pc_06 18 1991subI
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 18,1991
1:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum.
A Quorum was present being 10 in number.
II.Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting.
The minutes of the May 7,1991 meeting were
approved as received.
III.Members Present:Fred Perkins,Chairman
Rose Collins
Jerilyn Nicholson
Kathleen Oleson
John McDaniel
Brad WalkerBillPutnam
Ramsey Ball
Joe Selz
Walter Riddick,III
Members Absent:Diane Chachere
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
JUNE 18,1991
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.St.Peter Church —CUP (Z-5431)
B.Z-1412-A 1600 Security Street 0-3 and C-3 to I-2
REPLATS:
1.Lowe's replat of Lot 108,Section E,Spring Valley Manor
Subdivision —Preliminary/Final combined,(S-924)
2.Replat of Pratt Cates Remmel Subdivision (S-829-B)
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
3.Bank and Business Forms,Inc.—Short-form PCD (Z-4551-D)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
4.Bentley —CUP (Z-5444)
5.Mitchell Elementary School —CUP (Z-5445)
6.Rightsell Elementary School —CUP (Z-5447)
7.Bassett —CUP (Z-5447)
RIGH -OF-WAY ABAN ONMENT:
8.Van Buren Street —Right-of-Way Abandonment —G-156
9.West Sixth Street —Right-of-Way Abandonment —G-157
10.Old Markham Street —Right-of-Way Abandonment —G-158
OTHER MATTERS:
11.Request to be relieved of Subdivision Ordinance
requirements,plat and plan at 2200 Dogwood Lane.
1
Little Rock,Arkansas
10 8
9
3 7
S 5 4
1
1 2
I
S
i
~VLkI0 ClklSTT
~Pl,8 coUTTT
i I
~-Prepared by the Piano%Department
City ot Little Rock
Subdivision Items Location Map
June 18,1991
O.:A
NAME:St.Peter Baptist Church—
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5437)
LOCATION:522 &523 South Valentine
OWNER APPLICANT:St.Peter Baptist Church/
Joseph Smith,Agent
PROPOSAL:Expansion of an existing church with a new
parking lot.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
This site is located at the intersection of south
Valentine and West 6th street.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
The church has been a long standing structure withinthisneighborhood.The expansion will only add to the
compatibility of the structure in the neighborhood.
3.On Site Drives and Parkin
There does exist an on site drive with some parking.
The applicant has proposed a new parking lot across thestreetfromthechurchforadditionalparkingspaces.
4.Screenin and Buffers
The applicant is aware that the new parking lot will
require landscaping in addition to what may appear on
the lot presently.
5.Cit En ineerin Comments
Both the Church site and the proposed parking lot on
the west side of Valentine Street have side yard
frontages on West 6th Street which is unimproved.The
1
June 18,1991
SUBDIVISION
TEM NO.:A Continued
applicant should either initiate a petition to close
these two blocks of 6th street or seek a waiver of the
improvements.
6.Staff Anal sis
This application for a Conditional Use Permit is being
made for the expansion of St.Peter Baptist Church for
a 36'x70'ddition adjoining the existing Church
Sanctuary.The addition will be used for the Pastor's
study,classrooms,and fellowship hall.
In addition to the expansion of the church,the
applicant also is planning a new parking lot that will
have approximately 9 additional spaces to what
presently exist.
Staff is in an agreement with the engineering comments,
and the applicant has been advice to seek a deferral of
the conditional use permit until the next meeting of
the Planning Commission.This will allow time for the
applicant to prepare the necessary paper work for the
petition to abandon west 6th street.
7.Staff Recommendation
Staff is recommending deferral of this item until the
June 18,1991 meeting which will allow for both the
conditional use permit and the right-of way abandonment
to be addressed at the same time.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:APRIL 23,1991
The applicant was not present.Staff reviewed the request
and the deferral recommendation.There was a brief
discussion about the right-of-way abandonment for West 6thStreet.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:MAY 7,1991
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated that the notice requirement had not been met
and the application would have to be deferred.Also it is
the intent of the applicant to file for the right-of-way
2
June 18,1991
~SUB IVISIDN
TEM NO.:A Contin
abandonment for next month's meeting June 18,1991.As partoftheconsentagenda,this item was deferred by a vote of
7 ayes,0 nays,3 absent and one open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITT COMMENT (JUNE 6,1991)
The applicant was not in attendance.Staff gave an overview
of the background of the case.No additional discussion was
done.This case was sent on to the full Commission for
action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (JUNE 18,1991)
The agent for the applicant was in attendance.There were
no objectors present.Staff stated the applicant had
complied with all the requirements.As part of the consent
agenda,this was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,and
2 absent.
