Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-02638 Application.. . . APPLICATION FOR TO THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION: REZONING FIRE DISTRICT NO. __ o ___ _ BD,OF DIR.APPROVED: l.},:"J L L. BD.OF DIR. i1ENI Eif : ------- ORDINANCE NO • __ _,_1 -.:L=-+-l-=--l_{_p_ 19f~ 19 , 19n 19 Application is hereby made to the Little Rock Board of Directors of Little Rock, Arkansas, through the Planning Conunission pursuant to Arkansas law on City planning, Act 186, of 1957, Acts of Arkansas, and Section 23 of the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance No. 5420 as amended, petitioning for a rezoning of the following described area: orth, &taee l2 W.et , ki County. Title to this property is vested in:~~~'~·~Court~~=D!l~-:•~nd~~~te~~~~-~C~ourtD~J~~~--------- It is desired that the boundaries shown on the District Map be ~ended and that this area be ~assified ~m. the present 11 A-1 " -~~~~~~-----------District to " 1 " C~ial Seg,_. ABetUt: District, Present Use of Property: Desired Use of Property: ___ C_~~~~ia~l~------------------------- jiywrwwww) (there are no) deed restrictions pertaining to the intended use of this property. The filing fee> required by Ordinance No. 9455 will be paid at the City Collector's Office on the filing and acceptance of this application by the Zoning Office. It is understood that notice of the public hearing hereon before the Little Rock Planning Commission will be published at least 15 days prior to said hearing in a daily newspaper as required by Act 186 of the 1957 Acts of Arkansas and Section 23 of said Ordinance, and that notice of prelimbnary hearing before the Commission (PC-18) must be circulated by the applicant to all other parties in interest, including owners of land within 200 feet of the boundary of the area under consideration as required by the rules of the Commission, and that the cost of these notices shall be borne by the applicant. DATE : Sept.. 27, 1972 Form ZA 3-7-72 (600) (OWNE or r{;A32Nt ) ADDRESS: S402 e t 65th St. PHONE: NO. 03 3 9 CI TY OF LITTLE ROCK DEPARTMEN T OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FILING FEES Ark.cJ .2 Little Rock, ,19 ($75) Zoning Application Fee ($25) Board of Adjustment Appli cation Fee ($10 p lu s 50¢ per l ot/acre) Prelimina r y Subd iv i si on ($10 p l us 50 ¢ per lot/acre ) Final Sub d ivision Fee ($5 plus $1 per lot) Replat Fee ( $20 per inters e cti ~) ~.S.tt e et Name Signs Fee < __...,. /.~. ~-. -• ~ ;;v' f) ~Cj /"""' .-;1.. f I '· . The above f·e-~ shaJ l~e <:; 0 paid to the l.gi. t ~l le ~ ~ lst. Floor , City HaJ! S ~c;\0 \) \ C:Z c,O'vv. c,\i: Address of Name of TOTAl Fee $--+-'------+ $ ______ --+ $ ______ --+ $ ______ -+ $ ______ --+ $ ______ ~ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Divisio n Central Inspections Divisions Traffic Division THIRD FLOOR CITY HALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Re: Case No . Z Public Works Real Estate Address () 1 I !, 5 It~ 5~ Dear This is to adv i se yo u th at i~:onn~c t ion with your app li~~t i on f or a c ha ng ~i W zoning from . 1 :~,,.,. 1: • District t o i (L, """ :-'7,\C~~ (/ ,g_- District , the fo'llowing action was ken by the Plann i ng Commission a t i ts . • /') li r. . .... • J-f ,.'") meet~ng on fL C /,f'04.A· , r.,_,(1.~, t:,'J I ! ';f ~-J...J (a) * Denied your request as submitted ~ (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Recommended approval as applied for --------------~ Recommended approval -provided: --------------~ _______ Rec~ended rezoning to "E.-I ··qwJ. ~' J2ACO~<;t J.l.. ~~ 62.;).0 1 +o "F ',.{;:J1MHA. 't .,u{)AtL'=l7h'at -/-() tc.Bn1~'i4 '~ ~~ ________________ De fer red t o (a t your r e qu est) -·------------------------- An ordinance effecting this rezoning will of Directors for its consideration at its (~~sx) be submitted to the Board meeting 12tflj c;Q 1 ~ __...) 10-18-72 250 T ' (OIL-I Yours very truly, I LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION Don R. Venhaus Secretary .. ... THIS COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE MUST ACCOMPANY THE REZONING APPLICATION (Fill in or cross out words or lines not appropriate) 1. I am the (owner) (l~>BJltlint~pnr;cfli!CX3dt) of the property involved in this application. 2 . (a) The rezoning of this property has been requested before (~) )no) (b) The rezoning of this property was requested previously (date) changing it from District to ---------------------------- District ----------------------------------------------~ 3. For what purpose is property presently used: single £smilv residence 4. The intended use of this property is ------~o~f~f~i~c~e~b~u~i~1~d~i~ng~----------------------------- 5. I (~) (do not) propose use of the property as it is (exclusive of minor repair) if rezoned. (If you do, have you discussed this with the Building Inspection Division of this Department (yes) (no) 6. If rezoned: (a) I have an immediate builder -(yes) -(~) (b) Plan to develop in the future -(yes) (no) (c) Plan to sell after rezoning -(yes) (no) 7 . The proposed rezoning: (a) Is compatible with the established land-use pattern of adjacent properties in the immediate area (yes) (D) (b) Would create an isolated zoned lot or tract incompatible with adjacent zoned property (xa) (no) 8. The basic land-use pattern of the immediate area has changed recently -(yes) -OmD) 9. The proposed zoning: (a) (llli:ii) (will not), in my opinion adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood (b) Cxztii) (will not), in my opinion, adversely affect the value of adjacent properties (c) (llcbbl) (will not) ,in my opinion, deter the improvement or development of adjacent property (d) (mi:i) (will not), in my opinion, adversely affect the character of the immediate area 10. ~-The general character of the immediate area is~' ~ The general character of the immediate area is vacant l and lL In my opinion, the rezoning of this property (~ (will not) result in an (increase) (~•eAAe) in traffic incident to the intended use of the property. 