pc_05 08 1990LITTLE ROCK PLANNING CONNISSION
REZONING HEARING
NINUTE RECORD
NAY 8,1990
1:00 p.m.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being eleven in number.
II.Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting.
The minutes of the March 27„1990 were approved asmailed.
III.Nembers present:Martha Miller
Fred Perkins
Rose Collins
Steven Leek
John McDaniel
Jerilyn Nicholson
Kathleen Oleson
Walter Riddick IIIJoeSelz
Brad Walker
Connie Whitfield
Nembers absent:None
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
Nark Stodola
REZONING HEARING
NAY 8,1990
DEFERRED ITEMS
A.5809 Redbud Lane Replat.(S-682)
B.Plower Shop Short-form PCD (Z-5310)
C.West 4th St.—between South Elm and South Cedar
(Right.-of-way Abandonment.)
D.A poxtion of the alley in Blook 5,Plateau Addit.ion
(Right-of-way Abandonment)
REZONING ITEMS
1.Z —4464 —A Chenal Parkway at.Autumn Rd.R-2 to C-3
2.Z-4537-B 4215 Ashex Awe.I-2 to C-4
3.Z-5317 5924 Baseline Rd.R-2 to C-3
4.Z-5318 Geyer Springs 6 Baseline Rd.R-2 to C-4
5.Z-5319 1901 N.Taylox.R-2 to C-3
6.Z-5320 Geyer Springs 6 Baseline Rd,R-2 to C-3
7.Z-5321 Shackleford Rd.R-2 to I-2
OTHER MATTERS
8.Bylaw Amendment
9.Dunbar Community Center C.U.P.(Z-5325)
Hay 8,1990
~Tddd N .:dd ~IL 5g,;S-682
~NAN :Bugg Subdivision
~ddddd T Dld:ddod R dh d dad,Odd d d d 1 V 11 y Ro d n
Redbud Lane
DEVELOPER:g~NG N~ER:
Eddie Bugg Ben Kittler,Jr.
5809 Crystal Valley Road 28 Dens DxiveLittleRock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72206455-0327 888-3960
AREA:8.34 Acxes B OF TS:4 F EW STREET:0
Residential (Single Family)
PLANNI D STRICT:27
CENSUS TRACT:42.08
VARIANCES RE T
1.Road Impxovements,Curb 6 Gutter,Sidewalks.
A.PROPOSA E UEST:
The px'oposal consists of a large 8.3 acre lotreplattingintofour(4)smallex lots.This plat,as
submitted is proposed for single family residence.
B.EXISTING CONDIT ONS:
The site is curzently occupied by two residence on
Lot 1 and 2,Lots 3 and 4 are currently undeveloped
co~ared with the natural foliage of the area.
C.ENG RI O
Additional R/N on Crystal Valley Road is needed to
pxovide pzincipal ar'exx'all standard and 60'/W foz
Redbud Lane up to Chicopee.(Indicated.on Plat)
Required improvements include 1/2 of 60'avement,with
cux'bs and gutters and sidewalk on Crystal Valley Road,
1/2 of'6'avement.with curbs and gutters and
sidewalks on Redbud Lane,undergzound drainage on bothstreets.
1
Nay 8,199G
Item No.".Cont'ed
D.SS S Zi,E I D S GN:
There are no signi.ficant issues attached to thisrapist.The only items pointed out by EngineeringStaffhastodowithadditionalR/W dedi.cat.ion andstreetimprovementstomeetmasterstreetplan.
The owner should be aware that final approval of thisplat.depends upon the submission of septic tankapplicationtotheHealthDepartmentanditsapproval.
E.BBALXBXS:
The Pl.arming Staff finds no serious fault with this
x'ep3.at subject„however,the additional R/W dedication
and stxeet improvements needs to be shown on Plat.
Gne poi.nt which the developer has raised on the Waiver
Request Form,is that this propexty is located 2.7
mi.3.es from nearest cux'b and gutters and sidewalkslocation.
F.STA F RZC N A ION:
Staff recommends approva3.subject to resolution of R/Wissue,street improvements and Health Departmentapproval.
SUBDIV SIGN G CG
The applicant was represented by Ben Kittler,Jr.The twopointsthatwereindicatedbytheCommitteeforfurther
review,wexe the appli.cant's dealing with the Public Works
Department on the street improvements,as to the width and
compositi.on of impx'ovements,and Health Department approvaloftheseptictankapp3.ication.
The applicant.indicate that al3.stxeet impxovements wouldcost.about 85G,GGG dol3.axs.If they were required,
Nx.Kittler was instructed that these axe oxdi.nance
x'equirements which can be on3y waived by the Board ofDirectors.
2
May 8,1990
~SU OIVIIIION
IT NO.:A Co tinued
ING SION C N:(April 24,1990)
The staff told the Commission that the replat.needed to bedeferedbecauseofanoticedeficieny,A motion was made todefertheitemstotheMay8,1990 meeting.The motion waspassedbyavoteof9eyes,0 noes,2 absent.
P NING MMISS O N:(May 8,1990)
The application was pxesented by Bextha Bugg and BenKittler.The Planning Staff reported that it wasappropriatetoplacethisitemontheconsentagenda
fox'pprovalsubjecttotheownerdedicatingtherequired right-
of-way for Cxystal Valley and Redbud Lane with Staff supporttowaiveallstreetimprovements.After a brief discussiontheCommission,determined it appxopriate to place on theconsentagendaforappxovalasrecommendedbythePlanningStaff.A motion to that effect was made and passed by avoteof11eyes,0 noes,0 absent.
3
May 8,1990
ITEN NG.:B ~PIL NO.:R-5310
NARK:Flower Shop —Short Form PCD
LGCATIGN:Faix'ark Blvd,and Naz'yland Stx'eet.—SW Corner
~QZVZIO ER:ENGINEER;
The Willis Group„Inc.White-Qaters 6 Assoc.„Inc.3817 W.8th Street 401 Victory StreetLittleRock„AR 72204 Little Rock,AR 72201664-2125
AREA:0.3 Acre NUNS R OF S:3 FT.NEW STREET:
PLANNING UISTR T:9 I-630
~CBUH TRilCT:18
VARIANCES E U STED:None.
STATEN GF PRGPGSAL:
Ownex.of'he pzoperty on 9th and Faix'park Boulevazd isseekingtoresonepropeztyasaPlannedCommezcial
Uevelopment.The 1/2 acre tract has 138 foot frontage onFairpaxkBoulevardandsinglestoreresid'ential structure onthemiddleofthetract.The property has been cuxxentlyzoned0-1.
The purpose of the request is to permit the use of thepropertybyFlowerShopwithatotalof6300s.f.Theapproximate2100s.f.will be utilized for retail and sal.e.Rest of the space will be used fox woxk and storage space.
The majority of the business will be done by telephoneordex"s and delivery.
A.PRGPGS RE UES
This application involves a 0.5 acre tract of land
which is proposed for use as a retail sales outlet fozflowersandflowerarrangements.
1
Nay 8„1999
tern No.o t'e
B.E TIN GN I GNS:
The site consists of one vacant x'esidential building,
The boundary stxeets along the east and north side arealreadyinplace.
C.NCIN RING ENT
Fair Park Blvd.xeguires 1/2 of 51"pavement with curbs
and guttexs„sidewalks and buried drainage in 1/2 cf86'/W (modified minor arterial).Naxyland Avenuerequires1/2 of 27"pavement with curbs and gutters,sidewalks and buried dxainage.
B.ISSUES LEG C ES G
The several issues to be introduced.They are asfoll.ows:
The development as px'oposed does not deal with theadjacentxesidentialpropextylyingtothewest
and south in such a fashion as to buffer theeffectsofthelaxgebuildingagainstasmall "R-3"'ingle famil.y homes
2.The stxuctuxe should be designed as a flat-roof
type so as to x'educe the tots.l visible elevationofthebuildingfromthewest.
3.Nandicap ramps and one parking space should be
shown on the site plan.
E.A~NALYB
The staff view of this proposal is that the projectrequiresredesignduetoitsimpact.on the adjacentresidentialpropertiestcthewest..Thex'e axe a numberofhomestha't rear'pon this px'opex'ty.It is
oux'eelingthat.a buffering action should occur adjacenttotherearpropertylineofthosehomes.
F.ST F R GN:
Staff recommends approval subject.to compliance with
Engineering and Planning Staff comments.
2
Nay 8,1990
~SUBDIV 8 Oll
I'te,o ~o t ed
SUBBIV 8 GN CG ITT C (Apx"il 12,1990)
Nx.Willis was present.repxesenting this PCB.Jerry pardnerexplainedtoNr.Willis all street imprcvement.requi.xementsforthisproject.Nr,Willis indicated that.the Staffrecommendationspresentednoseriousproblem.
The discussion then moved to the parking lot,requirements
and design of curb cuts.The staff indicated that paxkingspacesneedtoberedesignedanddrawninscaleinox'der toestimatethenumbexofpossibleparkingspaces.
The only remaining items for discussion were the buildingsetbacksandkeepingthestructurewitharesidential
appearance design instead flat roof stx'ucture.
It was determined that the building will have no openings onthesouthandwestsideandberesidentiallookinginappearancefromtheoutside.
5 NG CGNNISS ON GN*(April 24,1996)
The staff told the Commission that the PCD needed to bedeferedtoNay8„1990 agenda because of lack of appropriatesiteplans.A motion was made to defer this application for
2 weeks.A motion was passed by vote of 9 eyes,6 noes,2absent.
P NING CONNISS ON ACTIG (Nay 8,1996)
The applicant was not present.The Planning Staff reportedthatapplicationneedstobedeferredtoadditional4weekstoal.low for adequate time to receive and review the revisedsiteplan.The Commission determined it,appropriate toplaceontheconsentagendafordefexxalasrecommended byStaff.A motion to that,effect.was made and passed by voteof11eyes,0 noes,0 absent.
3
May g,3,990,
SUBDIVISION
ITEN NO.C
NANE:West Fourth Street Right-of-way
Abandonment
IOCATION:Plateau Addition to the City ofLittleRock,Pulaski County,Arkansas,
across from Elm St.and UANS.
OWNER/APPLICANT:University of Arkansas for Medical
Sciences,Fred Narrison,Agent.
REQUEST:To abandon West.Fourth Street lying
between Bl.ocks 5 and 12,Plateau
Addition to the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County,AR approximateiy 13,870
square feet.
STAFF REVIEW:
Public Need For This Right.-of-way
The Fire Department is recommending against this
abandonment.Access to the two adj~acent apartment.
complexes will be limited,
2.Nester Street Plan
The Master,Street Plan indi.cated there exists no needforthisright-of-way.
3.Need For Right.-of-way On Adjacent Streets
There does not,exist a need for this right-of-way to
adjacent,streets to help with access and circulat.ion.
4.Characteristics of Right-of-way Terrain
This portion of right-of-way to be abandoned is
physically open.There exists.some an-street parking.
5.Development Potential
The development potential expressed to staff is forthisright.-of-way to become a part of the proposed
new research building
1
6.Neighborhood Land Use and Effect.
