pc_10 04 1988subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
OCTOBER 4, 1988
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being eleven in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
Minutes of the previous meeting were approved as
mailed.
III. Members present: David J. Jones, Chairman
Walter G. Riddick
Martha Miller
Stephen A. Leek
Rose Collins
Jerilyn Nicholson
Connie Whitfield
John McDaniel
John Schlereth
Fred Perkins
Bill Rector
City Attorney present: Melinda Smith
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
OCTOBER 4, 1988
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Hamby's Subdivision Variance Request
B. First Baptist Church PUD Extension
C. Pleasant Valley County Club CUP (Z- 2050 -A)
D. Vimy Ridge & County Line Rd.- "R-2" to "C-1" (Z-4940-A)
PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1. Shaker Heights
2. W. Lewis Replat
3. YMCA Preliminary Plat
4. Kanis Commercial Park
SITE PLAN REVIEW:
5. Willis Lewis Site Plan Review
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
6. Karolson Manor PRD
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
7. Dennison Street Day Care Center (Z-5074)
8. Greater Macedonia Baptist Church (Z-5075)
9. Kiddie Castle Day Care (Z-5077)
RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT:
10. Monroe Street Abandonment
11. Rock Street Abandonment
12. Midland Hills Addition Abandonment - alley in Block 2
13. Midland Hills Addition Abandonment - alley in Block 14
14. East Markham Alley Abandonment
OTHER MATTERS:
15. Discussion of Date for Fall Retreat
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. A
NAME: Hamby Request for Waiver of
Subdivision Ordinance
LOCATION: Section 15, T-1-S, R-12-W,
Pulaski County, Arkansas
APPLICANT:
Lloyd J. Hamby
304 Timothy Lane
Little Rock, AR 72206
ENGINEER:
Dillinger Co., Inc.
P. O. Box 9425
Little Rock, AR 72219
Phone: 375-0688
STAFF REPORT:
This item originated as a Subdivision Violation, due to a
land transfer of only one acre. The Subdivision Ordinance
applies to all divisions of land that are composed of less
than five acres.
Mr. and Mrs. Doil Hamby purchased the land in 1965, paying
$25 per month until 1970, when the owner was paid the last
$200. In November 1972 through 1974, Mr. and Mrs. Saville
purchased a portion of the tract from the Hambys. At first,
there was a doublewide trailer but the Saville's later
enclosed the trailer. The Applicant, who is the nephew of
Mr. and Mrs. Doil Hamby, has explained that a 125 foot by
218 foot parcel has been transferred to him and his wife so
that it can be passed on to other heirs. He and his wife
are financially assisting the family and wanted to place the
land in their name at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Reserved. This item is in the Extraterritorial
jurisdiction.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Mr. and Mrs. Hamby were present. They explained that their
aunt and uncle had lived on this land for 18 years and they
had recently transferred the property to the Hamby's for
safekeeping, since they were being financially supported by
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. A (Continued)
the younger couple. Mrs. Hamby explained that no physical
change had taken place on the property and that the cost of
platting and improving the property would exceed its current
value of $1500. She also asked why the original Subdivider,
a Mrs. Rose, was not held liable for her actions.
The Committee discussed the item and decided to defer it for
further consideration to the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 23, 1988)
As requested by the Applicant, a motion for deferral to the
October 4, 1988 meeting was made a passed by a vote of:
7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff presented a letter from the Hamby's that questioned
why the sole responsibility for the illegal subdivisions of
the land did not lie with the original subdivider, a Mrs.
Rose. They also wanted to know why no statute of
limitations was in effect on these violations, and just how
far back could the City go.
The Committee decided that further discussion of this item
should be done at the Planning Commission level.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for appproval was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. B
NAME: First Baptist Church PRD -
Request for Extension
LOCATION: West side of Hinson Road, lying
between Pebble Beach
Subdivision and Windsor Towne
Homes
APPLICANT: Rich Browning, Business Manager
First Baptist Church
62 Pleasant Valley Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Phone: 227-0010
STAFF REPORT:
The applicant is requesting a five (5) year extension of an
approval of a 117 acre PRD. The approval was granted in
December of 1985. The reasons for the request are as
follows:
1. Several out - parcels (illegal lots of record)
within the parent boundary are being assembled and
negotiations with the owners have caused delay.
2. The preliminary design, both engineering and
architectural, has been delayed due to the
changing space program for the church facilities.
3. The start -up schedule for the church construction
has been deferred until the property is debt free.
4. The church is considering possible participation
in a pending improvement district for road and
utility infrastructure which may impact Phase I
improvements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Reserved
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. B (.Continued)
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Applicant was present. Staff explained that the usual
extensions were for two one -year periods. This applicant
was asking for a total of seven years. He also requested
that he be allowed to develop any phase first. Staff warned
that complaints from an out - parcel owner had been received.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 23, 1988)
Staff recommended approval of the request for a five - year
extension. The application was represented by Rich
Browning, Calvin Hagan, and Richard Massie. Mr. Marvin
Ishkoiwitz, an affected property owner, was not in objection
to the request for extension, but had other concerns.
Mr. Ishkoiwitz stated that he had agreed to sell his out -
parcels that are located within the boundaries of the
project, but the Applicant had not been responsive. He
stated he was not legally notified of the Public Hearing and
was not interested in maintaining ownership of the small
out - parcels within the boundaries of the approved
development.
The Applicant state that Mr. Ishkoiwitz was not shown on the
Abstractor's list and some of the property was not shown as
out - parcels. Mr. Browning explained that his Attorney was
in the process of determining whether the out - parcels were
paid for in the original price of the land, and who owned
the out - parcels.
