pc_11 20 1990subI
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
NOVEMBER 20,1990
1:00 p.m.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum.
A Quorum was present being nine in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the previous meeting.
The minutes of the October 9,1990 meeting were approved as
received.
III.Members present:Martha Miller
Fred Perkins,Vice Chairman
Rose Collins
Jerilyn Nicbolson
Kathleen Oleson
John McDaniel
Brad Walker
Walter Riddick
Joe Selz
Members Absent:Connie Whitfield
Stephen Leek
City Attorney:Stephen Rowell
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
NOVEMBER 20I 1990
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Big R/Arktic Ice Replat (S-859)
B.Longlea Manor Phase V (S-128EE)
C.Geyer Springs Road First Baptist Church (Z-5365)
PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1.Chenal Professional Centre (S-867-M)
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS:
2.Mechanics Lumber Company (Long Form PCD)(Z-4933-B)
3.Pulaski County Detention Facility Long Form PCD
(Z-5360)
REZONING:
4.West 12th Street "R-5"to "O-l"(Z-2241-A)
SUBDIVISION SITE PLANS:
5.Seal-Dry/USA,Inc.(S-875)
6.The Centers for Youth and Families (S-874)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
7.Western Hills School (Z-5229-A)
8.City of Little Rock Fire Station f21 (Z-5374)
9.Cross Tire Company (Z-5375)
10.Little Rock Senior Citizens Center (Z-5376)
11.West Little Rock Church of Christ (Z-5377)
12.Good Shepherd Episcopal Church (Z-5378)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS CONT.
13.Woodruff Elementary School (Z-5380)
ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW:
14.The Ranch (Z-5381)
OTHER MATTERS:
15.Water Mains —West 36th Street Main Extension
Little Rock,Arkansas
11 EP 1
14
61
I
9
46 10
5
/ST
I
I
I
I
I
SS
PULSSUI COUIIT'I
SSC US COUIITT H
L t
Prepared by the Planning Department
City ot Little Rock
SUBDIVISION LOCATION MAP
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISIION AGENDA
NOVEMBER 20,1990
November 20,1990
~SUBDIV ON
~DEEM NO.:FILE NO.:S-859
NAME:Big R/Arktic Ice Replat
LOCATION:NE corner of Bond and 9th Streets
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Arktic Ice,Inc.Summerlin Associates,Inc.
1609 S.BroadwayLittleRock,AR 72205
376-1323
AREA:5.0 Acre NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:I-3 PROPOSED USES:Warehouses
PLANNING DISTRICT:I-30
CENSUS TRACT:3
VARIANCES RE VESTED:
1.Waiver of Building Setbacks
PLAT DEFICIENCIES NOTED:
a.Source of Title Deed Book and Page.
b.Adjacent Subdivisions,Names-Plat Book and Page Number.c.Acreage.
A.PROPOSAL RE VEST:
This Developer proposes the creation of two industrial
lots out of a larger lot presently zoned "I-3".
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently occupied by several structures.
Two buildings located on the south part of the tract
are in a state of extreme disrepair.The site is paved
in asphalt.The adjacent streets are developed to City
standards.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Provide Collector Street R/W and improvements for BondStreet.Improvements for E.9th Street and ReichardtStreetarerequiredunlessthesestreetsareclosed.
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.A Continued
D.ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN:
There are no apparent legal issues except the basic
ordinance requirements that have been omitted from the
plat.There are several design issues relative to the
building lane where they should be established and
where the developer requests them to be waived.
Sidewalks and R/W need to be shown on the plat and the
last one is the need for specific waiver request on
street improvements.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff review of this replat indicates few
design issues.The points made in Item D and C above
are the primary concerns of Staff and Engineering
Department.The right-of-way and sidewalks presence on
the plat are important to evaluate existing conditions
and master street needs.
The remaining design issue to be identified by the
Engineer,is the building lines.We feel the building
lines should be established on street frontages and
also be shown where developer requests them to be
waived.
Our last point of concern is that the Engineering Staff
suggested to close E.9th and Reichardt Streets.The
applicant needs to file application for street
abandonment with Anna Brown at the Planning Office.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this replat subject to
complying with the Engineering and Planning Staff
comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:(August 16,1990)
Mr.James Summerlin was present representing the
application.The Staff recommendation was discussed.Staff
suggested to Mr.Summerlin closing 9th and Reichardt Streets
to avoid improvement requirements.Those streets are not
serving any purpose.Mr.Summerlin agreed to file a
petition with the City Clerk and Anna Brown from PlanningStaff.
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.A Continued
There were several design elements discussed.These dealt
primarily with the improvements on Bond Street,sidewalks
and building lines.Mr.Summerlin agreed to revise this
plat.
A discussion then moved again to the street closure issues.
The Planning Staff suggested making this a part of the
application to include in the Staff's recommendation as
being approved,subject to public right-of-way abandonment
and street closure.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 28,1990)
The Staff told the Commission that the replat needed to be
deferred because of a notice deficiency.A motion was made
to defer this item to September 11,1990 Agenda and passed
by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays,and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(September 11,1990)
The Planning Staff reported to the Commission that a request
had been made by the applicant for a deferral of this item
to the Planning Commission meeting on October 9,1990.This
would afford the applicant sufficient time to address the
concerns of neighborhood objectors and the Staff
recommendation.
After a brief discussion,the Commission determined the
deferral to be appropriate.A motion to that effect was
made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays,and
1 abstention (John McDaniel).
ENGINEERING STAFF REPORT:(September 14,1990)
The engineer has provided documentation that East 9th Street
adjacent to this replat is not a dedicated street,but a
railroad right-of-way,therefore the requirement for
improvements to East 9th Street is no longer in effect.
Other engineering requirements from previous reviews are
unchanged.
November 20,1990
~SUB VISION
IT NO.A C ntinued
P NING COMMISSIO ME TING:(October 9,1990)
There were no objectors present.The application wasrepresentedbyMr.Summerlin of the Summerlin AssociationFirm.Mr.Summerlin presented a request that this item bedeferreduntilNovember20,1990.He stated two reasons forthedeferralrequest.These were resolution of right-of-wayabandonmentofReichardtStreetanddealingwiththevariancesthathadbeenrequestedinitiallyandwerenotresolved.After a brief discussion,the CommissiondeterminedthedeferraltoNovember20beappropriate amotiontothateffectwasmadeandpassedbyavoteof 10ayes,0 nays,and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(November 8,1990)
Mr.Jim Summerlin was present representing the application.This item was discussed in conjunction with right-of-wayabandonmentapplication.The Planning Staff reported thattheapplicantsubmittednoticesandplacedbuildinglines ontheplat.The only issues to be resolved are:appropriateBillofAssuranceandsidewalklocation.The applicantproposessidewalknexttothecurbline.The Ordinancecallsforsidewalksnexttothepropertyline.Theapplicantagreedtoaskforavarianceofthesidewalkslocation.
The discussion then moved again to the street closureissues.The Engineering Staff suggested reviewing previousoptionspresentedtotheapplicant.Those options were toclosestreets,or dedicate right-of-way and makeimprovementsoneast9thStreetandReichardtStreet.Mr.Summerlin agreed to discuss those options again with theowner.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(November 20,1990)
The application was represented by Mr.Jim Summerlin andLukeQuinn.The Planning Staff offered its recommendationofapprovalofthisreplat,giving a brief background of thepropertyandtheattendantstreetclosureapplication.Staff indicated that the applicant decided to withdraw thestreetclosureapplicationandnowisseekingwaiversofallstreetimprovementsonEast8thStreetandReichardtStreet.
November 20,1990
KJQ~IV SION
ITEM NO.Continued
The applicant is also asking for a right-of-way dedication
waiver on East 8th Street,waiver of building setbacks and
sidewalks deferral on Bond Street until or building permit
is issued.
Mr.J.Gardner from the Engineering Department stated that
he supports waivers.
The Chair then asked for person present in objection to the
proposal.Mr.Wingfield Martin representing the Wrape
Family Charitable Trust stated that he does not object to
the replat,if the developer does riot close East 8th Street
and Reichardt Street.
After a brief discussion,the Commission determined the
approval with the recommendation that a waiver approval be
appropriate.
A motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 8
ayes,0 nays,1 abstention and 2 absent.
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B ~FILE 8 .:8-128-EE
NAME:Longlea Manor Phase V —Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Off Hinson Road on Old Oak Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
LAND PROJECTS MARLAR ENGINEERING CO.INC.