A numbex of land,uses surxound the site from
residential,parking lot,offices and UPS.The
effect of the abandonment would place a limitat,ion
on access and circulation to the surround.ing land
uses.
7.Neighborhood Position
No neighborhood posit.ion has been voiced to staff.No
notice is required when the petitioner is the sole
owner of the adjacent property.
8.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
1)Southwestern Bell will need to retain easement
rights until a new easement.is dedicated and
recorded on the final plat.
2)Little Rock Municipal Water Works has an 8 inch,
watex main within this right-of-way.Also,
there are two (2)fire hydrants,therefore,the
easement has to be x'stained and access to the
fire hydrants must be maintained.Any necessary
relocat.ion of watex facilities will be at
the developer's expense.
3)I ittle Rock Waste Water Utility has existing
sewer main on 4th Street.,thexefoxe,the
easement must.be retained,
9.Reversionary Rights
All x'eversionax'y rights will be extended back to the
petitioner for abandonment.
10.Public Welfax'e and Safety Issues
The abandonment of this open and used segment of
street right-of-way will return to the public
sector a land area that will be productive for the
real estate tax base.
STAFF RECGNNENBATIGN:
Staff is recommending denial of this portion of 4th Street,
for abandonment.based on the recommendation of the Fire
Department as well as the reluctance of the applicant,to
submit as paxt of this request a Planned Unit Development
detailing the overall development fox'he area,.
2
Subdivision
May 8,199G
Item Nos.C and D
PLANNING CGNNISSIGN ACT1GN:April 24,199G
City Nanagex,Tom Dalton,repx'esented the City"s interest.in
the reguest.by the University of Arkansas for Medical
Sciences to abandon two right.-of-ways.Nr.Dalton gave an
overview of the issues,as follows:
"During January,199G,a time frame was given to the Medical
Center concerning rezoning of the property from R-4,R-5 to
a major office use.In March of this year the City Staff
which consisted of the Planning Director,Asst..City Manager
Charles Mickerson and Mayor Buddy Villines again met with
UANS and reiterated the City's need for more detailed
information on the future plans for the growth of the
Medical Center.
It,is obvious to the City that UANS has future plans because
of their continued purchase of property to the north across
Narkham Street to "A"Street and the east acx'oss Elm to
Cedar Street.The purchase of these properties is becoming
intrusive upon the Woodruff and Heights/Hillcrest
neighboxhoods.
In order for any x'ight.-of-way to be abandoned,the public's
int'.crest has to be proven that none.exists.Unfortunately,it is for that.pxecise fact that the City's Planning Staff
is opposed to the abandonments.No overall plan has been
submitted for review fox subdivision and zoning regulations.
Therefox.e,the City's staff has not.been able to perform a
proper assessment,of the public interest,in regards to the
abandonments.
At.this t.ime,the City would like to change the initial
recommendation to deferral rather than denial,and request.
that UANS submit detailed plans for the City's staff to
propex'ly review.This recommendation is for both items 18
and 19.By changing the recommendat.ion,to defexral,the
plan can be reviewed according to the zoning and subdivision
regulat.iona.There is a strong concern on the City's part
regarding parking which UANS has indicated is some 9GG to
1,GGG spaces short.So,if a four-story building is added„
the City doesn't know if that increases the difference or if
the shortage remains the same.UANS has not.been up front
by coming in with an overs,ll land use plan.
3
There exists a six year plan dated 1988-1994.There are
specific strategies detailed in this plan that will have a
major planning impact.on the Woodxuff and Heights/Hillcrest
nexghborhood
Nark Stodola,City Attorney,stated that,"the detexmination
the City has made regarding the application by UANS fox the
abandonments is centered around two sets of statutes;
A)Whether the public interest and welfare is to be
advezsely affected or B)alternatively,whether the
abandonment of the public right-of-ways is necessary and
desirable.
The City concedes the fact that it is a creature of the
State and derives its powers at.the will of the State
through the State Legislature of Arkansas.
But most important.ly,a particular section ef the Arkansas
State Codes i.e,$14-56-412 (f)(1)expressly states that.
after adoption and filing of a land.use plan "no public
building or structure...oz public development or
redevelopment...shall be acguired,constructed,or
authorized unless such a project...has been submitted to the
commission for review,recommendation,and approval as toitsconformitywiththeplanandifnotinconformitywith
the plan then its disapproval of a proposal may be overruled
only by a xecorded vote of two-thirds of the full membership
of the "'submitting or authorizing body."Ark.Code.Ann.
5 14-56-432 ~(f)(1)and (2).
Aftex considerable review of the legislative intent behind
this statute information sharing between the State and City
fax'eighborhoods is cx'itical.This allows for a vehicle by
which to make clear and sound judgement on the request."
Fxed Harriso~,General Counsel for the University of
Arkansas,was in attendance to represent.the Board of
Trustees for the University of Axkansas fox'edical
Sciences,the applicant for both right-of-way abandonments.
Nr.Haxxison stated that„"he could go into great.length on
the legal issues,but.would not because he is zepresenting a
State institution which has constitutional statutory
prioxit.ies and statutory authority.This is not.the case
where someone is refusing to go through the process,"a
process that.seems so easy fox one to go through.It is
also not a situation where there has been a lot,of planning
by which you have not had anything to do with.
The University has been purchasing land across Elm for the
last 15 years and since being General Counsel for the past
five yeax's,has purchased a lot.of land.Construction and
renovations have taken place in the five years.VANS has
always been willing to work with the City"s staff in,the
4
planning process,but feels that.the State has the ultimate
authority over any construction undertaken.
As General Counsel for the State,I would hope that the
Commission wouldn't get embroiled in the legal aspects of
who has the ultimate authority over the subdivision and
zoning regulations of the City.
UANS has simply filed for the abandonment of two
rights-of-way and would ask the Commission to vote on the
request.It.deeply concerns DANS that the City would
request a deferral until UANS submits a plan fox'eview fox
which UANS feels the City has no authority over.It is
UANS'nderstanding that no City can waive State
sovereignty,There are State contxols over UANS„but only
through the Board of Trustees.All Trustee meetings are
public and any plan can be reviewed at that time.
Because of the legal statutes now in place regarding land
use as the result,of property law,the State is now requiredtosubmit.filings fox the abandonment.of any public
right-of-way.Based on this statute,UANS is asking the
Commission to vote on the abandonments and not simply defer
this request until a Planned Unit Development Plan is
submitted for review.The final decision rests with the
Board of Dixectors which UANS would prefer to deal with
regarding its right.for abandonment."
Clyde Smith,Administrator for State Building Sex'vices,
spoke about.the jurisdiction of the State for State
propexty.He stated,"by act of the legislature,
jurisdiction can not be relinquished under any
circumstances."
Dr.Gary Harper„a family physician„and a member of the
Woodruff Neighborhood Committee addressed the Commission,
He stated,"he was for the expansion of UANS but was
disappointed when UANS went in and cleared an entire City
block of houses and trees,only to replace them with a paved
1ot and one or two trees which was unsightly.The
neighborhood has met on several occasions with UANS and he
personally feels strongly that.DANS has made attempts to
listen to the neighborhood.
However,a comprehensive plan is needed to show what.
UANS'ntent.is fox'he property between Elm and Cedar.The
neighborhood would hate to get caught.between a struggle
between the City and State but some means of protecting the
neighboxhood has to be reviewed in detail.If UANS will
guarantee that.the mature trees will be left.then,yes,in
his opinion,the street abandonment.would be good and the
alley abandonment necessary."
5
Nr.Gregory Ferguson„Chairman of the Woodruff CUBC
Neighborhood Committee then addressed the Commission.
"There also were two other membexs of the neighborhood
committee present..Nr.Ferguson stated that there pxobabl.y
would have been more members of the Committee present.if the
meeting would have been held in the evening."Nr.Ferguson
stated,'"the CDBG Committee's concerns centered around UANS"
lack of interest init.ially shown to the neighborhood.In alettertoUAMStheCommitteerecommendedtheResearchCenter
be placed to the west on other State property,but.fox some
reason,that xequest was denied.The Committee would 3.ike
to be on record that.its concerns are the lack of
landscaping,traffic patterns,parking,and enforcement of
assuxances that UANS may give if the abandonments occur."
Nx's.Ruth Bell„represent.ing the League of'omen Voters,
stated,"the league"s interest is the hope that.the two
ent.ities work togethex for the betterment of all.Neither
entity can function without the other."
A Commissioner reiterated the need for both entities to work
together.Since being on the Commission the concerns
expressed to the Commission is UANS"lack of parking and
splitting out in the neighbox'hoods.The City and State has
to come together and work to resolve the problem.The City
needs UANS and UANS needs the City.
Nr.Harrison responded that„"because the City and State
have different jurisdictions,that doesn'0 mean that
discussions can not occur and pxoblems resolved.The Board
of Trustees are concerned too about the parking,but the
State has certain statutes which must be protected."
At this time,the legalities of the City's xights and theState's rights were discussed among Mr,Stodola and
Nr.Harrison,Both felt that theix.interpretation of the
statutes were correct..The only point that.the City was
willing to concede to is the fact that.after the State has
gone through the px'ocess,a 2/3 vote of the Trustees can
overrule any decision rendered by the City.
A Commissioner then asked the City Attorney "How does the
City propose to bxing this issue to a head'2 Is it.thxough
the requested deferral and the consequence the Board of
Trustees may take ox is there another pxocess that by
al.lowing for a short.deferral would xesolve the issueFe
Nx,Stodola stated,"that:would be up to UAMS.Gbviously,
UANS has conceded that the City has some jurisdiction or
they wouldn't be before the Commission with the abandonment
request,the City fails to understand that if the City has
no jurisdiction over the landi use regarding subdivision and
zoning„why then would there exist,jurisdiction over the
abandonment of public right-of-ways.The question is a
6
determination ultimately an whether ox nat.the publiawelfareandinterest.is heing adversely affected.Adeferralwauldhethemastappropriateaction."
Nr.Harrison stated,"tihe reason why the State is before the
Commission is public rights versus private rights."
A considerable amount.of discussion continued xegarding theattitudeoftheStatetowardtheCityregulations,and theCity's att.itude regarding the State's jux'i.sdiction.Mr.
Haxrisan was then asked if UANS would he willing to gothroughanypublicreviewoftheplanfortheIResearch
Buildi.ng,Nr.Harrison stated that.he vas under theimpressionthattlheihearingtadayvasforthat,purpose.He,as General Caunsel„could riot.speak fox the Baard afTrusteesanwhethertheywouldbewillingtogathrough anyatherpracess.Simply stated,he does not have the
authox'ity to agree or disagree to fux'ther detailed xeview bytheCity.Then Nr.Harrison was asked vhat type of land use
requirements does the State use.Basically all land usereviewisbytheBoardofTrusteesandrelyonthearchitectshiredlbytheUniversity.Ultimately what is
approved is the location,design and contract.
The Acting-Chairman stated that it appeaxs the Commission
was getting away fxom the rights-of-way ahandanment issues.