Finally, a motion was made to defer the item until the
October 4, 1988 meeting so that the attorneys could get
together and negotiate the issue. The motion passed by a
vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Mr. Pat McGetrick reported that First Baptist Church had
made an offer to Mr. Ishkoiwitz, and they were hopeful that
the issue would be resolved before the Public Hearing.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. B (C o n t i n u e d )
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Pat McGetrick reported that the issue had been resolved
A motion for approval of the request as filed was made and
passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
October 4, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C
NAME: Pleasant Valley Country Club
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-2050-A)
LOCATION: Southwest of the intersection
of Fairway Drive and Valley
Club Circle ( 91 Pleasant Valley
Drive).
OWNER /APPLICANT: Pleasant Valley Country
Club /Joe White
PROPOSAL:
To construct an air structure (green on the ends and white
on the top) over four tennis courts (120 feet by 240 feet by
40 feet in height) to be in place from October 1st through
April 1st on existing tennis courts located on the Country
Club on land that is zoned "R-4."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (Valley Club Circle).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is abutted to the south and west by the
existing country club facilities, to the north by
single family, and to the west by vacant country club
land and Valley Club Circle. The proposed 40 feet
(height) unit has a potential to visually impinge upon
the single family property located to the north. The
staff feels that due to the type structure, its height
and its close proximity to the adjacent single family,
an adverse impact would result.
3. On - Site Drives and Parking
Access is taken from Valley Club Circle and the
existing parking is provided for the country club use.
October 4, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C (Continued)
4. Screeninq and Buffers
A stand of trees exists adjacent to the tennis courts
on both the north and the east.
5. Ana Ivsis
The staff has reservations about the compatibility of
the proposed air dome (see note #2). The staff feels
that the dome would be detrimental to the aesthetics of
the adjacent single family area on the north. The
staff also questions the possible noise created by the
air unit (the applicant has stated that the air blower
unit would be located on the south or west side of the
dome and would create about the same noise level as a
vertical air conditioning unit). In addition, this
request would entail the granting of a 5 feet height
variance (35 feet allowed in "R-4 ") which the staff
feels is the most unappealing aspect of the project.
Finally, the Fire Department needs additional
information regarding the composition of the structure.
6. Citv Enaineer Comments
None
7. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Applicant was present. Three objectors were also
present. The applicant was informed that the issue was land
use and could not be decided until reviewed by the full
Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(July 12, 1988)
The Applicant was present as were eight objectors. The
Staff stated that they had received a revised proposal that
consisted of two 120' x 120' x 40' (height) air domes that
would be constructed on the courts to the south of the
original proposal. The Staff further stated that the new
October 4, 1988
Item No. C (Continued)
proposal would be about six feet lower in elevation and 180'
from the nearest single family property line and,
subsequently, recommended approval of the revised proposal
provided that the air blower be located on the south or west
side of the proposed structures. Mr. Darol Bell, Margaret
Cornett, Nanette Camferdam, Gary Jones, Judy Friend and Troy
Burns presented petitions of opposition and spoke against
the proposal. The objectors stated that the domes would be
visible and unsightly and would reduce their property
values. They also stated that they were opposed as home
owners as well as club members, and that the entire club
membership had not approved the proposal. Mr. Jim
Russenberger, representing the proposal for Pleasant Valley
County Club, stated that the Directors had approved a
resolution but that a vote by the entire membership had not
yet been taken. Mr. Joe White, agent for the applicant,
stated that the structure would be constructed of fire
retardant material. The Commission members stated that they
felt that the entire Pleasant Valley County Club membership
should vote on the issue prior to Planning Commission
action. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 0 noes,
1 abstention (Perkins) and 3 absent to defer the item until
the August 23, 1988 Planning Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (August 11, 1988)
The Applicant was present. The Staff stated that the
Applicant had requested a deferral until the October 4, 1988
Planning Commission meeting. The item was not discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 23, 1988)
The Applicant was present. The Staff stated that the
Applicant had requested a deferral until the October 4, 1988
Planning Commission meeting. The Commission votes 8 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent, and 1 open position to defer the item
until the October 4, 1988 Planning Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW
(September 22, 1988)
The Applicant was not present. The item was not discussed.
October 4, 1988
Item No. C (Continued }_
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
The Staff stated that they continued to recommend approval
of the revised proposal as outlined at the July 12, 1988
Planning Commission meeting. The applicant stated that the
Pleasant Valley Country Club membership had voted 223 to 88
to approve the dome proposal. Finally, the Staff stated
that their research indicated that the Bill of Assurance for
the Pleasant Valley Subdivision did not cover the country
club because the golf course and country club had never been
platted as part of the Pleasant Valley Subdivision. The
Commission then voted 7 ayes, 1 no, and 3 abstentions (Leek,
McDaniel and Perkins) to approve the revised proposal as
recommended by the Staff.
October 4, 1988
Item No. D
Owner: Robert O. Smith, Jr., Trustee
Applicant: John Collins Rogers
Location: County Line Road and Vimy Ridge
Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-1"
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 2.5 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant (Saline County)
East - Vacant, Zoned "C-1"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone 2.5 acres at the northwest
corner of Vimy Ridge Road and County Line Road from
"R-2" to "C-1" for an unspecified commercial
development. Existing development in the area is
single family residential with a majority of the
structures located in two subdivisions to the north and
east. There are also residences found on large
unplatted tracts of land both in Little Rock and in
Saline County. To the southeast in Saline County,
there is a new elementary school and a percentage of
the area is still undeveloped, especially to the south
and west. Zoning in the area includes "R-2," "MF-6,"
and "C-1" with the "MF-6" and "C-1" tracts vacant. The
land directly to the south across County Line Road is
in the City of Shannon Hills and is zoned "R-1" Single
Family. Another predominant zoning classification in
the general area is "I-2" which is found to the
northeast just beyond the scope of the zoning sketch.
The demand for additional commercial sites can be
questioned because the existing "C-1" is still
undeveloped and it was rezoned three or four years ago.
