recommending that the
existing PRD be revoked. The vote: 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5
absent.
April 19, 1988
Item No. 19
NAME:
Bowman Road Access
LOCATION: Bowman Road, 110 feet north of
Markham Place
APPLICANT:
Don Bailey
DEVELOPER:
The Danny Thomas Co.
400 Centre Place
212 Center Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-2231
STAFF REPORT:
Mr. Don Bailey has requested a variance from a 300-foot
spacing requirement for curb cuts in a commercial
subdivision, in order to have an access drive to a large
interior store site adjoining Markham Place Drive.
Administratively relief was denied by City Engineering
Department (see attached correspondence).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4-19-88)
There were no obj ctors in attendance. The Planning staff
explained its position and reaffirmed its recommendation of
denial. The primary objection being deficient street design
on Bowman Road both in number of lanes, pavement width,
proximity to Markham Park Drive, and conflicting turning
movements. It was pointed out that the concerns of staff
parallel those of the City Engineer's Office.
Mr. Don Bailey representing the request made a presentation.
He discussed circulation, his firm's participation in the
street's construction, the design of the preliminary plat,
and marketing of the various uses. He indicated there was
April 19, 1988
Item No. 19 - Continued
a strong need for access to Bowman Road for his client (IGA
Foods) . Mr. Bailey offered comments on the Bill of
Assurance and certain architectural review rights of the
developer. This comment was prompted by an adjacent owner's
objection to taking total access to his lot from the new
driveway. Mr. Bailey's proposal is that both lots, 10 and
11, fronting Bowman Road take exclusive access from the new
driveway.
A lengthy discussion followed involving all parties. The
Commission determined that the request was warranted but
that some change to accommodate the Bowman Road turning
movement problem was appropriate. A motion was made to
approve the site plan layout, including the driveways and a
second building on Lot 5 for a financial institution. This
motion is subject to: (1) The applicant at his cost
providing for additional length of the southbound left turn
lane equal in length to that existing. ( 2 ) only one access
onto Bowman Road to serve all of the three lots (5, 10, and
11). (3) The Danny Thomas Company to assure that the other
owners comply with No. 2. The motion passed by a vote of
6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent.
City of Little Rock Engineering Division
Department of Public Works
701 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
371-4800
M E M O R A N D U M
April 1, 1988
TO: Tom Dalton, City Manager
VIA: Bob Lane, Director of Public Works
FROM: Don McChesney, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Bowman Road Access
The request by Danny Thomas & Company for a driveway and easement on
Bowman Road 110 feet north of Markham Place, has been denied for the
following reasons:
1. The requested drive is unnecessary: The grocery/shopping project
will have excellent access without the requested easement, via
Markham Place.
2. The requested drive would be dangerous: The proposed driveway
would intersect Bowman Road in a transition area (from four to
five lanes), immediately south of a major curve in Bowman Road.
Left turns from Bowman would be particularly dangerous. For this
reason, transition zones typically have a medial "island" to
discourage and/or prevent crossing of the center line by left
turning traffic. I have explained to the applicant that if a
driveway was permitted in this area, the City would likely re-
quire channelization to prevent left turn movements. The
existing painted island would make left turns illegal, but would
not prevent them.
3. The requested drive would violate the planning process: The
proposed driveway would drastically alter access, in a way
contradictory to the way this area was platted. Gary Greeson
is of the opinion that the Planning Commission should be allowed
to review the driveway/ easemant as a major modification to the
adopted plat.
4. There is no hardship: There has been no change in circumstances
since the applicant platted the subdivision and constructed
streets to serve it. Access was planned via Markham Place;
Bowman Road was flared to provide a separate left turn lane onto
Markham Place.
Memo to Tom Dalton
April 1, 1988
Page -2-
5. Additional access Problems would be created: By ordinance, a
commercial property with less than 300' frontage is allowed
only one (1) curb opening. The 0.55 acre site on Bowman through
which the requested drive would pass, would have its access
limited to the proposed, inadequate, drive.
The attached drawing and letter from Mike Batie are for convenient
reference.
Please let me know if you need additional information.
DM/ea
Attachments
cc: Gary Greeson
City of Little Rock Engineering Division
Department of Public Works
701 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
371-4800
March 31, 1988
Mr. Don Bailey
Danny Thomas & Company
212 Center Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Bowman Road Access
Master Street Plan Requirements
Dear Mr. Bailey:
This letter is in regard to our discussion during the first week of
March concerning your request for access onto Bowman Road from the
adjoining property at Markham Park Drive. At that time, Don McChesney,
City Engineer and I had some concerns concerning the access with the
geometrics of Bowman Road. Also at that time you requested an additional
curb cut for the lot facing Bowman Road. We discussed at our meeting
that the Master Street Plan allows for only one curb cut every 300 feet
on a designated arterial road.
I have been searching the files to find any documents that allow for the
access point onto Bowman Road which provides access to the interior lot
for the major shopping center or store area. I have been unable to find
any written documentation that allows this access point. Therefore, due
to the geometrics of Bowman Road as well as the Planning Commission and
Board of Directors policy for Master Street Plan issues, only one curb
cut will be allowed onto Bowman Road from the piece of property discussed
earlier. In particular, the access point to the shopping area internal
to the development is not allowed at this time.
As we discussed, it appears that a right turn in and right turn out lane
would be appropiate since the existing Bowman Road does not allow for a
left turn lane in this area. Please discuss this with the City Engineer
or the Planning Commission to determine the status. With regard to the
lot facing Bowman if the access road is allowed into the interior parcel,
access from your property should tie into the access road and not onto
Bowman Road.
If you have any further questions, please contact Don McChesney at 371-4820.
Very truly yours,
R. Michael Batie, P.E.
Chief of Civil Engineering
cc: Bob Lane
Don McChesney
Bill Anderson
Richard Wood
DATE ?f-/qffY J
ZOtJitlG
MEMBER
W.Riddick, III
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
M.Miller
J.Nicholson
w.Rector
S._Leek
T·. Grace Jones
0.J. Jones
R.Collins
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
If I /II· J-_ J_ {/ 5 � 7 g °' "j(J II Id--/j )¢
tr It-II-II-/t It-II-A-IA-IfII A It It II-It
,4 /t If I+ t1 A-A fl A /1 A A A t1 ,4 A
V V V" V V V V v V V V v' fl& V v V
v v J/ V V V J,,/ V v-·/ � v V v L/ V
L...-1./ l,, V v' i/ V � V v v V V Ii 11 ./I
........... V I/ V v � t/ V V L/v V V v v' V
v ,v v' V v' I,/ V V V t/ V 0 v V V -✓
V v' V V ✓ i/V L/ v V V v L---"' V 1../ J/.
V v I/ V V"' I/ v ;,,,, I/ v A A A -A A A .
V V v' V' ,I/ V L/ ;/ v L/" ✓ V V A-/t. II
V v v V I,/ V .__ V I,/ J V vi ,,_/ ✓ ✓ v -·A -.. . . \ -·
�ti� /7 Ii' /9
II If >4-ff A -A IA IA II A
v-v V V 1.,.,,/"I,,
V L/ v t-/
L.,/ // v � ,4
V V V v '-'
V' V V V v
J,,,,-"' v--L,,----' ./ L--
(..../ v---v A-
V L/ v' fl-A v' ..---
(..../ v . --
April 19, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Date
Secretary Chairman