HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_08 14 1984subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
AUGUST 14, 1984
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum.
A quorum was present being 11 in number.
II. Approval of Minutes of the Previous Meeting.
The minutes were read and approved.
III. Members Present: John Schlereth, Chairman
Bill Rector
Dorothy Arnett
John Clayton
Ida Boles
Richard Massie
Jim Summerlin
William Ketcher
Jerilyn Nicholson
David Jones
Betty Sipes
City Attorney
Present: Phyllis Carter
TENTATIVE SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
AUGUST 14, 1984
Deferred Items:
A. Candlewood "PRD"
B. Geyer Springs Church of Christ (Z-4264)
Preliminary Plats:
1. Cantrell West - A
2. Troy's Acres
3. Crystal Valley Addition
4. Lot 1- Hatcherbroom Addition
Replats
5. West Park Block AR, Replat of Block A
Site Plan Review
6. West Park, Lot 3 - Lot A Replat /Site Plan Review
7. West Park, Lot A - Revised Site Plan
8. First South Federal Savings & Loan
Planned Unit Development
9. United Cerebral Palsy of Central Arkansas PCD (Z-4293)
10. Forest Place PCD (Z-4292)
Conditional Use:
11. New Light Baptist Church (Z-4281)
12. Mabelvale Cutoff Day Care Center (Z-4282)
13. Knights of Columbus (Z-4286)
14. Park U Christian Church (Z-4289)
15. Catholic High School (Z-4285)
Building Line Waiver:
16. Silver Building Line Waiver
17. Harper Boyd Building Line Waiver
18. Boley Williams Building Line Waiver
19. Croy Building Line Waiver
Additional Item:
20. North American Phillips Site Plan Review
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Z -4226
NAME: Candlewood Long Form PRD
LOCATION: Approx. 250 acres, located
west of Rivercrest Drive, east
of Pinnacle Valley Road and
north of Highway 10
DEVELOPER:
Char -Beck Trust
P.O. Box 2317
Batesville, AR 72503
Phone: 793 -9813
ENGINEER:
Robert D. Holloway & Assoc.
1350 Woodland Drive
Maumelle, AR 851 -3366
AREA: 251 acres + NO. OF LOTS: 279 FT. OF NEW ST.:
ZONING:
PROPOSED USES: Commercial /Residential
A. Site History
None.
B. Development Concept
This represents an attempt by the applicant to develop
a very high quality condominium development to be
situated on the major ridgeline that extends west from
Little Rock along the Arkansas River. The forested
park -like land consists of a main east -west ridge and
smaller finger ridges with moderate to steep hillsides
sloping down to the Little Maumelle River on the north
and Highway 10 on the south. Most of the hillsides are
over 20 percent slope. The main ridge and finger
ridges are flat, gently sloping and will make ideal
development sites, with "spectacular views" of the
Arkansas River to the north, Pinnacle Mountain to the
northwest and the forested hills of west Little Rock to
the south.
C. Development Proposal
The proposal incorporates several unit types and seeks
to mix some conventional products that have been
successful in west Little Rock with new residential
products that are in demand, yet have not been made
available to the local market. A description of units
provided includes:
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
(2) Aggravation of existing sewer problem.
(3) Location of Phase I, a "market place shaping element"
of the proposal. -- If the market does not support
development of further phases of the project, then the
residents will be stuck with the traffic problem caused
by only one access to the site through Walton Heights.
Neighbors felt that construction should begin at the
other end or that the developer should consider
constructing an alternate access route in the first
phase.
(4) The feeling that the developer was attempting to
capitalize on the neighborhood at their expense by
developing the part that was cheaper for him due to the
availability of immediate access and sewer, but most
disastrous to the neighborhood.
Spokespersons from the neighborhood included
Mr. Robert Gunter of #1 Northwest Court; Mr. Hershaw, a
retired engineer, certified in seven states; and
Ms. Jannett Straub, a member of the Walton Heights Board of
Directors. Ms. Bobbie Gunter, a realtor residing in the
neighborhood, presented a very lengthy computer printout to
the Commission indicating the amount of condominiums in the
City that are currently on the market. Her point was that
none of those listed were selling for $100 a square foot,
and to propose that these would sell for $100,000 was
unrealistic. She expressed fear that the project would
eventually turn into a much lower class condominium
development than proposed, or even an apartment complex.
Commissioner Jones questioned the method of reviewing this
item as a general developmental concept with the specifics
to be worked out later. He likened this approach to that of
a regular and long -term rezoning case. Mr. Holloway
responded by stating that this was not an opened
application, since he was already committed to a number of
units per area and had already worked up quite a bit of
specifications.
Since the applicant had failed to comply with the notice
requirement, the Chairman decided that no action would be
taken on the proposal. The applicant, however, was
requested to work out and submit to staff details of Phase I
and look into the possibility of building Candlewood Drive
to Highway 10; consider meeting with the property owners;
comply with notice requirements; and go back through
Subdivision Committee. Staff was asked to get a
clarification on comments from Wastewater Utilities and
provide commissioners with the phasing plan.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
(1) Estate Lots - Large single family lots, larger
than five acres each, with frontage on Pinnacle
Valley Road (not included in parcels over five
acres).
(2) Cluster Houses - Attached single family patio
homes set in the woods along the main ridge.
These will be built in separate enclaves or
clusters of 6 to 10 units. Size would vary from
1,800 to 2,400 square feet and price would be
above $165,000.
(3) Hillside Attached - Similar to the cluster houses,
but town houses with river or forest views. These
will appeal to similar buyers, but will be built
at higher densities, with smaller floor plans,
1,400 and 2,400 square feet and be priced lower,
probably from $130,000 to $225,000.
(4) Hillside Villages - Each village will be a mix of
flats and town houses in a "club" community
organized around tennis, a pool and sited out on
one of the forested finger ridges overlooking the
river. These will be one and two - bedroom units
(1,000/1,600 square feet) marketed as condominiums
to single buyers, first time buyers, or two or
more singles buying together. Prices could range
from $90,000 to $140,000.
The density per acre of total property is 1.1 units per
acre, not including the large estate lots on Pinnacle
Valley. The density for the parcels within themselves
is a net density of 2 units per acre. The cluster
houses will contain an average of three units per
building and require about 20 buildings. The hillside
attached homes will be the same as cluster houses and
will require 25 to 29 buildings. (See Table 1 for
further information.)