A representative af the State stated that.the City had
reviewed the plan.In fact,it was the City wha suggestedthat.4th Street.be closed.The six year plan Nr.Daltonreferredtoearliex's the plan.The City knows as much
about what UAMS'uture plans are as the Baaxd of Trustees.
iMr.Dalton then stated that vhat has been told tc him is Ithefactthatjust.in the past few years the plan has changed at,least faux times.It's that uncertainty an UANS'art that
tihe City is most concerned about and is requesting thedeferral.The six year plan indicates a parking assessment.
study being done before any new building constructionoccurs.Ta the City's knowledge,no study Ihas been dane.
As City Manager he would suggest,to the Board again far adefexralinordertoallowfortheCityStaffandUAMSStafftameetandaddresstwoissues,parking and the continuedacquisitianaflandinthesurroundingneighborhoods.This
would at least allow tlhe City's staff to formulate someconsistant.recommendation to offer the Commission.
Mx'.Harrison reiterated that as a representative of the
Board af Trustees,UANS would prefer a vote for appxaval ardenial.A Commissianex'hen asked if UANS was undex same
type of restx'aints ta begin construction.Nr,HarrisonstatedtheBaaxdofTrusteeshasgivenauthoritytoproceed
with the process as quickly as possible.Any deferral ar
delay possibly would he detrimental to the praject.
7
City Manager Dalton stated that all the issues regarding theFireDepartment,abjectians have been xesolved,but,it's that
fact that the different City depaxtments axe contacted
individually rathex than all departments reviewing the
issues as a group that the City is requesting again thedeferral.
George Wittenbex'g,Axchitect for the project,stated he was
unsure as to what the City was xequesting.lt is his policytagotatheCitywheneveranyprajectisundertakentofind
out about the different rules and regulations.He has met
several times with the City departments and the
neighborhoods.If a defexxal is granted short af having the
pxapexty rezoned,thexe would nat be anything done
differently than what.has already been done,If the
Commission feels that the proper rezaning is needed then
give him the information for the Planned Unit Development
process.
A Cammissionex'hen stated that all the needed infarmation
fram the City's part.has nat been fulfilled.Maybe the PUD
process would Ibe good for both entities.Continued
discussion occurred regardinq the time limit,an deferral.
After which a motion was then made to defer bath
rights-of-way abandonments fax a period af two weeks.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes,1 nay,2 abstentions,
(Perkins and Clesan),and 2 absent.Therefare,the
abandonments will be back before the Planning Cammissian on
Nay 8,1990.
PLANNING CGMNISSION ACTIGN:May 8,1999
The applicant,was represented by Fred Harrison,General
Counsel fax the Board of Trustees af the university of
Arkansas.Several members of the University of Axkansas far
Medical Sciences staff were also in attendance.There were
no abjectoxs present.
Jim Lawson,Planning Directax gave ta the Cammission the
City's recommendation af approval far both abandonments
conditioned upon certain conditions and commitments
guaranteed by U.A.N.S.Mr.Lawson stated that a meeting had
been held between the City staff and Mr.Harry P.Ward„
Chancellor of U.A.M.S.where a lot of the concerns the City
staff and neighborhood had been resolved.Included in the
packet of information given to each Commissioner wexe
letters fram the Woodruff neiqhbarhood and a letter fram
U.A.N.S.containing six commitments.A major concern af the
City was the impact,af the new researclh ibuilding an the
8
neighborhood.Jim Lawson then detailed each of the six
commitments listed in U.A.N.Ss letter.
George Wittenberg,architect for the project,then addressed
the Commission on detailing of the site plan and landscapingplan.
Jim Lawson further stated that the six commitments,
site/landscape plans will be incorporated within thestructureoftheordinanceforthepurposeoffuturereferences.
Some discussion occurred regarding the parking deficiency.
Jim Lawson stated that the City manager and Chancellor Nard
both had made commitments to share in the cost for adetailedparkingstudytobedoneforU.A.N.S.A more
intense police patrol along with signage will begin to
prevent future intrusions of the parking problem on the
neighborhood,
A motion was then made to approve both items C and D
conditioned upon the list,of six commitments from U.A.N.S.
along with the site/landscape plan.The motion passed by avoteof10ayes,0 nays,1 abstention (Perkins),0 absent..
9
QR
University of
Arkansas
for Medical
Nr.Tom D.Dalton
City Nanager
office of the City Ball
ChanceBoy Narkham at BroadwayLittleRock„AR 72291
RE:DANS Expansion CommitmentsMartSlot541
Little Rock,Arkansas
72205-7199 Dpaz'z ~Dalton 1
(501)586-5689 This letter is t«t set.forth the additional understandings
and information we have submi.tted which you requested as
college of teedrcme part of the alley and 4th Street.closure application fox the
col le e of Pharmac UANS z'eseaz'ch facility.The following are the utl«lez stand-
ixlgs and assllx sauces 1
College ot Nurwng
cottage of 1.The current VANS Campus Facilities Plan envisions theHealthRelatedProfessronslocationoftheBiomedicalResearchCenterbetweenElm
Drmsron ol the and Cedar Street:s as one of the last major planned
Graduate Schcol eastward expansions of the UANS current.ly to be under-
Umsersrty Hospiital taken within the cozxidor bounded by Cedax'nd ElmStreets.The plan also notes that:expansion ofAmhulatoryCareCenteroutpatientactivit.ies may be looted between C'edar and
Cond Study Center Elm and 5th and 6th Streets.There are,however,no
Area Heat!h Educ a ten Centers current plans actively underway for such a facility.
You are also aware that,the block south of the researchfacilityhasbeenmentionedasapossiblesitefora
parkilng deck.
2.The current UANS Campus Facilities Plan envisions someacguisitionnorthofNarkhamwhichwouldbelimitedtoofficesupportfacilities.No major zesearch or majormedicalfacilitiescuz.zently are planned north of
INarkham.
3.The construction of tihe Biomedical Research Center wil:
Ibe constxucted in conf'ormance with the Wittenberg,
Delony 5 Davidson site plan dated Naxch 26,1990,andreviewedbythePlanningCommissionoftheCityofLittleRock,
4.The Boaz'd of Trustees of the University of Arkansas atitsNay4,1999,meeting has given its assurances that
tlhe Biomedical Research Center's landscaping andbufferingwillbeinstalledandmaintainedinconfor-
mance with the tgittenberg,Delony 5 Davidso~landscap-
ing plan dated Nay3,1996,and reviewed by the Planning
Commission of the City of Little Rock.
Ertuaf Opportunity Employer
Nr.Dalton
Page 2
Nay 8„1990
5.The alley (to be partially closed)will be terminatednorthoftheproposedResearchCenterandwillnotcon-nect to Cedar.
6.It is understood that due to budgetary constraints inthebiddingprocess,there may be minor architectural
changes to the biomedical building,but,no substantial
changes will be made to the landscaping and buf'fering
plan without.first.reviewing such changes with the
Planning Director of the City of Little Rock.
The UANB understands that the City feels that the impact ofthestreetandalleyclosuresandexpansionoftheNedicalCenterinproximityoftheadjoiningneighborhoodswillbe
minimized by the above.
Sincerely,
Harry P.War8,N.D.
Chancellor
HPM:ae
cc:Nr,Nichael J.Dwyer
Execut.ive Director'or Campus Gperations
I have read and concur with the above understandings.
T Dalton„ity Nanager ate
ty of Little Rock
"lap 8 vv 48 ~aQ lives Hal a Law pxtrn ae x-Rws —%&%le
eregery Pergmsem
RS17 w.Capital.AvenueLititleReekyArkansas7RQSS
Nay S,1990
Little Reck Planning Cammissien
City Ball
401 W.NarkhamLittleRock,Arkansas 7'ZZ03,
To Wham Xt Nay Concerns
I wau14 like to address ths issue af the U.A.N.S,street andalleyclosureswhicharepxeseatlybeferethePlanningCammissien.
At your last meeting I spake to yeu veicin9i the concerns af the
Weodruff School CDSG Committee regarding tbe proposed new researchfacility.
Since your last,meeting,I have attended a meeting with theLittleRackPi,arming Staff and U.A.N,.S.representatives at which
time the nsighbarhoad concerns were again addxssssd and assurances
given tc meet aur cencerns.I also appeared at this University of
Arkansas Saard ef Trustees meeting in Little Rock I.ast.Pxiday andexpressedaurconcernsta«ham.We received a strong commitment
fram them te the landscapi.ng and green strip concept buffering the
noighberhaod fram t.he new research buildling.Tha Beard alsodirectedchance1lor'Nard to try and wark with the neighborhoodclaselyinfuturedevelepment,though we did net obtain a seat ontheirPaci1itiesPlanningC~issien as we had requested.
The Woodruff Schoel CDSS Neighborhood C~ittee met Monday,
May 7,1990,and at that meeting discussed aad aonsi4*red the siteplansaftheproposedresearchfacilitywithU.A.N.S.Representative Mike Dwyer an4 george Wittanberg„Architect for thepra)ect.We wexe infarmsd that the architect and the landscapeengineerwouldbeworkingwithusintbefutureregardingtheparticularsofthelandscapeplansandtibetwewouldhavefurther
input as ths prefect develops.
There was ai,sa considerable d,iscussian concerning tbs alleyclesurs.The cansensus was that the C~ittee felt a turneut ante
Cedar Stx'eet would be dangeraus beth fer traffic on Cedar Street,
snd fer people turning out af the alley.Alee such a cut.in tha
Cedar Street sids »auld be contrary to aux plan of insulating the
neighborhood fram ths effects of t,he U.A.N.S.property.We felt
that.a tuxnareund,would be far and away the bettex'encept and we
endorsed a plan envisioning such a turnaraand
After a discussion of tlhe issues,ths committee vets4
1aM s "'to I 4 ~es l%'ee ea'I a K aw s t wm %%1 —s'P'R —Kas e
x ittle Rosh Rlsnaiag c~issioa
Nay Ss 1%%0
page
unaniaoesly to seyyert the agreeaeat,betueen U.A.R.S.and the CJ.tyoftittLeRoshassetforthinthesgreaeentletter.Ne outed toendorseth»site ylaa,laadsoaye design and allay turnaroundproposals.Wa appreciate heing included in ths planning stages ofthisdeveloyaentaadoaoeagainfeelthatitisineveryone's hest,i.nterast,to worh herasaieaeiy froa the beginning stages.
Chairs',Woodruff Scbool CPSO
QP:Lw
I
Nay 8,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEN NO.D
NAME".A portion of the alley in Block 5,
Plateau Additicn
LOCATION;The Woodruff Area acxoss from the
University of Arkansas for Medical
Sciences and Elm St.
OWNER/APPLICANT:University of Arkansas for Medical
Sciences„Fxed Harrison,Agent.
REQUEST:To abandon a port.ion of a 16'lley
lying between Lots 9 and 18 Plat.eau
Addition to the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County,Arkansas approximately
4GGG sq.ft.
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Public Need For This Right-of-way
The Little Rock Fire Depaxtment recommends against
abandonment of this portion of right.-of-way due to
the fact that„if abandoned,only one right-of-way
access will remain open which is Elm St.to serve
two apartment complexes.
