pc_10 09 1984subf
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
OCTOBER 9,1984
1:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being 9 in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.
III.Members Present:John Schlereth
Richard Massie
Ida Boles
Betty Sipes
John Clayton
Jim SummerlinBillRector Jr.
Dorothy Arnett
William Ketcher
IV.Members Absent:Jerilyn Nicholson
David Jones
V.City Attorney Present:Tom Carpenter
TENTATIVE SUMMARy OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
OCTOBER 9,1984
De f erred Items:
A.Rodney Parham Conditional Use (Z-3484-D)
B.Pleasant Valley Professional Subdivision
Preliminar Plat/Replats:
l.Orbit Subdivision
Planned Unit Develo ment:
2.Wsrtz S Replat "PRD"(Z-4252)
Site Plan Review:
3.Madden Chappel "PCD"(Z-4253)
4.The Ridge,Phase II "PRD"(Z-4254)
5.West Side Creek Apartments "PRD"(Z-4332)6.The Boat House "PCD"(Z-4331)7.Trammell Crow Building Site Plan Review (Z-4338)
Conditional Use Review
8.South Tyler Street Day-Care Center (Z-4330)9.Watson and Taylor Office Park (Z-4329)
Building Line Waiver
10.Golden Building Line Waiver (Lot 43,Leawood Mountain
Addition)11.Executive Park Building Line Waiver
Street/Alley Closures:
12.Ringo Street Closure
Added Items
13.Kindercare Facility —Site Plan
14.West Markham —Street Closure
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.A
NAME:Rodney Parham
Conditional Use Permit
(2-3484-D)
LOCATION:Northeast Corner of Rodney
Parham Road and Reservoir Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Wengroup,Inc./Chris Barrier
P ROPOSAL:
To rezone the property from "R-6"to "C-3"and to obtain a
conditional use which would allow the construction of seven
buildings (removal of two buildings),six office warehouses
(125,000 square feet of warehouse and 14,000 square feet ofoffice),one retail building (34,200 square feet up to
60,200 square feet,and 650 parking spaces on 11.943+acres.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
This site is located at the intersection of twoarterialstreets(Rodney Parham and Reservoir).
2.Compatibility with Neighborhood
The site plan as submitted is not compatible.There is
potential for a commercial use on this site if properly
developed.An institutional use (retirement center)lies to the east,office and multifamily to the south,
vacant to the north and commercial to the west.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
This proposal contains three access drives (two on
Reservoir and one on Rodney Parham)and 650 paved
parking spaces.
4.Screening and Buffers
The applicant has not proposed any screening or buffers
or shown any landscaping.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.A —Continued
5.~A1
The staff supports the proposed "C-3"rezoning as thissitewasformerlyzoned"C-3"and a portion (north)iscurrentlyzoned"C-3."There are however majordeficienciesinthesiteplan.The buildings appear tohavelittlerelationshiptothesteepslopeoftheland.This proposal contains no provision for a bufferoropenspaceontheeastpropertyline.This site
plan does not appear to take into consideration thepotentialmajordrainageproblems.The City Engineer
has requested an internal drainage plan and has
recommended that a detention facility be considered.Finally,the applicant will be required to dedicateadditionalright-of-way on Reservoir Road (to fivelanes)and construct it.*
*The applicant has indicated that a revised site planwillbesubmitted.
6.Staff Recommendation
The staff withholds recommendation subject to the notecitedabove.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present.The staff stated that theapplicanthadwrittenaletteraskingthatthisitembedeferreduntiltheOctober9,1984,Planning Commissionmeeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Commission voted 11 ayes,0 noes to defer this item totheOctober9,1984,Planning Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present.The staff stated that theapplicanthadsubmittedaletterrequestingwithdrawalofthisitem.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.A —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present but had submitted a letter
requesting withdrawal of this item.The Commission voted
8 ayes,0 noes,3 absent to withdraw this item.
t
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.B
NAME:Pleasant Valley Professional
Subdivision
LOCATION:On South side of Hinson Road
located approximately 1200 feet
west of intersection of
Hinson and Hinson Loop
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Ampersand Properties Edward G.Smith and Associatesc/o Mike McQueen 401 Victory
1 2115 Hinson Road Little Rock,AR 72201LittleRock,AR 72212 Phone:374-1666
Phone:664-1000
AREA:5.02 acres NO.OF LOTS:4 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"0-2"
PROPOSED USES:Office Building Sites
VARIANCES REQUESTED:27'rivate street without curb
A.~tt H to
None.
B.Existin Conditions
This site is located in what can generally be described
as a commercial/office area.The sole structureon-site consists of an office building.
C.Development Pro osal
This is a plan to develop 5.02 acres into four lots to
be developed for office use.The applicant is askingthattheexistingdrivebeconvertedtoaprivatestreetbywideningandimprovingandthatnocurbbeprovided.
D.Engineerin Considerations
Dedicate right-of-way and improve Hinson Road to minorarterialstandards.
1
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.B -Continued
A.~A1
Wastewater reports that a sanitary sewer main extensionwillberequired.This application represents anattemptbytheapplicanttosubdivideaparcelof 5.20acresintofourlotsonasitethatiszoned"0-2."AconflictwiththeZoningOrdinanceiscreatedsincethiszoningdistrictrequiresaminimumsiteareaoftwoacres.In addition,all sites must be developedunderaunifiedsiteplananda25'andscape stripparalleltoandabuttinganyboundarystreetshall beprovidedandmaintainedbytheowners.No parking isallowedinthestrip.Staff questions the purpose fornotindicatingimprovementsthefullextentoftheaccesseasement.The applicant should clarify.Sincethisisacommercial/office subdivision,the street
whether public or private is required to be 36'ide.
F.Staff Recommendation
Staff will recommend approval provided the above issuesareresolved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present.The applicant requested a waiverofthe36'treet width requirement due to a desire tomaintaintheexistingcharacteroftheofficedevelopmentcurrentlyon-site.Discussion centered on the applicantsprovidinga26'treet inside the development with a turningradiusontoHinsonRoad.Because of the problem with the"0-2"zoning requirements,it was decided that he shouldwithdrawtheapplicationandconvertthistoa"PUD."
Water Works designates 50'n east side as utility andaccesseasement.Lot 2 is served off Hinson,so extensionwillbeneededforanewline.Prorated charge for Lot l.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
By request of the applicant,a motion for a 30-day deferralwasmadeandpassedbyavoteof:11 ayes,0 noes and0absent.