D. Enqineerinq Considerations
(1) Dedicate right -of -way and improve Pinnacle Valley
Road to minor arterial standards.
(2) Residential street curvatures require 150' radius
curves. Request intersection be discussed with
Traffic at 371 -4858.
(3) Clarify phasing.
August 14,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
E. Analysis
The applicant has worked closely with the staff and is
to be commended for being very thorough in his
submission of materials. He has not, however, totally
complied with our wishes relative to the specifics of
Phase I. Our agreement was that he would submit a
generalized application for the total development
scheme with specific unit data to be submitted on Phase
I only. He would then come back to the Commission for
approval on each subsequent phase.
Staff is very favorable to the development of this
project and feels that it is a good one. The applicant
is proposing to dedicate much common open space to the
City. We are asking that he specify or delineate how
much open space is to be allocated to each of the five
phases. He should also start annexation proceedings
immediately on that portion of the project not
currently in the City.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. He was informed by the staff
that the Parks Department had requested easements across
some portions of the property in order to link areas
proposed for dedication; and that whatever boundary streets
were created, he would be required to build both sides. He
agreed to do both, plus provide more specifics regarding the
percentage of open space dedication with each phase. It was
agreed that this application would be reviewed as the
generalized development scheme with specifics to Phase I to
be provided next month.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Bob Holloway, the engineer, and Mr. Richard Thomas, the
applicant, were present. Numerous persons from the
neighborhood were present. Several concerns /issues were
identified:
(1) Lack of proper notification since the applicant had
failed to comply with the notice requirement in the
ordinance. The neighborhood asked for a 60-day
deferral.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant and the engineer were present. They submitted
data for Phase I. The information included the following:
(1) Use .... hillside attached housing
(2) Acres .... 7.02
(3) No. of Units .... 18
(4) Floor space (single family) .... 36,744
(5) Building percent coverage .... 1.65/9.3 percent
(6) Private open space .... 600 square feet per unit
(7) Areas: road /parking .... 1.45/21 percent of area
(8) Parking spaces per unit inc. garage .... 6
(9) Unit 1 .... 1624 square feet (exc. garage)
(10) Unit 2 .... 2100 square feet (exc. garage)
(11) Unit 3 .... 2300 square feet (exc. garage)
A significant point of discussion proved to be the provision
of an ultimate access point to the site in the future. The
applicant agreed to provide another means of access when
Phase 2 is built. He was asked to provide the Commission
with: (1) letters from Sewer and Water describing the
potential problems of service provision, (2) letter from the
adjoining property owner relating to his participation in
building Candlewood Drive, and (3) phasing plan that
delineates park dedication.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 12 -84)
The applicant was present. Staff reported that there was a
notice problem and that the applicant had submitted written
documentation from the Batesville Post Office describing an
error in the mail pickup. The Chairman asked Mr. Gunter,
the representative for the Walton Heights Property Owners
Association, whether or not he wanted to make an issue of
the notification problem since there were a large number of
residents already present. He replied that he did wish to
state an objection to the waiver of any formal notice
requirement, but wanted the item heard since postponement
would not serve any useful purpose.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
Mr. Bob Holloway and Mr. Richard Thomas represented the
application. A general overview of the project and some
specifics pertaining to Phase I were explained by
Mr. Holloway. He stressed a minimal proposed density vs.
that allowed and extensive dedication to park lands; and an
understanding that he would have to provide improvements or
a contribution for improvements to obtain both water and
sewer service. He did not, however, have a letter of
commitment from Wastewater Utility. He also stated that he
had talked to an adjacent property owner, Mr. Shaheen, and
he had expressed a verbal interest in some type of
reimbursement for improvements to Candlewood Drive. The
Commission was informed that the developer had sent a letter
to the Property Owners Association offering to sell them the
portion to be developed as Phase I. They were given 30 days
in which to respond. There was some discussion on the
phasing plan which was handed out to all the commissioners.
Mr. Thomas requested the option of improving either
Candlewood Drive or Pinnacle Valley Road first. The
Commission questioned the phasing schemes since both streets
were shown in Phase II. It was suggested that the applicant
may need to divide Phase II into two parts. It was also
decided by the Commission to restrict further discussion of
the item to just Phase I and not the overall project. The
question of the appropriateness of multifamily use on
Phase I was raised.
Mr. Gunter's concerns related to adequate utility service in
light of the 18 additional units and the traffic impact on
the neighborhood. Mr. Holloway responded by saying the
development would require rebuilding or improvement of an
existing pump station serving a neighborhood, and the
density would only be about 1.1 units per acre or 18 units
on 37 acres.
The applicant decided that since only seven commissioners
were present, he would request a deferral for 30 days. A
motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of:
7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (6- 28 -84)
Water Works reported that a 12" and /or 16" main will have to
be extended from Pleasant Ridge to serve all areas above
450 -foot elevation.
August 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7- 10 -84)
Mr. Holloway requested that the item be deferred for 30 days
so that the developer could finalize negotiations with the
abutting property owners. Mr. Donald Snow objected to the
repeated delays. Ms. Jeannette Straub reported that the
developer had not contacted the property owner since the
original offer was sent. Finally, a motion for a 30 -day
deferral was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and
3 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
(7- 26 -84)
There were no new developments regarding the issue.
Water Works Comments:
An additional 10' right -of -way dedication recommended on
Pinnacle Valley Road. 15' easements, 7.5' either side of
lines required outside of the right -of -way to serve housing
clusters. The 12' and /or 16' main will have to be extended
from Pleasant Ridge to serve all areas about 450'
elevation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 14 -84)
The applicant was present. Numerous persons from the
neighborhood were in attendance. Mr. Thomas reported that
he had received an offer from the 11 property owners
immediately adjacent to Tract "M" for the purchase of that
tract. He felt that if taken to his Board of Directors,
this amount would have been considered unsatisfactory. The
question of the suitability of multifamily use on this
parcel was raised. The applicant requested amendment of
this application to exclude parcel "M" from this
application. It was explained to the neighborhood that he
had the right to come back with a proposal for this tract at
a later date. The Commission decided also that the process
for review would include initial approval of the
developmental concept, with each subsequent phase brought
back to the Commission for "PRD" /site plan review. A motion
for approval as amended to eliminate Tract "M" subject to
the renumbering of the phases, and the condition that each
would require site plan review by the Commission was made.