2.Master Street.Plan
Review of the Waster Street.Plan indicated no need for
this portion of right-of-way to be abandoned.
3.Need For Right-of-way On Adjacent.Streets
There does exist.a need fox'his portion of
x'ight-of-way on the adjacent streets for the purpose
of access to the adjacent.pxopexties and stxeets.
4.Characteristics of Right-of-way Texrain
This portion of alley right-of-way to be abandoned is
physically open from West Fourth Street.to Plateau
Stxeet..
5.Development Potential
The development potential expressed to staff is fox
this poxt.ion of right-of-way to become a part of the
proposed new research building,
6.Neighborhood Land Use and Effect.
A variety of uses surround this portion cf right.-of-way
to be abandoned fxom residential,commercial to the
University of Arkansas fax Medical Sciences.The
effects placed on these uses,if closed,will be
limited access and circulation.
7.Neighbolhood Position.
As of this writing no neighborhood position has been
voiced to staff.No notice is required when the
petitioner is the sole owner of tbe adjacent,
properties.
8.Effect on Public Sexvices or Utilities
1)Arkansas Power and Light Company will need to
retain easement xights in the portion of
right-of-way to be abandoned until the University
of Arkansas for Medical Sciences takes title to
all paxcels adjacent.to the proposed abandonment.
2)Southwestern Bell Telephone will need to retain
easement rights until a new easement is dedicated
and recorded on the final plat.
3)Little Rock Waste Water Ut.ility has an existing
sewer main.Therefore,the easement.must.be
retained.
9.Reversionaxy Rights
All xevexsionary rights will be extended to the
Univexsi.ty of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.
1G.Public Welfare and Safety Issues
The abandonment of this open and used segment of alley
right.-of-way will return to the private sector a land
area that.will be product.ive for the real estate tax
base.
2
STAFF RECDNNENDATIDN:
Staff is recommending denial of this right-of-way
abandonment.based on the recommendation from the Fire
Department as well as the reluctance of the applicant to
submit,as part of this request,a Planned Unit Development
detailing the overall development for the area.
3
Subdivision
Nay 8,199Q
Item Nos.C and D
PLANNING CONNI SION ACTION'pril 24,199Q
City Nanager,Tom Dalton,represented the City's interest in
the request by the University of Arkansas for NedicalSciencestoabandontworight-of-ways.Nr.Dalton gave an
overview of the issues,as follows:
"During January,1.990,a t.ime frame was given to the Nedical
Center concerning rezoning of the property from R-4,R-5 to
a major office use.In Nax'ch of this year the City Staff
which consisted of the Planning Directox,Asst.City NanagexCharlesNickersonandNayoxBuddyVillinesagainmetwith
DANS and reiterated the City's need for more detailed
information on the future plans for the gx'owth of the
Medical Center.
It.is obvious to the City that DANS has future plans becauseoftheircontinuedpurchaseofpropertytothenorthacross
Naxkham Stx'eet.to "A"Stx'eet.and the east.acx'oss Elm to
Cedar Stx'eet,.The purchase of these properties is becomingintrusiveupontheWoodruffandHeights/Hillcrest
neighborhoods.
In order'or any right-of-way to be abandoned,the public'sinteresthastobeproventhatnoneexists.Unfortunately„it is for that precise fact that the City's Pla~ning Staffisopposedtotheabandonments.No overall plan has been
submitted for xeview for subdivision and zoning regulations.Therefore,the City's staff has not been able to perform a
proper assessment.of the public interest in regards to the
abandonments.
At this t.ime,the City would like to change the initial
recommendation to deferral rather than denial,and reguest.that DANS submit detailed plans for the City's staff to
px'operly xeview.This recommendation is for both items 18
and 19.By changing the recommendat.ion to deferxal,the
plan can be reviewed according to the zoning and subdivisionregulations.There is a strong concern on the City's paxt
regarding parking which UANS has indicated is some 9oo to
1,QQQ spaces short..So,if a four-story building is added,the City doesn'.know if that increases the difference or if
@he shortage remains the same.UANS has not been up front,
by coming in with an overall land use plan.
There e~ists a six year plan dated 1988-1994.There axespecificstrategiesdetailedinthisplanthat.will have a
major planning impact on the Woodxuff and Heights/H113.crestneighborhood."
Nark Stodola,City Attorney,stated that,"the determinationtheCityhasmadexegaxdingtheapplicationbyUANSforthe
abandonments is centered around two sets of statutes;
A)Whethex"the public interest and welfare is to be
advex'eely affected or B)alternatively,whether the
abandonment of the public right-of-ways is naca~sary anddesirable,
The City concedes the fact that,it is a creature of theStateandderivesitspowersatthe.will of the State
through the State Legislature of Arkansas.
But most importantly,a particular section of the ArkansasStateCodesi.e.5 14-56-412 (f)(1)expressly states thatafteradoptionandfilingofalanduseplan,"no publicbuildingorstructure...or public development ox"
redevelopment...shall be acguixed,constructed,or
authorized unless sucih a project...has been submitted to the
commission for review„recommendation,and approval as toitsconformitywiththeplanandifnotinconfoxmitywith
the plan then its disapproval of a pxoposal may be overxuled
only by a recoxded vote of two-thirds of the full membershipofthe"submitt.ing or authorizing body."Ax'k.Code.Ann,14-56-412 (f)(1)and (2).
After considerable review of the legislative intent behindthisstatuteinformationsharingbetweentheStateandCityforneighborhoodsiscritical.This allows for a vehicle by
whiclh to make clear and sound judgement.on the xeguest.."
Fred Harrison,General Counsel for the University of
Arkansas,was in attendance to xepresent the Board of
Trustees for the University of Axkansas for Medical
Sciences,the applicant fax'both right.-of-way abandonments.
Nr.Haxxison stated that„"he could gc into great length on
the legal issues,but.would not.because he is repx'esenting aStateinstitut.ion which Ihas const.itutional statutorypriorit.ies and statutory authoxity.This is not.the case
where someone is x'efusing to go through the process;
px'ocess that seems so easy fox one to go thxough.It isalsonotasituationwheretherehasbeenalotofplanning
by which you have not.had anything to do with.
The University has been puxchasing land across Elm for thelast15yearsandsincebeingGeneralCounselforthepastfiveyears,has purchased a lot of land.Construction and
reinovations have taken place in the five years.'UAMIS has
always been willing to work with the City's staff in the
5
planning process,but feels that.the State has the ult.imateautharityaveranyconstructianundertaken.
As General Counsel far the State,I wauld hope that.the
Commission vauldn*t get,emhroiled in the legal aspects of
viho has the ultimate autharity over the suhdivisian and
soning regulat.ians af the City,
UANS has simply filed for the abandonment of tworights-of-vay and would ask the Commission to vote on therequest.It.deeply concerns UANS that the City would
request a deferral until UANS submits a plan far review fax
which UANS feels the City has na authority over,It.is
UANS'nderstanding that.no City can waive State
savereignty.There are State controls over UANS,but only
through the Board af Trustees.All Trustee meetings are
public and any plan can be reviewed at that time.
Because of the legal statutes now in place regaxding land
use as the result af property lav,the State is now requiredtasubmit.filings for the abandonment of any publicrigiht-of-way.Based on this statute,UANS is asking the
Commission to vote on the abandonments and not simply defer'this request.unt,il a Planned Unit.Development Plan is
submitted far review.The final decision rests vith the
Board of Directors vhich UANS would prefer ta deal with
regarding its right.far abandanment..«
Clyde Smith,Administrator fax State Building Services,
spoke ahaut.the jurisdiction af the State for State
praperty.He stated,"by act of the leglslaturepjurisdictioncannotberelinquishedunderanycircumstances."
Dr.Gary Harper,a family physician,and a membex of the
Woodruff Neighborhood Committee addressed the Cammission.
He stated,«he was for the expansion af UANS but.was
disappointed when UANS went in and cleared an entixe City
block af houses and trees,only to replace them with a pavedlatandoneartwotreeswhichvasunsightly.The
neighborhood has met an sevex"al occasions with UANS and he
persanally feels strangly that.UANS has made attempts tolistentotheneighborhood.
However'„a comprehensive plan is needed ta shaw what
UANS'ntentisfarthepropertybetweenElmandCedar.The
neighborhood would hate to get caught.between a struggle
between the City and State but some means of protecting the
neighbarhaod has ta be reviewed in detail.If UANS will
guarantee that t:he mature txees will he left then,yes,inhisopinion,the street abandanment would he gaad and the
alley abandonment,necessary.«
6
Nx.Gregory Ferguson,Chairman of the Woodruff CUBG
Neighbarhaad Committee then addressed the Commission.
"There also were twa other members af the neighbarhaad
committee pxesent.,Nr.Ferguson stated that there pzabably
would have been mare members of the Cammittee present if the
meeting would have been held in the evening."Nr.Fergusonstated,"the CDBG Cammittee"s concerns centered araund
UAMS'ackofinterestinitiallyshowntothemeighbarhaad.In alettertaUAMStheCommitteerecommendedtheResearchCenter
be placed to the west.on ather State property,but for somereasan„that request.was denied.The Committee would liketobeanrecardthat.its concerns are the lack af
landscaping,traffic patterns,parking,and enfarcement of
assurances that,UAMS may give if the abandonmemts occur."
Mrs.Ruth Bell,representimg the League of Women Voters,stated,"the league's intex'est.is the hape that the twoentitieswarktagetherfarthebettermentofall.Neither
entity can function withaut the other."
A Commissioner zeitexated the need faz both entities ta worktogether.Since being on the Cammissiom the concerns
expressed to the Commission is UAMS'ack of paxking andsplittingout.im the neiglhborhoods.The City and State hastocometogetherandworktoresolvethepzablem.The City
needs UAMS amd UAMS needs the City.
Mr.Harrison responded that,"because the City and State
have di.ffexent.jurisdictions,that.doesn't mean that.
discussions can not occur and pxoblems resolved.The BoardafTrusteesareconcernedtooabout'the parking,but theStatehascextaimstatuteswhichmust.be pratected."
At this time,the legalities of the City's x'ights and theState's rights were discussed among Nr,Stadola and
Nr.Marrison.Bath felt tlhat their intexpxetation of thestatuteswerecorrect..The only point that the City was
willing to concede ta is the fact.that.after the State has
gone through the process,a 2/3 vote of the Trustees can
overrule any decision rendered by the City.
A Commissioner then asked tlhe City Attorney eNaw does the
City pzapose to bring this issue to a head'P Is it through
the requested deferral and the consequence the Board of
Tzustees may take or is there anathex pxacess that.by
allawing for a short deferral would resolve the issueg"
Nr.Stodola stated,"that would be up ta UAMS.Obviously,
UANS has conceded that.the City has some jurisdiction or
they wouldn',be before the Commission with the abandonment
request.,the City fails to understand that.if the City has
no jurisdiction over the land use xegarding subdivision and
zoning,why then would there exist juzisdiction aver the
abandanment.of public right.-af-ways.The quest.ion is a
7
determinatian ultimately an whethex ax not the publi.c
welfax'e and interest i.s being adversely affected.A
deferral would be the mast.appropriate
action.4'r.