I
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.B —Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:(10-9-84)
There was no further review of the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(10-9-84)
A motion for a 30-day deferral,as requested by the
applicant,was made and passed by a vote of:6 ayes,0 noes
and 4 absent.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1
NAME:Orbit Subdivision (Plan A)
LOCATION:North of I-30 at the Southeast
Intersection of Mabelvale Pike
and North Chicot
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER/APPLICANT:
Jim Hathaway,372-1700 Nark Wright
Orbit Valve profit Sharing Nehlburger,Tanner,Renshaw
7500 Interstate Drive P.O.Box 3837LittleRock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72203-3837
Phone:372-1700 Phone:375-5331
AREA:51.922 acres NO.OF LOTS:4 FT.OF NEW ST.:
Plan A,2,000
BONING."R-2""C-4""NF-18"
PROPOSED USES:Single Family,Commercials NF 18"
PLANNING DISTRICT:15
CENSUS TRACT:41.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED:None
A.Site History
A proposal for the rezoning of this site from "MF-18"
and "R-2"to "C-4"and "NF-18"was reviewed by the
Commission on December 13,1983.It was decided that aplatwouldbeneededtoaddressstreetissues,such as
the classification of the Chicot Road,Nabelvale Pike
and a proposed street through the property.The item
was not forwarded to the Board.
B.Existin Conditions
The land involved is basically flat and almost entirely
covered by mature vegetation.It is bordered on the
west by North Chicot,on the north by Nabelvale pike
and on the south by I-30.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —Continued
C.Develo ent Proposal
1.The applicant has submitted a plan for review by
the Commission.He has requested:
a.Approval of future lots to be platted
according to the minimum lot sizes for the
appropriate zoning district.
b.In the event of development of lots which
will be subsequently platted,construction of
the approvements shall be limited to the
frontage on the roads abutting said lots and
shall not be required until the lot is
actually improved.
2.It proposes a collector street which begins at the
norteast corner and forms an arc through the
property to a point where it would connect with
the westward extension of Mabelvale Pike from
North Chicot Road.Both the proposed collector
and that portion of the eastern side of North
Chicot Road,between the I-30 access road and the
point at which the new collector would intersect
North Chicot Road,will be improved to collector
standards.
Improvements to the rest of the eastern side of
North Chicot Road,and that portion of Mabelvale
Pike running along the entire northern boundary of
the subject property,would only include widening
the road and reshaping the curvature in each ditch
but not the provision of curb/gutter or other
boundary improvements associated with a collector
street.
D.En ineerin Considerations (Plan A)
1.Dedicate right-of-way and improve North Chicot
Road from I-30 to New Mabelvale Pike to collector
standards.
2.Dedicate right-of-way and improve North Chicot
Road from New Mabelvale Pike north to east leg of
Mabelvale Pike to residential street standards.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —Continued
3.Dedicate right-of-way and improve Mabelvale Pike
on the northern boundary of the property toresidentialstreetstandards.
4.Intersection of new collector with Mabelvale PiketobeapprovedbytheCityTrafficEngineer.
5.A.H.T.D.will need to approve access and
improvements along 1-30 access road.
E.~II 1
The applicant has submitted two plans for review,buthasstatedanintentiontodeveloponlyone,as
determined by market conditions.Staff is not opposedtothisnorthefutureplattingoflotsaccordingto
ordinance standards.We have not agreed,however,withhisproposalforimprovements.Improvements to thestreetshouldbeprovidedasstatedbytheCityEngineers.
Staff is favorable to the applicant's proposal for acollectorthroughthesite.It provides a goodconnectiontoChicotRoad.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Plan A.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was requested to get with staff and
Engineering to decide which improvements would be provided
and clarify different aspects of both plans.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant,Mr.Jim Hathaway,who represented the
developers,was present.There were no opposers.There was
no vote on this item since the Commission voted to approve
Plan B (see No.1A).
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1A
NAME:Orbit Subdivision (Plan B)
LOCATION:North of I-30 at the Southeast
Intersection of Mabelvale Pike
and North Chicot
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER/APPLICANT:
Jim Hathaway,372-1700 Mark Wright
Orbit Valve Profit Sharing Mehlburger,Tanner,Renshaw
7500 Interstate Drive P.O.Box 3837LittleRock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72203-3837
Phone:372-1700 Phone:375-5331
AREA:51.922 acres NO.OF LOTS:4 FT.OF NEW ST.:
Plan B,400
EONING'R 2n nC 4a mMF 18n
PROPOSED USES:Single Family,Commercial,"MF-18"
PLANNING DISTRICT:15
CENSUS TRACT:41 '5
VARIANCES REQUESTED:None
A.Site History
A proposal for the rezoning of this site from "MF-18"
and "R-2"to "C-4"and "MF-18"was reviewed by the
Commission on December 13,1983.It was decided that a
plat would be needed to address street issues,such as
the classification of the Chicot Road,Mabelvale Pike
and a proposed street through the property.The item
was not forwarded to the Board.
B.Existin Conditions
The land involved is basically flat and almost entirely
covered by mature vegetation.It is bordered on the
west by North Chicot,on the north by Mabelvale Pike
and on the south by I-30.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1A —Continued
C.Development Pro osal
1.The applicant has submitted a plan for review by
the Commission.He has requested:
a.Approval of future lots to be platted
according to the minimum lot sizes for the
appropriate zoning district.
b.In the event of development of lots which
will be subsequently platted,construction of
the improvements shall be limited to the
frontage on the roads abutting said lots and
shall not be required until the lot is
actually improved.
2.This plan will be developed only if all of Tract"B"and/or all of Tract "B"were purchased
simultaneously.Then a new collector would not be
required,but all of the Nabelvale Pike frontage
and all of the North Chicot Road bordering the
property would be improved to collector standards.
En ineerin Considerations (Plan B)
1.Dedicate right-of-way and improve North Chicot
Road to collector standards.
2.Dedicate right-of-way and improve Nabelvale Pike
to collector street standards.
3.The proposed roadway improvement at North Chicot
Road and Mabelvale Pike is satisfactory.Request
plans to modify the intersection of Carolina
Drive.
4.A.H.T.D.to approve access and improvements along
the 1-30 access road.