The density would now include 261 units on 244 acres. The
motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 no and 0 absent.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME: Geyer Springs Church of Christ
Conditional Use Permit
(Z -4264)
LOCATION: NW Corner of West 53rd and
Geyer Springs Road
(6009 West 53rd Street)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Geyer Springs Church of Christ/
Mark Bradley
PROPOSAL:
To remove two single family structures and construct a 50
space parking lot and an auditorium (1500 capacity) on land
that is zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site is located in a mixed use area. A large
multifamily development is located to the east with
commercial on the west, south and north. There is some
single family also located north of this site.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
A church use is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
This property has 295 parking spaces and three access
drives. Two drives are located on West 53rd and one
drive is located on Geyer Springs Road. The proposed
construction will delete approximately 22 parking
spaces, while the proposed parking area will add
approximately 50 spaces (net plus 28).
4. Screeninq and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that this proposal is compatible with
the surrounding area. The site plan is, however,
deficient. The applicant needs to submit a revised
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
site plan that includes the dimensions of buildings,
access drives, exact number of parking spaces and
landscaping. The staff also requests that access be
limited to two drives in the proposed new parking area.
The applicant also needs to improve Geyer Springs Road
to residential street standards adjacent to the future
parking area and to submit drainage plans to the City
Engineer showing how drainage will be diverted from the
new auditorium site.
6. Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends approval, providing the applicant
agrees to:
(1) Submit a revised site plan which includes
dimensions of buildings, access drives, number of
parking spaces and landscaping;
(2) Limit access drives to two on future parking area;
(3) Improve Geyer Springs Road to residential
standards adjacent to future parking area; and
(4) Submit drainage plans to City Engineer.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and was in agreement with staff
recommendations.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Two objectors were also present
and objected to the existence of the playground. A lengthy
discussion ensued. The question was raised about the
possible illegal existence of the private school located on
the church site. The Commission also suggested that the
applicant relocate the playground area away from the
single family residences. The Commission then voted 7 ayes,
0 noes, 4 absent to defer this item to the August 14, 1984,
Planning Commission Meeting so that the status of the
private school can be ascertained.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The staff reported that the
school was licensed prior to the passage of the 1980 Zoning
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
Ordinance which allows the school as a nonconforming use.
There was a lengthy discussion of the playground location.
This issue was not resolved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. Staff stated that the
applicant had submitted a letter requesting withdrawal of
this item. William H. Hughes Jr., an objector and neighbor,
was present. A lengthy discussion ensued about the
appropriateness of the playground issue. Richard Wood
stated that the playground issue should be forwarded to the
Board of Adjustment as they are the official interpretive
body so that the Board of Adjustment could determine the
status of the playground. The Commission then voted
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent to withdraw this application.
The Commission also voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent to
withdraw this item with prejudice, meaning that this
application cannot be filed for at least one year.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME:
Cantrell Place West - A
LOCATION: SE Corner of Misty Lane and
Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Constant
Unit C -1201 Raisin
Hot Springs, AR 79193
ENGINEER /APPLICANT:
Bob Richardson
Richardson Engineers
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
664 -0003
AREA: 1.7 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Site History
This site was recently proposed for developed as a
4 -unit condominium project. There was significant
neighborhood opposition. The applicant requested and
received a'vote for withdrawal of the item from the
Planning Commission agenda on July 10, 1984, so that he
could resubmit it in its present form.
B. Existing Conditions
This property is located in an area composed of large
lot single family homes, and is bordered by a
residential street on the west and a principal arterial
on the north. The site is currently vacant due to the
destruction of the previous single family residence by
fire.
C. Development Proposal
This is a proposal for the division of a tract of 1.78
acres into four lots for single family development. No
variances have been requested.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
D. Engineering Considerations
Request that no curb cuts be allowed along Cantrell.
E. Analysis
Staff's review of the plan does not indicate any
insignificant problems. The average lot size is 18,000
square feet which is well in conformance with the
standards set by ordinance. Lot 4 involves a pipe stem
lot which is also in conformance. Access to Lot 2 will
be provided by a 15 -foot easement across Lot 1. It is
felt by the staff that there should be some regulation
of access onto Cantrell Road, since there are currently
two points of access to Cantrell.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to restricted access on Cantrell.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
At the meeting, Engineering informed the applicant that the
drive to Cantrell should consist of a joint drive between
the lots or be limited to one lot. Later, an agreement was
reached between both parties where a curb cut will be
allowed on each lot, provided that the drive nearest the
abutting intersection be located on the eastern side of that
lot.
Water Works Comments:
A 10' easement on the south side of Highway 10 is requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The issue was identified as whether or not the Planning
Commission could legitimately vote against a proposal that
technically meets all Ordinance requirements. The question
arose since some Commissioners felt that technical
compliance was not enough in this instance, since the
division of the tract into four smaller lots was not in
keeping with the established trend of large one and two acre
lots along Highway 10. They felt that such a division would
be detrimental to the area and would set a dangerous
precedent for other areas of the City. Staff pointed out
that this could be considered as exclusionary or class
zoning /platting. One Commissioner disagreed since he felt
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
the exclusionary cases would not apply in this instance
since there is already an established pattern of
development. The City Attorney stated that the Commission
could vote against the proposal, but the result would more
than likely result in a suit that would be difficult to
defend in court. The City Attorney was requested to render
a formal legal opinion. A vote for approval was made.
Since it failed to pass by a vote of 4 ayes, 2 noes and 5
abstentions, it was automatically deferred for 30 days.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME: Troy's Acres
LOCATION: East of Chicot and Mabelvale
Cutoff
DEVELOPER:
Troy Braswell
ENGINEER:
Richardson Engineers
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: 12.5 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: "R-2"
A. Site History
None.
B. Existinq Conditions
This site is currently occupied by an existing building
which houses a skating rink. It is abutted on the
south by a minor arterial. Street improvements are
needed.
C. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to subdivide a tract of 12.5 acres
into lots for single family development. No waivers
have been requested.
D. Engineering Comments
Street improvements needed on Mabelvale Cutoff.
E. Analysis
The applicant has submitted a plan for the division of
32,406 square feet from a larger tract of 12.5 acres.
Even though the existing use on the property is a
roller skating rink, the property is zoned for single
family development. The applicant should provide
street improvements for all of the abutting boundary
street.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant amended the application by requesting a waiver
of street improvements. Engineering's position is that, if
phased, street improvements are required when each tract is
developed.
