HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_05 29 2003_special called hearingLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL CALLED HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
MAY 29,2003
3:30 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9)in number.
Members Present:Judith Faust
Gary Langlais
Bob Lowry
Robert Stebbins
Norm Floyd
Mizan Rahman
Bill Rector
Obray Nunnley,Jr.
Fred Allen,Jr.
Members Absent:Rohn Muse
Jerry Meyer
City Attorney:Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 29,2003
3:30 P.M.
Hickory Grove Long-Form PD-R (Z-4562-B),located on Hinson Road,Westside,just
south of Pebble Beach Subdivision.
May 29,2003
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:Z-4562-B
NAME:Hickory Grove Long-form PD-R
LOCATION.Located on Hinson Road,west side,just south of Pebble Beach
Subdivision
DEVELOPER:
Jim Markus/Bob Evans
P.O.B ox 241400
Little Rock,AR 72223
ENGINEER:
The Mehlburer Firm
201 South izard Street
Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:38.62 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:83 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:MF-6,Multi-family
ALLOWED USES:Multi-family six (6)units per acre
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Owner occupied townhouse development 83 Units (2.15 units per
acre)
VARIANCES/N/AIVERS REQUESTED:Plat Variances-
1.A variance to allow the creation of double frontage lots for Lots 17 —32.
2.A variance to allow an increased lot width to depth ratio for Lots 63 and 69 —79.
3.A variance to allow lots without public street frontage for Lots 2 —16,Lots 33 -46
and Lots 48 —61.
May 29,2003
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4562-B
BACKGROUND.
The property is the remaining 40+acres of a 120-acre parcel or the eastern 1/3 of the
property owned by the First Baptist Church.The site was originally proposed as a
multipurpose facility with residential,school and church facility.The western 80 acres
have since developed as single-family neighborhood.
The property was zoned MF-6,Multi-family District (six (6)units per gross acre allowed)
in mid-1981.A "Declaration of Covenants"was filed and recorded in 1981,which runs
with the property.The private covenants regulate the property's use and portion of the
property's development.
The private covenants state that the property will be developed for condominium units
developed pursuant to the Horizontal Property Act being Act 60 of 1961 (units for sale
only,no rental units).The covenants designate certain areas of the property as OS
(Open Space)and require a six (6)foot high privacy fence be constructed at one
location prior to any construction.The covenants also state that structures built in one
area of the property not exceed one and one-half stories in height;both located on the
northern boundary of the site.
A preliminary plat and a multiple building site plan review were filed on the site in May
1997,to allow the construction of 234 units in 10 three-story buildings.Prior to the
Public Hearing;the applicant requested the application be withdrawn from
consideration.
A proposal was filed March 2000,to develop a portion of the site (18.47 acres)with 22
buildings of owner occupied condominium housing.The application was later
withdrawn from consideration without prejudice prior to the Public Hearing.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to develop this 39-acre site of MF-6 zoned property as a
Planned Residential Development with 83 units.The applicant proposes to
develop the site in three (3)phases with zero-lot line townhouses,each of which
would have its own lot of record.A common wall would be shared by each
structure,which would be dissected by the common property line.This would
allow some measure of property on each end of the structure for maintenance of
the building.The structures would have enclosed garages facing a private street
with a private courtyard on the rear of each townhouse unit.
The applicant is proposing the construction of a bridge across the creek that
separates this property from Hinson Road.The bridge will be constructed in the
first phase according to the applicant.The applicant is proposing a public
roadway to connect with Hinson Road and Dorado Beach Drive.The road will be
2
May 29 2003
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4562-B
constructed in the third phase of the development.There are two other streets
proposed as a part of the development,which the applicant intends to maintain
as private streets.
There are three areas designated by covenants in the deed that are not to be
encroached upon by building construction.The applicant has indicated the
areas of non-encroachment on the proposed development plan and indicated the
covenants to be in force.
The applicant is requesting variances for lots without public street frontage,an
increased lot depth to width ratio and a variance to allow double frontage lots.
The lots are sized to accommodate the building plans as required in the
Subdivision Ordinance for zero-lot line developments.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently undeveloped and heavily wooded.The Windsor Court
Condominium development and single-family residences are located to the
south,with single-family residences to the north.There is undeveloped R-2,
Single-family property to the west,with single-family residences further west.
Single-family residences and undeveloped R-2 property are also located across
Hinson Road to the east.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners Association,all residents
located within 300 feet of the site,who could be identified and all owners of
property located within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
As of this writing.Staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Hinson Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.A
dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
2.Construct curb at all locations as needed.Repair or replace any other curb
and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occu pa n cy.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work.Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-
of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501)379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
3
May 29,2003
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4562-B
4.A sketch grading and drainage plan,a special flood hazard permit,and a
special grading permit for flood hazard areas are required.ADEQ and
NPDES permit is also required.
5.In accordance with Section 31-176,floodway areas must be shown as
floodway easements or be dedicated to the public.In addition,a 25-foot
wide access easement is required adjacent to the floodway boundary.
6.Conditional approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency will
be required prior to start of work.A Section 404 permit from the US Army
Corps of Engineers will also be required.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
8.Bridge Plans must meet ASHTO standards per the Little Rock Code.
9.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code.Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501)379-1813 (Steve Philpott)for more information regarding street light
requirements.
10.Dorado Beach Dr ive right-of-way and street width should match existing
improvements to the current roadway.