E.Analysis
The applicant has submitted two plans for review,but
has stated an intention to develop only one,as
determined by market conditions.Staff is not opposed
to this nor the future platting of lots according to
ordinance standards.We have not agreed,however,with
his proposal for improvements.Improvements to the
street should be provided as stated by the City
Engineers.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1A —Continued
This plan indicates no collector street.If it is approved,
then staff recommends the combining of Lots B,C and D sothattherewillbeatwolotplat.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was requested to get with staff and
Engineering to decide which improvements would be provided
and clarify different aspects of both plans.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr.Jim Hathaway represented the developer.There were noopposers.He explained that the only difference between the
two plans were the provision of the collector through one.
Due to several months of research,it was his determination
that building both a collector and boundary streets on the
plan would not be cost-effective,thus,he requested a
waiver of the street improvements.Justification for
submission of both plans was based on the reasoning that acollectorwouldnotbenecessaryifthelandwassoldasonetract.If it was further subdivided,however,the road
would be necessary to build a collector.There was a costdifferenceof$150,000 in the plans.
Staff stated their preference for no lot lines on Plan B,since the applicant would have to come back to the
Commission to get rezoning to accommodate each use.The
Commission expressed their reluctance to approve both plansatonce.They asked the applicant his preference,which was"Plan B,"the one without the collector.It was decided if
he sold the tract in anything other than its entirety,he
would have to come back to the Commission.On this basis,a
motion was made for the approval of Plan B.The motion
passed by a vote of:9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.2
NAME:Wirtz's Replat Short Form
"PRD"(Z-4252)
LOCATION:Approximately 300 Feet South of
Intersection of Mabelvale Pike
and Grace Street,East Side of
Mabelvale Pike
AGENT:ENGINEER:
Terry Southerall Phillips Engineering Co.
664-2469 or 225-8127 806 North University
CMTW Company Little Rock,AR
19 LongleaLittleRock,AR 72212
(Boyd Montgomery 227-7675)
AREA:2.83 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:"R-5"/HC-3"
PROPOSED USES:Apartments
PLANNING DISTRICT:12
CENSUS TRACT:20.01
VARIANCES REQUESTED:None
A,~St H to
This item was reviewed by the Commission on
August 28,1984,as a request for rezoning from "R-5"
and "C-3"to "R-5"for the purpose of constructing
multifamily units.After a discussion,which includedfiveobjectorsfromtheneighborhood,it was decidedthattheitemshouldbedeferredtotheOctober9th
Public Hearing and refiled as a short form "PUD."
Due to the stability and attractiveness of the
immediate single family neighborhood,staff felt thatitwouldnotbeappropritetodevelopas"R-5"and
without seeing a specific Site Development Plan.It
was felt that development should not exceed "MF-12."
The applicant stated,however,that there was a sale
pending for the property which required it to be
developed as "MF-24";also,that his plans did not
include over 68 units.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.2 —Continued
B.Proposal
1.The construction of 72 multifamily units on 2.83
acres.
2.Development schedule:
Unit No.~U't 7 *Unit Size
36 2 bedroom 720 square feet
36 1 bedroom 576 square feet
3.Amenities/other to include:1 resident manager'
unit,1 club room and 1 swimmng pool.
4.Landscaping will consist of earth mounds with
shrubs to screen development from Nabelvale Pike,
lighted islands and parking area.Several largetreesonthesitewillbeincorporatedintothe
design.
5.Parking —86 spaces.
C.En ineering Comments
1.Dedicate right-of-way on Nabelvale Pike tocollectorstandards.
2.Improve Nablevale Pike to collector standards.
3.Provide a more detailed parking plan.
D.Analysis
As stated previously,this site was originally
submitted for review as rezoning and has now been
resubmitted as a "PUD"at the request of the Planning
Commission.Our major concern relates to the design of
the project.The applicant must demonstrate that he
can provide the 108 parking spaces and minimum of
20'nternaldrivesthatarerequired.His proposalindicatesplansforonly86spaces.This represents adeficitof22spaces.
The applicant is also requested to clarify the numberoffloorsandtheheightofthebuilding.To address
the need for a buffer/screening device to protect the
neighboring single family residences,the usual 6'
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.2 —Continued
fence and 40/25'uffer is required on the north and
south perimeters of the property.The fence should
stop a short distance from the west property line so astopreventasitedistanceproblem.Contact
Environmental Codes about the nature and extent of
required landscaping.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval,subject to the comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present,there was no review of
the item.
Water Works Comments —An 8"on-site fire service is
required.Acreage charges will apply.A pro rata charge
will also apply if a new connection is needed for Lot 1 to
an existing 24"in University.
PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.Five persons from the
neighborhood were present in objection.Staff pointed outthattheproposedplanwasshortsixparkingspaces,and was
four units in excess of the previous density commitment.It
did not comply with the usual buffer requirements,but stafffeltthatthebufferareacouldbevariedinthisinstance,
provided the fence is constructed.
Ns.Fawn Delile of 6909 Nabelvale Pike represented herself
and her parents,who reside at 6907 Nabelvale Pike.
Ns.Joann Adcock,another resident,also voiced objections.
Opposition was based on a fear of added traffic and noise,
interruption of security of an established neighborhood
where only rental property is owned by persons in the area
and no absentee landlord situations are apparent.
Ns.Delile stated that several rezonings in the area were
opposed by residents previously,but were passed by the
Commission.She also stated that several previous
requirements for landscaping/screening on different
proposals in the area have not been adequately enforced.
The Commission felt that there should be no sympathy for
waivers on parking and density.The applicant asked to
delay the request for 30 days so that the plan can berevised.A motion for approval of the request for deferral
was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and
2 absent.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3
NAME:Madden Chapel Short Form
"PCD"(Z-4253)
LOCATION:961 2 Geyer Springs Road
AGENT:ENGINEER:
Kent Whisenhunt,Jr.Marlin Engineering Co.,Inc.
5318 J.F.K.Blvd.
DEVELOPER:North Little Rock,AR 72116
Phone:753-1987
Mr.Sheldon Madden
c/o P.O.Box 7488LittleRock,AR 72217
Phone:664-0010
AREA:3.81 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:"R-2"
PROPOSED USES:Funeral Home/Chapel
PLANNING DISTRICT:15
CENSUS TRACT:41.06
A.Site History
The subject site currently contains two structures
which have been used as a church and a single familyresidence.
