HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_10 15 1985subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY & MINUTE RECORD
OCTOBER 15, 1985
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 11 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were read and approved.
III. Members Present: Jim Summerlin
John Schlereth
Richard Massie
Betty Sipes
Jerilyn Nicholson
William Rector
William Ketcher
Dorothy Arnett
D.J. Jones
Ida Boles
John Clayton
City Attorney Present: Pat Benton
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
October 15, 1985
Deferred Items:
A. Seaman "Short-Form PRD" (Z-4522)
Preliminary Plats /Replats:
1. Oxford Valley Addition Preliminary (Lots 10 and 11)
2. Peter Boyd Addition
3. Shadow Ridge Preliminary
Planned Unit Development:
4. Garden Plaza Hotel "Short-Form PCD" (Z-4485)
5. Woodland Hills Revised PRD-Phase II
6. South Oaks Apartment (UALR Revised PRD)
Conditional Use Permit:
7. Learn -N -Care (Z-3500B)
8. Baseline Day-care Center (Z-4544)
9. Oak Lane Day-Care (Z-4548)
Building Line Waiver:
10. Whyte Building Line Waiver
11. Black's Building Line Waiver
Other Matters:
12. Street Name Change Farris and Stacy
13. Security Storage Revised Site Plan
14. Ward Building Line Waiver
15. Bragg Street CUP
16. Waring's Replat
17. Boulevard Avenue Short -Form PRD (Z-4531-A)
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - File No. 597
NAME:
Seamon "Short-Form PRD"
(Z-4522)
LOCATION: SW Corner of Farris and
Shadowlake
DEVELOPER:
Merlin Seamon
209 1/2 W. 2nd St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 372-6092
ENGINEER:
Merlin Seamon
209 1/2 W. 2nd Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 372-6092
AREA: 3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R-2" to "PRD"
PROPOSED USE: 8 Triplexes
A. Site Histor
This property has been platted as Lots 1 -16, Block 4,
Gibralter Heights, less and except Lots 2 and 3, City
of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
B. Developmental Concept
1. The construction of rental units which will appeal
primarily to senior citizens and the handicapped;
however, tenants will not be limited to these
groups.
2. To develop the property at a density that would be
similar if developed as single family.
3. To design the units like single family residences
and the color as earth tones in order that they
blend into the wooded environment.
4. To preserve the natural beauty of the site.
C. Proposal
1. The construction of 22 units and 8 triplex
structures on three acres.
2. The replatting of 16 lots into one lot.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
3. Development Statistics
(a) Unit No. Unit Type
24 2
(b) Parking provided consists of 36 off-street
spaces.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Detention required.
2. One north /south street to be left open.
E. Analysis
The applicant needs to submit a site plan on a
certified survey and provide dimensions relating to the
structures, between the structures and between
structures and property lines.
There is an existing right-of-way through the property.
Streets are to be abandoned according to the Gibralter
Heights Plan. A one lot final replat will be required
because of the reduction in lots and right-of-way
abandoment. The applicant is asked to reconsider the
design of those stalls backing into the internal drive.
A 6' board fence and appropriate screening will be
required where adjacent to residential zoning.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to submit a revised plan with added
dimensions. He explained that the stalls were designed as
they were since the internal drive was not a public street.
Staff still felt that a safety factor was involved,
especially at the entrance to the project. The applicant
was asked to meet with the fire chief regarding their
request of a larger cul -de -sac radius.
Water Works - On-site fire lines and fire hydrants may be
required.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present but had sent a letter to the
staff requesting a 30-day deferral. Staff reported that the
letter was sent within the required time period. Several
residents of the neighborhood were in attendance. They were
concerned about the applicant's proposal to close Farris
Street. Mr. Roy Jones stated that the street was physically
unopened but provided access to land that he owned.