2. The site is wooded and vacant.
October 4, 1988
I tem No. D - Z-4940-A (Continued)
3. Vimy Ridge Road is classified as a minor arterial so
dedication of additional right-of-way will be required.
Engineering will have to determine the amount of
dedication because of its being situated at an
intersection. County Line Road is shown as a collector
west of Vimy Ridge Road and a minor arterial east of
Vimy Ridge. The survey indicates there is adequate
right-of-way for a collector.
4. There have been no adverse comments from the reviewing
agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. In January 1988 an application to rezone a larger tract
(9.1 acres) to "I-2" and "C-3" was heard by the
Planning Commission. During the public hearing, the
request was amended to "C-2" for the entire acreage and
after a long discussion the item was withdrawn from
consideration at the request of the applicant. At the
January meeting, there were ten objectors present and a
petition with 25 names opposed to the rezoning was
submitted. Also, the Shannon Hills Planning Commission
voiced their opposition to the proposed rezoning
through a letter. Staff recommended denial of the
initial rezoning and of the amended request.
7. The site under consideration is in the Otter Creek
District Plan area which recommends a mixed residential
pattern for the west side of Vimy Ridge Road from
County Line to Alexander Road. The proposed rezoning
is in conflict with the adopted plan and Staff does not
support the request. It appears that the need for more
commercial land does not exist because of the
undeveloped "C-1" tract. Also, commercial services can
probably be provided by existing commercial properties
including areas in the Shannon Hills community.
Allowing small neighborhood commercial nodes to expand
could have a negative impact on the existing and future
residential areas. Staff's position is consistent
with the previous application for the property and
other rezoning requests west of Vimy Ridge Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C-1" request as filed.
October 4, 1988
Item No. D - Z-4940-A (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 20, 1988)
The applicant, John Collins Rogers, was present. There were
nine objectors in attendance. Mr. Rogers spoke and said the
site was suited for a "C-1" classification and there was a
need for a good "C-1" location in the area. He went on to
say that the tract was 330 feet by 330 feet and then
submitted a petition with 105 names in support of the
rezoning request. Mr. Rogers also presented a letter from a
property owner in Saline County that supported the
commercial rezoning because it was needed for future
residential development. He told the Commission that the
owner was ready to develop the property and that 2.5 acres
equals the existing "C-1" on the northeast corner of Vimy
Ridge Road and County Line Road. Mr. Rogers then discussed
the previous rezoning application and said there were no
plans for the remaining 7 acres. He indicated that a
possible use was a day care center.
Robert O. Smith, Jr., owner of the property and 80 acres to
the west, then addressed the Commission. He said the
80 acres would be used for residential development and there
was a need for a day care center. Mr. Smith said that a
market study had been done and made some additional
comments.
A. C. Dean, a resident on Vimy Ridge Road, spoke in
opposition to the "C-1" rezoning. Mr. Dean said that the
residents of the immediate area were against the request and
presented a petition with 45 names opposed to the commercial
rezoning. He also said that meeting was held with 27
residents who were against the rezoning. Mr. Dean said that
the existing "C-1" was 238 feet by 238 feet and submitted
some photos. He then discussed traffic circulation which he
described as being a problem, especially at the
intersection. Mr. Dean said the rezoning would have an
impact on the area because it was planned primarily for
residential uses.
Robert J. Hall spoke in opposition to the "C-1" rezoning.
He said the area was peaceful and the residential status
should be maintained.
Staff then addressed the existing "C-1" site and the Otter
Creek District Land Use Plan. There were also some comments
made about zoning and the area by several Planning
Commission members.
October 4, 1988
Item No. D - Z- 4940 -A (Continued)
Mr. Dean discussed the "C -1" property and said that a
limited amount of commercial land was reasonable. He also
said that because of the existing market, it would be two to
three years until the location was feasible for a small
retail use or a convenience store.
Robert 0. Smith spoke again and said that approximately
160 lots were proposed for the 80 acres to the west. Mr.
Smith then informed the Commission that he was agreeable to
a Conditional Use Permit or a Planned Unit Development.
There was long discussion about a Conditional Use Permit and
Robert Hall, Jr. asked some questions about the Conditional
Use Permit process.
Mr. Rogers then addressed the "C-1" rezoning and asked for a
vote on the request as filed.
Gerald W. Dean, a resident of the neighborhood for eight
years, described the area and discussed the street system.
He said the intersection of Vimy Ridge Road and County Line
Road has too many problems for a commercial use and that it
was difficult to get out of driveways at certain times of
the day.
Comments were then offered by several individuals and some
Commissioners. A. C. Dean said that a convenience store was
in the total plan for the development of the area. Doug
Toney indicated that the 330 foot dimension was from the
center line of both Vimy Ridge Road and County Line Road.
There was a discussion about the size of the tract.
A motion was made to recommend approval of the "C-1"
rezoning for a site 238' x 238' or equal to the "C-1" parcel
on the northeast corner of Vimy Ridge Road and County Line
Road (the motion reduced the size from 330' to 238'). The
vote was 3 ayes, 5 noes, 2 absent, and 1 open position. The
motion failed because of failing to receive 6 votes and the
item was deferred to the October 4, 1988 meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 4, 1988)
The applicant, John Collins Rogers, was present. There were
several interested persons in attendance. Staff reviewed
their recommendation and reminded the Commission of the
letter in opposition to the rezoning from the Shannon Hills
Planning Commission. Mr. Rogers then spoke and gave some
history on the previous application. He presented a new
survey and amended the request by reducing the size of the
October 4, 1988
Item No. D - Z-4940-A (Continued)
site to 212' on Vimy Ridge Road and 267' feet on County Line
Road, or 1.3 acres (the initial request was for 2.5 acres).
Mr. Rogers said that the area now favors a "C-1" rezoning
for the reduced acreage.