3
June 18,1991
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO:Z-1412-A
Owner:Arthur Clark Stancil
Applicant:A.Clark Stancil
Location:1600 Security
Request:Rezone from 0-3 and C-3 to I-2
Purpose:Light Industrial and Storage
Size:0.83 acres
Existing:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Industrial,zoned I-2
South —Vacant,zoned R-3
East —Vacant,Single-family zoned R-3
West —Vacant,zoned I-2
STAF ANALYSIS
The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone twolotsonSecurityStreetfrom0-3 and C-3 to I-2.The
application was filed after the owner received an enforcement
notice from the City because of outside storage on the 0-3
parcel.(The same individual owns the I-2 property directed
to the north which also has a number of items stored
outdoors.)At this time,the C-3 lot is vacant and the 0-3tracthasavacantresidentialstructureonit.
Zoning in the general vicinity is a combination of R-3,R-4,
R-5,0-3,I-2 and I-3.The site in question is abuts I-2 on
two sides and R-3 on the south side.Across Security Avenue,
the zoning is R-3.Land use is similar to the existing zoning
and includes single family,industrial and a church.
Throughout the neighborhood,there are also some vacant piecesoflandandseveralabandonedstructures.The majority of thelotswithintheresidentialenclaveareoccupiedbysingle
family units and most of the residences are what would be
considered to be in good condition.
The I-30 district plan is the planning document covering the
area,and it shows that two lots as part of a residential
neighborhood.The lots are surrounded by industrial zoning
and uses,and the plan recognizes the existing development
pattern.Even though the land use configuration has existed
1
June 18,1991
ITEM NO.:B Continued FI E NO:Z-1412-A
for many years,there has been very little of non-residential
encroachment into the subdivision and the neighborhood has
been able to maintain its livability and hold its own.
Because of the land use plan and other factors,staff feels
that an industrial reclassification is inappropriate and does
not support the I-2 rezoning.Staff does recognize that thelotsarezonedfornon-residential uses,however,0-3 and C-3
tend to be more compatible with a residential neighborhood and
should have less of an impact.Also,the lots only have
frontage on a residential street,which is different from the
other residential tracts in the area.And finally,allowing a
fragile neighborhood to be "chipped away"by rezoning one or
two lots at a time is very undesirable and should not be
encouraged by the endorsement of this request.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
None reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the I-2 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (May 21,1991)
The applicant was not present,and staff recommended that the
item be deferred.A motion was made to defer the request to
the June 18,1991 meeting.The motion was approved by a vote
of 7 ayes,0 nays,3 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (June 18,1991)
The applicant,Clark Stancil,was present.There were no
objectors in attendance.Mr.Stancil said that he was the
owner of River Trail,Inc.,which manufactures boats,and was
located just north of the lots in question.Mr.Stancil
stated that the company needed to have outside storage for
materials and the finished product.He then characterized the
area as industrial,and he said there appeared to be a large
number of abandoned residential structures.Mr.Stancil said
the neighborhood was becoming an industrial area by default
2
June 18,1991
ITEM NO.:B Continued FILE NO:Z-1412-A
and the residential lots have no value.He went on to say
that the neighborhood was surrounded and impacted by the
existing industrial uses.Mr.Stancil then described the
existing land use and the ownership pattern.
Commissioner Kathleen Oleson spoke and said the neighborhood
looked like a viable area,with a number of occupied
residential units.
Clark Stancil said that the two lots were totally fenced,and
one was being used for outside storage.Mr.Stancil indicated
that his future plans called for expanding the existing
building,but the immediate need was for outside storage.He
then told the Commission that the area was in an enterprise
zone for industrial development.
Bob Brown,plans specialist,offered comments about buffering
and landscaping.
There were some discussion about utilizing the PUD process for
the site.Comments were also made about the neighborhood and
the use of the property.
Ruth Bell,representing the League of Women Voters,discussed
the history of the 1-30 District Plan,and reminded the
Commission that the residents felt that they had a viable
neighborhood.Ms.Bell concluded by commenting on the CityBoard's new initiative and policy to renew neighborhoods.
Clark Stancil spoke again and responded to several of RuthBell's comments.Mr.Stancil indicated that he would consider
other locations if he could not rezone the lots.He then
stated the plant has been burglarized 26 times in the past
18 months.Mr.Stancil said the rezoning was a reasonable
request.He then reiterated his statements about the lots
having no value as residential property.
There was a long discussion about utilizing other options for
the lots such as conditional zoning or PUD.
Clark Stancil made some additional comments about using thelots,and how Security Street would not be utilized for
primary access.Mr.Stancil also informed the Commission that
he has 24-hour security on the property.
At this point,a motion was made to rezone the two lots to I-2
for storage only,to buffer the residential lots,and toutilizeEast15thStreetfortheproperty's primary access.
There were some discussion and Stephen Giles,Assistant City
Attorney,indicated that restricting the use in an I-2
rezoning created some problems.The motion was withdrawn.