A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Committee
that Mr. Seamon had requested deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-15-85)
A motion for deferral as requested by the applicant was made
and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - File No. 521-B
NAME: Oxford Valley Addition
Preliminary (Lots 10 and 11)
LOCATION: South end of Shiloh Drive
and about 500 feet west
of the Oxford Valley Drive
stubout
DEVELOPER:
Crestwood Company/
General Properties
c/o 3810 Lookout Road
N. Little Rock, AR 72116
(501) 753-4463
ENGINEER:
Thomas Engineering
c/o 3810 Lookout Road
North Little Rock, AR 72116
753-4463
Area: .70 acres No. of Lots: 2 Ft. New St.: 300 feet
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT:
VARIANCE REOUESTED:
None.
A. Site History
The land involved is part of an approved preliminary
plat.
B. Existinq Conditions
This site is located in a partially built subdivision
of single family homes. Most of the streets appear to
have been constructed.
C. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting to allow the connection of
Oxford Valley Drive with Appomattox Drive and the
platting of two lots. Construction will include 500'
of new street construction, which has previously been
granted preliminary approval.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
Engineering would rather see the complete intersection
constructed to the end of the radius for the following
reasons:
1. People in the area will know the street is to be
continued.
2. A better street is constructed instead of piecing
the intersection at a later date.
E. Analysis
Staff agrees with Engineering comments. Wastewater
Utility requires an additional sanitary easement along
the eastern boundary between Lots 10 and 9. The
easement shall be 10' wide and shall be centered over
the existing sewer main.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
G. Subdivision Committee Review
The Engineering comments were clarified. They are
requesting that the applicant provide a stub-out
street. He agreed to do so.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - File No. 600
NAME: Pete Boyd Addition
LOCATION: 4800 block of south
University immediately
south of Arnold Palmer
Driving Range
DEVELOPER /AGENT:
J.B. Vanhook
C.E. Boyd & Paul Compton
5009 Geyer Springs Road
Little Rock, AR 72116
ENGINEER:
Brooks & Curry, Inc.
P.O. Box 897
North Little Rock, AR 72115
372-2131
Area: 5.13 acres No. of Lots: 2 Ft. New St.: 0
ZONING: "C-3"
PROPOSED USES: Commercial Business School (lot 2 and car
dealership) Lot 1
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT:
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
None.
A. Site History
None.
B. Existing Conditions
The property is located along a major arterial that is
bordered by commercial uses.
C. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to develop 5.13 acres into two lots
for commercial uses. The applicant plans to have a car
dealership on Lot 1 and a business school for Lot 2.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
D. Enaineerina Comments
1. Floodplain area - minimum floor elevation is
260.5 M.S.L. Engineering suggests 1' or 2' higher
than minimum due to increasing flood heights in th
future.
2. Only one access point (existing) be used for
Lots 1 and 2.
3. Access easement to Lot 2 should be 30' wide.
E. Analysis
No major problems have been found by the staff. The
applicant should adhere to Engineering comments.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
G. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant was present. He was asked to meet with
Engineering and resolve conflicts over the required
minimum floor elevation and the number of curb cuts.
He agreed to do so before the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Engineering reported that all the issues had been resolved.
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - File No. 601
NAME: Shadow Ridge
LOCATION: Northwest corner Nix Road
and Shadow Lake Drive
DEVELOPER:
B.G. Coney
262 S. Shackleford
Little Rock, AR 72211
224-2055
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith & Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
374-1666
Area: 10.05 acres No. of Lots: 40 Ft. New St.: 1470
ZONING: "MF-12"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family ( "R-2 ")
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT:
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
1. 15 feet and 20 feet setback as shown on 12 lots
A. Site History
None.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area that is composed of
mixed residential uses.
C. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 10.05 acres into 40 lots of
single family use. The applicant is requesting 15' and
20 -foot setback as shown on 12 lots.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Show detention facilities.