Harrisan stated„"the reason why the State is befax'e the
Commission is public rights vexsus private rights."
A cansiderab3.e amount.af discussion continued regarding the
att.itude of the State toward the City regulations,and the
City's attitude regarding the state's jurisdiction.Nr.
Harxisan was then asked if UANS would be wi3.ling ta go
thxaugb any public review of the plan for the Research
Building.Nr.Harrison stated that he was under the
impression that the hearing today was for that purpose.He,
as General Counsel,cauld nat speak far the Board af
Trustees on whether they would be willing ta ga through any
ather pxacess,Simply stated,he does nat have the
authority to agree or disagree to further detailed review by
the City.Then Nr.Haxrisan was asked what type of land use
requirements dace the State use.Basically a3.3.land use
review is by tbe Board of Trustees end rely on the
architects hired by the University.Ultimately what is
approved is the location,design and contract.
The Act.ing-Chairman stated that.it.appears the Commission
was getting away from the rigbts-of-way abandanment issues.
A representative af the State stated that tbe City had
reviewed the plan.In fact,it.was the City who suggested
that 4th Street be c3.osed.The six year plan Mx.Dalton
referred ta earlier is the plan.Tbe City knows as much
about what.UAMS'uture p3.ans are as the Board af Trustees.
Nr.Ualtan then stated that what.has been told ta him is the
fact that just in the past few years the plan has changed at,
least four times.It's that uncertainty an UANS'art that,
the City is mast,concerned about and is xeguesting the
defexral.The six year plan indicates a parking assessment
study being dane before any new building construction
occurs.To the City"s knowledge,no study has been done.
As City Manager he would suggest to the Board again far a
deferral in order ta allow for the City Staff and UANS Staff
to meet and.address twa issues,parking and the cont.inued
acgu.isition of 3.and in the surrounding neighborhoads.This
would at.3.east a13.aw the City's staff to formulate same
consistant recommendation ta affer the Commission.
Nx.Harrison reiterated that as a representative of the
Board of Trustees,UANS would prefer a vate for appraval ax
denial.A Commissioner then asked if UAMS was under same
type af restx'aints ta begin construction.Nr.Harrison
stated the Boaxd of Trustees has given authority to proceed
with the pracess as guickly as possib3.e.Any deferral or
de3.ay possibly would be detrimental to the pxoject.
s3
City Nanager Dalton stated that all the issues regarding theFireDepartmentobjectionshavebeenresolved.,but it's thatfactthatthedifferentCitydepartmentsarecontacted
individually rather than all departments reviewing the
issues as a group that the City is requesting again thedeferral.
George Nittenberg„Axchitect fax the project,stated he was
unsure as to what the City was xequest.ing.It is his policytogototheCitywheneveranypxojectisundertakentofind
out about the different rules and regulations.He has met
several times with the City departments and the
neighborhoods.If a deferral is granted short of havi.ng the
property rezoned,there would not be anything done
differently than what.has already been done.If the
Commissio~feels that the proper rexoning is needed then
give him the information for the Planned Unit Development
px'ocean
A Commissioner then stated that all the needed information
fxom the City's pert.has not been fulfilled.Naybe the PUD
process would be good for both entities.Continued
discussicn occurred regarding the time limit.on deferral.
Aftex which a motion was then made to defer both
rights-of-way abandonments fox a period cf two weeks.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes,1 nay,2 abstentions,
(Perkins and Oleson),and 2 absent..Therefore,the
abandonments will be back before the Planning Commission cn
Nay 8,1990.
PLANNING CONNISSIOH ACTION;Nay 8,1990
The applicant.was represented by Fred Harrison,General
Counsel fox the Hoard of Trustees of the university of
Axkansas.Sevexal members of the University of Arkansas fax.
Nedical Sciences staff were also in attendance.There were
no objectors present.
Zim Lawson,planning Director gave to the Commission theCity's recommendation of approval for both abandonments
conditioned upon certain conditions and commitments
guaranteed by U.A.N.S.Nr.Lawson stated that a meeting had
been held between the City staff and Nx.Harry P.Nard„
Chancellor of U.A.N.S.where a lot of the concerns the Citystaffandneighborhoodhadbeenresolved.Included in the
packet of information given to each Commissioner werelettersfromtheWoodruffneighborhoodandalettex'rom
U.A.N.S.containing six commitments.A majox concern of the
City was the impact of the new research bui.lding on the
9
neighborhood.Jim Lawson then detailed each of the six
commitments listed in U.A.N.Ss letter.
George Nittenberg,architect for the project,then addressed
tbe Commission on detailing of the site plan andi landscaping
plan.
Zim Lawson further stated that the six commitments,
site/landscape plans will be incoxpoxated within the
structure of the cxdinance for the pux'pose of futux'e
xeferences.
Some discussion occurred regarding the paxking deficiency.
Jim Lawson stated that the City manager and Chancellor Ward
both had made commitments to sihare in the cost,for a
detailed parking study to be done for U.A.N.S.A more
intense police patrol along with signage will begin to
prevent future intrusions of the parking problem on the
neiglhboxhood.
A motion was then made to approve Iboth items C and I0
conditioned upon the list.of six commitments from U.A.N.S.
along with the site/landscape plan.The motion passed by a
vote of 10 ayes,0 nays,1 abstention (Perkins),0 absent.
10
+R
University of
Arkstnsfts
for Medical
Nr.Tom D.Dalton
City Nanager
Gftioe of ihe City Ball
Chancelloy Narkham at BxoadwayLittleRock,AR 72201
iREI UANS Expansion CommitmentsMailSlot541
Little Rock,Arkansas
IggtI5-Itgg iDear Nr.Balt on:
(561 )686-5680 This letter is to set forth the additional understandings
and information we have submitted which you xequested as
CoiiegeotMedicine Part of the alley and 4th Street closure application fox the
UANS reseax'ch facility.The following are the understand-incts rsIlld asstlxanices:
College of rvursrng
conegeof 1.Tihe curx'ent UANS Campus Facilities Plan env'isions theHealthRelatedprotessionslocationoftheBiomedicalResearchCenterbetweenElm
Orvfsion of the and Cedar Streets as one of the last major planned
Graduate School eastwaxd expansions of the UANS currently to be under-
University Hospital taken within the corx'idor bounded by Cedar and ElmStreets.The plan also notes that expansion ofAmhuistoryCareCenteroutpatientactivitiesmaybelootedbetweenCedar and
Child Study Center Elm and 5th and 6th Streets.There are,however,no
Ares I-lsslth Education Centers current plans actively underway for such a facility.
You are also aware that.the block south of the researchfacilityhasbeenmentionedasapossiblesitefoxa
paxkxIllg deck
2.The current.UANS Campus Facilities Plan envisions someacquisitionnoxthofNarkhamwhichwouldbelimitedtoofficesupportfacilit.ies.No major research or majormedicalfacilit.ies cux"x'ent.ly are planned nox.th of
Narkham.
3.The construction of the Biomedical Research Center willbeconstructedinconformancewiththeWittenberg„
Delony 6 Davidson site plan dated Narch 26,1990,andreviewedbythePlanningCommissionoftheCityofLittleRock.
4.The Hoax'd of Trustees of the University of Arkansas atitsNay4,1990„meeting has given its assurances thattheBiomedicalResearchCentex's landscaping andbufferingwillbeinstalledandmaintainedinconfor-
mance with the Nittenbexg,Delony 6 Bavidscn landscap-
ing plan dated Nay3,1990,and xeviewed by the Planning
Commission of the City of Little Rock.
Equal Opponunity Employer
Kx .Dalton
Page 2
May 8,199Q
5.The alley (to be partially closed)will be terminated
north of the proposed Research Center and will not.con-nect to Cedax.
6.It is understood that due to budgetaxy constraints inthebiddingpxocess,there may be minor architectural
changes to the biomedical building,but no substantial
changes will be made to the landscaping and buffering
plan without.first reviewing such changes with the
Planning Director of the City of Little Rock.
The DANS understands that the City feels that the impact ofthestreet.and alley closures and expansion of the MedicalCentex'n proximity of the adjoining neighborhoods will be
minimized by the above.
Sincerely,
/
Harry P.War ,M.D.
Chancellor
HPM:ae
cc:Mr.Michael J.Dwyer
Executive Director for Campus Gperations
I have xead and concux with the abo~e understandings.
T Dalton,ity Manager ate
ty of Little Rock
aav 6 9'8 1 e ~oo xvse Ha I e maw F xrm Ke 1-RKR —sees
eregsry Pergusoa
2S17 w Capitol AvenueLittleRssk,Arkansas 72205
Nay Oi lg$0
Little Rock Planning Commission
City Wall
401 W.NaxkbamLittleRock,Arkansas 7220il
To Whom Xt Nay Concern.
1 would like to addxess th»issue of tbe U.A.N.B.street andalleyclosureswhicharepresentlybeforethePlanningCommission,
At your last meeting x spoke to you voicing tbe concexns of the
woodxuff school CUBG Cosxaittes regarding the yroposed new researchfaci1ity.
Since youx last meeting,I have attended a meeting with theLittleRockplanningstaffandU.A,.N.S.reyxesentatives at which
time the neighborhood concerns were again addressed and assurances
given to meet oux concerns.I also appeared at the University of
Arkansas Board of Trustees meeting in Little Rock last Priday and
expressed oux'oncerns to thema.We received a strong commitment
from them to the landscaping and green strip concept buffering the
neighborhood from the nsw reseax'ch building.The Board alsodirectedChancellorWardtctryandwoxkwiththsneighborhoodcloselyinfuturedevelopment,though we dM not obtain a,seat ontheirFacilitiesPlanningCommissionaswehadregussted.
The Woodruff School CUSS Neighborhood Committee met Nonday,
Nay 7,1990,and at that meeting discussed and consMered tihe site
plans of the pxopoasd research f«cility with U.A.N.S.Representative Nike Dwyer and george 'Wittsnberg,Axchitect for thepro9ect.We were informed that tbs architect and the landscape
engineer wouM be working with us in the futux'e regarding tbeparticularsofthelandscayeplansandthatwewouldhavefurther
inyut as the project develops,
Thex'e was also consMerable discussion concerning the alleyclosure.The consensus was that the C~ittee felt a turnout,onto
Cedar Street wouLS be dangex'ous both for traffic on Cedar Str«et
and for people turning out of tbe alley.Also such a cut,in tbe
Cedar Street sMs would be contxary to our ylan of insulating the
neighborhood from the effects of the U.A.N.s.property.ws felt
that a tuxnaround wouM be far and away the better concept and we
endorsed a plan envisioni.ng such a turnaround.