B.DeveloPment Ob'ective
1.To provide a much needed service to the SouthwestLittleRockresidentstoprovideadevelopmentthatmaintainsestablishedneighborhoodcharacter.
C.Proposal
1.Change and zoning of a 3.5 acre site from "R-2"
(single family)to "PCD."
2.The conversion of an existing 5,000 square foot
church building to a funeral home/chapel and thecontinueduseofa1,200 square foot single familyresidence.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3 —Continued
3.New construction includes a 35'65'ddition to
the rear of the existing church and sufficient
parking to accommodate all cars on site.
D.En ineerin Comments
1.Dedicate right-of-way on Geyer Springs Road to
minor arterial standards.
2.Nake in-lieu contribution to the street
improvements on Geyer Springs in the amount of
$61870.
E.~A1
Staff does not have specific objections to the use of
the property.The submitted plan,however,gives noindicationofapavedimprovedareafor
parking/landscaping.Instead,it shows a gravel drive.
At least 25 parking spaces are required.Please submit
a plan with a parking area and landscaping.Please
provide adequate buffers if abutting areas zoned forresidential.
F.Staff Recommendation
Approval,subject to comments made.
G.Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant agreed to provide the required parking
and submit a revised plan.Since there is an existingstructureon-site,it was determined that the onlyscreening/buffer required would be a 6'paque fencelocatedtoscreentheactivityonly.
PLANNING CONt4ISSION ACTION:
Nr.Rcmp Whisenhunt represented the applicant.There were
no objectors.Staff reported that the applicant hadrequestedthathebeallowedtoprovideafenceonthe north
and south sides only if these areas are developed asresidential.This was discussed,and it was determined thatsuchaconditionwouldbehardtoenforce.A motion for
approval was made,conditioned upon:(1)the provision of250'f fence on the north and south sides and
(2)restriction of use to funeral home only.The motionpassedbyavoteof:9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.4
NAME:The Ridge Long Form "PRD",
Phase II (Z-4254)
LOCATION:North of Cantrell at Reservoir
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
NcClelland Development Co.Robert J.Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park RoadLittleRock,AR 72202
AREA:8.86 acres NO.OF LOTS:7 FT.NEW STREET:50
ZONING:$R-2"
PROPOSED USES:Single Family Lots and Attached Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT:2
CENSUS TRACT:22.04
VARIANCES REQUESTED:None
A.Site History
This site is currently zoned for "R-2"Single Family.
B.Development Objectives:
This project employs a concept that combines attached
condominium residences and large lot single family
detached residences.The applicant has stated that
special attention has been given to the minimizing of
earthwork,excavation and vegetation removal so as to
limit any negative impacts on construction to the
existing natural character of the property.The main
theme also utilized in the project design was the use
of the existing topography in a manner that will allow
the residential use to be naturally isolated from the
adjacent arterial street (Cantrell Road)through the
use of vertical separation.
C.Development Pro osal
1.Quantative Data
A.Parcel Size .....8.86
B.Density .........3.4 Units Per Acre
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.4 —Continued
C.Single Family Lots ......6
D.Condominiums ..........24,2-Bedroom
1100 to 2000 Sq.Ft.
E.Building Coverage .....Condo (10%)or
5.1 acres —Single Family Unknown at this
time
2.Topographical Cross Section/Landscaping
The tops of the condo roofs are approximately
26'elowahorizontallineofsightfromCantrell.
Visibility will be further screened by retention
of existing wooded areas,existing chain link
security fence and cedar plantings and existing
trees or vegetation.Landscaping incorporates to
the maximum the existing trees and vegetation.
3.Existing/Proposed Street System
Two points access to Cantrell —one will intersect
with Reservoir,the other will tie into the
previously approved private street system to the
east.The developer will provide some
modifications to the existing traffic signal at
Reservoir.
4.Parking
51 spaces for condos,24 covered spaces (1 per
unit in garages).An additional 27 spaces will be
provided without covered parking in areas
conveniently located adjacent to the condos.
Actual number of single family parking dependent
upon builder/buyer preference.
5.Development Schedule
Construction will begin in the spring of 1985 and
will be completed by the spring of 1986.
6.Condominium Building Size
"Traditional"in style with interlocking cedar
shake and standing rib copper hiproof as a
dominate design feature.Entry treatment to the
units will be suitable to the sloped terrain,
utilizing extensive landscaping treatment.All
units will have patio/wood decks.Also included
will be a swimming pool and copper roof gazebo.
October 9,19B4
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.4 —Continued
D.En ineering Comments
1.The comcept of access to this development from the
Cantrell/Reservoir intersection is acceptable;
however,a meeting must be held with the City
Engineer prior to the final design of the
intersection.
2.The developer will be required to contribute to
the modification of the signal at
Reservoir/Cantrell.
E.Analysis
Staff is favorable to the project and its design.The
applicant has attempted to protect the single family
lots to the north by proposing lots for single family,
detached structures immediately adjacent and focusing
the attached single family condominium units toward
Cantrell.Both of these use areas are separated by a
private access easement.The proposed land use mix is
not a problem since the trend has been established for
both types of uses in the area.
Staff's major concern relates to the proposed access
points onto Cantrell Road and safety.It is felt that
the access onto Cantrell should be one-way in/right
turns only on the east drive.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was represented by Mr.Ernie Peters and
Mr.Bob Richardson.A revised plan was submitted which:
(1)indicated a 6'rick wall,(2)reduced single familylotstofive,(3)indicated an open space area on the west.
The issues discussed related to:(1)how the approval of
this proposal would modify the previously approved first
phase located to the east;and (2)some means of assuring by
covenant that the single family residential lots remained
so.The applicant was advised to notify the persons who
have purchased land in Phase 1 that the cul-de-sac would be
eliminated and the private street system extended through
this proposal and to investigate the possibility of
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.4 —Continued
filing a restrictive covenant committing to single family.
Traffic decided that the eastern access was fine as proposed
by the applicant,so staff modified its position relative to
the "Right Way In and Out"signs.