2. Boundary streets and right-of-way required.
3. If new boundary street created, more than one-half
of 27-foot street is needed.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
E. Analysis
Staff is not opposed to the project. The applicant
should show building lines on all lots and justify the
request for reduced setbacks on the 12 lots, explain
the property line through the structure on the site and
show minimum radii on the curves. Also, explain the
extent of improvements to Nix Road.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
G. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant explained his need for the waivers. He
stated that Lots 24-27, on which 15' building lines are
requested, actually do not need waivers under the
hillside regulations. He felt that 20' was needed on
the other since the lot designs were restricted due to
the configuration of the site with the boundary street
on the east and the street on the north. The Committee
did not have problems with the waivers. The applicant
stated that the existing buildings on site would be
torn down and he would widen Nix Lane to two lanes.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A motion for approval was made
and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - File No.
NAME: Garden Plaza Hotel, "PCD"
(Z-4485)
LOCATION: Financial Center Parkway
DEVELOPER:
Cooper Hotel Group
1407 Union Avenue
Memphis, TN
(901) 725-9631
ENGINEER:
Sid Hankins
5616 Compton Pike
Knoxville, TN 37917
Area: 4.5 acres No. of Lots: 1 Ft. New St.:
ZONING: "C-3" and "O-3" to "PCD"
PROPOSED USES: Luxury Hotel
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT:
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Height.
2. Buffer area.
Ft. New St.:
A. Site History
There is an existing 50-foot platted buffer on the
northern portion of the property.
B. Development Objectives
1. To provide a high quality hotel to serve the
rapidly developing office park.
2. To match the high quality already exhibited in
Financial Centres One, Two and Three.
C. Development Proposal
1. The construction of a 6 story, 200 room luxury
hotel on 4.5 acres.
2. Other uses include a full service restaurant, bar
and meeting rooms within the hotel.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
3. Parking will consist of approximately 250 spaces.
4. Landscaping will be lush with the structure to be
located as far away as possible from the abutting
neighborhood.
5. Construction could begin as early as March 1986
with a build out period of approximately 18
months.
6. This involves the replatting of several lots.
D. Engineering Comments
None at this time.
E. Analysis
Staff was very inhibited in its review of the project
due to inadequate submission. From the pre-preliminary
conference, staff recalls that several issues to be
discussed relate to the building height, encroachment
into the 50' buffer area and /or inadequate parking if
there is no encroachment.
F. Staff Recommendation
Staff reserves comment until further information is
received.
G. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant was present. He submitted additional
information and agreed to cooperate with the staff in
submitting added materials before the public hearing
and see that the item was reviewed by the appropriate
agencies. He explained that plans were for a
five-story hotel of 47'.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Steve Barnes, and the architect were
present. Four concerned property owners from the Birchwood
Subdivision were present.
The applicant proposed a berm in addition to the existing
vegetation as a buffer from abutting property owners. A
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
deferral of the proposal was requested by Mr. James Johnston
whose residence abuts the project. He felt it was needed so
that other residents in Birchwood could be notified. The
applicant objected to this, since he felt that he had given
adequate notice to persons within 200' and sent letters to
the neighborhood. Mr. Johnston expressed concerns about the
landscaping, lighted parking lot, lighted sign on top of the
hotel and whether or not the proposal adequately expressed
what was to be built. Mr. Van Nicholson expressed a fear of
devaluation of property values, increased traffic, crime and
increased sewer problems.
A discussion was held on the proposed height of the building
and the roof sign shown in a photograph of the hotel, which
indicated that the total structure was 62' high. The
applicant agreed to work within the Sign Ordinance and
provide a structure of 431. Finally, a motion was made for
approval subject to the plans including a sight -proof fence
in addition to the berm, unless the applicant submits a
written agreement between the applicant and two adjacent
property owners that provides some agreement stating that a
fence be built intially or not at all within the time frame
of six months and staff recommendation. The vote was
unanimous: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - File No. 161-G
NAME:
Woodland Hills Revised "PRD"
Phase II
LOCATION: Aspen Drive and Forest Lane
APPLICANT: Joe White
urnriPcm.