After a discussion of the issues,ths Commi,ttss voted
4a,v e se &e ~se $%ee mal e L,aw I 4 rm s 0 l.—B&s —as ~0 P
x.ittls Rack planailiep c~issios
May Sg 19%9
Page
nnaniaoasly to sapyort the ayreeaeat between U.A.M,R.and the CiltyofLittleRockassetforthIstkea4yreesantletterRevotedtoendorsethesiteplan,landscape desifn and alley tornaroundproposals.%s appreciate heine iaolsded in t.he planning stsq*s ofthisdeveloysaentaadonceaRainfeelthatitisineveryone'bestinteresttosorkharsoelouslyfreeth»heoinning stages .
erector@ Ferguson
Chairaan,Noodr@ff School CDSO
eZ:1»
Nay 8,1990
Item No I --4464-A
0wner:Jae D.White,et.al.
Applicant:Joe D.White
Location:Noxthwest.Corner of Chanel
Paxkway and Autumn Road
Request Rezone from eR 2l to
ill'C 3 e
Purpose:commexcial
Size:2.37 Acres
Exist.ing Use:Vacant
SURRDUNDING LAND USE AN Z0 INC:
Narth —Vacant and Single Family,zoned "R-2"
Sauth -Vacant.,zoned "R-2e
East,—Vacant.,zoned
"C-3"'est—Vacant:,zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS.
The pxopexty in question is lacated at the Northwest corneroftheChenalParkwayandAutumnRoad,and the request is torezonethe2.4 acres from "R-2"to "c-3'".No specific use
hae been identified at.this time othex than some type afretail.or commercial use.The site is vacant,but at one
time there was a residential stx'ucture on a portion af it.
Zoning in the general vicinity is "R-2","0-2""C-3"and"0-S".Iand use is primarily single family with very little
nonresidential development.There is a church to the eastofAutumnRoad(C.U.P.Z-4652)and a medical facility is
planned for the southeast corner of Autumn Road and Chanel
Paxkway.Some af the land is still vacant,including the"'0-2"and "C-3"at the northeast earner af Chenal Parkway
and Autumn Road.
At this point„some additional commentary is in order abaut.
the existing zoning at Chenal Parkway and Autumn Road
intersection because of its history.The "C-3"land at the
southeast and nartheast corners of the intersection
I
Nay 8,1998
0 ——64-n't hued
was accomplished by a court decree as paxt of an annexationlawsuit.The court action occurred in 1984 and reclassified
approximately 12 to 13 acres (a total of 5 lots)at theintersection.The xezoning was in direct conflict with the
adopted plan and done without input from the staff ox"the
Planning Commission.The "C-3"(2-4421)dixectly to theeastwasrezonedin1985.Staff did not support therequest,however,the "C-3s was endorsed by the Planning
Commission because of the pxoposed Parkway and its impact.onthe"C-3"tract to the south and plans to combine the twoparcels.
The I-438 District Plan does not,identify the,site for
commercial use and staff does not support the proposed "c-3""request.The Plan does recognize the existing "C-3"attheintersection,but the xeminder of the land north of the
Parkway and adjacent to Autumn Road is shown for office use)the recommended office axea also extends to Bowman Road.
Several years ago,a plan amendment was approved thatestablishedtheofficeareanorthoftheParkwaywith a
mixed residential area to the south and west of Autumn Road.
From Shackleford Road to Autumn Road,the Plan xecommends a
combination of office and commercial uses.Staff views the
Parkway as an office corridor fram the Financial Centre areatoBowmanRoadandthexequestedcommercialreclassificationconflictswiththedesireddevelopmentpatternandthe
adopted plan.
N NEER NG 0 E T
None reported.
S F ENDATIGN:
Staff recommend denial of the "C-3"rezoning request..
LANNING CDNNISS QN A T (Nay 8,1990)
The applicant,Joe White,was present.There wexe noobjectors.Nx'.White spoke and discussed the area zoning
and existing land use.He said that there was commercial
zoning on two coxners and a street was not the proper placetostopzoning.Mx.White informed the Commission that the
City of Little Rock owned the property directly to the West
and then proceeded to discuss the 1-430 Di.stxict Plan.He
said Chanel Parkway was a major axtexial.that will carry a
heavy tx'affic load and the Autumn Road i.ntexsection was a
reasonable location for a mixture of office and
2
Nay 8„1990
SUUS V~SI +f
ITEN Q.:—Z-4 —Co i ed
commercial uses.He also reminded the Commission that there
was no opposition from the neighboxhood nox'ny of the
property owners.
Comments were then offex'ed by various individuals includingseveralCommissioners.Nr.White said that.the City's long
range plan was good and there was existing node at theintersection.Jim Lawson„Planning Director,discussed theareaandofficezoningvex"sus commercial zoning.Nr.White
indicated that there was no definite use for the propexty
and then amended the reguest to "C-2".
A motion was then offered by Commissioner NcDaniel to
recommend approval of:"C-2"as amended.Prior to the vote
on the motion,there was some additional discussion.
Commissioners NcDaniel and Walkex'rovided justification fortheirsupportofthecommexcialreclassification.
Commissionex'cDaniel said the site was at a node and there
was "C-3"zoning directly across the street.Commissioner
Walker stated that it.was more desirable to have changes in
zoning districts at lot lines and not at streets.
Jim Lawson encouxaged the Commission to consider a "PUD"forthepropertybecausedesignwasacriticalelement.He thentalkedabout.his con~erne with "C-2"and "C-3".Nr.Lawson
reviewed the history of the area and the most.recent plan
amendment.for the intexsection.
Commissioner NcDaniel said jobs were important and
development was good.
Commissionex Gleson 'then discussed,the,Sir'chwood
neighboxhood and its future.
Joe White reminded the Commission that.there was no user andthathewasnot,receptive to ePUD"Nr White said a ePUDe
was beneficial when there was a zeal use for the property.
Commissioner Collins then read the list of permitted uses in
the "C-2"distxict.
A vote was taken on the "'C-2"rezoning as amended.The vote
was 6 eyes,1 nay,0 absent and 4 abstentions (Rose Collins,
Jerilyn Nicholson,Connie Whitfield and Walter Riddick III).
3
Hay 8,1999
~SI~Vl~O
I 0 '—-4464-A Continued
A second motion was made to recommend a plan amendment forthenozthwest,corner of the Chenal parkway and Autumn Road
from office to commez'cial.The motion passed by a vote of S
ayes,3 nays and 6 absent.
4
Nay 8,199O
Item 2 --4539-B
Owner:Ernest.P.Jashua
Applicant."Nuskie Harris
Location"4215 Asher Avenue
Request ."fram «I 2«ta «C 4«
Pux pose".Beauty shop and limousine service
Size:0.25 sexes
Existing Use:Beauty shop and limousine service
URROUND NG O USE ANO ZONING."
North —Commercial,zaned "I-2«
South —Office and industrial,zoned "I-2«
East —Industrial„zaned «I-2«
West —Vacant,zaned ~I 2«
STAFF ANALYSI
The issue befoxe the Planning Commission is to xezone tine
southeast,corner of Peyton Street.and Asher Avenue fram «I-
2«to «C-4«,Currently,there is one building on the
property with a portian of the structure being utilized by a
limousine service.The other part of the building will be
occupied by a beauty shap after the rezoning is
accomplished.Beauty shops are not listed in the «I-2«distxict.Therefore,a cammercial reclassification wasfiledtopexmit,both uses.«C-4«was determined ta be tine
most appropriate classification because af the limousinesexvice,which has outside storage of vehicles.A beauty
shop is allowed in the «C-4«district undex'retai,l uses nat.listed (enclosed)«.
Zoning in the general area is "R-3"«0-3««C-3««I-2«and
PCD with properties fxanting on Asher zaned either «C-3«ox«I-2«.Land use is very mixed and includes residential,office,commercial and industrial.Some of the land isstil.l.undeveloped and thx'oughout the area there are a number
of vacant buildings.Along Asher Avenue,the uses range
fxom eating places to waxehausing and there is na cohesive
pattern to the location af the different types of land uses.
1
May 8„1990
ITEN .2 -2-45 7-B t'ed
Over the years,the City has endorsed a combination
commercial and industrial xezonings with "C-3","C-4"and"I-2"being the appx'opriate districts.The proposed "C-4"
reclassification maintains the established zoningconfxguxatxollLandtheeC-4 a conf orms to 'the adopted plan ~Fourche,which shows a commercial stxip for Asher Avenue inthisarea.
E R N O
Asher Avenue is classified as a principal arterial,which
has a x'ight-of-way standard of IIO feet ox"55 feet.from thecenterline.The existing xight-of-way is deficient,anddedicationofadditionalright-of-way will be requixed.
STAFF CONN ND IG
Staff recommends approval of the "C-4"rezoning asrequested.
P NNI SOMA O (Nay 8,1990)
The Staff reported that.the owner submitted a wxitten
statement.requesting that the item be withdrawn withoutprejudice.A motion was made to withdraw the xezoning
without prejudice.The motion was approved by a vote of lleyes„0 nays and 0 absent.
2
Nay 8,1990
Item No.3 —2-53 7
Owner:The Buffalo Company,Inc.
Applicant:The Buffalo Company,Inc.
Location:5924 Baseline Road
Reguest:Rezone from.R 2"'to '-3
'urpose:Convenience store
Szze"9.415 acres
Existing Use:Convenience store (nonconforming)
SURRO OING LANO USE AN O N
North —Commez cial,zoned "C-3"
South —Auto service,zoned "R-2"
East —Commercial,zoned "C-3"
West —Commercial„zoned "C-3"
STAFE ANALYSIS:
On this agenda„there are three rezonings that involvepropertieslocatedattheintersectionofBaselineRoad and
Geyer Springs Road.All three sites are still zoned "R-2"
because the area was annexed to the City a number of years
ago and the three parcels were never rezoned.The requestfor5924BaselineRoadistoreclassifythepropertyto"C-3"for existing convenience store.
The Geyer Springs Road and Baseline Road intersection is
zoned either "C-3"or "C-4"'ith the exception of the site
under consideration and the southeast corner.At the
northeast.corner,the convenience store is zoned "R-2"and
the adjacent land is zoned "C-3"for a shopping center.Theexistingzoninginthegeneralareais"R-2","O-3","C-3"
and '"C-4"with the commercial zoning extending for some
distance from the intersection along both streets.In the
immediate vicinity,the uses are primarily a mixture of
~arious commercial establishments.Away from theintersection,the land use becomes more diverse with single
family,mult.ifamily,office,and a mobile home park.
Further to the south,on Geyer Springs Road,there is a
large church and McClellan Nigh School.
1
Nay 8,199O
tern No.3 —-5317 ont'nu d
The Geyer Springs East.District Pl.an identifies thenortheastandsoutheast.coxnexs of the intersection forcommercialuse/development Therefore the proposed "C-3"
conforms to the adopted plan.There are no outstanding landuseissuesandstaffsupportsthecommercialreclassification.
I ,ZR 6 CG 8:
Applicant should dedicate an additional 5 feet.of right-of-
way on iboth Baseline and Geyer Spx ings frontages,close thedrivewaysclosest.to the coxner on each frontage,andprovidea5footlandscapestriponeachfrontage.
8 FF CONN NO 0
Staff recommends approval of the "C-3"rezoning asrequested.