3
June 18,1991
ITEM NO.:B Continued FILE NO:Z-1412-A
Discussion continued on the use of lots and other means
available for reclassifying the site.The PUD process was
determined to be the only viable alternative for the site.
Clark Stancil then requested that the I-2 rezoning be
withdrawn,and he would file a PUD application.
A motion was made to withdraw the I-2 request and to waive
additional filing fees for the PUD.The motion was approved
by a vote of 9 ayes,1 nay and 1 absent.
4
June 18,1991
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 1 FILE NO:S-924
NAME:Lowe's Replat of Lot 108,Section E,Spring Valley Manor
Subdivision
LOCATION:210 Gorgeous View Trail off Cooper Orbit Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
CHRIS AND ANGELA LOWE ROBERT LOWE,JR.AND ASSOCIATES
210 Gorgeous View Trail 10510 I-30 —Suite 5LittleRock,AR 72210 Little Rock,AR 72209
224-4424 562-7215
AREA:3.38 Ac.NUMBER OF LOTS:2 F .NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 PROPOSED USES:Residential
PLANNI G DISTRICT:21
CENSUS TRACT:42.07
VARIANCES RE VESTED:
1.Street Improvements
2.Drainage
3.Sidewalks
A.P OPOSAL RE VEST:
This proposal consists of a two lot replat out of a largerlot.The plat,as submitted,is proposed for residential
usage.
B.EXISTING ONDITIONS:
The site is currently occupied by one residential home.Thestreetisdevelopedtothecountystandardswith20ft.of
asphalt.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
No engineering objections for requested improvement waivers.
1
June 18,1991
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 Continued FILE NO:S-924
D.ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN:
There are two issues associated with this replat.
1.Written consent of Spring Valley Realty Company,Inc.
2.Health Department approval for the additional sewer
connection.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff's review of this replat finds very little
to comment on.The applicant needs to provide written
consent from Spring Valley Realty Co.,Inc.as stated in theBillofAssuranceforSpringValleySubdivisionandthe
Health Department's approval for the additional connection
to the private sewer system.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the approval of this replat subject to the
applicant providing written consent from of Spring Valley
Realty Co.,Inc.and the Health Department's approval.
Further,that the waivers will he granted as requested and
forwarded to the City Board of Directors.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JUNE 6,1991)
The application was represented hy Mr.Boh Lowe.The staff's
recommendation was discussed.Mr.Lowe indicated that he would
provide written consent from Spring Valley Realty Company and
the Health Department.There was a general discussion of the
proposal and there were no significant issues to relate to thefullCommission.The item was forwarded without further
comments.
2
June 18,1991
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 2 FILE NO:S-829-B
NAME:pratt Remmel Subdivision —Replat
~LQCAPON:NWdo off ttRLRoddLdYRoN
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
WINGFIELD MARTIN BEN KITTLERP JR.
6133 Dena DriveLittleRock,AR 72206
888-3960
AREA:40 Ac.NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:1,143 ft.
~ZONIN :I-2 PROPOSED USES:Expansion of Motor Freight
Terminal
PLANN NG DISTRICT:25
CENSUS TRACT:40.01
VARI CES RE VESTED:None
STAT ENT OF PROPOSAL:
A.PROPOSAL RE VEST:
The proposal consists of a two lot replat out of large and
undeveloped parcel of land to accommodate Motor Freight
Terminal located directly north.Part of the 20 acre tract
has just been rezoned to I-2.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site in question is located between Lindsey Road andFrazierPikeinanareathatisreferredtoasthe"Port
Industrial District".Part of the property is identified as
wetlands and covered with the natural foliage of the area,
principally hardwoods.
C.NGINEERING COMMENTS:
An excavating permit will be required.Detention
requirements were previously satisfied.
1
June 18,1991
SUBDIVISION
IT NO.:2 ontinued FILE NO:S-829-B
D.ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN:
The only issue in this category which will require a
resolution is including the turn-around easement inside the
plat boundary.
S.YSYAAYSYS:
The Planning Staff finds no serious fault with the replat
apart from the need to resolve the item pointed out above.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approval of the replat subject to the
minor modifications.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JUNE 6Y 1991)
The applicant was present.This matter was discussed briefly.
Mr.Wingfield Martin indicated that the staff's recommendation
presented no problem.The Planning Staff stated that the revised
copy of the replat had already been submitted for review.There
were no significant issues to relate to the full Commission.
The item was forwarded without further comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION CTION:(JUNE 18,1991)
The applicant,Mr.Wingfield Martin,was in attendance.The
Planning Staff reported that this item should be placed on the
Consent Agenda for approval because there were no remaining
issues to be resolved.After a brief discussion,the Commission
determined that it was appropriate to place this item on the
Consent Agenda for approval.A motion was made to that effect.
The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
2
June 18,1991
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO:-4551-D
NAME:Bank and Business Forms,Inc.—Revised PCD
~3OC 2 ON:12123 K Ro d
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
DIANNE AQUIAR B.HEARNSBERGER,INC.