Water Works —Access easement should be designated "Access
and Utzlzty"easement.An additional 20'asement will be
required between Lots 5 and 22.An 8"main extension is
required to tie into B Ridge,phase I.A 10'asement is
required for the north side of Highway 10.Two existing
fire hydrants may have to be relocated.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was represented by Mr.Bob Richardson,Civil
Engineer,and Mr.Ernie Peters,Traffic Engineer.Numerous
persons were present in opposition.Attorney Don Hamilton,
a resident of Robinwood and owner of a lot in Robinwood
Valley,spoke against the project and submitted a petition
with 200 signatures of residents on both the north and sides
of Highway 10,who opposed the project.Also submitted were
6-year-old affidavits from Little Rock builders,stating
that the land could be developed as single family and that
there was,indeed,a market for this type of development.
Attorney Hamilton based his objections on Section 9-101.(b)
of the subdivision ordinance,which describes the intention
of a "PRD"..."to provide a harmonious relationship with the
surrounding development,minimizing such influences as land
and compatibilities,traffic and congestion,and excessive
demands on planned and existing facilities."He also
described the project as an "apartment-type,speculative,traffic intensifier and an invitation to commercial."Other
persons,such as Attorney Skokus,Mr.Don Ryan and
Mr.Robert Marshall,Jr.,expressed concerns about traffic
safety and adequate buffering on the east for the houses
along Cantrell.
The applicant submitted a draft of the restrictive covenant
committing the five lots to single family development.The
Commission asked what would preclude a change in the
covenant.It was decided that some of the residents should
participate in such a document.The Commission also was
concerned with Traffic's decision and the applicant's
proposal not to regulate ingress and egress on Cantrell.
Finally,a motion for approval was made and passed,subjectto:(I)dedication of 30'f the entrance at the
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No .4 —Continued
intersection with Reservoir (to be measured from the
right-of-way line);(2)involvement of a resident of the
neighborhood in the restrictive covenant.The vote was:
6 ayes,2 noes,2 absent and 1 abstention.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5
NAME:West Side Creek Apartments,
Phase II,Long Form "PRD"
(Z-4332)
LOCATION:Approximately 1/4 Mile West of
Intersection of Sam Peck and
Highway 10 (West of Phase I)
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Elkington &Keltner Brooks/Jackson Architects
6060 Primacy 2311 Biscayne
Memphis,TN Little Rocky AR 72207
Phone:227-8700
AREA:14.852 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:"PRD"(Density "MF-12")
PROPOSED USES:Multifamily
PLANNING DISTRICT:1
CENSUS TRACT:42.03
A.Site History
The subject site is currently zoned "R-2"for single
family use.This project will tie into Phase I of the
same development,which was previously approved by the
Commission and is now under construction.There is a
continuing density restriction on the site.ProjectcharacteristicsofPhaseIinclude142unitson11.87
acres at a density of "MF-12."
B.Development Rationale/Ob'ectives
With this proposal,the developer expects to continue
and extend the character of the previously approvedproject;with proposed construction of brick veneer,
wood frame,both one level apartment and townhouseunits.He states that the apartments will be designedtobecompatiblewiththeadjoiningmiddletoupper
income residential neighborhood to the south.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5 —Continued
C.Proposal
1.The construction of 23 buildings with 168 units
on 14.852 acres for use as apartments.
2.Quantitative Data:
Unit Unit Total Area!Total
Type Size Units Bldq.Area
I-2 Bedroom 981 18 5g886 35g670
II-2 Bedroom 1,189 30 7g134 48g000
IV-2 Bedroom 1,000 48 8@000 18/752
V-2 Bedroom 1,172 16 9g376 41/104
III-2 Bedroom 734 56 5,872 161,184
Total Buildings:23
Total Units:168
Total Site Coverage:91,757 square feet
3.Development Schedule:
Construction should start February 1985 and be
completed about ten months later.
4.The owners will lease the dwelling units with
tenant rights to all common areas,including
amenities.
5.A 6'ood fence is shown on the northern boundary
and a 6'ence and 40'andscape area shown on the
western and southern boundaries.
6.Parking —314 spaces (plus 6 boat spaces)
D.En ineerin Comments
Consider access route with limited parking to provide a
throughway.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5 —Continued
E.Analysis
Staff is very reluctant to offer a favorable
recommendation for this proposal,mainly because of its
deficient means of access.In addition to the 142
units approved previously,the plan would add 168 new
units which makes a total of 310 units with only 2
points of access,through Phase I,the previously
approved apartments now under construction,on to Sam
Peck Road.Support of the project is possible,
provided the applicant can obtain an alternative means
of ingress and egress,either to Highway 10 or
Peckerwood.
The proposed density is acceptable;however,a
restriction on the property still limits development to
three units per acre.Staff cannot make a favorable
comment until the restriction is lifted.The proposed
site design raises several concerns:
(1)The applicant should clarify what happened to the
remainder of the tract between this site and
Highway 10;
(2)Fire Department feels that the dead end streets
will present a problem,since they are 140'.
(3)The "octopus intersection"on the eastern entrance
to the site is unacceptable.The drive needs to
enter the parking area at a 90 degree angle and
then turn northwood 90 degrees.Some of the
interior turning radii are over or under proper
design.The drive on the southern end seems
designed for speed.
The applicant should address these problems before the
public hearing and provide staff with the needed
revisions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Denial,based on comments made.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5 —Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
It was decided that:(1)no building permit would be issueduntiltheBoardpassesaresolutionliftingthelimitation
on density;(2)the applicant would produce evidence that
land to the north is more than five acres,since he stated,it's not in his ownership;(3)the applicant would work with
the Fire Chief on the drive;and (4)he would look at somesafetydesignfeaturesforthedrives.He stated that theterrainisthereasonan"octopus intersection"is as
proposed.
Water Works —An 8"on-site fire service is required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr.Brooks Jackson,architect for the project,represented
the developer.There were no objectors,although at least
two interested parties from the neighborhood were in
attendance.
Staff reported that a revised plan was submitted which
indicated the safety design features requested and was
approved by the Fire Chief.Evidence was submitted which
indicated that the property north of the site was part of
the 11.5 acres still owned by Mr.Robert A.Peck.The
applicant stated agreement to the understanding that the
item would not be forwarded to the Board until the sewerlimitwaslisted.