To modify the side yard building setback line for Lots 1 and
9 Block 5 and Lot 37 Block 3 from 20 feet to 15 feet.
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request to modify the side yard building setback
line for Lots 1 and 9, Block 5 and Lot 37, Block 3 from 20'
to 15'.
The lots are now being marketed to individual builders who
wish to depart from the zero lot line concept and locate the
homes in a conventional manner using setbacks from a side
yard of 5' with a minimum of 10' between buildings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee reviewed the plan and asked the engineer to
revise the building line so that they turn the corners. No
other problems were found.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - File No. 346-B
NAME: South Oaks Apartments (UALR
Revised "PRD ")
LOCATION: Southeast corner of Fair Park
and Lucy north of Asher Avenue
APPLICANT /ENGINEER:
Bob Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
664-003
REQUEST:
Waiver of 25-foot building setback line along Fair Park
Boulevard.
STAFF REPORT:
The applicant is requesting to revise an approved PUD, which
consisted of 240 units on 5.79 acres. The only change is a
waiver from the normal 25' building setback along Fair Park
Boulevard to 15'. This is required because City Engineering
desires to hold the existing west curb alignment on Fair
Park Boulevard. This requires that all widening of Fair
Park Boulevard be accomplished on this project. City
Engineering felt that this was an undue burden on the
project. The 15' setback is adequate to provide the needed
site distance from the intersections.
The applicant has stated that the unneeded right-of-way on
the southwest corner of the property will remain. The agent
for the owners to the south of the right -of -way prefers not
to participate in the closing of the street at this time.
He prefers to wait until his land sells to give the owner
the option of retaining this right-of-way. For this reason,
the applicant would like to provide one-half street
improvements on this street.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. Right-of-way and boundary street improvements required
on Fair Park Boulevard, Lucie and Mary Streets.
Discuss status of Anna Street south of the development
to Asher Avenue.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
2. Fair Park Boulevard is to be widened from existing
curb /gutter on the west side of Fair Park; therefore,
the City will contribute to funds for an additional 8'
of roadway widening above the developer's normal
requirement.
3. City Engineering supports and suggests a variance of
the building setback along Fair Park to receive needed
street improvements.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff has no adverse comments, provided all agreed to in the
previous approval is adhered to with the exception of the
requested waiver.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The item was discussed and
passed to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME: Learn -N -Care Conditional Use
Permit (Z-3500-B)
LOCATION: The west side of McKinley Street,
approximately 1 block north of
W. Markham Street,
(212 N. McKinley)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Gus Brady /Debra L. Stark
PROPOSAL:
To construct 984 square feet of additional floor space and
provide a total of 16 paved parking spaces to an existing
day-care Center on .52 acres of land that is zoned "R-2 /CUP"
(total capacity will be 75 students).
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a collector street (McKinley).
2. Compatibility with Neiqhborhood
This property is surrounded on three sides by single
family uses and one commercial use located to the east
(Park Plaza Shopping Center). The proposal calls for
expansion (24 additional students) of an existing
day-care center. The staff foresees no adverse impact
to the surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parkin
This site currently contains one paved access drive
(loop) with approximately 10 paved parking spaces. The
proposal is to pave additional parking which will total
16 parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
This proposal does not contain any provision for
screening.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
5. Analysis
This site has contained a day-care center for a number
of years. The proposed additions front on McKinley and
the site is larger than one-half acre. The staff feels
that this proposal is compatible with the surrounding
area. The parking (16 spaces) will meet ordinance
requirements. The applicant did not, however, submit a
screening plan. The staff feels that both sides and
the rear property need a wood screening fence.