PLANN CGNNISSIGN ACTIG (Nay 8,1990)
The applicant,Sonny Peaxson,was present.There were noobjectors.Prior to Nr.Pearson px'esenting his case,Commissioner Brad Walker spoke and made some comments about.adding conditions to rezoning requests and his desire forconsistencyindevelopment.
Nx'.Peax'son then spoke and said there were no plans to make
any changes to the existing development.Ne went on to saythatitwouldbedifficulttooperatethebusinessifseveralofthedri.veways were closed and a five foot right-of-way dedication was requixed.Nr.Pearson then told theCommissionthat,he needed to talk to the company's Boartd ofDirectorsbefoxehecouldagreetothex'iqht-of-waydedicationoxclosingthedriveways.He concluded by sayingthat.closing the driveways would probably cut the business
by one half.
After some additional comments,a moition was made to defertheitemtotheNay22,1880 meeting.A motion was approved
by a vote of 11 eyes,0 nays and O absent.
2
Nay 8,1990
Item No.——318
Ownex:William Daniel Thomas,Jr.
(Trustee)
Applicant,:William Daniel Thomas,Zr.
(Trustee)
Location:The Southeast Corner of Geyer
Springs Road and Baseline Road
Reguest;Rezone fx'om "R-2"to "C-4'"
Purpose:Commercial with open display
Size:2.9 sexes
Existing Use:Vacant buiMing
SURROUNDING D USE AND ZONING:
Nox'th -Commexcial,zoned "C-3"
South —Office and commercial,zoned "R-2"
East —Single family,zoned "R-2"
'West Commercial zoned eC 3e and eC 4e
STA ANALYSIS:
Case No.Z-5318 is the second of the thx'ee xezoning issues
on this agenda located at the intersection of Baseline Road
and Geyer Springs Road.With this x'eguest.,the proposal istcrezoneappxomimately3acresfrom"R-2"to "'C-4"to allowacommercialusewithopendisplay.The site is developed
with a large building and pa~ed parking axeas but.thestructureisunoccupiedat,this time.Previous users of thesitehaveincludedadiscountstoreandahomecenter.
Zoning in the general vicinity is made up of "R-2","O-3"„"C-3"and "C-4"with the property abutt.ing "R-2"on twosides.Land use is,similax'o the zoning and includessinglefamily,multifamily,office,commex'cial.and a mobile
home park.To the southeast.of the intex'section,the landiszoned"R-2"so a majority of the uses,a mobile home paxk
and a large multifamily complex,ax'e nonconforming.
A commercial x'cclassification of the property is
appropriate,however,staff is somewhat concexned with a
1
Nay 8 „1990
NG.4 —-53 8 nt'
"C-4"rezoning for 3 acres at.the Geyer Springs and Baselineintersection."C-4"does permit certain uses that could
have an impact on the area„and being a large tract couldintensifyapotentiallyundesirablesituation.Staff is oftheopinionthat"C-3»'s a bettex'ption for the px'opexty
and suggests that the request be amended to "C-3".The "C-3"district does allow many uses found in "C-4"either byrightoraconditionaluse.A home center and a lumber yard
have been mentioned as possible uses and they are bothlistedascondit.ional uses.There are some use groupsallowedin"C-4"that axe not.permitted in "C-3"and they
axe primarily the sale of wheeled vehicles,such as autos,trucks and mobile homes.And finally,"C-3"does permit
some outside display in the development criteria section.
All commexcial uses shall be restricted to closedbuildingsexceptparkinglots,p1ant nurseries,
promotional events and the normal pump island servicesofservicesta.'tion operations.In addition,
outdoox'isplayofmerchandiseisallowedinanyarea equal to
one half of the f'acade area of the front of the
building.Cextain seasonal or special event sales may
be allowed when the owner has requested a pexmit for
such activity in conjunction with the privilege licenseapplication.The permitting authority shall review theowner's plan ox'lacement of merchandise in order toassurethatobstructionofdrives,walks,xequired
parking and fire lanes does not occur.In no caseshallfulltimestaticopendisplaybepermitted.
ENG N ER NG NNEN S:
Applicant should dedicate an additional 5 feet of right.-of-
way on both the Baseline and Geyer Springs fx'ontages.
STAFF RECGNNEND G
Staff recommends "C-3"for the site and not."C-4"asrequested.
G ISSIG ACT GN:(May 8,1990)
The applicant was represented by Naury Mitchell.There wexe
no objectors.Nr.Mitchell amended the xequest to sC-3"and
agreed to dedicating the additional right-of-way fox Geyex
Springs Road and Baseline Road.
2
Nay 8,199O
SVgg~lvl gg
I NO.:4 —2-8 Co ed
Commissionex Walker made some comments and said he wouldliketoseesomemorelandscapingaroundthesite,Nr.Nitchell indicated that he could not,commit to anything fortheowner,Danny Thomas.
A motion was made to recommend approval of the "C-3"
rezoning as amended with the necessary right-of-waydedication.The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,1nay„0 absent and 2 abstentions (Kathleen Qleson and RoseCollins).
3
May 8,1999
tern Na.5 ——319
owner:Various owners
Applicant:Anne M.Alford WinansLocation'901 North Taylor
Reguest:Rezane fram "R-2"ta "C-3"
Pux'pose Qf'f'ice and commexcial
Sxze'1 6 acres
Existing Use:Residential
SVRROUNIDING 9 USE 0 ZQN NG:
Narth —Cammeroial „Zoned aC-3 e
South —Commercial,zaned "C-3"
East.—Commexcial,zaned "C-3"
West —Commercxal zoned "C-3"
STAFF ANALYS
1991 Nortlh Taylar is the last remaining "R-Z"lot.in what isreferredtoastheHeightsCommercialAreawhichencompasses
sevex'al blocks from Polk Stx'eet to University Avenue andCantrelltoKavanaugh.The reguest is to rezone the site to"C-3"for an office and some limited retail.The lat.is
occupied by a small residence and tlhe proposal is ta ut.ilize
the exxstxng stxuctuxe with the necessary parking.
Land use in the neighboxhood is single family,office,
commercial,a church and.a past affice facility.TheresidentialareasarelacatedtathenarthafKavanaugh,east of Palk and south af Cantxell Road.Zoning is a
mixture af "R-2""R-4","Q-1","Q-3""C-3"and PCB.The
property in guestian surrounded by "C-3"which is the
primary nan x'esidential zaning in the area.
"C-3"is compatible with the adjoining pxapexty andi it
conforms to the Heights-Hillcrest,Plan.There are no issuesassociatedwiththisrequestandstaffsupportsthe
cammercial xeclassificatian.
1.
May 8,1990
NQ 5 —-5 9 Co 'nue
EN N CQ EN S."
None xepozted.
ST PP R COMMEN ION:
Staff xecommends approval of the "C-3"rezoning asxeguested.
P NG CQ X S QN A (May 8,1990)
The applicant was px'esent.There wex'e no objectors and theitemwasplacedontheconsentagenda.A motion was made to
recommend approval of "C-3"as reguested.The motion passed
by a vote of li ayes,6 nays and O absent,
2
Nay 8,1990
IT NQ.6
Owner Nancy N.Spencer
Applicant:Nike Pierce
Location:Baseline Road and Geyex Springs
Road
Reguest:Rezone from "R-2'"to "C-3"
Puxpose:Commercial
Size:,0 '26 acx'es
Existing Use:Auto service (nonconforming)
GUN 1NG D S D ZONIN
North —Commerci.al,zoned "R-2"
South —Vacant building,zoned "R-2"
East.—Vacant building,zoned "R-2"
West —Commercial„zoned "C-4"
ST F ANA Y IS:
This rezoning issue,File No.Z-5320,is the last of thethreex'eguests located at the Geyex Springs Road and
Baseline Road intersection.The px'opexty,appx'oximately onethirdofanacxe,is situated on the southeast corner and
the request is to rezone to "C-3".Cuxxentlyx the si.te is
occupied by an auto service business but the proposal is to
redevelop the land for an eating establishment.and that is
why "C-3"is being reguested,
Zoning found in the general area is "'R-2","0-3","C-3"and"C-4e.Land use is made up of single family,multifamily,office,commexcial and a mobile home paxk with the
commercial concentrated at the intexsection extending north
along Geyer Spx'ings Road.Because of the area being annexedtotheCity,there are still a number of nonconforming uses,
especially ~to the south and east.
The proposed reclassification conforms to the Geyer Springs
East Plan and the existing zoning pattern in the area.
1
Nay S,1990
T 0 —-53 0 Conti.nued
Staff feels that "C-3"is a reasonable rezoning fox the site
and supports the zequest.
One final issue that.needs ta be mentioned is access to thesite.It is the staff's understanding that theze is an
agreement,with the owners of the larger tract to pxovideaccessbywayafaneasementtathistract,.This is being
done to avoid having curb cuts on the two major stx'eets,
which should help the traffic situation.If an instzument.f'ar the access easement.has been signed by both parties,staf'f'ould like ta zeceive a copy of it.and make it paxt,
of'hefile.
NGINEER N QNN TS:
Applicant,should dedicate an additianal 5 feet of x'ight-of-
way on bath the Baseline and Geyex Springs frontages.Thisapplicatianmaybeappzopx.iate faz a PUD ta handle siting an
a very small tract,No curb cuts cn either Baseline ox.
Geyer Springs should be permitted,and the access easement.
an the adjacent.tzact should be a permanent,xecoxded
dacument ar plat.
STAF CG E 0
Staff recammendis approval of the "C-3"rezoning as filed.
P NNING CGNNISS GN ACTION:(Nay 8,1990)
The applicant.,Nike Piex'ce,was present.Theze were noobjectors.Nr.Piex'ce discussed the site and said theaccessissuehadbexesalvedbyagreeingtoclosedriveways
an Baseline and Geyex Spx'ings.Ne a.lso said that there
would be an access easement.through the Danny Thomas
property lacated adjacent ta the site in question.Nr.
Pierce concluded by saying that,915,000 to S20,000 would Ibe
spent on landscaping fox the new development.
Bab Bxown,Environmental Cades Staff,discussed a franchise
agzeement that would be necessaxy fox'he right-of-way axesthatwouldbeusedforlandscaping.
There wexe some questions asked about,utilizing the ePUD"
process and Nx.Pierce objected to filing a "PCD".Nr.
Pierce also said that the new development was just trying ta
clean up the corner.
2
Nay 8,1990
~SU A~IGN
I Q.:6 —Z-5 C on't U
Jetty pardner,City Engineering,said that.the existingright-cf-way was acguired by the arkansas Highway andTransportationDepartmentandwas40feetfromthecentexlineofbothstreets.Nr.Gardner told the Commission thattheNasterStreetPlanstandard.for Baseline Road was 116feetand90feet.for Geyer Springs Road.He went.on to saythattheroadswexedevelopedfoxexistingtrafficand
Engineering was recommending a reduction in the right.-of-way
requirement,a variance from the Naster Stxeet Plan
standax'ds.
A motion was made to recommend appxoval of "C-3"with thededicationofadditionright-of-way.The motion was
approved by a vote of 11 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent,.
3
Nay 8,1990
Item Na 7 —-5321
owner:Saver's Incorporated/RTC
Applicant:Z.E.Hathaway,Zr.