There was some concern expressed about both phases of theprojectremaininginseparatelots.A motion for approvaloftheprojectwasmadeandpassedsubjectto:(1)the
submission of a one-lot replat.The vote was:6 ayes,
0 noes,3 absent and 2 abstentions.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.6
NAME:Boat House,Inc.,Long Form
"PCD"(Z-4331)
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Jack Oliver II Richardson Engineers
1717 Rebsamen Park RoadLittleRock,AR 72202
AREA:8.62 acres NO.OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:"I-3"
PROPOSED USES:Marina/Boat Sales and Service
PLANNING DISTRICT:4
CENSUS TRACT:16
A.Site History
The property is presently zoned "I-2."
B.Development Rationale/Ob ectives
The proposed project schedules a marina with 82 covered
yacht sized slips on the Arkansas River on the south
bank of the river.The proposal also schedules a
boat/yacht sales,service and storage facility on the
south end of the land parcel.The northern end of the
land parcel will provide a restaurant and and/orbuildingdevelopmenttoworkinconcretewiththe
proposed marina.Boat owners will be provided a full
range of services for their covered slips which willeitherbereadiedorsoldtoindividualinvestors
and/or boat/yacht owners.Additional parking andaccessisprovidedbytheadjacentpropertytotheeast.It is anticipated at a future date,a launching
and dry docking operation will also be accompished.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.6 —Continued
C.Proposal
1.To construct on 4.62 acres a development composed
of yacht slips,boat sales,services and storage
(Tract A).
2.To eliminate Tract B (4 acre)from "PCD"
consideration,thereby making this a short form
"PCD,"since it is under a 40-year lease from the
Arkansas Schools for the Deaf and Blind,and
because it is only to be used for parking and
accessing 30 of the 82 marina slips.It is
provided only for information.
3.Reservation of the right to file a future request
for a building to house a restuarant and/or
offices or residential condominiums with related
parking.
4.Quantitative Data (Tract A)
(A)Building Uses Ploor Area Parking
Boat Sales 4,000 sq.ft.13
Boat Service 5,000 sq.ft.7
Boat Storage 7,000 sq.ft.9
Totals:16,000 sq.ft.29
(B)Marina Slips A of Sl
'pk'2
57,728 sq.ft.87
(C)Total Land Area
Tract A —4.62 acres ("PCD")
Tract B —4 acres (Lease Area)
Total Building Area.......16,000 sq.ft.
Land Building Ratio.......12.6:1
D.Engineerin Comments
This development is subject to floodway and floodplainordinances.The Corps of Engineers must approve the
marina and other structures in the Arkansas River.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.6 —Continued
E.A~1
Staff approves of the design/use of the site and finds
no fault with the applicant's request/approach for
development.During a previous rezoning hearing,the
applicant agreed to remove the building.He has not,
so staff will not pursue the issue if he commits tothisimprovement.Also,the on-premise roof sign is
currently prohibited by ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff was concerned about the use of parking on Tract "D"to
serve Tract "A."The applicant decided to eliminate his
request for a short-form "PUD"and include all of the
property in the approval.He was instructed to provide aletterfromtheownerofTract"A"authorizing its use and
to work with Water Works relative to their request for a
15'asement,7.5'ither side of an existing fire hydrant lead,
an existing 16"main which crosses the property and under
the existing boat sales building.Mr.Bob Richardson,the
applicant's engineer,stated that the floodway had beencertifiedbytheCityEngineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant's engineer,Mr.Bob Richardson,submitted a
revised plan showing a 20-foot utility and access easement
on the west side of the site,and a letter from the ownersofTractAgivingpermissiontorezone.
Mr.Gus Blass,the owner of property to the west,objectedtothewaytheeasementwasshownandfeltthatbecausean
existing fence was located on the applicant's property line,
persons visiting the marina would come across his property.
He also felt that Mr.Richardson had not made a
conscientious effort to contact him.
Mr.Richardson stated it was not their intent to use
Mr.Blass'arking lot for access,since the easement waspartofanagreementbetweenownersofbothpropertiesin
previous years.After a lengthy discussion,a motion for a
three week deferral was made and passed,so that both
property owners could work out their differences.The vote:
8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.7
NAME:The Trammell Crow BuildingSitePlanReview
(Z-4338)
LOCATION:Northwest Corner of Financial
Centre Parkway and Shackleford
Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:The Trammell Crow
Co./Mehlburger,Tanner and
Associates
PROPOSAL:
To construct a five-story office building (68 feet +)
containing 120,700 square feet,a three-story parking deck
(254 spaces),and 189 on-grade parking spaces on 4.5896acresoflandthatiszoned"0-2."
ANALYSIS:
The applicant has proposed 443 parking spaces and
landscaping,which includes a 6-foot board fence along the
north property line.Both the landscaping and parking meets
City ordinance.The proposed structure also meets ordinance
height requirements.The applicant is proposing a structure
of 68'n height,while ordinance would allow structure of94'.
The "0-2"district calls for,and the applicant has
requested a variance from,the required 25-foot landscapedstripontheboundarystreets.The staff feels that the
applicant has proposed a viable site plan,and that the
large right-of-way on both Shackleford and Financial Centre
Parkway offset the lack of landscaped area.The staff
supports the variance request.
The City Engineer requests that the applicant meet with thetrafficengineertodiscusstheexitandleftturnproposalofthewesternmostdriveway.
The Fire Department has requested that each entrance be a
width of 20'f unobstructed right-of-way.
STAFF RECONNENDATION:
Approval,subject to the applicant meeting with the CityTrafficEngineertoresolvethewesternmostdriveissue,and
meeting with the Fire Department to resolve the drive widthissue.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.7 —Continued
SUBDIVISION CONNITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to staff
recommendations.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.The staff stated that the
applicant had submitted a revised site plan which resolved
fire and engineering concerns.The Commission voted 9 ayes,
0 noes,2 absent to approve this application as recommended
by staff.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.8
NAME:S.Tyler Street Day-Care
Center —Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4330)
LOCATION:Just South of the Intersection
of 12th Street and S.Tyler St.
(1208 S.Tyler)
OWNER APPLICANT:Jo Ann Colon/Betty Walloch
PROPOSAL:
To convert one existing single family structure (1,680
square feet)to a day-care center (capacity —35 children)
and to convert another single family structure to a storage
building on two lots that are zoned "R-4."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
Just south of an arterial and fronting on tworesidentialstreets.