11125 Arcade Dr.Suite E 5318 JFK
Little Rock,AR 72212 North Little Rock,AR 72116
753-1987
AREA:5.05 Ac.NUMBER OF LOTS:15 FT.NEW STREET:.5 mile
ZONING:R-2 PROPOSED USES:Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT:Highway 10
CENSUS TRACT:42.06
VARIANCES RE UESTED:
1.SIDEWALKS2.DETENTION3.TO ALLOW DEN OAK DR.TO BE 45'IGHT-OF-WAY WITH
24'AVEMENT
A.PROPOSAL RE VEST:
This proposal consists of a preliminary plat including
15 single family lots.The request is to revise a
previously approved Phase V,8 single family,with two
acres recently purchased land to be included as a part
of the addition.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The 5 acres involved in this plat are on moderate
sloping ground with a natural grade of 8 to 10%.The
existing terrain is intact with natural foliage.There
are existing streets adjacent to the subdivision plat
providing for the collector street system to serve the
Longlea and Secluded Hills neighborhoods.
1
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.B Continued
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
C.Old Oak Drive is a collector on the MSP,60'/W and36'treet required.This project should conform to
detention and excavation ordinances.
D.ISSUES LEGAL TECH DESIGN:
The following points of information should be dealt
with by the Engineer and/or Developer.These are:
Old Oak Drive,should be identified as a collector
street with 60'/W and 36'avement.
The Staff firmly believes that sidewalks are an
integral part of a residential neighborhood and
should be included where required by ordinance.
The Engineering Staff oppose detention waiver.
The Planning and Engineering Staff support the
Engineer's request for Den Oak Drive to be a minor
residential street with 45'/W and 24'avement.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Staff review of this preliminary plat indicates few
design issues.The several points made in Item D above
are the primary concerns of Planning and Engineering
Departments.The street system to serve this area of
the city is an important system,a portion of which is
being constructed to the collector standards (Secluded
Hills Subdivision)and will be connected to Hwy 10 in
the near future.
Staff also feels strongly committed to recommending the
denial of sidewalk waiver and their installation where
required by Ordinance,in despite of a previous
agreement which waives sidewalks due to the fact that
topography will make sidewalks difficult to construct.
Our last point of concern is that the Engineering Staff
oppose a Dentention Waiver for this project.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat
subject to the resolution of the several items pointed
out in our analysis.
2
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.B Con inued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(September 27,1990)
The applicant was represented by Mr.Jim Garner,Mr.Bill
Miller and Mr.Mike Marlar.There were a number of
questions raised by Mr.Garner as to the Staff comments.He
requested clarification of the Staff's comment specifically
dealing with the sidewalks and 60 foot right-of-way
requirements.His feelings were that the sidewalks and 60
foot right-of-way requirements had been waived on the
previous phases of Longlea Manor and it also applied to this
plat.Mr.Gardner presented a copy of the minute record
from the September 1980 Subdivision Agenda meeting showing
those agreements between City and the Developer.
Commissioner Walker suggested moving discussion of the
sidewalk issue to the Planning Commission meeting.He also
advised Mr.Garner to locate the nearest sidewalk to show
the Planning Commission how impractical it is to require the
sidewalks.
The right-of-way requirement was raised by Bill Miller as to
whether the 50 foot right-of-way and 36 foot pavement would
serve the purpose.Mr.Jerry Gardner,from Public Works,
explained that the master street plan calls for the
collector standards with a 60 foot right-of-way and 36 foot
pavement.
It was determined that the engineer of the project should
meet with Jerry Gardner to discuss the options of reducing
requirement right-of-way standards.
The Committee then moved to the discussion of the stormwater
detention.Mr.Gardner stated that Public Works require
waiver of stormwater detention on all subdivision.He also
stated that he will advise Mr.Marlar in obtaining proper
detention for this project.
The Planning Staff then asked the applicant if the notices
had been sent.Mr.Garner responded that he didn't know
about the notice requirement.He also stated that he would
like to discuss the above issues again with his partners and
possibly choose an already approved plat for this area.
Mr.Richard Wood from the Planning Department,advised the
applicant to discuss those issues again and inform the
Planning Commission on October 9,1990 about the chosen
option.
3
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.B Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(October 9,1990)
The Planning Staff reported that a letter had been submitted
by the Engineer,Mr.Forest Marlar,in the required time
requesting that this matter be deferred until the November
20,1990 Planning Commission Agenda.The Commission then
briefly discussed placing this matter on the Consent Agenda
for deferral.A motion was made to defer this item as
requested.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays,
and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(November 8,1990)
The applicant was represented by Mr.Jim Garner,Mr.Bill
Miller and Mr.F.Marlar.
The Planning Staff reported that notices had been sent.The
only remaining issues to be resolved are:sidewalk and
detention waiver.Commissioner Riddick suggested moving
discussion of the sidewalk issue to the Planning Commission
meeting.The Planning Staff added that the Board of
Directors can only waive sidewalk or detention.The matter
was forwarded to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(November 20,1990)
There were no objectors in attendance.The application was
represented by Mr.Jim Garner,Mr.Bill Miller and Mr.F.
Marlar.After a brief discussion,the Commission determineditappropriatetoplacethisitemontheconsentagendafor
approval.A motion was then made to that effect.The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,2 absent.
4
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.C
Name:Geyer Springs First Baptist
Church —Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5365)
~Lo t 12,400 Interstate 30
Owner A licant:Geyer Springs First Baptist
Church/Darrell Odom
PROPOSAL:
To construct a two story 42,000 sq.ft.education and
worship building.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
SITE LOCATION:
North of the frontage road on Interstate 30,west of Otter
Creek,across from Jacuzzi Brothers,Inc.
COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The site is surrounded by vacant land and commercial uses.
The proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding
area.
ON-SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site contains two gravel drives which provide access to
the I-30 street frontage.The applicant is proposing over
the required number of parking spaces.
SCREENING D BUF ERS:
The applicant plans to utilize existing trees as well as
provide for any additional landscaping that will be required
by the new landscape ordinance.
CITY NGINEER NG C ENTS:
Engineering is unable to review this application without a
survey of the property.Recommend deferral until
application is complete.
1
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.C Continued
ANALYSIS:
Staff found several problems with the site plan and survey
submitted by the applicant.The proposed use is compatible
with the surrounding area.However,the master parks plan
indicates this area as priority two for a possible parksite.The site consist of 130+acres.Because of a large
floodway,a buildable plateau of 35 acres that is abutted by
I-30 will be utilized.The floodway dedication was waived
by the city several months ago.One single family residence
exists on the site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Without the proper material for review,i.e.site plan and
survey,Staff recommends a deferral of this item until the
November 20,1990 meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING:
The agent for the applicant was in attendance.After
reading the Staff recommendation,the agent agreed to the
deferral because several issues concerning the application
had not been corrected.There being no further issues,this
item was passed on to the full Commission for action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(October 9,1990)
Neither the applicant nor a representative was in
attendance.Staff informed the Commission during the agenda
session that the application was incomplete.Therefore,a
deferral until November 20,1990 was being recommended byStaff.As part of the consent agenda,this item was voted
on to be deferred.The motion for approval was by a vote of
10 eyes,0 nays,and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(November 19,1990)
Staff enformed the Commission that the application process
was still incomplete and recommended withdrawal without
prejudice.As part of the consent agenda,this item was
voted on and passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,and 2
absent for withdrawal without prejudices.
2
November 20,1990
Item No.D —Z-3168-B
Owner:Hall-Phillips Trust
Applicant:AMR Real Estate,Inc.by Jim
Moses
Location:Mara Lynn Road
Request:Rezone from "MF-12"to "C-2"
Purpose:Office and Commercial
Size:5.0 acres
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Multi-Family,zoned "MF-18"
South —Vacant,zoned "MF-12"
East —Commercial,zoned "C-3"
West -Vacant,zoned "MF-12"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The property in question is a five acre tract located on the
south side of Mara Lynn Road just west of where Bowman Road
intersects Mara Lynn and the Bowman Curve area.The request
before the Commission is to rezone the site from "MF-12"to
"C-2"for future commercial and office uses."C-2"is a
site plan review district,which requires Planning
Commission approval of the site plan prior to developing the
property.The acreage is vacant and heavily wooded,as is
the land to the west and south.Another unique physical
characteristic is the topography,which drops in elevation
from 510 in the northwest corner to 450 in the southeast
corner.
Land use is mixture of single family,multi-family,office,
and commercial.Also,there is a large tract of land to the
south reserved for park and open space use;the area is
identified on the Master Parks Plan as a existing park site.
Zoning in the area is "R-2""MF-12""MF-18","MF-24","C-3"
"OS",and "PRD".The property abuts multi-family zoning on
two sides and "C-3"on the west side.Across Mara Lynn
Road,the zoning is "MF-18".
