Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_07 10 1984subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD JULY 10, 1984 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum. A quorum was present being 7 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting. The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members present: John Schlereth David Jones Betty Sipes Jerilyn Nicholson Bill Rector Dorothy Arnett John Clayton IV. Members absent: James Summerlin Richard Massey William Ketcher Ida Boles V. City Attorney present: Carolyn Witherspoon TENTATIVE SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES JULY 10, 1984 DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Northwest Territory B. Candlewood "PRD" (Z-4226) C. Kanis Road Animal Clinic (Z-4245) D. Cantrell Place West "PRD" (Z-4247) PRELIMINARY PLATS: 1. Rasco Subdivision 2. Ridgewood Addition PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: 3. Cedar Branch "PRD" (Z-4250 4. Hughes Street Office Park (Z-4249) 5. Kirk Plaza (Z-4248) CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW: 6. Cloverdale Assembly of God (Z-4237) 7. Geyer Springs Church of Christ (Z-4264) 8. Holy Souls Day Care Center (Z-4265) 9. Stagecoach Road Day Care (Z-4267) 10. Southwestern Bell (Z-4268) SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: Northwest Territory (Revised) LOCATION: NE Corner of Highway 10 and Highway 300 DEVELOPER: Kelton Brown, Jr. 12015 Hinson Road Little Rock, AR Phone: 225-0627 ENGINEER: Edward G. Smith and Associates 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 49.6 acres NO. OF LOTS: 24 FT. OF NEW ST.: 4,100 ZONING: Outside City PROPOSED USES: Residential A. Site History A previous request for preliminary plat approval on this site was passed by the Commission on September 15, 1981. The plan requested that 41.8 acres be developed into 10 lots ranging from 2.5 acres. The motion for approval was conditioned on certification from the State Health Department that the land is suitable for septic tanks. B. Existing Conditions This site is located outside the City in an area that is rural in character. The topography appears to be steep in areas with elevation ranging from 320' to 560'. C. Development Proposal The applicant is proposing to develop a tract of 49.6 acres into 24 lots for single family development. The amount of new street proposed is 4100'. Access will be from two curb cuts on Highway 10 and Highway 300. Two internal streets are proposed. Tracts A and B are designated for future development. D. Enqineerinq Considerations 1. Improve Shinnal Mountain Drive to minor arterial standards. SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued 2. Discuss details for the intersection of Shinnal Mountain Drive and Highway 300 with City Engineers. AHTD must approve access onto Highways 10 and 300. 3. Improve Highways 10 and 300 to arterial standards; dedicate right-of-way along both routes as required by the Master Street Plan. 4. Request future plan for the extension of Northwest Court. E. Analysis Staff is favorable to the development concept; however, the applicant must explain the plans to extend Northwest Court. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. Water Works reported that they could not serve above elevation 440'. Staff mentioned that there was a question relative to the availability of sewer service on the previous proposal. Mr. Joe White, Project Engineer, informed the Committee that the project would not require water or sewer service from the City of Little Rock. He explained that Northwest Court would be a cul-de-sac in a future phase, access to both state highways have been approved by A.H.T.D., and that even though rural standards are currently proposed, Shinnal Mountain Drive will be constructed to minor arterial standards upon development of Tract A. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Joe White represented the applicant. A request for a 30-day deferral was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Mr. Joe White of Edward G. Smith & Associates requested that the item be withdrawn from the agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - 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 ENGINEER: Robert D. Holloway & Assoc. 1350 Woodland Drive Maumelle, AR 851-3366 Phone: 793-9813 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: July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - 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. Engineering 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. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - 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. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - 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. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - 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. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - 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. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 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. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C NAME: Kanis Road Animal Clinic Conditional Use (Z-4245) LOCATION: NE Corner of the Intersection of Michaels Street and Kanis Road (8422 Kanis Road) OWNER /APPLICANT: Dr. Darrell E. Wood /Bob Scott PROPOSAL: To remove the existing building and construct a new building (animal clinic enclosed) and seven paved parking spaces on land that is zoned "O-3." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location This lot fronts on a minor arterial ( Kanis Road) and is adjacent to a residential street (Michaels) on the west. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The current use is an office use. The property fronts on a minor arterial and is adjacent to an office use to the west. Residential uses are adjacent to the north and the east. The proposed use is compatible provided the property is developed in such a way as to minimize the impact on adjacent residential uses. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The applicant is proposing to remove the existing parking. The proposal contains provisions for seven paved parking spaces (six in front of the proposed structure and one space in the rear) as well as two drives which take access from Michaels Street. 4. Screeninq and Buffers No landscape proposal has been submitted. 5. Analysis Staff supports the applicant's decision to rebuild the animal clinic. There are, however, a number of issues involved. The applicant needs to construct a 6-foot opaque fence along the north property line to minimize July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued the impact of the proposed new building on adjacent residential structures. In addition, the applicant needs to dedicate the necessary right-of-way on Kanis Road (to minor arterial street standards) and also Michaels Street (to residential street standards). The applicant needs to provide the City with an in-lieu contribution on Kanis Road and to construct Michaels Street to residential street standards. 6. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) Construct a 6-foot opaque fence along the north property line; (2) Dedicate the necessary right-of-way on Kanis Road and Michaels Street; and (3) Provide an in-lieu contribution on Kanis Road and construct Michaels Street. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and discussed staff recommendations. The applicant was nonconmittal about staff recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 12, 1984) This applicant filed a request with the staff requesting that the subject conditional use permit be deferred to the July 10 public hearing. The Planning Commission voted to approve the request as filed. The vote on the motion was 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was not present. There was no discussion. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued the impact of the proposed new building on adjacent residential structures. In addition, the applicant needs to dedicate the necessary right-of-way on Kanis Road (to minor arterial street standards) and also Michaels Street (to residential street standards). The applicant needs to provide the City with an in -lieu contribution on Kanis Road and to construct Michaels Street to residential street standards. 6. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) Construct a 6-foot opaque fence along the north property line; (2) Dedicate the necessary right-of-way on Kanis Road and Michaels Street; and (3) Provide an in-lieu contribution on Kanis Road and construct Michaels Street. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and discussed staff recommendations. The applicant was nonconmittal about staff recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 12, 1984) This applicant filed a request with the staff requesting that the subject conditional use permit be deferred to the July 10 public hearing. The Planning Commission voted to approve the request as filed. The vote on the motion was 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was not present. There was no discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The staff read a letter from Mrs. Blanche Harlan who lives at #24 Michaels Street that requested that the 6-foot opaque July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued fence be deleted from the staff recommendation. The staff recommended that the 6-foot opaque fence be deleted. The applicant agreed to fulfill staff recommendations. The Commission then voted 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent to approve this application as recommended by staff. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D NAME: Cantrell Place West - A Condomiumium Development "PRD" (Z-4247) LOCATION: Southeast corner of Misty Lane and Cantrell Road AGENT/DESIGNER: Paul Davenport 4213 Wait Street Phone: 666-6186 DEVELOPER: Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Constant Unit C -1201 Hot Springs, AR 79193 ENGINEER /APPLICANT: Thomas Engineering Raven 3721 J.F.K. Boulevard North Little Rock, AR 72116 Phone: 753-4463 AREA: 1.78 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" (PRD Proposed) PROPOSED USES: 4 Condominium Detached Units A. Site Histor This was previously the site of one single family house, which was destroyed by fire. The site is currently vacant. B. Proposal 1. The construction of four detached condominium units on a tract of 1.78 acres at a density of two units per acre. 2. Units will consist of 2600 square feet of living space on a single level with a rear courtyard. All units will be constructed with masonry veneer and wood shake roofs. The design of development will be consistent with the area. 3. Ratio of land to building - 67,953:10,400. 4. Access will be provided at three points. Two are existing and off Cantrell. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D - Continued 5. Landscaping will utilize as many existing trees as possible and a 6' high fence will be built around the building. 6. Financing and development will begin immediately after approval and a completion date is set for one year. C. Engineering Comments 1. Request only one driveway be planned from Cantrell Road. 2. Brick fence should be modified as needed to provide proper site distance at the driveways and at the corner of Misty Lane and Cantrell Road. D. Analysis Staff views this proposal as being very inappropriate for the area. The land would be better used as two large single family lots. Approving four units on one lot may prove detrimental to an area that consists of only single family homes. If approved by the Commission, the drive leading to Cantrell should be reduced to one. E. Staff Recommendation Denial. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee reviewed the application. The issues were identified as: (1) elimination of one drive onto Cantrell; (2) substantial change in established character of land use in the area; and (3) Water Works easement (101). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. Staff reported that no evidence of notification had been submitted and that the applicant had requested deferral so that he may prepare a more comprehensive plan. In light of the fact that there were 27 persons present from the neighborhood, the Chairman decided to listen to their concerns. He also informed the neighborhood that the applicant could legally subdivide the property into approximately four single family lots, the same density as proposed condominium project, but without the restrictions that could be placed on a PUD. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D - Continued Mr. Robert Schultz, President of the Echo Valley Property Owners Association, represented the neighborhood. He expressed objection to the multifamily use of the site due to possible detrimental effects on existing houses, property values, land use and character of the area, which consists of large homes on lots two to six acres. He felt that the PUD use of the property could be leverage for other multifamily uses in the area, and if this was allowed, the ultimate result would be a change in the character of the neighborhood. He also felt that after meeting with Mr. Davenport, the neighborhood was more concerned with the practicality of his proposal than before. They now fear that he would not be able to do what is proposed financially, and that the ultimate development would be short -term rental units. After being asked by the staff, not one of the property owners present at the meeting indicated that they received notification. A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The original applicant was not present. Mr. Bob Richardson reported that he was the new representative and submitted a new plan. The new submission consisted of a preliminary plat which divides the property into four single family lots. There was a discussion on whether or not approval of these four lots, even though they meet lot size requirements, represented a detrimental effect on the surrounding values, whose lot sizes range from 2 to 4 acres. Staff was instructed to request a legal opinion relative to the discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: As requested by the applicant, a motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant requested that the item be withdrawn. A motion was made of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 NAME: Rasco Subdivision, A Replat of Marcie Manor LOCATION: East End of Scenic Drive AGENT: Terry Rasco DEVELOPER: James B. Rasco 5236 Sherwood Road Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: 663-6580 ENGINEER /APPLICANT: McClelland Engineers 900 West Markham Little Rock, AR AREA: 3.456 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family A. Site History None. B. Existing Condition This site is located in a predominantly single family area. C. Development Proposal This is a submittal to replat property originally known as Marcie Manor to Rasco Subdivision. The request incorporates several desired changes: (1) Decrease in the number of lots creating two lots of approximately 1.25 acres each, from five lots of approximately .5 acres each. (2) Relocation of certain utility easements to correspond with the actual utility placement as they now exist. (3) Removal of certain unused and unnecessary utility easements. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued (4) Reduction of the ingress easement from 40' wide to 35' wide because extremely deep site conditions make it desirable to locate homes as near as possible to the existing rough cut access road (approximately 35' from property line). There is still adequate room to build a 20-foot wide concrete private drive as previously proposed, plus allow you to lay access. (5) Maintain the previously platted but reserved area for common use by each of the property owners in Rasco Subdivision. D. Engineering Considerations Clarify driveway to Scenic Drive. Does this property have 25.15 feet access on Scenic Drive. E. Analysis The applicant is the owner of the existing five lots in Marcie Manor and wishes to replat them into two lots. His immediate plans are to build his personal residence of Lot 1. There are no plans for construction on Lot 2 at this time. No major problems have been found with this proposal; however, it is felt that the applicant should extend the lot line and incorporate portions of Tract A with each lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He agreed to comply with staff's suggestion for the extension of the lot-line. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant submitted a revised plan. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 NAME: Ridgewood Addition LOCATION: East Side of Bowman Road, approximately 800 feet west of I -430 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER /APPLICANT: Winrock Development Edward G. Smith & Associates P.O. Box 249 401 Victory No. Little Rock, AR 72115 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374 -1666 AREA: 79.72 acres NO. OF LOTS: 135 FT. OF NEW ST.: 8400 ZONING: PROPOSED USES: Residential A. Site History A preliminary was approved on this site approximately five years ago. B. Existing Condition This project is proposed for development in an area that primarily consists of residential uses and zoning. Elevations range from 350 to 440 feet. C. Development Proposal This request constitutes a proposal for the subdivision of 79.72 acres into 135 lots for single family development. Access will be provided by 8,400 feet of street. Portions of the property are indicated as tracts for future development. A request for a waiver of sidewalks on the internal residential street has been made. D. Engineering Considerations 1. Dedicate right-of-way and improve Bowman Road to minor arterial standards; left turn lane should be provided at the intersection of Bowman Road and Ridgewood Drive. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued 2. This Ridgewood Drive intersects Bowman Road opposite Gilbert Drive as required by the Master Street Plan. 3. Recommend Hickory Hill Court to be renamed something other than court. 4. Tract B of this plat will be subject to the Floodplain Ordinance. 5. Request that detention be considered in this development. E. Analysis This submittal represents a revised version of a preliminary which was approved a few years ago. The applicant is requesting to number his lots and tracts on this plan and understand that staff is making no commitment to land use on the acreage tract with this proposal. As for the waiver request, sidewalks must be provided on Hickory Hill Court to Ridgewood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. A revised preliminary was submitted, which divided a tract of 80 acres into multifamily (30 acres on the south) and 151 single family lots on 50 acres. He requested that they be allowed to make in -lieu contribution to the City for the future street improvements on portions of Bowman Road that are not in the immediate area of the streets entering the subdivision. The applicant stated that Hickory Hill Court would become Forest Creek Drive. Staff asked that a 35-foot building line be shown on lots adjacent to Bowman and that the lots be numbered. The applicant will need to file for annexation.* *Additional comments by staff. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff reported that sidewalks were required on all streets, except those classified as minor residential. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 NAME: Cedar Branch PUD, Phase II LOCATION: Immediately west of the intersection of Summit and Fairview Road DEVELOPER: Phillips Development Corp. 1421 N. University Little Rock, AR 72207 ENGINEER /APPLICANT: Edward G. Smith & Associates 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 7.26 acres NO. OF LOTS: 14, FT. OF NEW ST.: and 1 tract ZONING: "R-2" Proposed Zoning PUD PROPOSED USES: Residential A. Site History None. B. Proposal 1. The construction of 14 fourplex lots, a single family lot, and one tract for future development on 7.26 acres. 2. Development will be as follows: Schedule of Units No. Total Size Single Family Lots 1 1 14 sq. ft. Fourplex Lots 14 56 800 sq. ft. Future development 1 16 600 sq. ft. 73 Units per acre: 73/7.26 = 10.05 3. Parking is to be behind front building setback lines. A 1 1/2 parking to unit ratio will be maintained. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued 4. Side yard setback lines will be 10 percent of lot width on all single family and fourplex lots. The closure of a portion of Fairview Road, and end Fairview from the south with a cul-de-sac. Fairview on the north will merge with Summit Street. C. Engineering Considerations 1. Dedicate right-of-way and improve Fairview Road to residential standards. 2. Request clarification of street closure on Fairview; closure should not be made until Pleasant Ridge Road is completed; recommend curb section be constructed on Fairview to align with new roadway. 3. Request large cul-de-sac adjacent to Lots 3 - 7 be private area with standard driveway off the main street. D. Analysis Since this property constitutes in excess of seven acres, it should be reviewed as a long form PUD. This will require the developer to submit a detailed development statement /objective, specific layout on every lot, elevations, and any other necessary requirements as noted in the Zoning Ordinance. A 40 -foot buffer and 6 -foot fence should be provided between this property and any abutting residential tracts. This plan does not represent a commitment to the street closure. The applicant should file the necessary documents with the staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation is reserved until further info is received. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He requested that he be allowed to depart from the usual PUD submission requirements relative to specific building details. He also wanted to eliminate any density requirement for the area for future development from this request. Staff stated that the use would still have to be specified. A discussion was held concerning submitting this as a regular rezoning/subdivision application versus that as a PUD. It was decided that the proposal could be reviewed as a preliminary PUD with the owner of each lot being required to come back to the Commission with the final PUD. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant's engineer was present. Mr. Steve Bowman represented an abutting property owner on the north. He raised concerns about the provision of a buffer since his client's property was zoned "R-2." The project engineer, Mr. Joe White, requested that the plan be modified to delete the area specified for further development. A motion for approval was made and passed subject to: (1) Engineering comments, (2) 25' landscape buffer with 15' to be retained in its natural state or replanted with ground cover natural to the area and a 6' fence, and (3) Planning Commission approval of the plan for each separate lot. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 NAME: Hughes Street Office Park PUD (Z-4249) LOCATION: Southwest intersection of Hughes and I-630 DEVELOPER: Urban Developers, Inc. 8545 Leesburg Pike Vienna, Virginia 22180 Phone: (703) 556-9320 ENGINEER /APPLICANT: Steve Sharp Riddick Engineering Corp. 1600 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-9219 AREA: 11.6 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-4", "R-5" PROPOSED USES: Offices A. Site History None. B. Development Rationale This proposal envisions the development of the site as a low -rise office complex with residential characteristics, which will be provided by the scale of the buildings and the selection of materials and colors to be used. The developers feel that the site is favorable to office development due to its association to the existing commercial uses and its visibility from I -630. It was considered as a good transitional use from the residential on the east to the commercial on the west. To create the residential flair, the developer plans to use an extensive amount of brick to enhance the visual quality of the structure. This will be complimented with variations in the window treatment to provide interest and identity. The project will possess an architectural uniqueness that will blend with the surrounding residential property. Even though buildings 5 through 11 are three stories, the slope across the site will permit access to the second floor to be at grade level on the uphill side. This added feature of the terrain reduces the impact of the structures and should give it more of a residential July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued appearance. Since approximately 50 percent of the project will be utilized by the medical profession, a surplus of parking is provided. Other owners anticipated will include real estate brokers, insurance agents and other professional businessmen. The common areas will be placed under the control and management of an association. The resale or leasing of units would be handled by each owner, who will also be charged an annual fee for maintenance and operation of the project. C. Proposal 1. The construction of a condominium office park with 173 units at a density of 15 units per acre. 2. Development will be as follows: Typical unit size .... 1,000 gsf Buildings two story .... 38,000 gsf Buildings three story .... 132,000 gsf Total .... 170,000 gsf 3. Parking: Required . . 80,000 gsf (6 spaces /doctor's office) .... 480 spaces 90,000 gsf (80% of 1 space/ 400 gsf = 2/1,000 gsf) .... 180 spaces Total .... 660 spaces Provided . . . . . . 80,000 gsf (6 spaces /1,000 gsf) .... 480 spaces 90,000 gsf (5 spaces /1,000 gsf) .... 450 spaces Total .... 930 spaces 4. Site Coverage: Building ..... 13% Paving .... (375 sq.ft. per parking space) 69% Walks, landscape, buffer and grass .....18% Total 100% July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued 5. Phasing Plan: Phase Building No. of Units Start Date Completion Date I 4 -7 52 Fall 84 Summer 85 II 8 -10 63 Summer 85 Spring 86 III 1 -3, 11 58 Spring 86 Winter 86 6. Landscaping will be extensive and should comply with ordinance requirements. D. Engineering Comments Request internal drainage plan. E. Analysis Staff is favorable to the project. It will be a less intense development than the approximate 336 multifamily units that could currently be built on the site. The applicant is commended for his thoroughness in fulfilling the submission requirements, however, elevations are still needed. STAFF.RECOMMENDATION: Approval. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee reviewed the application. The applicant submitted a revised survey and elevation. Staff reported that conversations with the developer indicated a possible alternate access to the west once the adjoining property is developed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Members of the University Park neighborhood were present. Spokespersons from the group included: (1) Mr. Ralph White - who requested that some measure be provided to shield his view of the parking lot, since the entrance to the development is directly in front of his home; (2) Mr. Theopolis Donahue - who requested that he continue to be allowed access to the rear of his property; (3) Ms. Erma Hart - who objected to the development of the property as multifamily or office based on the possible lowering of property values, increasing traffic, change in safety factor of neighborhood, etc. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued During the discussion, it was brought out that there may be a portion of right-of-way that needs closing. The applicant was asked to research this and close the right-of-way if needed. Finally, a motion for approval was made based on the following conditions: 1. The provision of an access easement to Mr. Donahue; and 2. The provision of a permanent screening area 4' from level of parking lot consisting of cut, berm, wall, plus landscaping and extending from entrance to south property line and 150' north. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 NAME: Kirk Plaza PCD (Z-4248) LOCATION: Southwestern corner of Riverdale and Brookwood (Riverdale Tract N -1) DEVELOPER: Donald J. Kirk 319 North Gill Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: (501) 375-4469 ENGINEER /APPLICANT: Merle Seamon SURVEYOR: Garver and Garver Engineers Phone: 371-4770 and 568-7541 AREA: NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: Currently "I-2" PCD Proposed PROPOSED USES: Office /Warehouse /Residential VARIANCES ALLOWED: 2 to 3 residential uses with office warehouse uses. A. Site History This lot was previously platted as a part of Riverdale. B. Development Objective 1. To developer a high quality project conducive to the character of the Riverdale area. 2. To keep abreast of todays society and the current demand by providing a mixed use development and a number of such small units. C. Proposal 1. The construction of a mixed use development consisting of office /warehouse/residential on approximately 1.7 acres. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued 2. Schedule of uses Office ........... 15,300 square feet Warehouse ........ 7,300 square feet Residential ...... 3,500 square feet D. Engineering Considerations Driveways to the rear of building should have a minimum width of 20'. E. Analysis Staff has several concerns with the proposal. The site plan, as submitted, is not in technical compliance with the ordinance since it does not have any dimensions, acreage and vicinity map. The applicant needs to provide parking statistics, information relative to the future building and residential units. Specific data relative to building dimensions and the percentage of each type use is needed. This proposal must comply with the previously platted building line from the Riverdale plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff reserves comments until further information is submitted. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant submitted a revised site plan with added dimensions and specified the amount of square foot per use as: Office . . . . . . . 15,065 sq. ft. or 58% Warehouse . . . . . 7,290 sq. ft. or 28% Residences . 3,510 sq. ft. or 14% Total 25,865 sq. ft. He stated that the residential uses would be either managers apartments or rental units. The Committee identified the issue as one of whether or not the residential use was appropriate. Staff requested that the applicant be more specific regarding the use of the future buildings as this is a PUD. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant submitted a revised plan which specified the use of the future building as warehouse space. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 NAME: Cloverdale Assembly of God Church, Conditional Use Permit (Z-4237) LOCATION: SE Corner of Frenchman's Street and West 83rd Street (6111 West 83rd Street) OWNER /APPLICANT: Cloverdale Assembly of God/ Pastor David L. Wiggins PROPOSAL: To construct, in phases, an expansion of the existing sanctuary (from 450 to 600 -700 capacity), a new 57,200 square foot gymnasium (two- story), a bell tower, and 125 paved parking spaces on land that is zoned "R -2." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location This site is located adjacent to an elementary school in a mixed use area. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This site is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking This site contains an estimated 112 paved parking spaces and 3 access drives (one on 83rd Street and two on Frenchman Street (private street). The proposal contains 125 new paved parking spaces and 2 new access drives on Hinkson Road. 4. Screening and Buffers No landscape plan has been submitted. 5. Analysis The staff does not feel that this proposal would have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. There are some issues that need to be discussed. The applicant needs to submit a landscape plan for this project. The July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued parking area will be reduced by approximately 80 spaces due to building construction. The parking will, however, be adequate, as long as the new parking lot is constructed prior to the building construction (approximately 157 spaces). In addition, the applicant needs to dedicate and construct Hinkson Road to residential street standards along the parking lot frontage. Notes *Maximum allowable height for bell tower is 35 feet. *Approval for this plan should not be construed as a guarantee or endorsement of access to Frenchman Street (Frenchman Street is a private street). 6. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends approval, provided that the applicant agrees to: (1) Dedicate and construct Hinkson Road to residential street standards along the parking lot frontage; (2) Submit a landscape plan; and (3) Construct parking lot prior to construction of gymnasium. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and requested that landscaping be implemented along with each phase. The applicant was in agreement with staff recommendation. The applicant also stated that he would submit a revised site plan to staff. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent to approve this application as recommended by staff. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 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 July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - 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. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 NAME: Holy Souls Day Care Center Conditional Use Permit (Z-4265) LOCATION: North of the Intersection of North Tyler Street and Hawthorne Road (2415 N. Tyler) OWNER /APPLICANT: Catholic Archdiocese of LR/ L. Dickson Flake PROPOSAL: To convert an existing gymnasium into a day-care center (maximum capacity of 90) and to provide paved parking and maneuvering area on land that is zoned "R-2." DESIGN ORDINANCE STANDARDS: 1. Site Location This site is located within a 40-acre development known as St. John's Seminary and is surrounded by single family uses. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This proposal is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On-Site Drives and Parking The applicant is proposing to pave four parking spaces for the faculty and to pave the maneuvering area. 4. Screeninq and Buffers This site is contained within a 40-acre site and is surrounded by a heavily wooded area. 5. Analysis Staff feels that the proposed day -care use located within an existing 40-acre seminary use is compatible with the surrounding area. 6. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval as filed. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. The staff read a letter from Miss Carol Griffee of 2610 North Taylor that supported this proposal. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent to approve the application as recommended by staff. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 NAME: Stagecoach Road Day-Care Center Conditional Use Permit (Z-4267) LOCATION: NE of the Intersection of I-430 and Stagecoach Road (7222 Stagecoach Road) OWNER /APPLICANT: Curt and Wanda Warman/Andrew Bunten PROPOSAL: To convert an existing (1750 square foot) single family house into a day-care center (capacity 30 children) and to construct a paved drive and six parking spaces on .9 acres of land that is zoned "R-2." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location This site is located in the I-430 corridor. The area is generally single family, and vacant, with some commercial activity. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The applicant is proposing an access drive from Stagecoach Road. The proposal also includes six parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant is proposing to use existing trees and shrubs. 5. Analysis The staff feels that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. The parking and drive proposal is acceptable, provided that the applicant paves it. The applicant needs to dedicate the July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued right-of-way (frontage) necessary to meet minor arterial standards on Highway No. 5. The applicant also needs to make an in-lieu contribution for improvements to Highway No. 5. 6. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) Pave drive and parking; (2) Dedicate the necessary right-of-way along the frontage of the property on Highway No. 5 to meet minor arterial standards; and (3) Make an in-lieu contribution toward improvements on Highway No. 5. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The applicant agreed to dedicate the additional right-of-way and wanted to redesign the parking and drive. The applicant stated that a revised site plan would be submitted prior to the Planning Commission meeting and also requested a waiver of the in lieu fee on Highway 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The applicant had submitted a revised drive and parking plan and agreed to dedicate the right-of-way on Highway #5. The applicant requested that the in-lieu contribution on Highway #5 be waived. A motion was then made to approve this item as recommended by staff except that the applicant would have two years in which to pay the in-lieu ($2,352) on Highway #5 or the conditional use permit would expire. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent to approve this motion. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 NAME: Southwestern Bell Conditional Use Permit (Z-4268) LOCATION: NW of the Intersection of Fairview Road and Summit Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Pleasant Ridge Development Co./ Allen Saunders PROPOSAL: To construct a 117 square foot remote terminal station and a paved access and parking area on land that is zoned "R-2." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location This site is located in a mostly undeveloped area. A few single family units currently exist south of the site. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This site is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On-Site Drives and Parking The applicant is proposing an asphalt drive in parking area which takes access from Fairview Road. 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant is proposing to use existing trees. 5. Analysis The staff feels that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. There are some issues that need to be mentioned. The applicant needs to dedicate the right-of-way on Fairview Road to meet residential street standards. The applicant also needs to make an in-lieu contribution towards construction of Fairview Road. The applicant needs to redesign the parking area so that vehicles will not back unto the right-of-way of Fairview Road. Paving of Fairview Road is not approved. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued 6. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) Dedicate right-of-way to residential standards on Fairview Road; (2) Make an in -lieu contribution on Fairview Road; and (3) Submit a revised site plan which allows parking without the use of Fairview Road for maneuvering, and the deletion of the paving of the Fairview Road right-of-way. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to dedicate the additional right-of -way on Fairview Road. A lengthy discussion ensued concerning the appropriateness of the site, whether to construct Fairview Road or make an in-lieu contribution and the parking proposal. The applicant agreed to meet with the City Engineer and work out the preceding concerns. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent to approve this application as recommended by staff. .. DATE JUL',' 10, f 984- 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 MEMBER A B C D 1 2 3 4 � ' 7 8 � 10 J.SumrnPrlin A A J.Schlereth ,, ,, ,/ a/ t/ ,/ ,/ ,,,/ � ,/ .,/ ✓ R.Massie A A B.Sipes ,, ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,, ,/ ,/ ,/ ✓,/ ,/ J.Nicholson ,, ti' ,/ y ti' ,,, ,/ ,, ,/ ,/ ,, ,/ ,/ ,/ W.Rector � ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,, ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ✓,/ W.Ketcher " ,/ ,/ ,/ v' ,I' ,/ ,, ,/ ,/A A D.Arnett ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ii' ,/ ,/ ,, ,I' ,/"' ,;' ,/ �\ D.J. Jones � ,/ � vi ,I' ,/ ,/ ,/ ,,, ,/ ,,, ,/ ,,,,, ,I" I • Boles A A J; Cl aytori ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ j,/ � ✓ ,,,,, ,,,,,,,. ✓✓ ✓AYE NAYE A ABSENT � ABSTAIN - l I I - There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Date Secretary Chairman