2.Com abilit with Nei hborhood
This property has two lots which constitutes ample
space for the proposed use.The property is adjacenttoheavycommercialuseonthenorthandwest.Single
family lies to the south and east.The proposal is
compatible with the surrounding area.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
The applicant is proposing ingress from a paved drive
on South Tyler Street and to use a 20-foot paved alley
as egress.The applicant is also proposing to use anexistingthreecargarageandanexistingtwocar
gravel drive to meet parking requirements.
4.Screenin and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use existing trees and
shrubs as landscaping.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.8 —Continued
5.Analysis:
The staff feels that this proposal is a reasonable use
of the property and will not have an adverse impact to
the surrounding area.
The applicant needs to amend the site plan to show the
one story frame residential structure as a storage
building as stated in the applicant's letter of
submittal.The applicant also needs to pave the gravel
drive to include an area large enough for two parking
spaces.The applicant also will be required to meet
City landscape requirements.
6.Staff Recommendation:
Approval,provided the applicant agrees to:(1)submit
a revised site plan showing the one story frame
residential structure as a storage building;(2)pave
the gravel drive for two parking spaces;and (3)meet
City landscape requirements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to staff
recommendations.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.Three objectors were also
present.Steve Mayfield,owner of the commercial property
to the north,objected to the lack of parking.Joe White
objected to further commercialization of the neighborhood.
Nr.Enderlin,the owner of Oak Forest Cleaners,objected to
the increased traffic in the alleyway.Nr.Enderlin also
read two letters of opposition from people in the
neighborhood.One letter was from N.Levee,1302 South
Tyler Street.The Levees cite limited parking as their
objection and would create too much traffic in the area.
The second letter Nr.Enderlin read was from Margaret
Armelline.Her letter stated objection due to the decrease
in property value and that the Oak Forest area was
established in such a manner to protect the neighborhood
from increasing business.The Commission,after a lengthy
discussion,voted 0 ayes,8 noes,3 absent to deny this
application.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.9
NAME:Watson and Taylor Office Park
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4329)
LOCATION:1/2 Mile West of Shackleford Rd.
on the North Side of Markham St.
OWNER/APPLICANT:Watson and Taylor Realty/Don
Chambers
PROPOSAL:
To construct 10 buildings (74,200 square feet total),12,000
square feet of office,32,150 square feet of
office/warehouse,28,475 square feet of self-storage,1,575
square feet of apartment/office,and 136 paved parking
spaces on 6.861 acres of land that is zoned "C-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
This site is located on a major arterial (MarkhamStreet)adjacent (east side)to a future collector
(Regency Drive).
2.Com atibilit with Neighborhood
This property is at the western edge of development inLittleRock.The land area to the east and west is
vacant,industrial use is adjacent to the south,and a
multifamily development is adjacent to the north (on abluff).The staff feels that the proposed use is
compatible.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
The applicant is proposing three access drives.Two
drives are located on Markham Street and one is
proposed on Regency Drive.The applicant is proposing
136 paved parking spaces.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.9 —Continued
4.Screenin and Buffers
The applicant is proposing a 200-foot +and a 6-foot
board fence on the north property line.The applicanthasalsosubmittedalandscapeplan.
5.~A1
The staff supports this proposal and forsees no adverseimpacttothesurroundingarea.
The staff does have concerns.A 19-foot dedicatedstripofexcessright-of-way exist along West MarkhamStreet.Twenty-two proposed parking spaces lie withinthisright-of-way.The staff supports,and theapplicanthasfiled,for a closure of this excessright-of-way.Additionally,the site plan shows
Building H as 2'o 3'rom the property line.ThestafffeelsthatthesiteplanshouldberevisedbyplacingBuildingHonthepropertylinetoallowfor
proper maintenance.And finally,the City EngineerwillprovidecommentsontheimprovementsonMarkhamStreetatthePlanningCommissionmeeting.
6.Staff Recommendation
Approval,provided the applicant:(1)successfullyclosesthe19-foot strip of excess right-of-way on
Markham Street;(2)submits the revised site planplacingBuildingHonthepropertyline;and (3)agreestocomplywithforthcomingengineeringcomments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed with staff
recommendations Nos.1 and 2.There was a lengthydiscussionofEngineeringissues,such as access on RegencyDrive.The City Engineer stated that an in-lieucontributionof$5,259 would be required for improvements onWestMarkhamStreet.The City Engineer also requested ameetingwiththeapplicanttodiscussthedrivewayentrances
along the entire length of the Danny Thomas property,aswellasthisparticularsite.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.9 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.There were no objectors.The
City Engineer stated that the three proposed drives were
acceptable.The proposed drive on Regency is not required
and will be optional to the applicant.The engineer also
agreed to accept a plan calling for three additional drives
(access to Narkham Street)for the remainder of the Danny
Thomas property.The applicant also requested deletion of
the 6-foot board fence on the north property line.The
Commission then voted to approve the application,less the
board fence,8 ayes,0 noes,3 absent.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.10
NAME:Golden Building Line Waiver
(Lot 43,Leawood Mountain
Addition to the City of
Little Rock)
LOCATION:9022 Leatrice
APPLICANT:Mr.&Mrs.Ken M.Golden
REQUEST:To encroach into a 15'uilding line for the
construction of a porch 6.5'23'nd a new walk.
A.Site History
None.
B.Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area of single family homes.
The lot is oddly configured and due to its extreme
topography,only a small area appears to be buildable.
All improvements are in place.
C.Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing to encroach approximately5'nto an area established by a 15'uilding line to
construct a porch addition,6.5'23'nd a new walk.
Reasons submitted include:(1)protection during
rainy/icy weather,(2)enhancement of structural
appearance,(3)important and relaxing addition to
home.
D.En ineerin Commnents
None.
E.Analysis
The applicant has stated that his neighbors are
supportive,especially since this front yard has become
an informal gathering place for those out walking or
exercising.He will still need to submit the required
amount of signatures to amend the final.Staff has no
objections to the request.
f.Staff Recommendation
Approval,subject to comments made.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.10 —Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee reviewed the application.It was passed to
the Commission,subject to staff comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.A motion for approval was made
and passed by a vote of:9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.11
NANE:Executive Park Building
Line Waiver
LOCATION:North End of Executive Court
South of Narkham
APPLICANT:
Nark Cahoon
Nehlburger,Tanner,
Renshaw
Phone:375-4331
REQUEST:Encroachment into an established building line
area.
A.Site History
This site was previously a part of a plat for office
development approved by the Commission.
B.Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area that is rapidly
developing with commercial and office uses.