1
November 20,1990
Item No.D —Z-3168-B Continued
Both the existing land use and zoning have established a
pattern of the non-residential uses being oriented towards
Bowman Road,especially for the properties on the west side
of Bowman Road.There is one commercial parcel to the east
of Bowman Road that fronts Mara Lynn Road only.The
remaining commercial tracts have Bowman Road frontage.
Rezoning the five acres under consideration would endorse a
commercial site that is inappropriate because of the
property's location,and is a significant departure from the
adopted plan,I-430.The plan identifies the site for
single family attached.The plan's commercial line is the
eastern boundary of the five acre parcel and conforms to the
existing zoning.With the orientation of the commercial
centers toward Bowman Road,the land use plan and zoning
lines are well defined,and should not be altered to
accommodate the proposed reclassification.There is an
adequate supply of commercial land in the area and Staff
feels that there is no justification for adding the
additional acreage.And finally,allowing commercial zoning
to go unchecked in West Little Rock could have an adverse
impact on the city by encouraging a pattern of urban sprawl.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Mara Lynn Road is classified as a minor arterial.The
existing right-of-way is deficient,so dedication of
additional right-of-way will be required.The right-of-way
standard is 90 feet,or 45 feet from center line.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C-2"rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(October 23,1990)
The applicant was not present nor was he represented.The
Planning Staff reported to the commission that applicant
requested deferral to November 20,1990 agenda by the phone
but did not submit letter requesting deferral.The Staff
suggested that the item be deferred to November 20,1990
Subdivision Agenda.
The Chair then asked for person present seeking more
information.Mrs.Pan Penner,property manager adjacent to
propose rezoning,was in favor to the rezoning.She stated
that she would like to know more about proposed rezoning and
future development.she agreed to come back on November 20,
1990 agenda meeting.
2
November 20,1990
Item No.D —Z-3168-B Continued
A motion was made to defer this application to the November
20,1990 agenda meeting.The motion passed by a vote of 10
ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(Ncvember 20,1990)
As requested,the Planning Commission voted to withdraw the"C-2"rezoning without prejudice.The vote was 9 ayes,0
nays,and 2 absent.(The applicant did submit a letter
asking that the item be withdrawn withouth prejudice.)
3
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-867-M
NAME:Chenal Professional Centre —Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway &Chenal Valley
Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
DELTI C FARM &TIMBER CO g WHITE DATERS &ASSOC IATES J I NC
INC.401 Victory
7 Chenal Club Boulevard Little Rock,AR 72201
Little Rock,AR 72211 371-1666
821-5555
AREA:27.4646 Ac.NUMBER OF LOTS:9 FT.NEW STREET:1900
ZONING:0-2 PROPOSED USES:Office
PLANNING DISTRICT:Rock Creek Valley —17
CENSUS TRACT:42.06
VARIANCES RE UESTED:
None.
A.PROPOSAL RE UEST:
This proposal consists of a preliminary plat filing for
nine office lots adjacent to the Chenal Parkway and
Chenal Valley Drive.The development format is nine
large lots served by internal access with a single
entry point from Chenal Valley Drive.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The existing land area is undisturbed at this time with
natural foliage in place.The Chenal Parkway and
Chenal Valley Drive are developed to City standards.
1
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.1 Continued
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Centerline radii on streets,both cul-de-sac and Chenal
Valley Drive,are less than MSP minimum (450'or
Collector).A waiver will be required for approval.
Applicant should verify that all curves provide a
minimum of 300'ight distance.Excavation Ordinance
applies,Detention has been satisfied by prior
construction of regional facilities.
D.ISSUES LEGAL TECH DESIGN:
There are several issues of concern relative to this
development,the first being a 40-50 foot wide buffer
outside right-of-way and sidewalks on the cul-de-sac.
The Developer proposes the construction of pathways on
the primary streets in this neighborhood.The
Development of sidewalks within the commercial/office
pocket is not indicated on this plat and it is required
by ordinance.Also,a minimum 40 foot buffer strip and
6 foot fence should be shown on the areas abutting
residential subdivisions.
Southwestern Bell telephone has requested several
easements.
The plat should prohibit access from the parkway and
also should show existing jogging trails and O.S.strip
along Chenal Parkway.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Staff review of this preliminary plat indicates a
few design issues.The points made in Items C and D
above are the primary concerns of Staff and Engineering
Department.
The Planning Staff feels strongly about placing
sidewalks where required by ordinance..
To protect the integrity of the residential
neighborhood,it is also necessary to place "O.S."
strip along the north side.The size of the buffer is
critical and must be done in a way that safeguards the
character of the residential neighborhood by providing
the needed separation between two potentially
conflicting uses.
2
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.1 Continued
The buffers along the boundary street should be placed
within the public right-of-way for title purposes
rather than their inclusion within a common open space.
The Staff feels that their placement in the right-of-
way will not deter maintenance on the part of the
adjacent property owners.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat
subject to the resolution of the items pointed out by
Engineering and Planning Staff.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(November 8,1990)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters Engineers was present
representing this plat.Mr.White stated that he would
follow through on making the various corrections to the
preliminary plat in order to bring it into conformance with
the ordinance requirements.Mr.White asked if
60'ndisturbedbufferonwesternboundary,abuting residential
be sufficient instead of 40'uffer and 6'ence,required
by ordinance.He also asked if requirements of the
sidewalks on both sides can be reduced to one side.The
Planning and Engineering Staff felt that those changes would
be sufficient,but the applicant still has to go to the
Board of Directors for partial waiver approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(November 20,1990)
The application was represented by Mr.J.White of White-
Daters Engineers.The Planning Staff reported that it was
appropriate to place this item on the consent agenda for
approval subject to Mr.White complying with ordinance
standard/pagis requirement.A brief discussion followed
during which the Commission determined it appropriate to
place this item on the consent agenda for approval with the
conditions specified by Staff.A motion to that effect was
made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,and 2 absent.
3
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 ~FLE NO.:3-4933-9
NAME:Mechanics Lumber Company Long-Form (PCD)
LOCATION:Southeast corner of Chenal Parkway at Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
MECHANICS LUMBER COMPANY WHITE-DATERS &ASSOCIATES,INC.
P.O.Box 5151 401 Victory
N.Little Rock,AR 72119 Little Rock,AR 72201
371-3456 371-1666
AREA:8.8 Ac.NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET:630
ZONING:Outside City Limits PROPOSED USES:Commercial
PLANNING DISTRICT:Rock Creek Valley —17
CENSUS TRACT:42.06
VARIANCES RE UESTED:
None.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
Mechanics Lumber Company wishes to develop a hardware store
and lumber yard at the intersection of Chenal Parkway and
Kanis Road.The site was purchased several years ago with
the intent of building at such time as the needs for
building materials in the area warranted this expansion.
The project will consist of approximately 17,500 sq.ft.of
Ace Hardware Store with 32,320 sq.ft.of storage for lumber
and other materials.The main building is to be at the
center of the property with store buildings completely
surrounding the area of activity for the lumber business.
Natural buffers will remain on the south,east and west side
of the material storage area.No activity will occur
outside of the storage building relative to business
operations.
1
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEN NO.Continued
A.PROPOSAL RE UEST:
This PCD is filed for purposes of the construction of a
hardware store,lumber yard and creation of two out
parcels.The property currently is located outside
city limits.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site currently is covered with scrub brush and
small trees.The adjacent streets are developed,on
the north to city standard and on the southwest to a
county standard.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Right-of-way and improvements on Chenal Parkway will be
required per Ordinances 14,210 and 15,239.Driveway
spacing on Chenal Parkway is also regulated by these
ordinances.Engineering will work with the developer
and his engineer to determine details of the
engineering requirements.Detention and Excavation
Ordinances apply.
D.~ISSUES DES
The issues to be introduced here are as follows:
1.The Development as proposed does not comply with the
curb cut requirement by ordinance for Chenal Parkway
(one curb cut for every 300 feet with diamond island at
the entrance).
2.The Developer needs to provide a list of uses and floor
areas for the two out-parcels.
3.The Developer should present the architectural design
sketches for all buildings to the Planning Staff and
Planning Commission as required by long-form PCD.
E.ANALYSIS
1.The Staff review of this long-form PCD indicates a few
design issues.The points made in Items C and D are
the primary concerns of the Planning and Engineering
Staff.
2
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.2 Continued
2.History of the site dates back to December 87 when a"C-3"request was filed for the entire 8.85 ac.After
being on the agenda for several months,the item was
withdraw from consideration at the request of the
applicant.
November 1,1988,a request was before the commission
was filed to rezone 8.85 acres to "C-3"and "C-4".
There were several people in opposition.Mr.Jacque
Alexander presented a petition with 150 names opposed
to the commercial rezoning.The application was
approved for "C-2"rezoning as amended.February 3,
1989,the applicant requested withdrawal from the Board
of Directors Agenda.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this PCD subject to:
1.Meeting all Engineering requirements.