6. City Engineering Comments
(1) Adequate parking must be provided per ordinance
requirements; and
(2) Provide a one-way drive from north to south (plus
signage) due to the narrow lane width in front of
the structure.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1)
construct a six-foot board screening fence on the
north, south and west property lines; and (2) comply
with City Engineering comments numbered 1 and 2.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and stated that he would comply
with staff recommendations but that the neighbor to the
north had requested that a six-foot board fence not be
constructed. The Committee told the applicant to obtain a
letter to substantiate the neighbor's request to not require
a six -foot fence on the north property line. The applicant
agreed to comply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present and stated that they did not have
a letter from the adjacent property owner to the north
requesting that a fence not be built. The applicant stated
that they would build the screening fence to the north. The
Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent to approve
this application as recommended by staff, reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME: Baseline Day -Care Center
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4544)
LOCATION: The south side of Baseline Road
just east of Sunset Lane
(4811 W. Baseline Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Judy & Gary D. Williams/
Terrie J. Moorelock
PROPOSAL:
To convert an existing 1157 square feet single family
residence to a day-care center (25 capacity) on .73 acres of
land that is zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a major arterial (Baseline Road).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is surrounded on three sides by
residential development. Commercial development exists
on the north (across Baseline Road). This property has
direct access to a major arterial and is .73 acre in
size. The staff feels that this proposal would be
compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parkin
The applicant has not submitted a parking plan. Access
is proposed by one paved drive to Baseline Road.
4. Screeninq and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed use is compatible
with the surrounding area. There are, however, a
number of deficiencies in the proposed site plan. The
primary deficiency is a lack of proposed parking. Five
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
paved parking spaces are required by ordinance. The
applicant also needs to address landscaping and /or
screening of the parking and children's play area. (It
is possible that existing vegetation could meet this
requirement.)
6. City Engineering Comments
(1) Show parking and turning /maneuvering area and a
minimum 20 -foot entrance;
(2) Dedicate right-of-way on Baseline Road to arterial
standards; and
(3) An in-lieu fee is required for improvements to
Baseline Road.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) comply
with the City Landscape Ordinance; (2) submit a revised
site plan with the necessary revisions; and (3) comply
with City Engineering comments numbered 1, 2 and 3.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and stated that their request for
a day-care capacity had to be reduced from 25 to 20. The
staff stated that the required parking would be four paved
parking spaces. A lengthy discussion and explanation
ensued. The applicant stated that she would work with the
City Engineer to revise a site plan and would discuss the
in-lieu provision as well.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The staff stated that the
applicant had submitted a revised site plan. The staff also
stated that an in-lieu contribution was not necessary and
that the applicant had agreed to dedicate the necessary
20 -foot additional right-of-way on Baseline Road. The
applicant also agreed to comply with City landscape
requirements. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent to approve the application as recommended by staff,
reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the
applicant.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME:
Oak Lane Day -Care Center
Conditional Use Permit
(Z -4548)
LOCATION: The east side of Oak Lane
approximately 620 feet
south of W. Markham Street
(219 Oak Lane)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Kathleen & John R. Bailey
PROPOSAL:
To convert an existing 1350 square feet single family
residence to a day -care center (20 -25 capacity) and provide
five parking spaces on .26 acres of lane that is zoned
NR -2.11
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a substandard residential street (Oak
Lane).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is surrounded by single family uses on
three sides with a duplex use located to the north.
The I -430 District Plan shows this area as single
family. There are, however, various uses located to
the north of this lot. The uses on both sides of Oak
Lane beginning with this lot and moving southward are
all single family uses. The staff feels that a
commercial day -care use would be detrimental to the
single family area south of this lot.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The applicant is proposing to pave a 35' x 47.5' area
in the front yard (includes existing driveway) to
create five parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan.
October 15, 1965
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed commercial type
day -care use would be detrimental to the single famly
located to its immediate south (see Section 2 of this
write -up). Oak Lane is a substandard street, and the
proposed parking area is less than desirable. The
applicant might wish to consider applying for a special
use permit to care for 10 children or less.