Richard Lawrence, representing Coy Dean and residents of
Irish Springs Estates, withdrew all opposition to the
amended "C-1" request from the neighborhood. Mr. Laurence
told the Commission that the two sides had reached an
agreement on the use of the site which restricted it to a
daycare center and certain "C-1" uses. He then presented a
copy of the written agreement and said the neighborhood
supported the document.
Coy Dean said that the residential property owners voted by
ballot at a meeting to support the agreement and rezoning.
Mr. Dean also discussed the drawbacks of obtaining approval
for a daycare center through the Conditional Use Permit
process. Some additional comments were made about daycare
centers and zoning. Several Commissioners discussed various
issues, and Commissioner Riddick said the document was a
workable agreement and that it should be filed for record at
the County Court House.
A motion was then made to recommend approval of the amended
"C-1" rezoning request for 1.3 acres. The motion passed by
a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 1
NAME: Shaker Heights Preliminary
LOCATION: South of Secluded Hills
Subdivision and east off Taylor
Loop Road
DEVELOPER:
Rector - Phillips -Morse
1501 N. University Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone: 664-7807
ENGINEER:
Patrick M. McGetrick
Manes, Castin, Massie &
McGetrick, Inc.
11225 Huron Lane
Little Rock, AR 72221
Phone: 223-9900
AREA: 5 acres NO. OF LOTS 16 FT. OF NEW ST. 700
ZONING: "R-2" Single Family
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Proposal /Request
To plat 5 acres into sixteen (16) lots and 700 feet of
new street for single family residential development.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area that currently consists
of new single family activity. The land is vacant with
scattered trees. No street improvements are apparent.
C. Issues / Discussions /Legal /Technical /Design
1. Change Blackberry Cove to Blackberry Drive.
2. Indicate 15 foot easement instead of 15 inches.
3. Indicate two interior angles.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Preliminary street grades should be shown.
2. Preliminary pipe flows should be shown.
3. Insufficient information relating to detention
plan submitted.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 1 (Continued)
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Applicant submitted a revised plan that reflected Staff
and Engineering's comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made and passed for approval. The vote was
11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 2
NAME: Willis Lewis Replat of Hopson
and Sachs Addition
LOCATION: East side of Barrow Road in the
1000 block (south of Target
Store)
DEVELOPER:
Willis B. Lewis
1011 Barrow Road
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 375-0688
ENGINEER:
John H. Dillinger
P. O. Box 9425
Little Rock, AR
AREA: .76 acres /5.6 acres total ownership
NO. OF LOTS 1 FT. OF NEW ST. 0
ZONING: "C-3" General Commercial
PROPOSED USE: Mixed Single Family and Office (add an office
structure to site)
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request to replat .76 acres out of an ownership of
5.6 acres. Two parcels, consisting of .84 acres each, have
previously been sold; leaving a 50 foot strip of property
used as access between the two larger tracts which are
composed of approximately 2.8 acres and 2.4 acres,
respectively.
The site is bounded on the west by an arterial street and
the general area is characterized by commercial uses, except
for the replat site itself which has a one -story single
family residence with a swimming pool A 40 foot easement
provides access to the property from the south.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Reserved until further information is received. Staff
requests that the Applicant submit a plat with the remainder
of his ownership reflected. This item is related to Item 5.
OCTOBER 4. 1988
Item No. 2 (Continued)
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff showed the Committee a drawing of Mr. Lewis' total
ownership, and reported that he gone only fourteen (14) days
notice, which in less than the required fifteen (15) days.
The Applicant was requested to submit a preliminary plat
identifying the separate tracts in his ownership.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was mode and passed for approval. The vote was
11 ayes, O noes, and O absent.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No.
NAME: YMCA Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: The northeast corner of Chicot Road and Mabelvale
Cutoff
DEVELOPER:
YMCA
524 Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72201
ENGINEER:
Robert Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664-0003
AREA: 4.4 acres NO. OF LOTS 2 FT. OF NEW ST. 0
ZONING: "R-2" Single Family and "C-3" General Commercial
PROPOSED USE: YMCA (future) and sale of commercial lot on
Chicot Road frontage
VARIANCES /WAIVERS: Deferral of street improvements on
Mablevale Pike until Phase 2 of development
A. Proposal /Requests
1. To replat 1.4 acres into a two phase, two-lot
project.
2. Waiver of half street improvements along Mabelvale
Cutoff until the final plat or building permit on
Phase 2 is submitted.
3. Right-of-way to be dedicated includes 40 feet on
Chicot Road and 30 feet on Mabelvale Cutoff.
B. Existing Conditions
This site abuts a commercial site near the intersection
of an arterial and collector street. Boundary street
improvements are needed. It is flat, and grass covered
with a few scattered trees.
C. Issues / Discussions /Legal /Technical/Design
1. A thirty-five foot building line is needed on the
southernmost property, due to its "R-2" zoning.
2. A forty-five (45) foot right-of-way is required.
3. Pay filing fee.
4. Explain purpose of access easement.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
tem No. 3 (cont
D. Engineering Comments
1. Widen Mabelvale Cutoff to 48-foot arterial
standards with 45-foot right-of-way and sidewalk,
per Master Street Plan.
2. Extend the sidewalk along Chicot Road.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
This plat proposes a lot split of lands owned by the
YMCA. Their immediate plans are to sell lot 1,
Phase 1. A Conditional Use Permit will be required if
a YMCA is built in the "R-2" area. A portion of the
property is zoned for residential and a portion is
zoned for commercial.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff explained that the Commission should decide whether or
not the Plat should be approved with the lot that is
partially commercial and partially residential, or whether
the 80 foot of commercial should be down-zoned.
There was also discussion of physical improvements to be
made and the easement. The Applicant explained that the
easement was granted for access. The Applicant was asked to
provide sidewalks for Mablevale and to submit a letter
committing Phase II to residential use. As a result, the
waiver would not be needed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Bob Richardson represented the application. He stated
that he was unable to get a commitment to down - zone a
portion of the lot. There was a discussion concerning
platting a lot with two different zonings.