2.Providing list of the uses and floor areas for the two
out-parcels.
3.Providing architecture sketches for all buildings.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(November 8,1990)
Mr.J.White and Gene Pfeifer were present representing the
application.The Staff Recommendation was discussed.Mr.
White agreed to follow-up on the Staff Comments before the
Public Hearing on November 20,1990.
Mr.Jerry Gardner pointed out that number of proposed
driveways on the Chenal Parkway frontage needs to be reduced
to one.
General discussion followed during which one of the Guests-
observer seeking more information,asked the Developer if he
proposes a natural buffer along Kanis Road,Mr.White has
already shown an existing 30'uffer.He also stated that
the proposed structure will be closed from outside with only
one gate opening to the inside lumber,and storage yard.
The second question from Guest was whether the 30'uffer is
included in Kanis Road right-of-way.Mr.Wayne Sherrill
from Traffic Department added that Kanis Road on the
3
November 20,1990
~SUBD V ON
I EM NO Continued
Mechanics Lumber frontage will be a two lane collector andright-of-way is already in place.
PLAN ING COMMISSIO ION:(November 20,1990)
The application was represented by Eugene Pfeifer and Joe
White.There were three objectors in attendance.The
Planning Staff presented its recommendation on this matter,the recommendation heing approval of the PCD with
understanding that the City does not commit to any uses onthetwoout-parcels until the site plan review occurs by
Planning Commission.
The Chairman then asked the Planning Staff if there is a
need to discuss a letter from Mr.Pfeifer suggesting street
improvements on Parkway and Kanis,be exchanged for a fivelaneminorarterialstreetalongeastpropertyline.
Jim Lawson,Planning Director,suggested removing the
improvement exchange from discussion at the Planning
Commission level and send to the Board of Directors forfinalresolution.However,the Chairman suggesteddiscussingthisitematthePlanningCommissionin order to
be able to send Planning Commission recommendation on thestreetissuetotheBoard.
Jerry Gardner from Public Works explained that Mr.E.Pfeifer's option on the street had not been reviewed and a
recommendation had not been made,however,there is a greatneedforaroadinthislocation.
A lengthy discussion of the street improvements versusstreetconstructionfollowedbetweenwithseveral
Commissioners and Mr.Gardner.
The Chairman then asked Mr.Pfeifer to present hisapplication.Mr.Pfeifer stated that he agreed with theStaffrecommendationaspresented.
The Commission Chairman then asked the first listed objectorpresent,Douglas Williford to present his position.Mr.Williford offered concerns about traffic and compatibilityofthisusewiththeneighborhood.He felt that traffic wasalreadysevereinthearea.
November 20,1990
r
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 2 Continued
The Chairman then recognized the next listed objector
present,Mr.Ron Hopper.Mr.Hopper stated that he does not
oppose the commercial development,but he opposes the lumber
yard.
The Chair then asked the Planning Staff to present a revisedsiteplantoMr.Hopper and Mr.Williford.The PlanningStaffexplainedthatthenumberofcurbcutshadbeen
reduced to one and the out-parcel site plan will be reviewed
by the Planning Commission before any of the out-parcels be
developed.
Commissioner Nicholson suggested that this item be deferred
until the agreement between the developer and the Staff
about street improvements be accomplished.
The Chair then asked Mr.Pfeifer to consider deferral.Mr.Pfeifer suggested to proceed with the application without
considering street improvements.The Chairman stated that
the Commission would like to also make recommendations on
the street improvements issue to the Board of Directors.
A lengthy discussion of the street improvements versus a newstreetconstructionfollowedinvolvingseveralCommissioners
and Mr.Pfeifer.
The Chairman then recognized another person present who
desired to offer comments in objection.This person was
Jacque Alexander.Ms.Alexander offered additional comments
concerning traffic problems,the need for high quality
development and objected to the commercial development atthislocation.
Commissioner Oleson stated that the Commission also received
a letter from Ms,Nell Ambrose in opposition to the
commercial development.
The Chairman then called the question to approve this
application as modified per revised site plan with severalconditions.
1.No committment on the future use for two out-parcels.2.No curb-cuts for out-parcels from Chenal Parkway.3.The Commission does not make any recommendation onstreetimprovementsatthistime.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,0 nays,2 abstention
and 2 absent.
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
~ZT M No.:3 ~FILE N .:6-5360
NAME:Pulaski County Detention Facility —Long-Form (PCD)
LOCATION:South of Roosevelt Street and East of Brown Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
PULASKI COUNTY OFFICE OF THE CTW —ARCHITECT/ENGINEERS
COUNTY JUDGE (A JOINT VENTURE)
PULASKI COUNTY COURTHOUSE 101 S.Spring Street
ATTN:Rita W.Gruber Little Rock,AR 72201
Little Rock,AR 72201 372-4843
371-8305
AREA:58.2 Ac.NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET:1770
ZONING:"I-2"and "R-3"PROPOSED USES:Pulaski County Jail
PLANNING DISTRICT:Fourche Little Rock —22
CENSUS TRACT:12
VARIANCES RE VESTED:
1.Street improvements on Roosevelt and Woodrow.
2.Right-of-way dedication and street improvements on
Valentine Street.
3.Street improvements on Brown Street south of 32nd
Street.
4.Filing fee.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
A new jail for Pualski County is to be constructed on the
site adjacent to the existing jail building.The existing
hospital building on site will be remodeled for a juvenile
justice center.The existing jail building will be
remodeled for minimum security jail housing.All core
services (food service,administration,laundry)will be
provided by the new jail facility and will support the
operations in all three buildings.
1
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.3 Continued
The new county jail will provide for booking and housing of
all City of Little Rock arrests,replacing current functions
at the Little Rock Police Building on Markham Street.
The new jail building will contain four levels with the
following functions.:
Level 1:Intake,release,truck dock services,intake
housing units.
Level 2:2nd floor of intake housing and visitor access to
intake housing units.
Level 3:Main level for all inmate housing,programs,
health services,kitchen and laundry,corridors
connecting to juvenile center and old jail.
Level 4:2nd floor of housing,visitor center and visitor
access to housing units.
The building is planned to accommodate the sloping terrain,
with the majority of the building being two stories,and
only the south portion four stories in height.
The first phase of construction will house approximately 816
inmates on the site.The site is planned for future
expansion to accommodate a total of 1800 inmates.To
operate the initial first phase,the jail will require a
total staff of approximately 275 employees.,
Access to the new jail will be primarily off Roosevelt Road
and Brown Street from the north and off 32nd Street from the
south.In order to provide contiguous property for
construction of the master plan,a portion of Brown Street
must be closed and rerouted as indicated on the preliminary
plat.
A.PROPOSAL RE VEST:
This PCD is filed for purpose of the construction of
the Pulaski County Jail along the Roosevelt Road and
Brown Street.
2
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.3 Continued
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently occupied by a hospital building
and existing jail.The tract of land is rather rugged.
Some modification of the land area has been
accomplished in previous site improvements.The
roadways are in place which will provide principal
means of access to the various units of the jail.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
The waivers requested are not technically justified,
but should be considered on a public basis.Plans do
not indicate if the bus lane on Roosevelt will beconstructedbythisproject.
D.ISSUES LEGAL TECH:
The issues of concern here are as follows:
1.To clarify if a bus-stop is included in this project.
Extend transition zones and stop line to 150'ach.
2.The Planning Staff opposes a waiver of street
improvements on Woodrow Street,Brown Street south of
32nd Street and Roosevelt in front of the old hospital.
3.Place sidewalks where required by ordinance.
4.Detention and excavation ordinance should be applied.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff view of this proposal is that it is
an excellent effort to expand the existing jailfacility.This layout is principally designed to
accommodate the increasing number of inmates which are
produced by the metro area.
The remaining design issues to be identified by the
Engineers are the bus-stop,sidewalks and street
improvements.We feel that these should be recognizedasapartofthisproject.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Staff recommends approval of the PCD subject to theresolutionoftheitemspointedoutinitemsCandD.
3
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.3 Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(November 8,1990)
The applicant was represented by Mr.Gene Levy,George
Toombs and Pulaski County Office Representatives.
The Planning Staff reported that the application requested
several variances which are not technically justified and
should be included in this project.
The applicant agreed to place sidewalks where required,
redesign bus stop lanes and comply with detention and
excavation ordinance.