6. City Engineering Comments
(1) Provide a circular drive or other method
acceptable to the Traffic Engineer; and
(2) Dedicate the necessary right -of -way and construct
Oak Lane to City standards.
7. Staff Recommendation
Denial.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. A discussion ensued as to the
appropriateness of the proposed parking and the use itself.
The applicant stated that he would work with the City
Engineer on his proposed parking area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Two objectors were also present
(Sharon Williams and Mary Ann Daley). The staff stated that
they had received additional phone calls and letters of
opposition to the proposal. The staff also stated that the
applicant had submitted a letter requesting that their
application be amended to a special use permit. Staff
stated that the amended proposal would allow a maximum of 10
children on -site and that a paved parking and drop off area
would not be required. Staff also stated that street
improvements would not be required under a special use
permit, but that on -site residence would be required of the
owners. The staff then recommended approval of a special
use permit. The objectors expressed concern and opposition
to a special use permit as well. The Commission voted
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent to deny the application as
amended.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10- File No. G -29 -42
NAME:
Whyte Building Line Waiver
(Lot 204 Twin Lakes Section A)
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Glenda and
Marlyn Drive
ADD T-Tr AWIM.
Gordon Whyte
1208 Marlyn Drive
Little Rock, AR
REQUEST:
To encroach into an area established by a 25 -foot platted
building line.
A. Existing Conditions
The property is located in an area composed of single
family homes. The principal structure on the site
consists of a one -story brick and frame residence.
B. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to encroach 17' into an area
established by a 25 -foot building setback for the
construction of a carport.
C. Engineering Comments
None.
D. Analysis
Staff does not oppose the waiver due to the fact that
the applicant doesn't appear to have a feasible
alternative. Also, it should not have a negative
impact on abutting properties since the proposed
setback will align with an existing wood fence on the
rear of the property. Notification of neighboring
property owners is requested, however.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant was present. He was asked to bring
evidence of notification to the public hearing from the
abutting property owners on the west side and across
the street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - File No. G -29 -42
NAME: Black Building Line Waiver
LOCATION: 7017 Hillwood Road
Tinnr rf�n LTm.
James E. Black
1400 Old Forge, #204
Little Rock, AR 72207
REQUEST:
To encroach into an area established by a platted building
line.
A. Existinq Conditions
This site is located in an area developed as single
family.
B. Development Proposal
This is a request to encroach 1' 9" into an area
established by a 20' building line. The applicant
wishes to build a porch to enchance the value of his
property. He feels that the request is in keeping with
the "architectural integrity" of the other structures
in the neighborhood.
C. Engineering Comments
No adverse comments.
D. Analysis
Staff has no problems with the request.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
Since the applicant was not present, there was no
review of the item.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - File No. G -29 -43
NAME:
Ward Building Line Waiver
LOCATION: 10109 Geyer Springs
APPLICANT: Todd E. Ward
REQUEST:
To rebuild an existing carport encroaching into an area
established by a platted building line.
A. Existing Conditions
This site is in an area of single family homes that has
been annexed to the City in recent years. The
principal structure on -site consists of a one - story,
brick, single family home.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting to remove a badly damaged
aluminum carport and replace it with a permanent
structure. The applicant has explained that the
existing canopy already encroaches into a 25' building
line setback by 10' but has done so since before
annexation. The existing structure is so badly damaged
by the weight of ice and snow that it is in danger of
falling. The way that he can replace it is to request
Commission approval of the encroachment. He feels he
must have a carport for protection from the many trees.
The new carport will encroach 16' into the building
line.
C. Engineering Comments
None.