12. I have parking spaces sufficient to comply with requirements of the City Ordinance under my present zoning classification (yes) 6ao) 13. If property is rezoned: (a) Sufficient parking is now available (yes) a) (b) The required additional parking will be provided (yes) 6DP) 14. There (lm) (is not) any restriction on this property imposed by a Bill of Assurance (Should there be one, I realize I shall be liable to the property owners having a common interest in this matter.) Date: ____ ~S~e~p~t~2~7~·~19L7~2~------------ a uthorized agent 5-4-71 PC 150 C . FOSTER D. JOHNSON Commercial & Residential Real Estate 2104 NORTH SPRUCE I..ITTL.E ROCK, ARKANSAS 72207 construction managers designers engineers builders PAUL SCHULTE & ASSOCIATES. INC. 135 south Ia salle • suite #1217 • chicago, illinois 60603 (3 I 2) 236-3897 5300 centerwood road • little rock, arkansas 72207 (501) 666-2507 . james c. rogers general manager pre engineered building division 501-664-2820 7Sf'·33» Tract No" 10 -Z-2638 -5402 West 65th Street From: To "A" One-family District "F" Commercial District The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends denial of the application as submitted and recommends instead rezoning the south 220' to "F" and remainder to "MF 18" as this has been done on the adjacent tract on the east. This pattern was ·pretty much established by the rezoning (April, 1972) of the tract on the east." Mr. Jim Rogers was present representing the applicant. He stated that they agree with the Staff's first recommendation, but they notified the people in the area of their intended use should this zoning take place and they were not interested in "MF 18" zoning but would approve ."E-1" Quiet Business. If they should go to apartment, there is a street that dead ends at the property line that would have to be reopened which they do not w·ant to open. They would like to request instead of ·~ 18" for the application be amended to "E-1". He further stated that he had pictures of an office that has been built in another state that they would propose to build. Also, they have a preliminary floor plan of the proposed building. The Cha.irman asked if he had talked to Mr. Venhaus about changing the application to "E-1 ". Mr. Rogers said Mr. Johnson spoke to Mr. Wood and Mr. Barber about it. , Mr. Venhaus said, "Let me make one point clear about the street that stubs into the north line of this property. Whether we talk about "E-1'' Quiet Business or apartments, the question is the same so far as the street. It is not necessarily the case that if this property is zoned apartment that the street will have to be stubbed through, but if it is zoned something else, it won't. The question is in giving the access to the area should Southern Oaks Drive be required to extend through the site whatever the nature of the land-use. In so much as we have only got a very short distance between the north end of the site and Timberlane and a lot of extensive area is served off of Lancaster Road, it wouldn't appear to me necessary to stub this street through this property in any event, whether we talk about multi-family, "E-1", or "F" Commercial or whatever the land-use." The Chairman asked, "You say it would not be necessary --are you people wanting to extend Southern Oaks Drive?" Mr. Taylor explained that actually if they want to open Southe.rn Oaks Drive, it would have to be a subdivision which could be denied. The o·nly thing with reference to the "E-1" zoning tb.a;t reverts to "D" Apart- ment in case it is not used for office use. The Chairman stated that if they were going to talk about "E-1" that probably they would not want Southern Oaks opened. Mr. Venhaus said, "I think "E-1" is a separate kind of thing and I think it is significant that "E-1 11 reverted to "D" Apartment which it seems to m7 that if we look at the future of this property that there is very l~ttle prospect of that area being utilized for "E-1" professional office purposes. I, personally, can not see a large professional office development taking place back there on some 300 ft. of lan'd or more." The Chairman asked, '~at if we rezone the south 600 ft~ of this to "E-1"?" Mr. Rogers said that he had the original proposed layout for the property under "E-1" for office buildings which started with 72,000 sq. ft. of office space which covers the entire tract. We have no desire to open Southern Oaks Drive. The people who live there do not want it opened. We do not want to build apartments there. A motio~ was made ·to rezone ·the southerrunost 200 ft; "F" Commercial, northernmost 100 ft. remain "A" Single-family and the·remainder portion in between to "E-1" Quiet Business, which was seconded and passed. C. • • • PAUL SCHULTE & ASS CIA T I I C~ 1 • 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. a. 9 • 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. designers • engineers • builders construcUon managers OFFICE BUILDINGS One and two stories. Floor construction; slab on grade, 2nd floors, composite slab on beams Side wall construction; brick and block with glass fronts. Window arrangements; glass units set in aluminum. Roof construction; 20 year specification built-up roof over metal deck. Roof insulation; 1!