The applicant also agreed to meet with City Officials to
discuss improvements on Woodrow Street,part of Brown and
Roosevelt as a Joint Venture Project.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(November 20,1990)
There were several objectors in attendance.The application
was represented by Mr.Gene Levy,George Toombs and several
Pulaski County Office Officials.The Planning Staff offered
its recommendation of approval of this Long-Form PCD subject
to Pulaski County and City of Little Rock reaching agreement
on street improvements for all of the west side of Woodrow,
part of the south side of Roosevelt,the northern side of
32nd Street and several hundred feet of Brown Street.
Mr.Levy,the Architect for the project,made a
presentation.He stated that the road improvements waiver
had been requested and Mr.Larry Vaught,Attorney for
Pulaski County would explain the reasons for the waivers.
Mr.Larry Vaught stated that he had already talked to the
City Attorney's office,but the agreement on the street
improvements has not been reached.He also sated that
county officials were concerned about making street
improvements that weren't directly adjacent to the jail.
The Sales Tax Ordinance said the money would be used to
build the jail,and using the money for street improvements
not adjacent to the property could open the way for a legal
challenge.
4
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.3 Continued
The Commission Chairman then asked the first objector
present,Mr.Cannon,to present his position.Mr.Cannon
stated that the use would be a disruptive factor for the
neighborhood.The Chairman then recognized another person
present desired to offer comments in objection.This person
was Ms.Bonnie Cannon.Ms.Cannon stated that she is on
welfare and cannot afford to move to another location and at
the same time she does not like to live close to the jail.
The Chairman then recognized the next objector.Mrs.E.
Taylor presented comments on future property value.
The Chairman then recognized the next objector,Mr.David
Robinson.Mr.Robinson offered additional comments
concerning traffic problems and poor location for jail and
mistaken location of the street names.
The Chairman then recognized Mr.Levy for a closing
statement.He stated that drawings were produced by a Civil
Engineer and there are no mistakes on these drawings as
stated by Mr.Robinson.
A lengthy discussion followed involving several of the
Commissioners.Commissioner Oleson then requested
information on the buffer size.Mr.Levy stated that the
size of the buffer is 30',but can be increased.
Commissioner Nicholson expressed her concerns on traffic
along Roosevelt Road.She pointed out that additional 275
employees and additional visitors to 1800 inmates would
drastically increase traffic.
Mr.Levy stated that it would not increase traffic because
most of the activities take place in the jail (food
preparation,laundry,etc.).
Commissioner Walker asked for information on the lighting
plan.Mr.Levy described the lighting as being a candle
light fixture.
The Chairman then requested information concerning traffic
pattern for this area.Mr.Wayne Sherrell from the City
Traffic Department stated that City has plans to improve
Roosevelt to five lanes in the future,but he couldn'
narrow down a specific time frame.
5
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.3 Continued
A lengthy discussion then followed involving several of the
Commissioners and City Staff.It was determined that county
would delete footprints of the future expansion of the
property west of Brown Street to protect the neighborhood
and provide adequate buffer.
Commissioner Collins suggested that this item be deferred
because too many unanswered questions concerning this
project remained.
The motion was made to defer this item for two weeks.The
motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes,7 nays,and 2 absent.
The Chair called the question to reconsider'this item.Jim
Lawson of the Planning Staff then stated that the Staff will
work with the County to resolve street improvement issues.
Commissioner Riddick called the question to approve the
application as amended with deleted footprints of the future
expansion west of Brown Street and with recommendation of
denial of all waivers.A motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,
1 nay,1 abstention,and 2 absent.
6
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No 4 —Z-2 41-A
Owner:The Centers for Youth and
FamiliesE~l':Robert M.Brown
Location:6501 W.12th Street
R~*t:Rezone from "R-5"to "0-1"
~P Office,Education,Counseling
and Temporary Housing
Size:7.6 acres
~Et 'E'ffice,Education and
Counseling
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Single Family,zoned "R-4"and "R-5"
South —Park,zoned "R-6"
East —Vacant,zoned "R-5"
West —Quasi-Public,zoned "R-5"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request before the Commission is to rezone approximately7.6 acres on West 12th Street from "R-5"to "0-1".The
property is owned by the Centers for Youth and Families,andislocatedinwhatiscommonlyreferredtoastheUniversityParkComplex.There is currently one building on thewesternhalfofthesite,and to the west is the ElizabethMitchellCenter,also operated by the Centers for Youth andFamilies.The proposal is to expand services provided bytheCentersforYouthandFamiliesinthreephases,with thefirstphasebeingashelterforrunawayandhomelessyouth.Subsequent phases will include a family center withadministrativeofficesinonebuildingandrecreationalspaceinathirdstructure.(The necessary site plan reviewfortheproposedprojectisItemNo.6 on this agenda.)
1
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.4 —Z-2241-A Continued
Zoning in the neighborhood includes "R-2","R-4","R-5",
"R-6"and "0-3",with the acreage in question surrounded by"R-5"or "R-6"zoning.Land uses found in /he area are
single family,duplex,YWCA,Boy Club,office and a city
park and tennis complex.At this time,the land to the east
is vacant,but the City has filed for a conditional use
permit to construct a senior citizen center.Several of the
single family lots to the north are undeveloped.
The Boyle Park District Plan identifies the south side of
West 12th Street for "Public/Institutional"uses."0-1"is
the appropriate zoning district for the recommended land use
plan and the proposed office reclassification is compatible
with the existing development found in that area.Also,the
zoning ordinance states that:
The area standards provided in the "0-1"Quiet Office
District anticipate that office uses will be located in
established areas of the City and in close proximity to
apartments and other residential uses.Height,area
and off street parking regulations are.designed to
assure that the office uses will be compatible with the
adjacent residential uses.
Since there is no evidence that similar uses have impacted
the area,it appears that the proposed project will not have
any affect on the residential properties.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Dedication of additional right-of-way for West 12th Street
for a total of 45 feet from the center line is required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "0-1"rezoning as
requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(November 20,1990)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors and the
item was placed on the consent agenda.A motion was made to
recommend approval of the "0-1"rezoning.The motion passed
by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
2
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 ~FIL NO.:S-875
NAME:Seal-Dry/USA Inc.—Site Plan Review
LOCATION:South Woodrow and Mo-pac Railroad Intersection.
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
JOHN GIVENS DONALD BROOKS,R.L.S.
3300 S.WoodrowLittleRock,AR N.Little Rock,AR
663-3063
AREA:10.5 Ac.NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:"I-3"PROPOSED USES:Addition to the existing
Office Building
PLANNING DISTRICT:Fourche Little Rock —22
CENSUS TRACT:12
VARIANCES RE UESTED:
None.
A.PROPOSAL RE UEST:
This applicant proposes to construct an office
expansion on the present site at 3300 S.Woodrow.This
structure will be 2800 s.f.,an addition to 2500 s.f.
already existing office building.The applicant also
received from Planning Staff,a permit to place two
temporary offices on this site until construction of
the expansion is completed.Temporary offices must be
removed within one year of date of placement.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This property is a gently sloping tract of ground with
a large warehouse structure and office building in
place.The Mo-Pac Railroad abuts this tract on the
north and southeast.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
No engineering comments.
1
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.5 Continued
D.ISSUES LEGAL TECH DESIGN:
There are no issues involved in this site plan.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff review of the site plan reveals no
problems with the proposal as presented.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the application as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(November 8,1990)
Mr.John Givens was present representing the application.
The Planning Staff reported that there is no issues involved
in the review of this site plan.The matter was forwardedtothefullCommissionforfinalresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(November 20,1990)
Mr.John Givens was present representing the application.
The Planning Staff reported that this item was appropriateforplacementontheconsentagendaforapproval.After abriefdiscussion,the Commission determined it appropriatetoplacetheitemontheconsentagendaforapproval.A
motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 9
ayes,0 nays,and 2 absent.
2
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:S-874
NAME:The Centers for Youth and Families —Site Plan Review
LOCATION:6501 West 12th Street.
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
THE CENTERS FOR YOUTH AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS,INC.
FAMILIES 2024 Arkansas Valley Drive,
6501 W.12th Street Suite 306
Little Rock,AR 72204 Little Rock,AR 72212-4142
666-8686 221-7880
AREA:7.69 Ac.NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:"R-5"PROPOSED USES:Office,Education and
Counseling
PLANNING DISTRICT:Boyle Park —10
CENSUS TRACT:21.02
VARIANCES RE UESTED:
1.Building setbacks —east and west side yards.
2.Filing Fee (Non-Profit Organization).
A.PROPOSAL RE UEST:
This applicant proposes a three phase expansion of the
existing facilities on the property located at 6501
West 12th Street.The first phase (10,000 s.f.)of
this expansion is the shelter for runaway and homeless
youth,ages eight through eighteen.The second phase
(15,000 s.f.)will be the family center and T.C.Y.F.