D. Analysis
Staff is not opposed to the request; however,
notification of neighboring property owners is
requested.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
F. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant agreed to notify his neighbors.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Other Matters - Street Name Change
NAME: Farris Street and Stacy Street
LOCATION: 1 block south of West Markham
Street lying east of Shadow
Lake Apartments
PETITIONER: E.W. McKissack
REQUEST:
To interchange these street
names to align with current
street address usage.
ABUTTING USES AND OWNERSHIPS:
Mostly vacant lands. There are scattered dwellings in one
apartment complex. Only one residence uses Farris for a
mailing address at this time and one house on Stacy Street.
NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECT:
Little or no effect is expected as the area is sparsely
developed. The present Farris Street extends for
approximately one -half mile south of West Markham to Kanis
Road. All but two blocks of this street are unimproved, and
there are no structures south of Shadow Lake Apartments.
Stacy Street is only two blocks long, east to west and
except for the one house contains no other structures.
NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION:
No opposition has been reported.
EFFECT ON PUBLIC SERVICES:
None expected inasmuch as the right -of -way will not be
affected.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This issue developed as the result of the City of
Little Rock placing proper street name markers on both
streets after annexation. Pulaski County had apparently
reversed the street names when installing the previous
markers. A field investigation reveals that only two houses
take street addresses on Farris and Stacy Streets. This
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
simplifies the process of change as well as decreasing the
probability of resident problems with their mail or
emergency services. The only change will be in the street
number of the house facing the north /south street (present
Farris Street). It will require a three -digit number if the
mailbox remains in its present location. The Planning staff
recommends approval of the name interchange subject to the
single change noted above.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present, nor was he represented by an
agent. There was one property owner present opposed to the
proposal. The Planning staff offered an explanation of the
petition explaining that ownership had changed on abutting
properties, whereby a present owner opposes the name change.
This opposition was based on Mr. L.J. Carter having
established a mailing address, signs, business stationery
and advertising at 13001 Stacey Lane. The Planning
Commission upon receiving the report of the staff and the
objection by Mr. Carter determined that it would be
appropriate at this time to withdraw this petition from
further consideration. A motion to do so was made. The
motion passed unanimously.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - File No. 527 -C
NAME:
Security Storage Revised Site
Plan
LOCATION: I -30
APPLICANT: Chuck Ruskus
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request to revise an approved site plan by adding
two buildings: (1) a 50' x 160', (2) a 40' x 120' for use
as warehouse /storage space, and (3) revising the location of
the parking area for the RV's.
Staff has no problems with the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not at the Subdivision Committee
meeting, the item was not reviewed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for deferral of the revised plan was made and
passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 12 -85)
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
NAME:
Waring's Replat
LOCATION: Biscayne Drive
AGENT: Barbara Bonds
Catlett and Stubblefield
Tower Bldg.
Little Rock, AR
STAFF REPORT:
Staff has a limited amount of information on this request
due to the applicant's failure to submit all required
information at the time of this writing. Staff does know
that the request is for a reduction of the building line
from 45' to 25'. There are no problems with this request.
This item was added at the Subdivision Committee meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to added information.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11
ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
NAME:
Boulevard Avenue "Short -Form
PRD" (Z- 4531 -A)
LOCATION: 2717 Boulevard
DEVELOPER: Claudia Campbell
AGENT:
ENGINEER:
Bradley Walker Brooks and Curry
2200 Worthen Bank P.O. Box 897
Little Rock, AR North Little Rock, AR 72115
Phone: 371 -0808 Phone: 372 -2131
AREA: .16 acres No. of Lots: 1 Ft. New St.: 0
ZONING: "C -3" to "PRD"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Site History /Staff Report
This was considered as a request for rezoning from
"C -3" (Commercial) to "R -5" (High Density Residential)
for the purpose of allowing an accessory apartment.
Staff did not feel that "R -5" was desirable because of
the potential for more units. Due to the character of
the area which has a primary land use of single family
and to ensure that the project be restricted to two
units, the PUD process was recommended as the process
for review.