Mr. Richardson questioned the Commission as to why it was
necessary to down - zone property to get subdivision approval.
He was informed that once waivers were involved, the total
process was open to negotiation. He then asked that the
waiver go through the usual process rather than the
applicant be required to submit a letter.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No._3 (Continued)
Staff pointed out that the definition of "zoning lot"
required that the Applicant had to declare which use the lot
was to be used for. Mr. Richardson felt that the property
would be developed as a Y.M.C.A.
A motion was made and passed to approved the plat and
waiver. The vote was 10 ayes, 1 no and 1 absent.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 4
NAME: Kanis Commercial Park
LOCATION: South of Kanis Road and west of
Barrow Road, behind the fire
station site
DEVELOPER:
McKay Properties, Inc.
P. O. Box 7488
Little Rock, AR 72217
ENGINEER:
Mehlberger, Tanner, & Robinson
201 South Izard Street
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 375 -5331
AREA: 9.97 acres NO. OF LOTS 15 FT. OF NEW ST. 1,070
ZONING: "O -3" and OS
PROPOSED USE: Office Development
A. Proposal /Request
1. To replat 9.97 acres into fifteen (15) lots for
general office use.
2. The average lot size is .49 acre and the linear
feet of new streets is 1,070.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is bounded on the north by Kanis Commercial
Park, a proposed subdivision, on the south and west by
Labette Manor Addition and Section F of Twin Lakes
Addition, both residential developments, and on the
east by Asbury Townhouse Addition.
C. Issues / Discussions /Legal /Technical/Design
1. Revise street names - compare Labette Manor with
previous plat.
2. Submit grading plan.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Proposed extension of Clarendon Drive should be
shown with this plat.
2. Note that existing Labette Manor Drive will be
left with no turn - around.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 4 (Continued)
3. The street name is not proper since it does not
connect with the existing Labette Manor (note that
Labette Manor Drive cannot be used in Kanis
Commercial, Phase III).
4. Do not show CMP under pavement.
5. Do not show 24 inch Comp. on a long skew under
pavement.
6. Preliminary street grades and drainage routing and
flow should be shown.
7. Drainage - specific review not attempted.
8. Storm water detention proposal appears feasible
(in ditches) - depends on specifics, grades, and
ditch volumes.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the plat, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Applicant agreed to change the name of Labette on this
plat and a previous plat; and provide Engineering with more
information. He explained that a development with no
through streets was requested by abutting property owners on
Cerelle Drive, when thirty-two of them appeared before the
Planning Commission at a previous Public Hearing.
Staff asked the Applicant whether the sewer easements around
the property boundaries would cause a loss of greenery. The
Applicant denied any disturbance would occur.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made for approval and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No.5
NAME: Willis Lewis Site Plan Review
LOCATION: On the east side of Barrow Road
in the 1000 block (south of the
Target Store)
DEVELOPER:
Willis B. Lewis
1011 Barrow Road
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 375-0688
ENGINEER:
John H. Dillinger
P. 0. Box 9424
Little Rock, AR
AREA: .76 acres NO. OF LOTS 1 FT. OF NEW ST. 0
ZONING: "C-3" Commercial
A. Proposal /Request
1. Site Plan Review of a multiple building site of
.76 acres consisting of a two-story brick single
family residence, swimming pool and an office
building of 1,488 square feet.
2. Parking consists of eight (8) spaces.
B. Existing Conditions
The site is located on an arterial street and in an
area that is developed as commercial. Street
improvements are in place.
C. Issues/ Discussions /Legal /Technical /Design
1. Redesign parking area so that more maneuvering
area is provided.
2. If the single family structure is converted to
office in the future, additional parking may be
needed.
D. Engineering Comments
Street and curb and gutter are good. Proposed twenty-
five (25) foot radius curb return may not extend past
property corner and in front the property to the south.
Redesign parking area as noted above.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 5 (Continued)
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
This request was prompted by the Applicant's desire to
move a building which will house his office, on the
site with his residence. He has worked with Staff to
place the building on -site temporarily until Site Plan
Review is received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Applicant agreed to meet with Engineering and work out
redesign of the parking area and a 20 foot driveway which
was requested by the Fire Department.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Commission decided to suspend the rules regarding
notices of application since the Applicant had missed the
deadline by only one day and there were no objectors
present. He was asked to work out revisions to the drive
and parking with Engineering. A motion for approval,
subject to this condition, was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 6 (Continued)
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to resolution of the parking issue.
The Applicant feels that parking is adequate due to the
expected tenants that will occupy these units. In his
existing operation, many of the residents do not own
vehicles. If this property is not renovated, it will
most likely be demolished.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Applicant agreed to pave the first 20 feet of the
driveway for one parking space, provide landscaping strips
on both sides of the parking area, and provide five parking
spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval was made and passed by vote of 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 6
NAME: KaroIson Manor, "PCD"
LOCATION: 1023 East 8th Street
DEVELOPER:
John and Vicki Karlson
4515 West Drive
No. Little Rock, AR
Phone: 758-3609
ENGINEER:
Bond Engineering
AREA: 1.79 acres NO. OF LOTS 1 FT. OF NEW ST. 0
ZONING: "R-4"
PROPOSED USE: Multifamily
A. Proposal /Request
1. To redevelop a condemned property for use as five
bachelor efficiency units on the lower level and
one efficiency unit on the upper level of a two-
story frame structure. Each unit will consist of
350 square feet.
2. Parking consists of spaces for seven vehicles.
Additional parking can be accommodated at the
neighboring Karlson Manor Apartments.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area composed of mixed
residential uses. The predominate zoning is for
duplexes.
C. Issues/Discussions/ Legal /Technical/Design
1. Prepare initial twenty (20) feet of drive for
parking by paving.