Water Works Comments:
This replat will cause a house line serving Tract 2 to cross
Tract 1.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A motion for approval, subject
to the agreement reached with Engineering was made and
passed. The vote - 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME: Crystal Valley Addition
LOCATION: On Crystal Valley Road,
beginning approximately 600'
North of Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER:
Willie Mooney
302 Pointer Trail
Van Buren, AR
ENGINEER:
W.F. Williams
AGENT:
Delbert Spears
372 -7700
AREA: 10 acres NO. OF LOTS: 84 existing lots, 38 proposed
FT. OF NEW ST.: 1,200
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Street centerline radius
A. Site History
Planning Commission approval for 82 single family lots
on this site (Hardwood Acres Addition) was received on
January 10, 1984. There was no opposition.
Previously, the site was considered for manufactured
housing amid substantial opposition.
B. Existinq Conditions
This site is located in what can generally be described
as a rural area consisting mostly of residential uses.
C. Development Proposal
This is a request for preliminary approval of 122 lots
on 29.9 acres. Eighty -two lots have previously been
approved as single family development. The amount of
new street to be constructed will include 1,200 feet.
The applicant is requesting a variance of the street
centerline radius.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
(1) The project engineer met with City Engineer to
discuss intersection of Crystal Valley Road
(arterial) and Crystal Valley Road (collector).
(2) Dedicate right -of -way and approve Crystal Valley
Road to arterial and collector standards as
required by the Master Street Plan.
(3) Submit internal drainage plan.
(4) Traffic engineer objects to the intersection of
Silver Leaf Drive because of its closeness to
Crystal Valley.
(5) Radius waivers are not considered as applicable.
(6) The City Engineer wants five lane (1/2 60-foot all
the way along north-south minor arterial).
E. Analysis
This proposal encompasses parts of a preliminary which
have been previously approved. The applicant is simply
amending the original plat to add 38 new lots and
changing the name of the subdivision. One variance has
been requested. Engineering reports that a waiver is
not needed in this instance, due to the design of the
street and the fact that it is not a through street.
Staff questions the applicant's intent regarding
phasing of the development. This should be clarified
by the applicant.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee discussed the Engineering comments with the
applicant. Water Works reported that they should be able to
service 79 lots in September upon completion of the first
phase of the Highway #5 feeder main. A 12 -inch extension
would be required from Highway #5. A 15' easement will be
required for the installation of a 12 -inch main south and
east of the project. An acreage charge of $300 per acre
will apply. Service to the remaining lots will be available
after the completion of the second phase of the Highway 5
feeder scheduled for completion in 1985. The applicant
reported that development will be phased and a plan will be
submitted.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. There
was some discussion on Engineer's requirement for a
cul -de -sac, but the applicant agreed to provide it. A
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes,
2 noes and 0 absent.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME: Hatcher Broom Addition
LOCATION: West Side of Jamison Street,
immediately North of City of
Little Rock Material Yard
DEVELOPER:
Harold W. & Everett M.
Hatcher
300 Industrial Drive
Little Rock, AR
ENGINEER:
Allen Curry
1403 Main Street
North Little Rock, AR
AREA: 2.49 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "I -2"
PROPOSED USES: Broom Factory
VARIANCES: None
A. Site History
None.
B. Existinq Conditions
This property is located in an area zoned for
industrial uses. The City's Material Yard abuts on the
south.
C. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 2.49 acres into one lot for
industrial use as a broom factory. No variances have
been requested. Fifteen feet of additional
right -of -way has been dedicated on Jamison Street.
D. Engineerinq Comments
Dedicate right -of -way and improve Jamison Road to
industrial standards.
E. Analysis
The plat does not completely adhere to the preliminary
submission requirements. A 40-foot building line is
indicated where "I -2" requires 50'. Also, the owner
has not signed the preliminary. Engineering has
reported that industrial standards are acceptable for
street improvements.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission. The
applicant agreed to submit a revised plat with the proper
building lines.
Water Works Comments:
An 8 -inch main extension from Stenger Road will be required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval, subject to the submission of a
revised plat with the correct building line was made and
passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME: Block AR Replat, Block A
West Park Development
LOCATION: West Park Drive, One Block South
of West 12th
DEVELOPER:
Richard Tole
ENGINEER:
Summerlin & Associates Inc.
1609 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72203
376 -1323
AREA: 4.28 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "I-2"
PROPOSED USES: Offices and Warehouse
VARIANCES: None
STAFF REPORT:
This submission represents a request by the applicant to
replat Block A of West Park development into Block AR, which
consist of three lots. All conditions of this replat will
be addressed by item #7, West Park Revised Site Plan Review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
See item #7.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission. (See
#7.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval, subject to the City Attorney working
an easement dedication /uses in the floodway was made and
passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 abstention.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME: West Park, Lot 3 -Lot A Replat/
Site Plan Review
LOCATION: 1300 Block, West Side of
West Park Drive
DEVELOPER:
Richard Tole
ENGINEER:
Summerlin & Associates Inc.
1609 Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72203
376-3123
AREA: .87 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "I -2"
PROPOSED USES: Office /Retail
VARIANCES: None
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request for approval of a replat /site plan for
Lot 3 of Block AR of the West Park development. The site
plan will consist of two buildings: (1) one, which is
existing, will have 4,500 square feet and a floor elevation
of 312.9; (2) the other is proposed and has 4,500 square
feet. The replat is to separate Lot 3 from Block AR in
order that it may be sold. The conditions of the site plan
will be reviewed under item #7.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
See item #7.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission. (See
#7.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval, subject to the City Attorney working
out an easement dedication /uses in the floodway was made and
passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 abstention.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME: West Park Addition Lot A
Revised Site Plan Review
LOCATION: West Side of 1300 Block of
West Park Drive
DEVELOPER:
Richard Tole
ENGINEER:
Summerlin & Associates Inc.
1609 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72203
376-1323
AREA: 4.28 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "I -2"
PROPOSED USES: Offices and Warehouse
VARIANCES: None
A. Proposal
(1) To revise a site plan which has been previously
approved by the Commission.
(2) The maintenance of two existing structures and the
construction of four new buildings for
office /warehouse use (10 percent - 90 percent) on
4.28 acres.
(3) Development will include:
Building Type Size
A Existing 13,500 sq. ft.
B Existing 4,500 sq. ft.