Administrative offices.The last phase (18,000)will
provide additional space for classrooms,as well as,
enclosed recreational space.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently occupied by the Sturgis
Adolescent Center (one story brick and frame building)
and parking area.The adjacent street has been
constructed to City standards.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.6 Continued
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Additional right-of-way on West 12th up to 45 feet from
c/I should be granted.Excavation and Detention
Ordinance apply.
D.ISSUES LEGAL TECH:
There are no issues at this time relative to the site
plan.There may be issues developed in association
with the rezoning application which may generatespecificrequirementsastothescreeningandother
relationships with adjacent properties.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff's view of this site plan is that itisentirelyappropriatetothedevelopmentproposalat
hand.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan to anymodificationswhichmayoccurasaresultofthe
rezoning.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(November 8,1990)
Mr.Robert Brown was present representing the application.
Mr.Brown described the site plan and the various elementsoftheproposal.He indicated that this item is also
subject to "0-1"rezoning (g4)on this agenda.He pointed
out the need for requested variances in the building
setbacks.He also agreed to dedicate additional right-of-
way on West 12th Street.
The Planning Staff reported that there is no remaining
issues involved in this site plan review.The matter was
forwarded to the full Commission for final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(November 20,1990)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors.The
Commission voted 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent to approve this
application as recommended by Staff,reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
2
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.7 Z-5229-A
NAME:Western Hills Elementary School
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5229-A)
LOCATION:4901 Western Hills Avenue
OWNER APPLICANT:Little Rock School
District/Fred Perkins,Agent
PROPOSAL:
Continued use and expansion of buildings for elementary
school kindergarten through grade six.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
Adjacent to a collector street,Western Hills Boulevard
and three residential streets Melba Drive,Darragh
Drive and Fairways Drive.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
The site is abutted by single family uses,a church and
golf course.The proposed renovation and new
construction will be in keeping with the existing
structure.Located on a corner lot,the renovation
will be in keeping with the neighborhood and compatible
with the surrounding uses.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
The existing paved parking and drive area need certain
repairs.The drive across the front of the building
should be virtually reconstructed,and the adjacent
walk will require numerous repairs and/or replacement.
The two parking areas will require joints and cracks to
be filed,and then the entire area overlayed or at
least sealed.The parking area will contain 40 parking
spaces with the parking area re-striped to provide two
handicapped parking spaces.
1
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.7 Continued
4.Screenin and Buffers
The applicant intends to utilize the existing
landscaping.If more is required,then the applicant
will meet the requirement.
5.Cit En ineer Comments
Construct 1/2 street improvements on Western Hills
Boulevard (36 foot collector street),include 25 foot
radius returns on side streets,add handicap ramps to
all sidewalks.Dedication of right-of-way on Melba
Drive.All street improvements to Western Hills
Boulevard inclusive of curb,guttering and drainage per
engineering design.
6.A~1
The applicant's proposal consist of replacing six
portable classroom buildings with permanent building
facilities;provide adequate space for the media
center;provide handicapped accessibility to the
existing facility;repair the existing paved parking
areas,roof and playground;renovate and refinish
certain areas of the existing buildings.The
completion date is set for the end of the 1990-1991
school year.Even though the portable buildings will
remain on site during construction,once construction
is completed,all portable buildings will be removed.
7.Staff Recommendation
Approval subject to the issues as stated in the
Engineering Comments as well as possible relocation of
an Arkansas Power and Light facility to accommodate
this proposal.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING:(November 8,1990)
Jim Lawson,Director of the Planning Department,represented
the applicant.There were no objectors present.Director
Lawson stated the application deals with the removal of the
older portable buildings to make room for construction of
new buildings on the site.It was also stated by Director
Lawson that the School District could not afford the street
improvements and,therefore,would be asking for a waiver.
The right-of-way dedication on Melba Drive will be provided.
2
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.7 Continued
There being no further action,this item was sent on to the
full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(November 20,1990)
The agent for the applicant was in attendance.There were
no objectors present.Staff stated all issues had been
resolved.As a part of the consent agenda,this item was
approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,and 2 absent.
3
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.8 Z-5374
NAME:City of Little Rock Fire
Station No.21/Combined Site
Plan Review and Conditional Use
Permit (Z-5374)
LOCATION:Chenal Valley Drive,Chenal
Valley a subdivision to the
City of Little Rock,Pulaski
County,Arkansas.
OWNER APPLICANT:City of Little.Rock/Wendal
Jones,Agent
PROPOSAL:
To construct a fire station within the Chenal Professional
Center area of Chenal Valley.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
This site will be located within the new Chenal
Professional Office Center across from the Chenal
Valley Golf Course off of Chenal Parkway.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
The site is located in one of the new developing areas
of the City.A golf course is in the final stage of
being completed.Fire Station No.21 is a part of the
over all development of the area from property donated
to the City by the developer,Deltic Timber.The fire
station will be an added improvement to the over all
development and compatible with the neighborhood,once
fully developed.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
The proposal consist of a 36 foot cul-de-sac circle
drive for the Professional Center.On site drive and
parking will be provided.The parking is adequate to
meet the requirement.
1
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.8 Continued
4.Screenin and Buffers
In addition to existing landscape,the applicant will
provide additional landscaping to meet the landscape
requirements.
5.Cit En ineer Comments
Centerline radii on streets,both cul-de-sac and Chenal
Valley Drive are less than Master Street Plan minimum
(450 feet for collector).A waiver will be required
for approval.Applicant should verify that all curves
provide a minimum 300 feet sight distance.The
excavation and detention ordinance has been satisfied
prior to construction of regional facility.All these
issues will be addressed with the preliminary approval
of the Chenal Professional Center.
6.A~1
The City plans to construct a fire station in the
Chenal Valley area.The station will have fifteen
regular parking spaces and one handicap parking space.
The total building area is approximately 10,000 square
feet,consisting of three bays and thirty-two beds.
The station will have two companies,thereby housing
eight fire persons per shift.It is the City'
intention to construct the fire station as designed on
the sketch but if enough funding is not available then
the proposed design will be scaled back but still will
be a quality project.
7.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval conditioned upon Southwestern
Bell acquiring a utility easement as requested which is
5 feet along the north,east and south property lines.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING:(November 8,1990)
Wendal Jones,Agent for the City of Little Rock,was in
attendance.There were no objectors present.Mr.Jones
stated the only concern he had was why Southwestern Bell was
requesting a five foot easement on three sides.Staff
stated they could not answer that questions,but it is a
normal practice for the company.Staff told Mr.Jones he
could get the contact person's number and call Southwestern
2
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.8 Continued
Bell to discuss the matter.Little Rock Wastewater Utility
stated sewer main extension required with easement.Little
Rock Municipal Water Works stated an acreage charge of $300
per acre applies.No other discussion occurred and this
item was sent on to the full Commission for action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(November 20,1990)
The agent for the applicant was in attendance.There were
no objectors present.Staff stated the only resolved issue
remaining was the easement dedication Southwestern Bell was
requiring.The agent stated he had contacted Southwestern
Bell and the issue will be addressed during the preliminaryfilingfortheChenalProfessionalOfficePark.Also,those
issues outlined in the Engineering issues will be handled at
that time.As part of the consent agenda this item was
approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,and 2 absent.
3
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.9 Z-5375
NAME:Cross Tire Company—
Conditional Use Permit (Z-5375)
LOCATION:420 South Bowman Road.
OWNER APPLICANT:Lelon J.Cross,'r.and
Geraldine Cross/William B.
Hearnsberger,Agent
PROPOSAL:
To construct a building for the use of tire sale and
installation as well as an auto service center (parts and
repair).
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
This site is located south of Markham,North of Chenal
Parkway and West of Bowman Road.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
The site is abutted by Commercial uses to the north,
residential use to the east and vacant land to the
south and west.Staff feels the use is appropriate for
the area,but the site plan submitted had several
deficiencies which will be addressed at the Subdivision
Committee Review Hearing.
3.On-Site Driv s and Parkin
The on site drive will be accessed off of Bowman Road,
a minor arterial.On site parking will be provided
which will meet the regulation as well as handicap
parking.
4.Screenin and Buffers
In addition to the mature vegetation on site,the
applicant does propose to meet all the landscape
requirements.
1
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.9 Continued
5.Cit En ineer Comments
Reduce driveway width to 30 feet and construct sidewalk
on Bowman Road.
6.A~1
The Staff does not foresee any adverse impact on the
surrounding area as a result of the proposed use.
However,Staff does need a more detailed revised site
plan indicating landscaping,open space,and dimensions
of the structure.There is some question as to whether
a final plat of the site has been properly filed.If
not,any approval will be conditioned upon that filing.
Presently,the site is vacant and is part of a larger
tract which has preliminary approval.