2. Parking is inadequate due to requirement of 1.5
spaces per unit.
3. The usual requirement for landscaping is five (5)
feet between other residences and parking area.
D. Engineering Comments
Street, alley and sidewalks in good condition.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 6 (Continued)
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to resolution of the parking issue.
The Applicant feels that parking is adequate due to the
expected tenants that will occupy these units. In his
existing operation, many of the residents do not own
vehicles. If this property is not renovated, it will
most likely be demolished.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Applicant agreed to pave the first 20 feet of the
driveway for one parking space, provide landscaping strips
on both sides of the parking area, and provide five parking
spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval was made and passed by vote of 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
October 4, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME: Dennison Street Day Care
Conditional Use Permit (Z-5074)
LOCATION: The southwest corner of 10th
and Dennison Streets (1000
Dennison Street)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Mozell Walton
PROPOSAL:
To convert an existing 1551 +/- square foot single family
structure to a day care center (25 child capacity) on
0.17 +/- acres of land that is zoned "R-4."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to two residential streets (Dennison and 10th
Streets).
2 Compatibility with Neighborhood
The site is a corner lot and is abutted by single
family located to the north and west and duplex uses
located to the south and east. Due to a lack of
parking and drop off area, the Staff feels that the
proposed site is deficient and therefore incompatible
with the surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
None.
4. Screening and Buffers
The Applicant is proposing to use the existing trees
and shrubs as landscaping.
5. Analysis
The Staff has concerns about the proposed day care
center use and feels that it would not be compatible
with the surrounding area. Further, the Staff feels
October 4, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 (Continued)
that a day care center with 25 children and no employee
parking or drop-off area would be detrimental to the
neighborhood. The Staff also feels that the small yard
area and layout of the property would not lend itself
well to a day care operation.
6. City Engineering Comments
(1) Existing sidewalk on Dennison is in poor
condition; and
(2) The existing curb is in good condition on both
streets with the exception of a damaged 5' curb
return.
7. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Applicant was present and stated that she was
considering plans to: remove the garage to provide parking;
construct a drive /drop -off area; and alter the proposed
capacity. She further stated that a revised Site Plan would
be submitted to the Staff along with a revised capacity
proposal. The Committee informed the Applicant that the
issue was land use and that the full Commission would vote
on the proposal.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors.
The Staff stated that they had received a revised
proposal that reduced the proposed capacity to sixteen
(16) children and included parking and a drop-off area
off Dennison Street. The Staff stated that the front
yard area was inadequate to accommodate the proposed
parking and drop -off area and that it recommended
denial of the revised proposal due to its continuing
incompatibility with the surrounding area. Mrs.
Estella Olson, a neighbor who lives on Dennison Street,
stated that she supported the proposal. The Staff
further stated that they would support a capacity of
ten (10) children which would not require any on-site
parking or a drop-off area. The applicant stated that
October 4, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 (Continued)
she would accept the Staff's proposal. The Commission
then voted 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to approve the
revised proposal as recommended by the Staff and agreed
to by the applicant.
October 4, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME: Greater Macedonia Baptist
Church (Z-5075) Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION: 100 feet east of Commerce
Street on the north side of
East 24th Street (514 East 24th
Street)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Greater Macedonia Baptist
Church /Reverend Cleo Nellum,
Gene West - Agent
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 3,640 square feet sanctuary (124 capacity),
and then demolish the existing church building and construct
25 paved parking spaces in its place on 0.40 +/- acres of
land that is zoned "R-4."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (East 24th Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The existing church site is abutted by single family to
the north (rear-yard relationship), institutional to
the south (VA Hospital), and single family to the east
and west (rear-yard relationships). The proposal is
modest in size (124 capacity) and wiII increase off -
street parking. The Staff foresees no adverse impact
on the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The proposal contains one access onto East 24th Street
and 25 paved parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
Landscaping is shown on the site plan.
October 4, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 (Continued)
5. Analysis
The Staff foresees no adverse impact on the surrounding
property as the result of this proposal. The applicant
does need, however, to submit a revised site plan that
shows some sort of curb return, frontal landscaping,
and oversized parking stalls for the handicapped on the
proposed parking lot. The Staff can accept a loss of
one or two spaces to accommodate the requested
revisions.
6. City En_ineerina Comments
(1) Repair existing sidewalks where necessary; and
(2) Add a by -pass sidewalk for wheelchair access.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to:
(1) Submit a revised site plan as outlined above; and
(2) Comply with the City Engineering comments numbered
1 and 2.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with Staff
recommendations. The City Engineer stated that the
applicant should redesign the proposed parking space located
at the north end of the lot to allow for proper maneuvering
room. The applicant agreed to comply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 11 ayes to approve the application as
recommended by the Staff, reviewed by the Subdivision
Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
October 4, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME: Kiddie Castle Day Care (Z-5077)
LOCATION: The west side of Izard Street
200 feet south of 21st Street
(2112 Izard Street)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Larry Ester /Shawn Strickland
PROPOSAL:
To convert an existing single family structure (two story)
to a day care center (20 child capacity) on 0.17 +/- acres
of land that is zoned "R-4."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street ( Izard Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The site is abutted by single family uses on the north,
south, and east, and a duplex to the west. The lot is
situated near the middle of the block and is quite
narrow (50 feet). The location of the lot and its
narrowness tend to exacerbate any negative impact to
adjoining properties. The Staff does not think that
the proposed use would be compatible with the
surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and
The applicant is proposing two parking spaces and a
drop -off area via an unplatted alleyway located on the
west side of the property.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use the existing trees
and shrubs as landscaping.
October 4, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 (Continued)
5. Analysis
The Staff has reservations regarding the
appropriateness of the use in the proposed location.
The Staff feels that the location of the lot in the
middle of the block and its narrow configuration
detracts from its potential as an appropriate site.