Location:Shacklefox'd Road
Reguest l Rezane from sR-2"ta "I-2"
Purpase:Wholesale warehouse
Size:18.0 acx es
Existing Use:Vacant
SURRGUNDING D U E AND ZG NQ:
Narth —Vacant.and mobile home park,zoned "R-2"
Sauth —Single family and industrial,zoned "R-2"and
II I 2 II
East -Vacant.z oned "R-2 "
West.—Vacant z oned "R-2 "and "I -1"
STAFF ALYSISl
The reguest.before the commissian is ta rezone 18 acxes on
Shacklefoxd Road fx'om "R-2"ta "I-2".The property xssituatedabout600feet.north af Colonel Glenn Road and thesiteisvacantat.this time.The land has a depth of 1,547feet,with the rear part,ion of it in the floodway andflaadplain.Based on information pxavided by the City'
Engineering staff,it.appeaxs that the flaodway invalves theeast.420 feet.of the site and the 10G year floodplain is thenext260feet..(The floodway and the floodplain axeas areidentifiedontheaccompanyingsketch.)Should the parcel
be rezoned ta the industrial classification,the pxaposal istodevelopitfaxawholesalewarehouse.
The existing land use includes single family,a lax'ge mobile
hams park and industrial.The industrial uses range fxom
manufacturing and warehausing ta a salvage yaxd,Inadditiontothedevelopedtracts,a percentage of the
acreage is still vacant..There are alsa a number af
noncanfarming uses in the area.Zoning is similar to the
land,use pattern with "R-2"and "I-2s.The px'opexty in
I
Mey 8,1990
em No.7 —2-5321 Con inu d
guestion abuts "R-2"and "I-2"zoning.Across Shackl.efox'd
Road„the zoning is "R-2"and "I-1.The sita under
considerat.ion is pert.of the I-430 Plan area and the adopted
lend use plan recommends the pzoperty for multifamily use;the floodway land is shown as open space,The southezn
property line of this pex'cel is the land use boundary
between tihe multifemily area and industx"iel to the south.
The plan showa a large induatx'ial area extending south alongShacklefordRoadfaxapproximatelyonemile.This sizeableindustrialareaistheresultofseveralxezoningacti.ons to"1-1"on Shackleford Road south of Colonel Glenn.
After carefully reviewing the reguest„staff is of theopiniontlhatanindustzialreclaaaificetionisereasonableoptionfaxsomeoftheproperty.Because a high pex'centageoftheplan's recommended industrialaxea is zoned."I-1"',andiwithan"I-1"tract direct.ly across Shackleford,staff
suggests that,an "I-1"reclassificetion is the appropriateindustx'ial district for the property."I-1"is a site
review plan district.which xeguirea Planning Commission
approval of any development plan prior to the build,ing
permit being issued.The recommended "I-I"is only for lendlareaoutsidethefloodway.City policy requires the
designated floodway to be zoned "G-S"end dedicated,to theCity.(Brodie Creek ia identified as "Priority 1 openSpace"on the Nester Parks Plan.)
In addition to the "G-S"fox the floodway,staff is also
recommending tihat a 75 foot buffer strip be created alongthenortlhpxopertylineandzoned"G-s".This is to protect.the multifamily area slhown on the plan and to provide some
kind of transition from tihe industrial zoning to theresidentialarea.To insure tlhat the buffer atx'ip is
properly maintained,a fence needs to be constxucted alongthezoninglinebetweenthe"G-S"and "I-1"before anyclearingorsiteworkoccurs.
Should the industrial reclessification be recommended by the
Planning Commission,a plan amendment will be foxwezded totheBoardofIDirectorsalongwithtlherezoningissue.The
plan amendment vill shift the industrial area to the northtoconformtotherezoningaction.
ENGINE RI G G S:
Shackleford Road ia classified as a minor arterial which
reguires e rigiht.-of-way of 99 feet or 45 feet from thecenterline.Tihe existing right-of-way is deficient end
dedication of additional riglht-of-way will be needed.
2
Nay 8,1990
T NO.:7 —-5321 Conti ued
STAFP 8 C END O
Staff zecommends appx'oval.of "I-1"and not."I-2"as
xeguested for the land outside the floodway,except;for a 75
foot.axes adjacent.to the north property line.Bath the
floodway and the 75 foot strip should be rezoned to "O-S"
with the floodway dedicated to the City and the 75 foot
buffer fenced off prior to any clearing or site work taking
place*
P NI 6 CO SSI N ACTION:(Hay 8,1990)
The applicant,Jim Hathaway,was pxesent.Theze were noobjectors.Jim Lawson,Planning Director,spoke first,and
indicated that 75 feet of buffer was excessive and suggested
40 feet as being more reasonable.Hr.I awson went.on to
discuss the area and the existing land use.He also
suggested that the buffer strip needed to be fenced.
Jim Bathaway addressed the Commission and said there was a
condit.ional contract to purchase the property for an office
warehouse/showroom.Hr.Bathaway then proceeded to discuss
the site and said 5.7 acres were in the floodway and he
agreed with the dedication requirement.He also said 3.7
acres were in the floodplain which could be used fox some
development,.Hr.Hathaway said a 75 foot buffer was a heavy
reguirement because there was matuze vegetation on the site.
He then offered a compromise of a 25 foot strip with a 6
foot opague fence on,the south side of the open space area.
He also agreed to "I-1"and amended the reguest.
A mot.ion w'as made to accept.the 25 foot buffer strip as
suggested by Hr.Hathaway,The mction failed to receive a
second.
Jim dawson said 40 feet foz a buffer was more desirable and
he was uncomfoztable with the 25 feet.
Jezry Gardner,City Engineering,discussed the problems with
buffers being cleax'ed and requested that a fence be required
to be installed at,the time of the rezoning.Hr.Hathaway
questioned the fence xeguirement.and said he was willing to
do anything reasonable.Mr.Eawson said a temporary fence
was a legitimate public concern and making the fence a
condition of the rezoning was appropxiate.
3
33ay 6,1S9O
~UJ3~~V~G
TEN NG.:7 -Z-2 Con inued
Bob Bx'own of the Environmental Codes Staff made some
comments about the buffer ordinance and said the new code
will require 26 feet of buffering.
A motion was made to recommend appxoval of "I-V's amended,
except for the floodway which is to be zoned "Q-S"and
dedicated to the City;a 26 foot strip al.ong the northern
property line from the northwest cornex to the floodway
which is to remain as an undisturbed "R-2"buffer;and a 6footopaquefenceistobeconstructedontheintexiorof
the 26 foot buffex't the time of the building permit.
Several comments were made before the vote was taken.The
vote was S eyes,2 nays,9 absent and 1 abstention (Jerilyn
Nicholson).
A second motion was made to recommend a plan amendment for
the property from multifamily to industrial.The motion was
approved by a vote of 11 eyes,0 nays,0 absent..
4
May 8,1990
ITEN NG 8 —Gther Nattexs B law Amendment.
~Rt:To adopt,new language for
reapplication paragraph in the
Bylaws
c.Reapplication
No identical ox substantiallyidenticalappli.cation for theredistrictingofaspecific
parcel or parcels of land
which has been denied by the
Planning Commission or the
Board of Directors may be made
for a peri.od of one yeax.
PLANNING CGNNISSIG ACTIGN:(Nay 9,1990)
A motion was made to appx'ove the Bylaw Amendment as
presented.The motion passed by a vote of 11 eyes,0 nays
and 0 absent.
1
Nay 8,3.990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.9
MANE:Dunbar Community Center
Conditional Use Permit (8-5325)
LOCATION:The Southwest,corner of
West 16th and Chester Streets
(1881 West 16th Street)
OWNER APPIICANT:The City of Little Rack/
Connie Fugedy,Parks Department,
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 4,080 sq.ft.addition (Height —15')to anexisting19,873 sq.ft.Community Center (Height —28")andtoenlargetheparkingareaon5.3 acres of land that.is
zoned R-4.
GRDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
Adjacent t.o a collector street..(Chester Street)and aresident.ial street.(West 16th Street).
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
The site is located in an institutional sett.ing in ar'esident.ial area.The site is abutted by single
family to the north (2 side yard and 2 front yardrelet.ionships),multi-family to the east.(Village
Square Apartments)„vacant land to the south and anofficeusetothewest(Gibbs Elementary School).
Tlhe expansion of tlhe existing land use is compatible
with the surrounding area.
3.On-Bite Drives and Parkin
Tlhe site contains two existing access drives(2O*'n width)as well as access through the
Gibbs Elementary School parking lot..All accessvillbeontoWest16thStreet..The plan calls for
a total of 61 parking spaces on-site with an
additional 14 spaces to be shared with Cibbs
Elementary School.
Nay 8,1990
SUBDIVISIDN
Item No.9 (Cont.inued)
4.Scxeenin and Buffers
The applicant is proposing landscaping along Nest.16th
Street.
5.Cit.En ineer Comments
Comply with the City's detention and excavation
ordinance requirements.
6.A~1
The staff does not foresee any adverse impact resulting
fxom this pxoposal (see note g2).The plan,does not,
however„fully comply with the parking requirements.A
total of 67 spaces is xequired with the plan allowing
61.A shared arrangement.with Gibbs Elementary School
will provide access to an addit.ional 14 spaces.The
staff does not have any px.oblem with this proposal.
In addition,the building will xequire a 7'ront yard
vaziance from the 25'equix'ement.This will match the
existing building setback.Finally,the applicant has
agx'eed to comply with the City Engineer's requirement
regaxding an-site detention.
7.Staff Recommendation
Appz'oval subject.to the Planning Commission approval of
a 7'xont yazd variance from the xequired 25'nd the
6 space paxking variance.
PLANNING CQNNISSIOM ACTIQN:
The applicant,was present.Thexe were no objectors.The
Commission questioned the proposed parking arrangement with
the adjacent school and the fact that the item had not
followed standard px'ocedure.The staff stated that the
proposal was part of the 1987 Bond Project.and that.there
had been a misunderstanding with the Parks Department about
the pxoper filing.The staff further stated that every
effox't had been made regarding legal not,ice and the posting
of signs.A general discussion ensued,.The Commission then
voted 11 ayes to approve the application as recommended by
the staff subject to the staff acquiring a written agzeement,
from the appropriate autnorities in the Little Rock School
District verifying a signed parking arrangement on the 14
parking spaces on the east property line of Gibbs Elementary
School.
PI,ANNING CONN ISS ION
VOTE RECORD
BATE
ITEN NUNBERS
ZONING SUB&)IVISION
HEHBER 3 5
N.Riddick,III
Walker Brad ~V'~0 H W
McDanie1
W.SiI Ier
J.Nicholson
Selz,Joe
S,1.eek ~~YP
C.Khitfie1d
Y',
Okeeon Y v
R,Co11ins v 0 wVg
F.Perkins
v Avp uAre A aasLwr +aswarm
l
Hay 8,1990
There being no further business before the Commission,thehearingwasadjournedat.3:25 p.m.
(
BATE:
ore y Chaxrman