C.Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting to encroach approximately7'nto a setback area established by a 25'uilding
line.He feels that it is necessary to obtain the most
efficient use of the site due to its irregular
configuration and the large existing easement along the
western boundary.
D.Analysis
Staff has no problems with the waiver.The applicant
is requested,however,to fulfill a previous commitment
on this plat and provide a sidewalk from Narkham to the
southern boundary of the plat.
E.Staff Recommendation
Approval,subject to comments made.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.11 —Continued
SUBDIVISION CONNITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agrees to provide the sidewalk.
Water Works —An easement and 30"water line are existing~1*g t.t*'d f th p *p ty.1 t*h*f*thinstallationoflights.Fire and domestic water service isoffthe8"main and Executive Drive.Acreage charges will
apply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.A motion for approval was made
and passed by a vote of:9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.12 —Street Right-of-Way Abandomnent
NAME:Ringo Street
LOCATION:800 Block South Within the
Chester Street and I-630
Interchange Right-of-Way
OWNER/APPLICANT:State of Arkansas
By:Netropolitan Emergency
Medical Services
By:Karen Nuldrow
REQUEST:To abandon the west one-half
of the 60-foot wide right-of-way
for a distance of approximately
122 feet.
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Public Need for This Right-of-Way
None required inasmuch as the 800 block of Ringo Street
has been closed physically and permanently by the
construction of Interstate 630.
2.Naster Street Plan
No need expressed for this street right-of-way.
3.Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
None reported at this writing.
4.Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
Generally flat with an abrupt grade change to the
roadway of I-630.
5.Development Potential
None except as proposed by the Ambulance Authority.
6.Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The south side of West 8th Street is at present vacant
and lying outside the I-630 physical improvements.The
north side of West 8th Street is mixed use and
commercial and light industrial.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.12 —Continued
7.Neighborhood Position
None expressed at this writing.
8.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
None reported.
9.Reversionary Rights
The right-of-way will revert to the state of Arkansas.
However,there is a requirement that the land be deeded
to the state by the city since this right-of-way
originated in the Original City of Little Rock plat.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This petition is a follow-up on prior action by the Little
Rock Board of Adjustment which allowed the Ambulance
Authority to construct its facility with less than the
required setback.The building involved will project intothis60-foot street right-of-way which was physically
abandoned by the state when constructing Interstate 630.
There are no problems associated with the required
abandonment except for the dimension.The applicant has
requested the abandonment of the west 30 feet or one-half of
the right-of-way.We feel that since the state owns both
sides of Ringo Street that it would be appropriate to
abandon the entire right-of-way.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend approval of the closure subject to final
approval by the utility agencies.
PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION:
The applicant,Karen Nuldrow,was present.There were no
obj ectors.A motion for approval was made and passed by a
vote of:9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.13
NAME:Kindercare Facility
Site Plan Review
LOCATION:West of Frenchman's Lane
North of the Intersection of
Frenchman and Nova
APPLICANT:Kindercare Learning
Centers,Inc.
7935 Director Drive
Baton Rouge,LA 70817
ENGINEER:
Joe White
Edward G.Smith and Associates
401 Victory
Phone:374-1666
STAFF REPORT:
The applicant is proposing to add a modular building on asite,which currently has an existing kindergarten which is
now licensed for 100 children.The added building will be
licensed for 40 children.Their occupancy is 120 children.
They are presently renting space from a church nearby to
accommodate this occupancy.
This site is currently zoned for "I-2,"which does not allowforday-care uses.This is an expansion of a nonconforming
use.The applicant should apply for the appropriate zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present.He stated that an applicationfordown-zoning the property to a zone which allowed
day-care uses has been filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.A motion for approval was made
and passed by a vote of:9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.14 —Street Ri ht-of-Wa Abandonment
NAME:west Markham Street
LOCATION:The 11,200 Block through
11,600 Block of West Markham
Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Markham Real properties,Inc.
By:R.D.Bailey
REQUEST:To abandon 25,270 square feet of
land within the right-of-way of
West Markham being 19 feet north
and south by 1„330 feet east and
west.
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Public Need for This Right-of-Way
None expressed at this writing.
2.Master Street Plan
The plan requirement is minor arterial at 80 feet.
This dimension may vary with design needs at certainpointssuchascuts,fills or intersections.
3.Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
None expressed at this writing.
4.Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
This segment of West Markham Street is at present atwo-lane roadway with open drainage.
5.Development Potential
The strip of land involved has use only in conjunctionwiththeabuttingcommercialdevelopmentifnotused asright-of-way.
6.Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
Adjoining properties are generally vacant with
developments of apartments to the north on the high
ground and some office and commercial use to the east.This action should have little or no effect on thepresentuses.
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No .14 —Continued
7.Neighborhood Position
None expressed at this writing.
8.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
None expressed at this writing;however verbal comments
from the Water Works indicate that this right-of-way
should be retained in its entirety as a utility
easement.
9.Reversionary Rights
The entire tract will revert to the abutting north side
ownership.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This petition provides for abandonment of a 19-foot strip of
land which is apparently excess right-of-way for West
Markham Street.The abutting property is proposed for
development as a mixed used project of office/
office/warehouse and mini-warehouses.
A plan for that project has been filed for Planning
Commission review at the October 9th meeting.The
abandonment of this strip of land will provide flexibility
in development of the project,which has a difficult land
mass on the north.The site contains an exposed hill mass
of variable excavation which reduces the buildability of thetract.
The use of this right-of-way strip as off-street parking is
necessary to basic district compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval as filed,subject to the abandonment ordinance
containing a utility easement clause with the specific
wording referencing Water Works usage.The EngineeringstaffrequeststhattheOrdinanceinclude:the entire stripoflandberetainedasaStreetconstructioneasement.
1
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.14 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.There were no objectors.A
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
+~a x &4~A &&1~
R
0
M
QQ CI 0 ~
M
Z O QQ
x
M
lO «p ~4 4 4 &j 4 4 &p (n
0 ~
CV
0 z
u)—4 4 4 4 4 h X h (n
M
«t
5&[k 4 4 4 Qt &[
z
4 Ql Ql
Ql M V)0 0 O
N Qt N A U Ql 0
QQ W 0 0 u
Pal K ~S X Ca S W X a
October 9,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
h~6)v&
Date
~,6A)-Secretary
Ch rman