12123 Kanis Road f4 Shackleford PlazaLittleRock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72211
224-8662
AREA:1.00 Ac.NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.N STREET:0
~ZONIN :PCD PRO OSED USES:Wholesale/Retail Form Sales
PLANN NG DISTRICT:I-430
CENSUS TRACT:42.07
VARIANCES RE VESTED:None
S AT ENT OF PROPOSAL:
This application proposes the revision of the previously approved
bank and business form facility.The proposal,as now drafted,
will be an additional 3,000 sq.ft.warehouse space on the
northwest corner of the project.The building will be a
pre-engineer metal structure with a 20 ft.eaves height.The
proposed building will eliminate five parking spaces which will
relocate to the northeast corner of the property.
A.PROPOSAL RE U ST:
This application proposes an expansion for a 3,000 sq.ft.
warehouse to be constructed for Bank and Business Forms,Inc.at 12123 Kanis Road.
B.XISTING COND TIONS:
The current site is occupied by a 10,000 sq.ft.warehouse,
4,100 sq.ft.office space and parking for employees andvisitors.The Kanis Road lying on the north is a two lane
road with open ditches.
1
June 18,1991
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Continued FILE NO:Z-4551-D
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
street improvements previously satisfied by in-lieu of
contribution provide 15 feet radius at driveway turnout.
D.ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN:
There are no issues associated with this PCD.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff's review of the Short-form PCD reveals no
problems with the proposal as presented.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approval of the revised PCD subject to:
1.City of Little Rock granting "franchise"for part of
the parking in Right-of-Way
2.Applicant complying with the City Engineer's comments
SUBDIVISION COMMIT EE COMM NTS:(JUNE 6,1991)
The applicant was present.The Planning Staff presented the
current proposal versus the previous site plan.The Committee
then questioned the applicant about the progress in obtaining"franchise"for parking on the City's right-of-way.The
applicant stated that he submitted a letter to the City Engineerforreview.He also indicated that there is sufficient space to
accommodate additional parking,if the franchise is not granted.
Mr.Hearnsberger stated that the owners agreed to relocate the
parking when improvements to Kanis Road are commenced.
There being no further discussion,the matter was forwarded to
the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 18,1991)
The Planning Staff reported that this item was appropriate for
placement on the Consent Agenda for approval.After a brief
discussion,the Commission determined that it was appropriate to
place the item on the Consent Agenda for approval.A motion tothateffectwasmadeandpassedbyavoteof10ayes,0 nays and
1 absent.
2
June 18,1991
~BUBDZVP NON
ITEM NO '
NAME:Bentley —Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5444)
LOCATION:1600 Geyer Street
OWNER APPLICANT:Robert Bentley,Louise Ewing,Agent
P~ROPOIIA To develop a day care center
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
This site is located at the southwest corner of 16th Street and
Geyer Street in the east part of the City.
2.Co atibilit with Nei hborhood
Surrounding the site are all residential uses.The proposed
use is compatible with the neighborhood uses.
3.On-site Drives and Parkin
The applicant plans to provide for five parking spaces to the
rear of the site.A variance will be needed because ten
parking spaces are required.There will be two new drives
created including excess being taken from the alley.
4.Screenin and Suffers
The landscaping that exist will be used as screening andbuffer.If additional landscaping is needed,the applicant
will be acceptable to the new requirements.
5.Cit En ineer Comments
The applicant will need to provide side walk drainage
improvements which are lacking on the Geyer Street frontage.
The proposed parking in the rear will need paving and
stripping.
6.A~l
The proposal before the Commission is a request to establish a
day care center for children ages 1S months to three years of
age.The building is a two story old structure and will be
renovated.There exist approximately 2,105 square feet of
gross floor area.
1
June 18,1991
~UBDIVI ION
ITEM NO 4 Continued
The total play area will be approximately 2,500 square feet to
serve at least fifty children.The entire lot area will be
fenced.The drop off point will be off street as indicated on
the sketch.
This lot abuts to dead-end streets East 16th and Geyer,which
are not traveled heavily at any given time,so no traffic
congestion should be created.
7.Staff Recommendation
The recommendation of staff is approval of the Conditional Use
Permit subject to the engineering comments being met and the
parking variance being approved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JUNE 6,1991)
The applicant was not in attendance.Staff gave an overview stating
the Conditional Use Permit was for a day care center.There was
also discussion regarding the Engineering requirements.There was
some discussion as to whether a two story structure would be allowedtooperateasadaycarecenteraccordingtoStatelaw.Staff also
informed the Committee that a variance from the parking requirement
would be needed.The applicant is only providing 8 parking spaces.
This item was sent on to the full Commission for action.