C Proposed 4,500 sq. ft.
D Proposed 9,000 sq. ft.
E Proposed 21,630 sq. ft.
Total 53,950 sq. ft.
(28.6% coverage)
Parking . . . . . 137 spaces
Landscaping - perimeter will be crepe myrtles at
40' O.C. along the floodway line. Details will be
provided when building permit is obtained.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
B. Engineering Comments
Traffic engineer wants existing driveway rebuilt to
line up with access easement, also, build raised
islands to separate parked vehicles from vehicles
entering and existing. No floodway setback applies due
to activity on this site before ordinance was passed.
C. Analysis
Staff has several concerns relating to this submission:
(1) The plan does not identify how much feet of
frontage is on Vogel. It should show Vogel on the
plat.
(2) Applicant needs to explain the overlap between
floodway and floodplain.
(3) Twenty -five feet setback is needed from the larger
buildings since the site plan has been revised.
(4) No parking is allowed in the floodway.
(5) Explain Bill of Assurance or contractual agreement
on access drive that will assure that parking will
always be allowed as proposed due to location of
property line.
(6) Fifty foot setback required off Vogel.
(7) Explain centerline radius on Lot 4 relative to
large vehicles and fire apparatus.
(8) The three separate submissions and what they each
represent should be compatible.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed by the Commission. Staff reported
that it recognized the intended use as acceptable. The
applicant agreed to revise the site plan to comply with #4
of staff comments; thus, staff retracted #3. The applicant
should adhere to staff's requests, 1 -2 and 5 -8.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
Water Works Comments:
There is apparently an 8-inch water main in an existing
easement under an existing building that must be relocated.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant submitted a revised proposal that resolved the
issue staff pointed out. The applicant informed staff that
the Water Works comment was in error. A motion for
approval, subject to the City Attorney working on an
easement dedication /uses in the floodway was made and passed
by a vote 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 abstention.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME: First South Savings and Loan
LOCATION: Southwest City Mall, SW Corner
of Geyer Springs and I -30
Service Road
DEVELOPER:
Mr. Robert Chowning
Rector - Phillips -Morse
P.O. Box 7300
Little Rock, AR 72217
664 -7807
ENGINEER:
Cawthon Building Systems Inc.
505 North Beckley (I -35E)
Desoto, Texas 75115
(214) 223-4900
AREA: NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C-3"
PROPOSED USES: Financial Institution
VARIANCES: None
A. Site History
The last addition to this mall approved by the Planning
Commission involved a Bojangles Restaurant which is
located to the west of this site.
B. Proposal
(1) The construction of a bank building 60' x 36' and
a drive through 24' x 26'.
(2) Twenty-two parking spaces will be provided.
C. Enqineerinq Considerations
None.
D. Analysis
No major problems are apparent with this addition. The
location chosen shouldn't interfere with the flow of
traffic to other parts of the mall, and it ties in very
well with an existing drive system and curb cut. Staff
finds that the landscaping plan is deficient. The
applicant should submit a plan showing generalized
landscaping throughout the site.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The Committee reviewed the
application. The applicant agreed to submit a landscaping
plan.
Water Works Comments:
The water main shown as 12" is 6 ".
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 abstention.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME: United Cerebral Palsy of
Central Arkansas Short Form PCD
(Z-4293)
LOCATION: 770' East of Intersection of
West 36th & Shackleford Road
DEVELOPER:
United Cerebral Palsy of
Central Ark. Co., Inc.
5917 "H"
Little Rock, AR 72205
663-9478
ENGINEER:
Steve Sharp /Riddick
Engineer Inc.
1600 First Commercial Building
Little Rock, AR 72201
374-9219
AREA: 3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: Proposed PUD
PROPOSED USES: Educational and Training Facility for
Disabled Children and Adults
VARIANCES: None
A. Development Goals
(1) To provide a newer, safer and more accessible
facility which would house the educational,
training, therapy, vocational, evaluation and
training and administrative support for the
overall programmatic needs of cerebral palsy
victims.
B. Proposal
(1) The construction of a 20,000 square foot facility
for the disabled on three acres.
(2) Site Data:
Building square footage .... 22,000
Ratio of building to land .... 17%
Parking:
Provided .... 45 spaces
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
Site Coverage:
Building . . . . . . . . . 17 percent
Paving . . . . . . . . . 22 percent
Walks, landscape buffer
and grass areas . . . . . 61 percent
TOTAL . . . . . . . . . 100 percent
C. Engineering Comments
(1) Dedicate right-of-way and improve 36th Street to
minor arterial standards.
D. Analysis
This submittal consist of an office /institutional type
use. Staff finds no fault with the location and use in
this area, especially since there is a similar existing
development on its western border. However, several
issues for resolution have been found.
(1) First of all, there is a discrepancy between the
survey and site plan submitted, since the site plan
only utilizes a portion of the property. As a result,
a subdivision plat will have to be filed in order to
extract the portion to be used by this applicant from
the remainder. The applicant must be sure to provide
the staff with a proper legal description it if differs
from what has been submitted on the application.
(2) No evidence of elevation has been submitted. It is
necessary that the amount of floors in the building be
specified. (3) This property and the abutting tract on
the east appear to have parallel drives. The applicant
is asked to indicate the exact spacing between these
two points of access. (4) As for basic PUD
requirements, the proposal's major deficiency relates
to the failure to submit a timeframe for development.
(5) Buffers and screening of the adjoining residential
areas should be shown, and the applicant should denote
on the plan how much of the existing foliage is to be
retained. Staff felt that the number of parking spaces
was sufficient since most of the uses of the facility
would probably not be using cars daily. The facility
is planned to serve 100 individuals, both children and
adults.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant reported that the building would be one-story.
He agreed to comply with staff's comments before the
meeting.
Water Works Comments:
Show road dedication of 40' north of centerline of
West 36th.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant submitted additional information that
indicated: (1) the height of the building as one-story with
an elevation of 338'; (2) the exact spacing in relationship
of the parallel drives which was approved by Engineering;
(3) construction should begin this fall with occupancy by
the summer of 1985; and (4) a portion of the property on the
east side, which was adjacent to an area zoned for single
family, did not meet the usual'40' buffer and 6' fence
requirement. Because the site generally is heavily
vegetated, the Commission felt that the proposal was
acceptable if some type of assurance was provided to
guarantee that the existing foliage would not be destroyed.