7.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to (1)a revised
detailed site plan being submitted at the Subdivision
Review Committee Hearing,(2)any approval will be on
hold until the final plat has been filed,(3)
addressing the engineering issues per the engineering
comments,and (4)dedication of a 10 foot easement
along the north,west,and south sides per Southwestern
Bell request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING:(November 8,1990)
The applicant was in attendance and represented by William
Hearnsberger,Engineer on the project.Staff stated that
the applicant was asked to submit a revised site plan which
he had done.The new revised site plan indicates enough
landscaping,the issues expressed by engineering and open
space.There is some concern of Staff regarding the mounted
pole sign.Staff would like for the height to be limited to
no more than 15 to 20 feet.Mr.Hearnsberger has indicated
his client will have no problem complying with the request.Little Rock Wastewater Utility needs additional information
contact should be made with them for details.No other
discussion took place.This item was sent on to the full
Commission for action.
2
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.9 Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(November 20 1990)
The agent for the applicnt was in attendance.There were no
objectors present.Staff stated that there were no
unresolved issues remaining.The agent for.the applicant
agreed to the height of the sign being 20 feet.As part of
the consent agenda,this item was approved by a vote of 9
ayes,0 nays,and 2 absent.
3
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.10 Z-5376
NAME:Little Rock Senior Citizens
Center Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5376)
LOCATION:The southwest corner of 12th
Street and Leisure Place.
OWNER APPLICANT:City of Little,Rock/Parks and
Recreation Department/Mark
Weber,Agent
PROPOSAL:
The construct a Senior Citizen Recreation Complex and larger
education building with the envision to serve many ages and
groups in the Little Rock area.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
This site is located west of the Little Rock Boys Club,east of the Elizabeth Mitchell Children Center.
Situated on a corner,the site abuts West 12th Street
and Leisure Lane.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
The site is located around several compatible uses,Little Rock Boys Club,YWCA,Tennis Courts,and
Elizabeth Mitchell Children Center.To the north of
the site are residential uses which this project should
not have any adverse impact on.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
Vehicle access will be taken off of Leisure Place.
Service access will be to the west side of the
building.Sixty-six parking spaces will be provided
along with shared parking with the other facilities in
the park complex.
1
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.10 Continued
4.Screenin and Buffers
It is the intent of the applicant not only to utilize a
majority of the mature vegetation on site but provide
for additional landscaping if the requirement so
warrants.
5.Cit En ineer Comments
Construction of a declaration lane on West 12th Street
east bound,construct sidewalk on Leisure Place
frontage,with handicapped ramps,install street lights
on Leisure Place frontage,increase curb return radius
at driveway to ten feet and the excavation and
detention ordinances applies.
6.A~A
This proposal is a part of the City of Little Rock Bond
Project for the completion of the University Park
Complex.Already in place are the Elizabeth Mitchell
Children Center,Little Rock Boys Club,YWCA and Tennis
Courts.This development will be built at the same
time as Phase III of the Elizabeth Mitchell Center,i.e.Center for Youth and Families.
The senior citizens center will be oriented toward
mature adults.The internal uses of the building are
arts and crafts room,meeting room,library and reading
room,recreation room,lobby area and a large dining
room,which can also serve as a multi-purpose room.
The outdoor uses are primarily oriented to the back
side of the building,and those are bocce ball,
horseshoe,and patio area and pavilion for socializing.
7.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval per the engineering issues as
outlined in the Engineering Comments.
2
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.10 Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING:(November 8,1990)
Mark Weber along with Bill Bunten were in attendance to
represent the applicant.There were no objectors present.
Staff stated that the only concerns were the requirementslistedintheEngineeringComments.After discussion of
those items,Staff asked if there would be problems meeting
the requirements.Bill Bunten,Assistant Director of the
Parks Department stated that all requirements would be met.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works is requiring on site fire
protection.Little Rock Wastewater Utility stated that
sewer main extension is required with easement.No more
discussion took place.This item was then sent on to the
Commission for action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(November 20,1990)
The agent for the applicant was present.There were no
objectors in attendance.Staff informed the Commission that
Engineering had changed the requirement for a deceleration
lane.In their opinion,none would be needed.As part of
the consent agenda,this item was approved by a vote of 9
ayes,0 nays,and 2 absent.
3
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.11 Z-5377
NAME:West Little Rock Church of
Christ-Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5377)
LOCATION:16719 Cantrell Road.
OWNER APPLICANT:David Bagley/David Jones,Agent
PROPOSAL:
To allow a church use in a residence already on the site.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
This site is located on Highway 10 (Cantrell Road)a
state highway and east of Katillus Road,a residential
street.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
The site is abutted by residential uses to the north
and west.To the east and south a mixture of
residential,commercial and office.Staff feels a
church use on a small scale would not have any adverse
impact on the existing uses.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
On site drive will be used to access the twelve parking
spaces that will be provided on site and adequate for
the proposed use.
4.Screenin and Buffers
The site has a large amount of mature vegetation which
the applicant plans to utilize.If additional
landscaping is needed,the applicant will have no
problem meeting the requirement.
5.Cit En ineer Comments
Provide for Master Street Plan right-of-way dedication
on Highway 10 frontage (55 feet from centerline).
1
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.11 Continued
6.A~1
The property is located outside of the City of Little
Rock,but is within the City's exterritorial zoning
jurisdiction.The property is zoned "R-2"single
family and is within the transition zone as shown on
the Highway 10 plan.
The building is a single family structure of
approximately 3000 square feet and is to be leased to
the Church of Christ.The Church has a projected
initial membership of twenty and plans to use the
structure "as is".
The residence is a one story structure with swimming
pool and attached frame and brick building.Staff
supports the proposal,but will not support a waiver
from the Engineering Comment.
7.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval with the endorsement that the
Conditional Use be for the sole purpose of a Church use
with no possibility of perhaps an office use.Also,
the applicant will have to address the issues of right-
of-way dedication per the Engineering Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING:(November 8,1990)
The Agent for the applicant was not in attendance.There
were no objectors present.Staff informed the Committee
that the request is for a Church Use and other than the
Engineering Comments,Staff had no problems with the
application.Little Rock Wastewater Utility stated
additional information is required.Contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility for details.
No additional discussion took place.This item was then
sent on to the full Commission for action.
2
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.11 Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(November 20,1990)
The agent,David Jones,was in attendance.There were no
objectors present.Staff informed the Commission that the
agent for the applicant was requesting a waiver for the
dedication of right-of-way as requested by Engineering.
Mr.Jones stated that since the applicant would only be
leasing the site for a period of one year,it made no sense
to require the right-of-way dedication at this time.The
applicant would be out of pocket approximately $4,000 just
for the paving,landscaping and stripping for the parking
areas.
Staff informed the Commission that Staff would not be in
favor of any waivers.Several of the Commissioners felt the
same way.Further discussion continued among the Staff,
Commissioners and Mr.Jones.Mr.Jones then asked if it
would be possible to get a deferral of the right-of-way
dedication until a later date when the property is perhaps
sold,rezoned,or a more intense use happens on the site.
This request was discussed further at which time a motion
was then made to approve the Conditional Use Permit with a
deferred of the right-of-way dedication for a period of
sixty days,or until a building permit is issued.The
motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes,0 nays,and 5 absent.
3
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.12 Z-5378
NAME:Good Shepherd Episcopal-
Church's Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5378)
LOCATION:16225 Cantrell Road.
OWNER APPLICANT:Taylor-Ten Partnership/David
Jones,Agent
PROPOSAL:
To utilize a residence for a church use.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
The site is located at the southwest corner of the
intersection of West Taylor Loop Road,a minor arterial
and Highway 10,a state highway.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
This site has several uses which are adjacent or in
close proximity.The uses consist of residential,
commercial and office.Staff does not feel that the
intended use would place any impact on the uses already
in place.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
The applicant proposes to utilize the existing driveway
and provide for sixteen parking spaces which meets the
parking requirements.
4.Screenin and Buffers
The majority of the screening and buffer will come from
existing mature vegetation on the site.If more
screening and buffer is needed,the applicant will meet
the landscaping requirements.
1
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.12 Continued
5.Cit En ineer Comments
Provide Master Street Plan right-of-way on Highway 10
frontage (55 feet from centerline).Also,Taylor Loop
Road frontage (45 feet from centerline).Construct
minor arterial improvements to Taylor Loop Road and
construct sidewalk on Highway 10 frontage.
6.~A1
This site is currently zoned "R-2"single family and is
within the transition zone as shown on the Highway 10
plan.
The building is a single family structure of
approximately 3200 square feet and will be leased to
Good Shepherd Episcopal Church.The church has a
current attendance of approximately twenty-five and
will utilize this structure "as is"with minor interior
changes.A pool and small building also exist on the
site.