PLANNING COMMISSION CTION (JUNE 18,1991)
The agent for the applicant,Louise Ewing,was in attendance along
with the young lady who will serve as director of the day carecenter.There were no objectors present.Staff informed the
Commission that Ms.Ewing was also requesting a parking variance for
two spaces,while at least eight parking spaces would be provided,
however,the zoning ordinance requires ten spaces.
The Commission had concerns about the number of children the day
care center would serve.Ms.Ewing stated fifty.Several
commission members questioned whether there would be adequate space
for such a large number.After more discussion,it was decided that
whatever number the State would allow the day care center to serve
would be the number approved by the Commission.
There also was discussion as to whether the State regulations allowforatwo-story structure to be used as a day care center.
Ms.Ewing stated "yes",but the second story would have to be
secured and off-limits to any of the children.
2
June 18,1991
SUBDIVISION
ITEN NO :4 Continued
Staff then informed the Commission that Ms.Ewing had agreed to all
the engineering issues,except for the request requiring street
improvements on Geyer Street.She would be appealing that
requirement to the Board of Directors for a final decision.
A motion was then made to approve the Conditional Use Permit bystaffandtheEngineeringdepartment.The Commission will
support the waiver for street improvements.The motion passed by a
vote of 8 ayes,1 nay,1 abstention (Collins)and 1 absent.
3
June 18,1991
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:
NAME:Mitchell Elementary School
Conditional Use Permit (Z-5445)
LOCATION:2410 South Battery
OWNER APPLICANT:Little Rock School District,
Don Johnson,AIA,ASID,Agent
PROPOSAL:To construct a new classroom
addition
ORDINANCE DESIGN ST DARDS:
1.Site Location
This site is located in the central area of the city abutting
Roosevelt Road and Battery Streets.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
The school site has existed in the neighborhood for a long
period of time.Because of the location of the site it is
mostly surrounded by residential uses.
3.On-site Drives and Parkin
The applicant intends to utilize the existing drives and
parking areas already on the site.
4.Screenin and Buffers
Existing screening and buffers will be used.The addition is
less than 10%of the existing facility,therefore no additional
landscaping will be required,but may be considered by the
owner.
5.Cit En ineer Comments
Handicap ramps needed to be constructed at all street
intersections.The sidewalk on the South 1/2 of the block on
Summit will need a partial replacement.Street improvements
will have to be made on the Roosevelt Road frontage.
1
June 18,1991
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Continued
6.A~1
By court order the Little Rock School District is to provide a
one classroom building on the Mitchell School site.This
building is to house four year old students and is designed by
the standards of the State of Arkansas for Kindergarten
Classrooms.The building will be approximately 1,368 squarefeet.This building will be built on existing grade and also
constructed with block and brick exterior bearing walls with
wood trusses and composition shingles.The building is
designed to compliment the original Mitchell classroom building
by means of matching brick and similar detailing.
The applicant has agreed to the construction of sidewalk
improvements including accessible curb cuts.A waiver is being
requested for the street improvements to Roosevelt Road.
7.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit per the
engineering requirements.Staff does not support any waivers
from the street improvement to the Roosevelt Road frontage.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JUNE 6,1991)
Don Johnson,Bob Lowe and Vernon Smith represented the applicant.Staff explained the reason for the requested Conditional Use Permit.
There were some discussion regarding the engineering comments.The
three representatives stated that their client would meet all of the
engineering requirements except for the street improvement.Staff
then stated that any waiver for the street improvements would have
to be granted by the Board of Directors.This item was sent on to
the full Commission for action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (JUNE 18,1991)
Don Johnson represented the applicant.There were two peoplepresentwhoneededabetterunderstandingabouttheproposal.Staff
informed the Commission that the applicant had agreed to all the
requirements of Engineering,except for the street improvements to
Roosevelt Road.Therefore,this requested Conditional Use Permit
would be going to the Board of Directors for a waiver of street
improvements.
As part of the Consent Agenda,this item was approved by a vote of
9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
2
June 18,1991
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6
NAME:Rightsell Elementary School—
Conditional Use Permit (Z-5446)
LOCATION:911 West 19th Street
OWNER APPLICANT:Little Rock School District,
Don Johnson,AIA,ASID,Agent
PROPOSAL:To construct a new addition to
the elementary school
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
This site is located at the intersection of 19th and IzardStreets,Block 23,Wrights Subdivision to the City of Little
Rock,Pulaski County,Arkansas.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
This school has been in existence in this neighborhood for over
forty or more years.Surrounding the site are all residentialuses.
3.On-site Drives and Parkin
A new circular drive will be constructed in the front of the
building for the loading and discharge of students from thebuses.Also the circular drive will provide accessibility forservicevehiclestouse.The existing parking will be
maintained with some on-street parking.Izard Street is one-
way running east of the site.
4.Screenin and Buffers
The new addition is less than 10%of the existing facility,andthereforenoadditionallandscapingisrequiredbythe
ordinance.It is possible that the applicant will decide to
prove some extra if needed.