• fiberglass. Clearance height; 9' to ceiling, 13'611 to roof. Lighting systems; main offices, flourescent 150 foot candles, suspended ceiling height 9'. In floor duct for llOv and telephones. Employees' facilities; two toilets, each floor. Use of color dynamics creates the right mood for worker efficiency and the right mood to keep morale on an even keel. Roof mounted air conditioners, electric and gas. Fire protection; 100% sprinkled. 100% carpeted with movable metal partitions. 100% outside office parking. c. • s 10 • • PAUL SCHUlTE & ASSOCIATES , i C~ designers • eneo:lneers • builders construction managers Octofier 23, 1972 Little Rock Planning Commission Little Rock, Arkansas Gentlemen: Please find attached an outline, with ddsign criteria for approximately 72,000 s/f of prime office space to be constructed, pending your approval, on 4.5 acres of land located on West 65th Street. If this Commission requires additional information, please contact me • ... ABOUT THE CPS SYSTEM BASED UPON ESTABLISHED OWNER OBJECTIVES, TOTAL PROJECT MANAGE- MENT RESPONSIBILITY WHICH PROVIDES FOR ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A study and report outlining tentative specifications for scope and arrangement of buildings, facilities and services required for a specified product volume, and the estimated cost involved. A block layout defining building dimensions, and industrial engineering services to complete a finalized lfs" scale layout of production areas and machine arrangement for best product flow, aisles, material handling equipment, manu- facturing service areas, shop office and personnel service requirements. Professional architectural, mechanical, electrical, structural and civil engi- neering services to establish criteria for competitive design and build I ump sum contractor proposals . Development of a critical path program for completion, and after owner- contractor awards are let, co-ordination, supervision, and inspection of all phases of contractor work to be performed. Criteria and engineering services for design and install competitive lump sum proposals for special built-in material handling and production equipment. From approved layout, drawings required for equipment installation; showing all necessary electrical, gas, air, water, drain, exhaust and related data; and supervise movement and installation of equipment to plan . STAUFFER CHEMICAL COMPANY USED THE SYSTEM FOR THEIR RECENTLY MODERNIZED AND EXPANDED AMERICAN URETHANE DIVISION PLANT ... with equipment installation and plant operations beginning in five months, and total occupancy within eight months of starting date. FORD · MOTOR COMPANY USED THE • SYSTEM FOR THEIR NEW PHILCO DIVISION PLANT ... thereby substantially reducing their estimated cost and time schedule. HOW THE CPS SYSTEM WILL SAVE COST AND TIME IN PROVIDING A FACILITY TO MEET YOUR EXACT REQUIREMENTS ... A message from the President- ' Ours is a comparatively new, but tested and proven concept of total project , management responsibility, incorporating all phases of planning, construction and service, from site selection to equipment operation, with complete flexibility to adapt to owner requirements and objectives. ~ This integrated management eliminates excess cost and time consuming effort involved in using separate architectural, design and engineering services. Also of major cost advantage to the owner is our method of directly letting owner- contractor awards for each major segment of the work (general, structural, mechanical , electrical , fire protection, etc.) through competitive bidding, thus eliminating sub-contract mark-up cost which is an ingredient of general con- struction contract awards. ~ Since contracts are let separately for each major phase of the work, each with , final design and specifications which are a part of the contract, field work such as site development, foundations, underground, fire protection, etc. can begin immediately upon execution of each contract, without waiting for detailed working drawings for the entire project, long lead time procurement items such as steel, electrical switch gear, etc. can be placed on order as individual con- tracts are consummated, without the delay involved in waiting for complete architectural and engineering design specifications before soliciting proposals for a single and overall general contract. ~ If plant modernization, rearrangement or expansion is contemplated because , of capacity or technological needs; it can be to your benefit to wire, call or write to arrange a meeting to discuss your objectives, without obligation, of course. We extend a cordial challenge to let us substantiate our claim that the CPS System will work for you and your best interests . ~ Sincerely, C. Paul Schulte, Pres ident, C. Pa ul Schulte & Associates, Inc. ""U )> c r (fJ () I c Ci m (20 i~ ~ • (fJ ~ 0 () Cl ~ i3 m Ql (fJ Cl • z ;:i" () ro .., 0 () !' Ql ~ ::J en Ql en -..! IV "' 0 -..! (]1 9 0) 0) r;' "' (]1 0 -..!