The plan consists of two one -story structures that are
located on "C -3" property. The applicant would like
approval of the request so that she may retire in the
rear building and her daughter may reside in the front.
B. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The owner was represented by Attorney Nancy May who
substituted for the applicant, Attorney Brad Walker. Staff
stated its desire for pavement of the driveway. Attorney
May felt that it was not needed since other drives in the
neighborhood were without pavement. A motion was made and
passed by the Commission to approve the plan without paving
the driveway. The vote: 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Other Matters - Staff Report
This report is the result of a communication from the
Little Rock Water Works and its legal staff relative to
State Planning Act 186 of 1957, which requires City approval
of all extensions of new service for water and sewer. The
concerns expressed by the Little Rock Water Works are that
the Board of Directors are required to specifically approve
each extension to each new area as required regardless of
the format of development. The request from the Water Works
is that the Planning Commission add a statement to the
minute record on all items requiring Commission approval
such as Preliminary Plats, Site Plan Review and Planned Unit
Development. This statement would read as follows:
"Approval of a development by the Little Rock Planning
Commission constitutes approval of the Planning Commision
for water and wastewater service to the property including
the installation of necessary water lines and sewer mains
subject to the policies and procedures of the Little Rock
Municipal Water Works and the Little Rock Wastewater
Utility."
The Planning staff understands the concerns that have been
expressed and although this is a significant change in
policy from the past 25 years, we are recommending that the
statement be included in our minute record. However, in
order to avoid an undue increase in paperwork, volume of our
minute records, etc., staff recommends that the title sheet
to the minute record, which is the cover sheet, have this
statement noted and underscored at the bottom, in effect
giving approval to all items regardless of their nature.
The Planning Commission discussed this issue briefly and
determined that it would accept staffs recommendation.
The staff then offered comments as to resolution of this
matter long -term, which would be an ordinance amendment to
be added to the amendment package for discussion at the
Planning Commission retreat on October 25, 1985.
STATEMENT TO HE INCLUDED IN
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSSION MINUTES
Approval of a development by the Little Rock Planninq
Commission constitutes approval of the Planning Commission
for water and wastewater service to the property, including
the installation of necessary water lines and sewer mains,
subject to the policies and procedures of the Little Rock:
Municipal Wate Works and the Little Rock Wastewater Utility.
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
DATE l-c6:-:'.! <&<k:' 'V« a« j
----· ZONING ,_·· · SUBDIVISION
MEMBER I/ l z 3
J.C:ummerlin ,/ j I /
J.Schlereth ✓ j ✓ /
R.Massie ,/ j / I
B.Sipes ✓I I /
J.Nicholson � j /' /
w.Rector I / ✓
W.Ketcher / I ✓✓
D.Arnett / I J ✓
D.J. Jones ✓I ✓✓
I.Boles I I ✓ ./
J; Cl.ayton I I I
4 .5 / ✓
,/ /
✓I/ I
./✓
✓ "
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
/ ✓
ti! ✓
✓ ✓
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
In 7 B q /0 II ✓✓ ✓ , ./ // I ✓ • ./ ✓/ ✓ I • ✓ /
,/ ✓ ✓ , ✓ ,II ✓ I , ✓✓
✓✓ /-✓✓ 1 I ✓ --v ✓
✓ .I ✓ , ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓ • ✓ /✓✓ I ' ✓✓ j ✓ I , ✓ I
✓AYE • NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
---
12 13 ✓I
✓/
✓/'✓ ✓
✓✓�✓ ...,
✓� •✓�v 11;
✓J�✓)�✓✓
J'-1 }� /(, 11 ✓✓ ✓
✓ ✓,/
,/ ,/ ,/
./,/ •
,/ � /
/ ,' ✓ // " /-✓\ / � ✓ ./
/ .,, ✓ /
✓✓ I/ / •
J
October 15, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned
at 4:00 p.m.
Secretary Chairperson
Date