5.Cit En ineer Comments
Handicap ramps are needed at all street intersections.The
sidewalk on West 20th,which is partially broken or missing,will need to be replaced.Curb and gutter on the North 1/2 of
1
June 18,1991
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO :6 Co t'nue
the block on Izard will need to be replaced.The applicant is
requesting a waiver from this requirement,but has agreed to
sidewalk improvements including accessible curb cuts.
6.
A~nl~s'gain
the Little Rock School District is requesting a
Conditional Use Permit in order to honor a court ruling.The
ruling basically states that a new classroom addition has to be
built to replace an existing mobile home and provide for a
larger seating capacity.
The new addition will house four year old students.This
building is also designed to meet the requirements of the State
of Arkansas for Kindergarten Classrooms.The building will be
approximately 1,368 square feet of gross floor area.It will
be built on existing grade and to be constructed with block andbrickexteriorbearingwallswithwoodtrussesandcomposition
shingles.The building is designed to compliment the original
Rightsell classroom by means of matching brick and similar
detailing.
7.St ff Recommen ation
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit
conditioned upon the engineering comments being met.Staff
does not support the waiver for the curb and guttering on the
Izard Street frontage.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JUNE 6,1991)
Don Johnson,Bob Lowe and Vernon Smith represented the applicant.Staff stated to the Committee the reason for the requested
Conditional Use Permit.The representatives for the applicant
stated that all conditions from Engineering would be met exceptforthestreetimprovements.A waiver is being asked for that
requirement.Staff again stated that any waiver request would havetobegrantedbytheBoardofDirectors.This item was sent on to
the full Commission for action.
PLANNING COMMISSION CTION (JUNE 18,1991)
Don Johnson represented the applicant.There were no objectors in
attendance.Staff stated that the applicant had agreed to all the
engineering issues.If the circular drive is not constructed,then
the additional curb and gutter will be provided.
As part of the Consent Agenda,this item was approved by a vote of
9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
2
June 18,1991
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7
NAME:Bassett —Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5447)
LOCATION:1308 South Pine Street
OWNER APPLICANT:Harry Bassett
PROPOSAL:To construct a two bay structure
for an auto repair shop
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
The South 1/3 of Lots 1 and 2,Block 6,W.B.Worthen's
Addition,to the City of Little Rock,Pulaski County,Arkansas.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
A variety of different uses are located within this area of the
City.Because of such a variety from commercial,residential,
halfway house and church,this use does not take from what is
existing within the neighborhood.
3.On-site Drives and Parkin
The alley is used to access the property.Both the alley and
parking area are in need of repairs.The alley needs new
asphalt laid and the parking places stripped.
4.Screenin and Buffers
Some screening and buffers exist but in the opinion of staff
some more needs to be added.There are also large barrels
being kept outside the structure.The barrels need to be
removed if there is no purpose for them.
5.Cit En ineer Comments
The existing sidewalk should be replaced.Also the alley needstobepavedandparkinghastobestripped.
6.A~1
Existing on the site is a two bay structure that is being used
as an auto repair shop.This use is not permitted under the
C-3 General Commercial zoning without a Conditional Use Permit.
1
June 18,1991
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 Continued
The property is being leased at the present time.It is the
intent of the owner to one day convert the property into a
furniture store.
7.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject
to the requirements of engineering being satisfactorily met.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JUNE 6,1991)
The applicant was not in attendance.Staff stated to the Commission
that the notice requirement had not been met.Therefore,this item
will have to be deferred until the July 30,1991 meeting.
PLANNIN COMMISSION ACTION (JUNE 18,1991)
The applicant was not present.There was one person present to
object,Page Daniel of 1406 South Cedar.Staff reminded the
Commission that this item had to be deferred due to the notice
requirement not being met.The next meeting will be held on
July 30,1991.Mr.Daniels stated that he had no problems with
the deferral.
As part of the Consent Agenda,this item was approved for deferral
by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
2
June 18,1991
ITEM NO.:8
NAME:A portion of North Van Buren
Street
LOCATION:The South 138 feet of a ten foot
strip immediately West of Lot 18,
Block 13,Newton's Addition.
OWNER APPLICANT:Aloner McGhee,Sr.,Trust,
Mary Stewart McGhee,Agent
PROPOSAL:To abandon ten feet of the east
side of North Van Buren Street
between Hawthorne Road and
Country Club Blvd.
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Public Need for this Ri ht-of-Wa
The initial review from other City departments indicates thereisnopublicneedforthisright-of-way.
2.Master Street Plan
A review of the Master Street Plan indicated no need for this
right-of-way.
3.Need for Ri ht-of-Wa on Ad acent Streets
There exist no right-of-way need for the other abuttingstreets.
4.Characteristics of Ri ht-of-Wa Terrain
The right-of-way to be abandoned is physically open,but by a
portion being closed there will be no effect placed on thetrafficflow.