A motion for approval, subject to a notation on the plan to
this effect was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes
and 0 absent.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME: Forest Place PCD (Z-4292)
LOCATION: East End of Forest Place
DEVELOPER: McKay & Company
REQUEST:
PCD Approval to allow a mix development of offices and
residential.
A. Development Objectives
(1) To provide a mixed use project of either high
class, small office tenancy or multifamily
occupancy.
(2) To preserve and maintain the existing character of
the neighborhood, which currently contains garden
type office and multifamily residential
structures.
B. Proposal
(1) To maintain the use of two existing structures
zoned for "MF -12" (a one story frame stucco
building of 1,095 square feet and a two story
frame /stucco duplex of 1,600 square feet to allow
office use).
(2) The addition of privacy fencing, additional
parking /landscaping and some cosmetic
improvements.
C. Engineering Comments
None.
D. Analysis
The applicant's request involves the desire to utilize
the proposed project, with the existing structures
physically unchanged as either an office or a
residential use. It is currently being used for
multifamily. Staff sees no reason to object to the
approval of an option for either type of use, since the
project is already located in a mixed use setting.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The Committee passed this to
the Commission after identifying the main issue as that of
use.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME: New Light Baptist Church
Conditional Use Permit (Z-4281)
LOCATION: South of the intersection of
Battery Street and 31st Street
(3110 South Battery)
OWNER /APPLICANT: New Light Baptist Church /George
Tucker
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 2100 square foot sanctuary (125 capacity),
pave 24 parking spaces and to demolish the existing
building, all on land that is zoned "R-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site is located on a residential street south of a
Little Rock housing project.
2. Compatibilitv with Neighborhood
This property is surrounded by residential uses. This
project is of limited scale and is compatible with the
surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parki
The applicant is proposing to take access from South
Battery and exit by way of the alley to the west. The
proposal also includes 24 paved parking spaces.
4. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed use is compatible
with the surrounding area. The staff does, however,
have concerns about the access and parking arrangement.
The staff feels that the applicant needs to delete the
first parking space on either side of the drive and
install curbing to deter patrons from parking any
closer to the entrance than the paved parking area.
Since the proposed plan encourages traffic to exit onto
the alley, the engineers feel that possible widening of
the alley may be necessary to facilitate the traffic
flow. Finally, the turning radius may need to be
enlarged at 31st or 32nd Street to accommodate the
increased traffic.
*Note: Steeples may not be more 35 feet in height.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
6. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval provided the applicant agrees
to:
(1) Eliminate the first two parking spaces and build a
curb return; and
(2) Widen the alley and enlarge the turning radius at
the intersection of the alley and 31st or 32nd
Street as may be determined by the City Engineer.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The applicant agreed with staff
recommendations. The City Engineer stated that the
enlargement of the turning radius at either 31st or 32nd
Street may not be required. Engineer stated he would report
by the Planning Commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
The City Engineer stated that the turning radius enlargement
would not be required, and that the alley should be
overlaid, and that the applicant could pave in either
direction to 31st or 32nd Street. Commissioner Arnett asked
that the applicant be required to overlay the entire alley
from 31st to 32nd and improve the turning radius at 31st and
32nd. The Commission then voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent to approve the application as per Commissioner
Arnett's comments.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME: Mabelvale Cut-Off Day-Care
Center Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4282)
LOCATION: On Mabelvale Cut-Off due north
of Topaz Court
OWNER /APPLICANT: Ronald G. Boyd
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 5400 square foot building (capacity 60
children), 15 parking spaces and a fenced playground area,
all on land (1 acre) that is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1. Site Location
This site fronts on a minor arterial in a mixed used
area. A commercial area lies to the north, multifamily
to the south, and single family to the west. The east
side is undeveloped.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This proposal is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The applicant is proposing two 18 -foot access drives on
Mabelvale Cutoff. The proposal also contains 15
parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to landscape the east and
west boundaries of property.
5. Analysis
The staff does not feel that this proposal will have an
adverse impact on the surrounding area. Staff does
have some concern about the proposed parking. The
staff would like the applicant to submit a revised site
plan showing a specific lot layout (parking should be
paved). The applicant also needs to submit a final
plat which should dedicate the necessary right-of-way
on Mabelvale Cutoff to minor arterial standards.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
The applicant also needs to construct Mabelvale Cutoff
to minor arterial standards.
6. Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends approval provided the applicant
agrees to:
(1) Submit a revised site plan in illustrating the
specifics of the parking area;
(2) Pave drive and parking area; and
(3) File a final plat dedicating and constructing
Mabelvale Cutoff to minor arterial standards.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors or
unresolved issues. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent to approve this application as recommended by
staff.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME: Knights of Columbus Conditional
Use Permit (Z -4286)
LOCATION: The east side of Chicot Road
between Mabelvale Cut -Off and
Yorkwood Drive
OWNER /APPLICANT: Knights of Columbus /Ronald
Klober
PROPOSAL:
To construct a driveway, playground and a ball field in
Phase I, and to construct a 11,200 square foot building in
Phase II (in approximately two years) on land (7.23 acres)
that is zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1. Site Location
This property has a small frontage on a minor arterial
( Chicot Road) and is surrounded by single family uses.
2. Compatibility with Neiqhborhood
This proposal has the potential to be compatible with
the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
This proposal contains one 27-foot access drive on
Chicot Road and 194 parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant has not submitted a landscape proposal.
5. Analysis
The staff has some reservations about the current
plans' compatibility. The staff feels that the access
drive should be adequately landscaped as to protect the
single family to the south. In addition, the proposal
does not mention whether or not the ball field will be
lighted. Staff feels that the lighting of the ball
field should be prohibited and that the field should be
adequately screened and landscaped. The proposal does
not mention parking in Phase I or II. The staff feels
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
that parking and drives should be provided in Phase I
and that it should be paved.
There is some question as to whether this lot has been
legally subdivided from the out - parcel adjacent to the
northwest. The applicant needs to provide proof by
abstract that this property has been legally
subdivided. Additionally, the applicant needs to
dedicate and construct the right -of -way on Chicot Road
to minor arterial standards. If the above mentioned
out - parcel has been illegally severed, the applicant
will be required to file a final plat and dedicate and
construct the additional frontage on Chicot Road.
Finally, the applicant needs to submit an internal
drainage plan to the City Engineer.
6. Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends approval provided the applicant
agrees to:
(1) Submit a landscape and screening plan as outlined
above;
(2) Pave drive and parking in Phase I;
(3) Not light the ball field;
(4) Show proof that the property has been legally
subdivided;
(5) Dedicate and construct right -of -way on Chicot Road
to minor arterial standards;
(6) Final plat both above mentioned parcels and
dedicate and construct right -of -way on Chicot Road
to minor arterial standards for full frontage if
property has not been properly subdivided; and
(7) Submit an internal drainage to the City Engineer.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The applicant agreed to all
items of the staff recommendations. Staff Items 4 and 6
will be resolved prior to the August 14th Planning
Commission meeting.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Six neighbors were present and
spoke in objection to this issue. The staff stated that the
property had been subdivided prior to the initiation of
Act 186 of 1957 which in effect meant that staff item Nos.
4 and 6 were no longer and issue. The applicant agreed to
all staff recommendations and submitted a revised site plan.
The six objectors spoke of increased traffic, noise,
vandalism, etc. All of the neighbors opposed the approval
of the conditional use permit. The Commission, after a
lengthy discussion, voted on the motion which stated that
the application be approved subject to staff comments as
well as the following conditions: removal of the parking
lot on the south side of the building; that the softball
field be moved to the north edge of the parking lot and be
oriented from the northeast towards the southwest; that the
field and facilities are for members use only and that no
organized teams will use the facilities; that a gate be
placed at the entrance of the property. The Commission then
voted 5 ayes, 5 noes and 1 absent to approve the motion.
The motion failed to gain the necessary majority vote for
approval which automatically deferred this item 30 days to
the September 11, 1984, Planning Commission meeting.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME: Parkview Christian Church
Conditional Use Permit (Z-4289)
LOCATION: The northwest corner of
Queensboro and Geyer Springs
Road (9300 Geyer Springs Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Parkview Christian Church
(Coll T. Wise)
PROPOSAL:
To fence a 30 foot by 60 foot playground area for a day-care
center (25 capacity) in an existing church facility on land
that is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1. Site Location
This fronts on an arterial and is bordered north and
west by single family, on the east by a public school
and the south by vacant land and multifamily uses.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This proposal is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
There are two existing access drives, one on Geyer
Springs Road and the other on Queensboro. There are 75
existing parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use the existing trees
and shrubbery.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that this proposal is compatible with
the surrounding area. This application meets Ordinance
requirements. The City Engineer requests a temporary
construction easement for the southeast portion of this
site for drainage work on Geyer Springs.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
6. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of file provided the
applicant agrees to grant a temporary construction
easement for drainage work on Geyer Springs Road.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent to approve
this application as recommended by staff.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15
NAME: Catholic High School
Conditional Use Permit (Z-4285)
LOCATION: The northwest corner of
University Avenue and Lee St.
(6300 Lee Avenue)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Roman Catholic Diocese of
Little Rock/ Rev. George W.
Tr ibou and John R. Forgy
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 2-story (21,643 square foot) library/study
hall lecture room addition, a 1 -story (5,965) square foot
band room /weight room addition and a greenhouse addition to
an existing high school facility (800 students) on land that
is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1. Site Location
This site is located at the intersection of a collector
and arterial street. Single family is located to the
north, office and multifamily to the south, office to
the east, and a utility substation to the west.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This proposal is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkin
This site currently contains two access drives to Lee
Street and 266 paved parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use existing trees and
shrubs.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that this proposal is compatible with
the surrounding area. This application also meets
Ordinance requirements. There are two issues that need
to be clarified. It is unclear that Lee Street has
been dedicated to the City for 30 feet of right-of-way.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
The applicant needs to prove dedication is complete or
file a dedication deed with the City. The second issue
concerns the possible sixth lane on University Avenue.
The City Engineer will report further details on the
University Avenue issue.
6. Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends approval:
(1) Provided the applicant agrees to dedicate the
necessary right-of-way on Lee Street to a total of
30 feet on the applicant's side; and
(2) Subject to Engineering comments on a possible
sixth lane on University Avenue.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The City Engineer requested that
a total of 40 feet of right-of-way be dedicated on the east
boundary of this property toward a 6-lane on University
Avenue. The applicant agreed with staff recommendations.
The Water Works stated that an 8-inch main loop extension on
the interior of the property would be required to provide
for adequate fire protection.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present and there were no objectors.
There was discussion about the 8 -inch water main loop. It
was determined that the loop is not required through the
Conditional Use Permit process. The 8 -inch water main is
subject to the requirements of the Little Rock Fire Chief.
The Commission then voted 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent to
approve this item as recommended by the staff and reviewed
by the Subdivision Committee.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
NAME: Silver Building Line Waiver
LOCATION: Lot 5, Pleasant Valley Estates
APPLICANT: John J. Silver
REQUEST:
The reduction of a 40 -foot building line to 10' which would
allow the construction of a swimming pool.
A. Site History
This lot is part of what was originally called the
Tiffany Terrace Subdivision, later changed to Pleasant
Valley Estates, which was final platted in March of
1983.
B. Existing Conditions
The subject property is located in a single family
area. The site is located near the end of an internal
private drive in the form of a cul-de-sac, with Hinson
Road which is a principal arterial bordering it on the
south or rear. A brick wall is built along the
southern boundary of the development. The beginning of
swimming pool construction is evident at the property's
rear.
C. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting a waiver of the 40-foot
building setback line established by Hinson Road so
that the swimming pool may be constructed. He asked
that the building line be reduced to 10' since the
Hinson Road right -of -way is visually screened by the
brick wall.
D. Engineering Comments
None.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
E. Analysis
In essence, this request is for the replatting of the
lot to allow a 10 -foot building line. Staff suggests,
since the pool is not a structure, leaving the building
line at its present dimension. The amendment to the
Bill of Assurance could add this as an accessory use.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to amend the Bill of Assurance
describing the pool as an accessory use. This would
eliminate the need for a final plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval, as recommended by staff was made and
passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
NAME: Harper Boyd Building Line
Waiver
LOCATION: 74 Pine Manor Drive
(Lot 11, High Circle Addition)
REQUEST:
To allow a 5 -foot encroachment into a 25-foot platted
building line for the construction of an informal dining
room.
A. Site History
None.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area consisting of single
family residential uses.
C. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting a 5-foot waiver of the
existing 25-foot building line so that a one story
addition (11' 4" x 18' 8" including eaves) can be
constructed. The applicant has explained in his
submission letter that the addition is required to
preserve the physical integrity of the structure and
for access required from the kitchen area as it will be
used for informal dining.
D. Analysis
Staff has no problems with allowing the waiver, since
it involves a rear yard encroachment into a setback
established by a platted access easement. A final plat
should be filed modifying the building line around the
addition.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. No one objected. A motion for
approval was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes
and 0 absent.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18
NAME: Boley Williams Building Line
Waiver
LOCATION: NE Corner of Markham and Plaza
APPLICANT: Boley Williams
663 -8441
REQUEST:
To allow a 20 -foot encroachment into a setback area
established by a 45 -foot building line.
A. Site History
None.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area composed mainly of
single family homes. The property's sole structure
consists of a one -story brick veneer home and is
bordered on the west by a residential street and on the
south by a principal arterial.
C. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to allow a 20-foot encroachment for
the construction of a swimming pool into a setback area
established by a 45-foot building line.
D. Engineering Comments
None.
E. Analysis
Staff is willing to allow modification of the building
line to 25'. The applicant should clear the proposed
screening fence with building permits as to height and
location since they may not permit it in a 25-foot
front setback area.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The item was reviewed and passed
to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. He
stated that he had reached an agreement with zoning
enforcement relative to the location of the fence so it did
not create a site distance problem. A motion was made and
passed for approval, subject to the compliance with the
fence agreement. The vote 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19
NAME: Croy Building Line Waiver
LOCATION: 8616 Crofton Circle
APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Croy
568-2505 or 758-1360
REQUEST:
To allow an encroachment into the 25-foot building line.
A. Site Histor
None.
B. Existinq Conditions
This property is located on a cul -de -sac that is in an
area composed of single family homes, most of which
appear to have undergone some type of home improvement
in the form of expansions /additions. The home directly
across the street has made similar additions to those
requested, plus a swimming pool.
C. Development Proposal
This is a request to allow two encroachments into two
25 -foot building line areas. One located off Crofton
Drive would allow for the addition of a carport and
storage area with new access off Crofton. The other,
on Crofton Circle, would allow for the addition of a
41.5' x 25' garage and workshop and another drive.
Other additions will include a 37' x 6' front porch and
a 48' x 17' room addition on the rear. The applicant
feels that these modifications are necessary due to:
(1) A need for more storage area due to a shortage of
space and for protection of items now left outside
against the recent rise of theft and vandalism in
the area.
(2) A need for the garage workshop to house a large
amount of valuables such as tools, tool chest,
worktables and a race car. The drive-in entrance
to this from Crofton will be paved. The other
driveway from Crofton Drive is requested because
it is felt to be more attractive.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
None.
E. Analysis
Staff recognizes the applicant's great need for
additional storage space and does not feel that some
expansion to the home would be out of character with
the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed plan,
however, constitutes an overbuilding of the site; so we
are only supportive of the carport and drive on Crofton
Drive to the extent that it aligns with the front of
the house. We are opposed to the other carport /garage
addition.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. Since staff felt that the site
was being overbuilt and only willing to support either the
proposed carport or the proposed garage /workshop, the
applicant stated a willingness to reduce the size of the
garage /workshop. She explained that both additions were
badly needed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff clarified its position, indicating a willingness to
support only one encroachment. It was felt that the
applicant should choose between the two, since allowing both
would crowd the site. The applicant submitted a revised
plan, which reduced the proposed workshop /garage by 30
percent. A motion for approval was made and passed by a
vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
August 14, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20
NAME: North American Phillips
Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Roosevelt
and Woodrow
APPLICANT: William Asti , Architect
Industrial Consulting
Engineers, Inc.
P.O. Box 55024
Little Rock, AR 72225
Phone No.: 664-3245
PROPOSAL:
This is a request for site plan review for development of a
research and development facility consisting of 26,000
square feet of offices and laboratory space. The new
two -story structure will be located approximately 50 feet
east of the present manufacturing plant. This plant
produces incandescent lamps.
At the Subdivision Committee meeting, the applicant
requested to be added to the agenda. Since then,
Engineering has indicated that Woodrow should be improved to
residential standards. Staff does not oppose the proposal,
provided that the applicant provide a properly dimensioned
plan and indicate the number of existing and proposed
parking spaces.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff reserves comments until all information is submitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant submitted a revised plan as requested by
staff. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote
of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
ME MBER
J.S11mmPrl in
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Sipes
J.Nicholson
W.Rector
W.Ketcher
D.Arnett
D.J. Jones
I • Boles
J.Clayton
✓AYE
14.
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
A B } z. 3 4 5 6 7 g Cj /0 // /2
J/ ✓ � / r/ v 113 � � Ae,✓✓ ✓v
✓ s/ ✓✓ y ✓✓ ✓✓ ,/y ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ v 'Ts ✓ t/ ,/ V V 1/ v ✓✓ ✓ ✓
✓ V v J/ • J/ //// / V ✓t/ ,/✓
v v V ✓ v t/ ✓ V y v t/ ✓y v
J/ y � v J/ y y y / y ✓✓ / ✓
✓ v 0 J/J,/ t/ ✓ r/ / ✓ ✓ ,/ V ✓
y J/ � J/y t/ // t/✓ t/t/ ✓t/t/ • I/ • �/ t,/ t/ p ✓ y !/ t/v t,/ t/
V J/ V y v // y' t/ // v' !/✓/ v,.v V � I/ • t/ // !/ J/ :/ v'e/ 1/ t/
NAYE A ABSENT ":e_ABSTAIN
I-;_ _;) /4-15 I /td,I ✓v ✓ r/
v' 7 ti /
� ✓/ p
C.7 // ✓
�v v J/
v ✓// ✓
� ✓t/ J,, ,.,
� ✓t/ / t,"'
✓✓ t/ !,,,/•✓ ;/,_
V ✓j1/,.� �· v•
17 1crl /9
✓ !✓-
✓ l/" /
✓;,,/ y
✓ / t/
✓ y :/
✓ / ✓
✓ y y'
t/ ✓y
/ t/ 1/
'// ;. / y
e,/� ✓
2d
/
:/
p'
./,
.'/
J,c/
(..',/
�l,,i
,, /
August 14, 1984
There being no further business before the Commission, the Chairperson
adjourned the meeting at 4:30 P.M.
Date:
Secretary Chairman