Finally, the proposed access is an alleyway (physically
open but not platted) that is not in good condition.
6 . City Engineering Comments
The City Engineer opposes the use of the alley for a
drop-off area (due to potential maintenance problems).
7. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. There was general discussion
about the Staff's recommendation. The applicant was
informed by the Committee that the issue was land use and
that the full Commission would vote on the proposal. The
Staff stated that it would likely be able to support a
proposal for ten or less children capacity similar to a home
occupation (Special Use Permit).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Staff reiterated its recommendation of denial of the
proposal as submitted. A discussion ensued. The Staff
stated that it could support a revised proposal that
contained no drop -off area in the alley and a ten child
maximum capacity. The applicant agreed to accept the
Staff's revised proposal. The Commission then voted
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to approve the revised proposal
as recommended by the Staff and agreed to by the applicant.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 10 Street Right-of-Way Abandonment
Name: Monroe Street Right-of-way
Abandonment
Location: Northeast corner of Lot 1,
Block 3, Hillcrest Addition to
the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas
Owner /Applicant: Robert & Susan Miller
Request: Abandonment of that portion of
Monroe Street running between
North Lookout and the alley
south of Allsopp Park.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for This Right-of-Way
There is no public need for this right-of-way
abandonment.
2. Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan revealed no issues
associated with this right-of-way abandonment.
3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
Site review indicated that there is no need for
this right-of-way abandonment to the adjacent
street.
4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
The right -of -way in question is presently heavily
wooded with no access from this section of street
to North Lookout. Physically, the right-of-way is
closed but not on the official record book.
5. Development Potential
The agent involved has not expressed any
development interest regarding this section of
right-of-way to Staff.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 10 (Continued)
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
Immediately surrounding this section of right-of-
way are all residential uses. Located within a
one mile radius of the site is a mixture of uses
consisting of commercial, churches, a school and a
park.
7. Neighborhood Position
As of this writing, no neighborhood position has
been voiced. No notice is required when abutting
property owners are a part of the petition.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
(1) Southwestern Bell is requesting a ten (10)
foot easement on the east side of Monroe
Street.
(2) Arkansas Power & Light Company desires to
retain the south fifteen (15) feet of Monroe
Street as a utility easement.
(3) Waste and Water Utility has an existing sewer
line located in this right-of-way. If the
applicant plans to construct any type of
permanent structure over the existing
easement, contact must be made to the Little
Rock Wastewater Utility concerning
requirements for sewer line relocation.
9. Reversionary Rights
The applicants involved with this petition will
retain the alley as part of their private
property.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
There are no public welfare and safety issues
associated with this request.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 10 (Continued)
.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the right-of-way
abandonment subject to all the utility comments being
retained in the Abandonment Order.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was in attendance. There were no objectors
present. The Planning Commission approved the right-of-way
abandonment per Staff's recommendation. The motion for
approval passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 11 - Street Right-of-Way Abandonment
Name: Rock Street Right-of-Way
Abandonment
Location: That portion of Rock Street
lying between 30th and 31st
Streets.
Owner/Applicant: Sidney B. McKay
Request: To abandon that portion of
Rock Street lying between 30th
and 31st Streets.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for This Right-of-Way
There are no public needs associated with this
street abandonment request.
2. Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan indicates that there are no
issues associated with this right-of-way
abandonment.
3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
The adjacent streets in this area have no needs
associated with this right-of-way abandonment.
4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
Presently, this right-of-way is closed physically
but on the book of record is officially open. On
site, this portion of right-of-way is being used
for storage and parking. There exists some mature
vegetation on the site.
5. Development Potential
No development desires have been expressed by the
applicant as of this writing.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 11 (Continued)
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
Adjacent to this property but further south is
Ryder Truck Storage Company. Radford Equipment
Co.; RMI General Contractors is the immediate
neighbor. Residential uses are to the north and
Interstate 30 is to the east.
7. Neighborhood Position
No neighborhood position has been voiced to Staff
as of this writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company has no objections
to the right-of-way abandonment but would like to
retain the right of ingress and egress.
9. Reversionary Rights
There are no reversionary right issues unless the
right-of-way is challenged by the State. As of
this writing, no comments have been received by
Staff from the State of Arkansas.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
No public welfare and safety issues regarding this
request are apparent.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of this right-of-way
abandonment subject to the utility request of retaining
ingress and egress being included in the Abandonment Order.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. David Joyce represented the applicant. There were no
objectors present. An approval, subject to the Staff's
recommendation, was granted by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 12 - Street Right-of-Way Abandonment
Name: Midland Hills Addition Alley
Abandonment, Block 2
Location: A sixteen (16) foot alley lying
adjacent to Lots 1, 2 and the
north one-half of 3, Block 2,
Midland Hills Addition
Owner/AppIicant: Various Owners
Request.: To abandon that portion of a
sixteen (16) foot alley lying
adjacent to property belonging
to the Arkansas School for the
Blind located east of Woodrow
Street.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for This Right-of-Way
No public need for this right-of-way abandonment
has been expressed.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no issues associated with the Master
Street Plan and this right-of-way abandonment.
3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
The adjacent streets in this area have no needs
associated with the request for the abandonment of
this alley.
4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
The alley is physically closed and has been for
approximately five years or more. The area to be
closed has mature vegetation.
5. Development Potential
There are no developmental potentials expressed by
the prospective owners.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 12 (Continued)
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
No neighborhood use and effects exist now or in
the past. Adjacent to this alley is the Arkansas
School for the Blind. The remaining properties
are all residential.
7. Neighborhood Position
No comments have been received from the
neighborhood as of this writing. No notice is
required when abutting property owners are
participants in a petition to close a right-of-
way.
S. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company retains the right
of egress and ingress.