5.Develo ment Potential
The development potential expressed to staff is for this
portion of right-of-way to become part of the residential
property.
1
June 18,1991
ITEM NO.:8 Continued
6.Nei hborhood nd Use and Effect
Surrounding this portion of right-of-way to be abandoned areallresidentialuses.If abandoned,there should be no effect
placed on the surrounding uses.
7.Nei hborhood Position
As of this writing no neighborhood position has been voiced tostaff.
8.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
All five utilities have given their approval for this portion
of right-of-way to be abandoned,but they would like to retain
the right of ingress and egress.
9.Reversionar Ri hts
All reversionary rights will be extended to the petitioner
whose name appear on the petition.
10.Public Welfare and Safet Issues
The abandonment of this open and used segment of right-of-way
will return to the private sector a land area that will be
productive for the real estate tax base.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
staff recommends approval of this ten foot portion of right-of-way
abandonment.Subject to the rights of the five utility companies
being retained.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JUNE 6,1991)
The applicant was not in attendance.Staff explained the reason for
requesting only a ten foot abandonment of right-of-way.There was
no further discussion.This item was sent on to the full Commission
for action.
The Little Rock Municipal Water Works request that the right-of-way
be retained as utility easement.
2
June 18,1991
ITEM NO.:8 Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (JUNE 18,1991)
Chris Barrier represented the applicant.There were no objectors in
attendance.As part of the Consent Agenda,this item was forwarded
to the Board with a motion for approval.The motion passed by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
3
June 18,1991
ITEM NO.:9
NAME:West 6th Street —Right-of-Way
Abandonment
LOCATION:The two blocks of West 6th Street
from Valmar to Maple running east
to west
OWNER PLICANT:Various Owners,Joseph Smith,
Agent
PROPOSAL:To abandon all of West 6th
Street which lies between
Lot 6,Block 11;Lot 1,
Block 12,C.O.Kimball and
Bodeman's Addition to the City
of Little Rock and West 6thStreetwhichliesbetween
Lot 7,Block 2 and Lot 12,
Block 1,McIntosh Addition
to the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County,Arkansas.
~STAFF R V?EN,
1.Public Need for this Ri ht-of-Wa
The review from other City departments indicates that there is
no public need for this right-of-way.
2.Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan indicated no need for this right-of-way.
3.Need for Ri ht-of-Wa on Ad'acent Streets
There exist no right-of-way need for the adjacent streets.
4.Characteristics of i ht-of-Wa Terrain
The right-of-way to be abandoned is physically closed,but
indicates to be opened according to the records at the County
and City Clerks'ffices.
5.Develo ment Potential
The development potential expressed to staff is for the
right-of-way to become part of the church use and new
parking lot.
1
June 18,1991
ITEM NO.:9 Continued
6.Nei hborhood Land Use and E ec
Surrounding the right-of-way to be abandoned are residential
uses and a church.If abandoned,there should be no effect
placed on the surrounding uses.
7.Nei hborhood Position
No neighborhood position has been voiced to staff.
8.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
All five utilities have given their approval for the
abandonment subject to the right of ingress and egress being
retained.
9.Reversionar Ri hts
The reversionary rights to the right-of-way abandonment will be
extended to the names of the various owners that appear on thepetition.
10.Public Welfare and Safet Issues
The abandonment of this unopened and unused segment of right-
of-way will return to the private sector a land area that will
be productive for the real estate tax base.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approval of the right-of-way abandonment
subject to all five utility companies having the right of ingress
and egress.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JUNE 6,1991)
The applicant was not in attendance.Staff explained that this
right-of-way abandonment is associated with Item A.The Committee
indicated that there was no need for additional discussion.This
item was sent on to the full Commission for action.
The Little Rock Municipal Water Works request that the right-of-way
be retained as a utility easement.
2
June 18,1991
ITEM NO.:9 Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (JUNE 18,1991)
The agent,Joseph Smith,was in attendance to represent the
applicant.There were no objectors present.Staff stated that the
agent had met all of staff's requirements.A motion was then made,
as part of the Consent Agenda,to forward the right-of-way
abandonment to the Board of Directors for approval.The motion
passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
3
June 18,1991
ITEM NO.:10
NAME:A portion of Old West Markham-
Right-of-Way Abandonment
LOCATION:Old Markham Street South of the
East 1/2 of Tract 7 Hillvale
Addition to the City of Little
Rock,Arkansas.
OWNER APPLICANT:C.William and Jan Ball/
Pat McGetrick,Agent
PROPOSAL:To abandon 319.48 feet of Old
Markham a 50 foot right-of-way
West of Gamble Road and South of
the East 1/2 of Tract 7 Hillvale
Addition.
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Public Need for this Ri ht-of-Wa
The Engineering Department of the City has stated the applicant
must retain sufficient right-of-way to provide sixty feet from
centerline.