Since the residence is in a transition zone,Staff
feels that the applicant's proposed use will be
appropriate and place no undue hardship on the adjacent
uses.Staff will not support any waivers from the
engineering issues.
7.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit
for a church use only.The applicant will have to
adhere to all the issues specified in the Engineering
comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING:(November 8,1990)
The Agent for the applicant was not in attendance.There
were no objectors present.Staff stated the use was for a
Church.Other than the applicant meeting the requirements
outlined in the Engineering Comments and landscaping,there
were no problems with the request.A committee member did
state concerns about the engineering issues regarding the
street improvements on West Taylor Loop.Little Rock
Wastewater Utility is requesting additional information for
review.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details.
2
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.12 Continued
No other discussion took place.This item was then sent on
to the full Commission for action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(November 20,1990)
David Jones represented the applicant.There were no
objectors present.Staff informed the Commission that Mr.
Jones was asking for a waiver from the street improvements
to West Taylor Loop,dedication of right-of-way for Highway
10 and West Taylor Loop,construction of the minor arterial
improvements to Taylor Loop Road and construction of a
sidewalk on Highway 10 frontage.
Mr.Jones stated that the same situation exists with thissiteaswiththeprevious.The only difference is the fact
the lease agreement with this applicant is for a two year
period.This site is part of larger 17 acre tract and has a
single family residence,which is an older house.He would
hope that all the issues outline in the Engineering Comments
could be deferred until this site or all of the seventeen
acres were developed.The church is small in membership and
will meet only on Wednesday and Sundays.It is costing
approximately $4,000 just to provide for off-street parking.
Staff again stated opposition to any waivers.There reallyisn't a proper means of monitoring a straight out deferral
for improvements or right-of-way dedication.
Mr.Jones then asked what would be the problem,if and whenthissiteisredeveloped,the application will have to go
through the planning process.Staff then stated that the
right-of-way dedication should be given if approval of the
Conditional Use Permit is obtained.Staff would go along
with a deferral of the improvements to West Taylor Loop and
construction of the sidewalk until redevelopment of a part
or all seventeen acres happens.
Mr.Jones was then asked if he could except the Staff's
amended recommendation.Mr.Jones stated yes.A motion was
then made to approve the Conditional Use Permit conditioned
upon the right-of-way dedications being obtained within
sixty days.The street improvements to West Taylor Loop and
the sidewalk issues will be deferred until all or a apart of
the seventeen acres is redeveloped.The motion passed by a
vote of 6 ayes,0 nays,and 5 absent.
3
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.13 Z-5380
NAME:Woodruff Elementary School/
Conditional Use Permit (Z-5380)
LOCATION:3010 West 7th Street.
OWNER APPLICANT:Little Rock School
District/Elden Block,Agent
PROPOSAL:
To construct a new one story addition in order to provide
for more classroom space.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
The site is located west of Seventh Street,east of
Lamar Porter field,north of Sixth Street,which is one
way running east;and east of Booker Street.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
Woodruff School has existed in the neighborhood for
several years.The Little Rock School is in the
process of renovating a number of the older schools in
order to remove the portable buildings.being utilized.
The proposed addition will place no additional impact
on the neighborhood and is a very compatible use.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
The existing drives will remain with no new ones
created due to the location of the new addition,Staff
parking will be relocated to two lots south of the
site.The Little Rock School District.is in the
process of purchasing two lots.Approximately a total
of 30 parking spaces will be provided.
4.Screenin and Buffers
New landscaping will be provided for screening and
buffer which will meet the requirement of the landscape
ordinance.
1
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.13 Continued
5.Cit En ineer Comments
Construction of handicap ramps for all sidewalks.
6.A~1
The proposal is for a single-story,masonry load
bearing structure with detailing compatible to the
existing building.The new addition will be located at
the northeast corner of the site.
A setback variance is being requested from the frontage
of Booker Street,which Staff supports.The variance
is needed to accommodate a growth in the square footage
for special education areas,computer classroom,and a
new four year old child learning program.
The drop off area will be on Sixth Street for loading
and unloading of the students.The drop-off area on
Booker Street is primarily for the parents of very
small children and handicapped access.The remainder
of the student body will exit north to sixth street for
bus loading,and south to seventh street for general
egress.
7.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval conditioned upon the
Engineering comments being addressed by the applicant.
Contact should be made with Arkansas Power and Light
Company for the possible relocation of a utility
easement.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING:(November 86 1990)
Neither the agent nor applicant was in attendance.There
were no objectors present.Staff informed the Committee
that the use was being requested in order to remove the
portable buildings on the site.Walter Malone,a Staff
member and CDBG Committee member,stated that meetings had
been held with the neighborhood and no adverse comments were
anticipated.No other discussion took place.This item was
sent on to the full Commission for action.
2
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.13 Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(November 20,1990)
The agent for the applicant was in attendance.There were
no objectors present.As part of the consent agenda,this
item was approved per the engineering issues as part of the
consent agenda.The vote was 9 ayes,0 nays,and 2 absent.
3
November 20,1990
~HUBQIV S 0
Item No.14 Z-5381
NAME:The Ranch —Zoning Site Plan
Review (Z-5381)
~LghX~:The northwest corner of Ranch
Boulevard and Ranch Drive.
OWNER APPLICANT:The Castillo Company,
Inc./David Parker,Agent
PRROO~S
Construction of a State Farm Services Center for claims on
approximately 2.5 acres,on property zoned e0-2",Office and
Institutional District.
1.Cit En in erin Comments:
New sidewalk proposed on Ranch Drive should be
constructed against the property line.-Ranch Boulevard
frontage is presently unconstructed and will also
require sidewalks.The excavation and Detention
Ordinance apply.
s s:
The applicant has submitted a site plan for a proposed
insurance company claims service center.The facility
will provide policy and claims adminstration to State
Farm's policy holders.No retail sales of insurance
policies will be conducted from the office.The single
story administrative office building will include a
drive through property damage inspection area.
The facility will enclose approximately 14,000 squarefeetinasteelframe,flat roof building.The vehicle
inspection area will be comprise of 1,380 square feet.
The remainder of the building will be used as office
and support space.The largest space is designated as
office and may open with approximately 71 employees.
Located on the Johnson Ranch property,this use inStaff's opinion,will be compatible with other possibleuses.The traffic flow should be minimum.
1
November 20,1990
Item No.14 Continued
3.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval conditioned upon the
applicant addressing the issues as outlined in the
Engineering comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING:(November 8,1990)
Ed Willis,Joe White and David Parker were in attendance.
There were no objectors present.Staff gave a statement
regarding the use of the property.If the applicant had no
problems with the Engineering Comments,then Staff supported
the request.Mr.Willis stated that the applicant would
adhere to the Engineering issues.Little Rock Wastewater
Utility states a sewer main extension will be required with
easements.
Little Rock Municipal Waterworks states a water main
extension is required to serve the property.The water main
in Highway 10 to which this extension will be connected is
under construction.An acreage charge of $150.00 per acre
will apply.No other discussion took place and this item
was sent to the full Commission for action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(November 20,1990)
The agent for the applicant was in attendance.There were
no objectors present.As part of the consent agenda,this
item was approved per the engineering issues as part of the
consent agenda.The vote was 9 eyes,0 nays,and 2 absent.
2
November 20,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.15 OTHER MATTERS
NAME:West 36th Street Water Main
Extension
R~EUEST:In accordance with Act 186 of
1957,the Water Works is
requesting approval of a 2535
foot 16"diameter water main
extension from Tank No.15 to
West 36th Street.The purpose
of the main extension is to
provide reinforced flows to
areas already served.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present.There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(November 20,1990)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors
present.The commission voted 9 ayes,0 nays,and 2 absent
to approve the application as filed.
1
PLANNING CONNISS ION
VOTE RECORD
DATE c20
ITEN NUNBERS
SUBDIVISION
MEMBER (e 7 g t /0 //4 3 Y/'g L5
W.Riddick,III V'a V v'V''V v v.v v v'V v
Walker Brad V 0 V V V v y IV V M V V v gr V V
v'J
~HcDaniel v v V P V V v v'V v v V y v v
v'.
Hi ler V L/'V V v'''P v
v''EE
J .Nicholson V V'V v v''V V V V o .V V v
SelzA Joe V V V y V V Q N ~V v V V
S.Leek
C.Whitfield
K.Oleson y'p+v'V V'u V V V'
eIE
R Col 'ns V v
F.Perkins +V u
'/AYE BAYE A IIBEEIIT +ABETAIB A
November 20,1990
There being no further business before the Commiss'the
meeting w adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
/
Chaxrma S ary
DATE:I