9. Reversionary Rights
All reversionary rights extend to the five
property owners on the petition for the right-of-
way abandonment.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
There exists no public welfare and safety issues
as of this writing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of this alley abandonment
subject to the utility right of ingress and egress being
retained in the Abandonment Order.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission approved the alley abandonment
subject to the utility request of ingress and egress being
retained in the Abandonment Order. This approval passed by
a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 13 - Street Right-of-Way Abandonment
Name: Midland Hills Addition - Alley
Abandonment, Block 14
Location: That portion of alley in
Block 14, Midland Hills
Addition abutting Lots 18, 9,
8, 7, and the south 25 feet of
Lot 6.
Owner /Applicant:
Request:
STAFF REVIEW:
Various Owners
The request is to abandon that
portion of the alley in
Block 14, Midland Hills
Addition and join the land with
neighboring properties in the
block.
1. Public Need for This Right-of-Way
There is no apparent public need exhibited for
this right-of-way abandonment.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no requirements attached to this request
in regard to the Master Street Plan.
3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
There exists no need for this alley to the
adjacent streets in this block.
4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
The alley presently flows a contour running north
to south. The northern portion of this alley has
already been closed by one of the petitioners.
The open portion dead-ends at a brick fence.
5. Development Potential
No development potential has been expressed by the
applicant except for it to remain as garden space.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No, 13 (Continued)
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The neighborhood land uses surrounding this alley
are all residential. Markham Street to the south
is a minor arterial with residential and
commercial uses.
7. Neighborhood Position
No neighborhood position has been expressed but
notice is not required when all abutting property
owners are participants in the abandonment.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Southwestern Bell Telephone, Arkansas Power &
Light Company, and the Little Rock Wastewater
Utility all have utilities within the right-of-way
and request maintenance of the right-of-way as an
easement.
9. Reversionary Rights
The alley will be divided equally among abutting
property owners whose names appear on the
petition.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
The abandonment of this alley will return to the
public sector and present no public welfare and
safety issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the alley abandonment
subject to retaining utility easement rights of all three
utilities within the Abandonment Orders.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present. Randy Breece, one of the
petitioners, was in attendance. By a vote of 11 ayes, 0
noes, 0 absent, the Planning Commission approved the alley
abandonment per the conditions stated in the Staff's
recommendation.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 14 - Street-Right-.of-Way Abandonment
Name: East Markham Alley Abandonment
Location:
The one-half block north of
Markham and Scott, east side of
Scott Street.
Owner /Applicant: Daniel W. Baldwin /Alright Auto
Parks, Inc.
Request: The request is to abandon that
portion of alley and return it
to the private use as part of a
parking lot that is located in
Block 34, Original City of
Little Rock.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for This Right-of-Way
Several departments within the City of Little Rock
have expressed objection to this alley abandonment
due to the possible future development of the
City's property to the north.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no issues within the Master Street Plan
associated with this request.
3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
Presently, no needs exist for this alley to the
adjacent streets but future development needs may
exist for the property to the north.
4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
Presently this alley is being used as part of the
parking lot for Alright Parking, Inc. The area is
paved and striped. The alley contours run from
east to west.
5. Development Potential
No development potentials have been expressed to
Staff other than for the purpose of parking which
it presently serves.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 14 Continued
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
Surrounding the property on the east, south and
west are commercial uses with a park, Riverfront
to the north. Streets in proximity of this
location are West Markham, a collector to the
south; Main Street, a minor arterial to the west;
Scott Street, a principal arterial to the west;
and La Harpe Boulevard, an expressway to the north
and east.
7. Neighborhood Position
Several departments within the City of Little Rock
have expressed opposition to the closure of this
alley.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company retains the right
of ingress and egress for future needs.
9. Reversionary Rights
Ownership of this alley will return back to the
private sector, respectively Alright Parking, Inc.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
There are no apparent welfare and safety issues
involved in this request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending denial of the alley abandonment due to
the objections raised by several of the departments within
the City of Little Rock.
PLANNING COMMISSIiON ACTION:
Due to the question of ownership regarding the parcel of
property north of the alley, Staff recommended to the
Planning Commission a deferral until the November 15, 1988
meeting. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a
vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
OCTOBER 4, 1988
Item No. 15 - Other Matters
Planning Commission discussion of setting date for Fall
retreat.
DATE /0/<1/{f' ;-,:
ZONING
MEMBER
W.Riddick, III
J.Schlereth
_J. McDaniel
M.Miller
J.Nicholson
w.Rector
S._Leek
C.Whitfield
D.J. Jones
R.Collins
f.Perkins
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
SUBDIVISION
fr {!J e. D I J_ 3 'I-s �7 r '1 I a
✓,/ 0 v v' 0 ....... �i--V V V v '-"". I,,,-"
✓✓ v ✓ v V V V V v v ✓V V
✓;/ 116 ✓ V V v v v V V (.,,,/' v l/'
✓,/ v' V V V ✓ V V V V J.,,/'· v t,,"' .. ✓✓ J/ v 1..-v v c...,-,-I,...,1.,/'" l-/ v i.,,/ t.,/
V-✓ I.I ✓V V v 1./ I.,,,' V v V V V
✓I a/ fit, ,/ v ✓✓ V v V ,/ t-"V V
✓✓ V ✓ V V v v I/v V V ✓(/
✓✓ J/ v I/ V ✓ v V V V V v u ---✓✓ ✓ v v V i./{/ I/ V v l/ ✓ V ✓/ � ✓ v V ✓V v t-, v ,_,, ✓V
✓AYE @ NAYE A ADSENT �ABSTAIN
// I J...
Ir-__, V
V v
L./" V
V v
l/ . '--'
L/' v---
L,/ v
I,..,-" t..-,'
J/V
i/.l-/
-i./ ✓
/3 �cf
V V
V V
v ·v
�I,,,/'
L/ V'
v v ---v
-v--V'
V v
v v
� V
I�
(
�
�\
�\
l
----'
October 4, 1988
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Date:
Secretary Chairman