2.Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan indicates that a right-of-way of sixtyfeetfromcenterlineisrequiredfortheChenalParkway.
3.Need for Ri ht-of-Wa on Ad'acent Streets
There exist no need for this right-of-way to the adjacentstreets.
4.Characteristics of Ri ht-of-Wa Terrain
This right-of-way is physically closed,but the record books in
the County and City Clerks'ffices indicate it being open.
5.Develo ment Potential
The development potential expressed by the applicant is for the
abandoned right-of-way to become a utility easement.
1
June 18,1991
ITEM NO.:10 Contin ed
6.Nei h orhood Land Use and Effect
surrounding the site is vacant land.In the vicinity of this
right-of-way are residential,commercial,and office uses.
There will be no effect placed on the surrounding uses.
7.Nei hborhood Position
No neighborhood position has been voiced to staff as of this
writing.
8.Effect on P blic Services or Utilities
All five utilities have given their approval for the
abandonments subject to the right ingress and egress beingretained.
9.Reversionar Ri hts
All reversionary rights will extend back to the petitioner
whose name appear on the petition.
10.Public Welfare and safet Issues
The abandonment of this segment of the right-of-way will
return to the private sector a land area that will be
productive for the real estate tax base.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
staff recommends approval of the right-of-way abandonment subject to
the engineering issue being met and the five utilities having the
right of ingress and egress.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JUNE 6,1991)
Bob Lowe represented the applicant.Staff informed Mr.Lowe that
the utility comments had not been received.Mr.Lowe stated that he
would get them to staff as soon as possible.
In regards to the engineering comments,Mr.Lowe stated that hisclientwouldadheretothededicationofright-of-way.There being
no additional discussion this item was sent on to the full
Commission for action.
The Little Rock Municipal Water Works request that the right-of-way
be retained as a utility easement.
2
June 18,1991
ITEM NO.:10 Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (JUNE 18,1991)
Pat McGetrick represented the applicant.There were no objectors in
attendance.Mr.McGetrick stated to staff he had no problems
meeting the requirement of engineering.As part of the Consent
Agenda,this item was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and
2 absent.
3
June 18,1991
~SDSDI ISIDW
IT NO.:11 OTHER MATTERS
APPLICANT:Donna Vernon
~LDCAI D:2200 DogWood L
PROPO AL RE VEST:
Mrs.Donna Vernon,the owner of 5 acres at 2200 Dogwood,
requested that the Planning Commission grant her relief of a
subdivision ordinance plat and plan requirements.The owner has
placed one mobile home on the property to be occupied by her son
and his family,in addition to the single family house.The
owner does not intend to subdivide the property,sell the mobile
home nor add more mobile homes to the property.
STAFF REPORT:
This type of application has been presented to the Commission in
the past.The Planning staff has visited the site and discussed
several options.It was determined that we would accept the
present conditions without requiring the plat at this time.
Further expansions or additions will require plat and all
physical improvements.
S BDIVISION COMMI EE COMMENTS:(JUNE 6,1991)
The applicant was present.Mrs.Vernon described the site and
various elements of the existing situation.She indicated that
she does not intend to place more mobile homes nor subdivide the
land.
A general discussion followed involving the applicant,staff and
committee members.It was determined that the Staff and the
Committee would accept the present conditions without requiring a
plat at this time with the understanding,that any further
expansion or the addition of a mobile home would require a plat
and all physical improvements.
There being no further discussion,the matter was forwarded to
the full Commission for final resolution.
1
June 18,1991
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 u d OTHER MATTERS
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 18,1991)
The applicant was present.The Planning Staff reported that it
was appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for
approval.A brief discussion followed during which the
Commission determined that it was appropriate to place this item
on the Consent Agenda for approval,with conditions that the
mobile home would be occupied by the immediate family member.A
motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 nays and 1 absent.
2
eaeararaaaeaaaeaRRRRHHRRHRRRRHRWMMMMWMWMMMMMWMRRRRRWRRRRWRRRRRRRWHRHHRRRRHRRRRRRRRRSRRRWRRERRHRRRRRRRRRHRRINRSISISSSSII~=IRQEEKKKRRMEKSKEGCQK585%!WMRRRRRRRRRRRQRRRRRRHWRRRRRRRWRWRWN%%%WA%%%%%%%
RRR%%%HRRR%55%55RWWMMMWMMMMERRSMWMWMMMMMMMKIMMMMMKRMMSRMMESERERKlMKIERESERMWWMMMRIWNilMERERMEiMMIMERMMEiIMMK3MERKRWSIERMMKRRRMMMMMMERKIMMKRMMMKRMMKRMMMKIM
WIRMMMMMMKIMKIMMMM
MMMKQKElGSMISR?IEcRKEKRMSRM
~fP ~'P ~7
~.o .o e
June 18,1991
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.
Chairman S ary
(&o pygmyate