11.Additional drainage easements between lots may be required per Section
29 of the Code.Particularly,Lots 63 through 81 and as needed elsewhere
12.All alleys must be designed per Master Street Plan requirements.
13.Street curvature at lots 10 through 17 do not meet minimum radius
requirement of 150'.
14.Any cuts steeper than 3:1 must be terraced per the land alteration
ordinance.
15.Easements must be provided for sidewalks not located in the public right-of-
way.Sidewalks must be continuous along Dorado Beach Drive.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING;
Wastewater:A sewer main extension is required with easements,if service is
required for the project.An existing 10n sewer main is located along Hinson
Road in the area of the "Proposed Floodway Improvements".Relocation of
the existing main is required to remove manholes and sewer main from area
of the proposed improvements.Other existing mains are located on site with
easements that must be retained.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at
688-1414 for additional details.
EnterqE:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
4
May 29,2003
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4562-B
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:A public water main adequate to provide needed fire
protection and water service to each lot will be required adjacent to the
proposed roads.A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the
meter connection (s)will apply to this project in addition to normal charges.
This development will have minor impact on existing water distribution
system.Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure
and fire protection.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for
additional details.
Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
Count Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the River Mountain Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property.
The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for
condominiums development.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan.However,
this plan does not contain goals and objectives that are directly relevant to
this particular application.
~Landsca e.No comment.
d.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(February 27,2003)
Mr.Frank Riggins was present representing the applicants.Staff presented a
history of the site indicating there were covenants tied to the development of the
site and the applicant appeared to have met them.Staff stated the development
would be a zero lot line development and owner occupied housing.Staff stated
there would be three variances necessary as a part of the plat.Staff stated the
applicant had requested the appropriate variances in the initial application.
5
May 29,2003
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4562-B
Staff stated the applicant would be required to plat buildable areas to establish
maximum buildable areas.Mr.Riggins indicated he would designate the
maximum buildable area on the proposed plat.
Staff questioned if the lots on the western boundary would be alley access and
rear loaded lots.Mr.Riggins stated the applicant was requesting this option
since the lots were somewhat steep.
Staff stated the street improvements would be required with each phase.Staff
voiced concerns about the developer developing Phases I and II and not
completing Phase III.Staff questioned how Dorado Beach Drive would be
completed.Staff stated the roadway was needed because of the limited access
through the neighborhoods in the area.
Public Works comments were addressed in great length.Staff stated the
applicant would be required to place curb inlets along Hinson Road.Staff stated
the applicant would also be required to grant a 25-foot access easement along
the floodway.Staff stated the bridge proposed would be required to be
constructed to City standard.Staff also stated Dorado Beach Drive had thus far
been constructed to collector standards and the proposed connection would be
required to match up to the existing roadway.
Staff noted comments from Public Works and Central Arkansas Water stating
the applicant should contact these agencies for additional information.
There being no further items for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee members.The applicant has
indicated a typical lot setback plan and has indicated five (5)foot side yard
setbacks,where applicable,and a five (5)foot rear yard setback adjacent to the
green spaces.The applicant has indicated a twenty (20)foot rear yard setback
for Lots 17 —32,adjacent to Dorado Beach Drive.The applicant has indicated
twenty (20)and twenty-five (25)foot front platted building lines within the
development.The applicant has also platted a restricted access easement
along the rear of Lots 17 —32.
The applicant has requested Lots 63 —81 be permitted to be rear loaded through
a thirty (30)foot access easement located on the rear of these lots.The
applicant has also requested a thirty (30)foot access easement be located in the
front yards of Lots 69 —73 to allow for flexibility in the development of these lots
6
May 29,2003
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4562-B
The topography of this area is extremely steep and the applicant would like
alternatives for development of these lots.Staff is supportive of this request.
The applicant has increased the street right-of-way for Dorado Beach Drive to
sixty (60)feet,as requested by Public Works,to match the existing Dorado
Beach Drive,which currently ends in the Pebble Beach Woods Subdivision.The
applicant is proposing the two (2)interior streets to be private streets and be
constructed with a twenty-seven (27)foot pavement width.The applicant has
indicated a twenty-five (25)foot access easement adjacent to the floodway as
requested by Public Works.
The applicant has indicated a zero-lot line development consistent with the
requirements for development under the Subdivision Ordinance.The applicant
will be required at the time of Final Platting to delineate the maximum building
area of each lot so as to provide that no lot will be adversely affected by
placement of adjoining units and specify the zero-lot-line yard.
The proposed site is currently zoned MF-6 or Multi-family up to six units per acre.
The proposed density of the site equates to approximately 2.15 units per acre,
well within the allowable density.The proposed development also includes the
previously restricted areas for open space.The area to the north of the site has
the 100-foot open space buffer indicated on the site plan.The applicant has
also indicated building heights on these lots will not exceed one and one-half
stories.The applicant has also included an open space area adjacent to Hinson
Road,following the creek and floodway as was previously requested.The third
area of restricted area includes 1.18 acres to the south of the site indicated as
open space.The applicant has also included an additional 2.87 acres of open
space in this area.
The applicant has indicated the proposed development will be phased and the
completion of Dorado Beach Drive will be with the third phase.The applicant
proposes the first phase to include access to the site with the construction of a
bridge extending from Hinson Road,the construction of a private street and the
cfevelopment of Lots 1 —46.The second phase will include the construction of
the second private street and the development of Lots 47 —62 and the third and
final phase will include the development of Lots 63 —83 and the completion of
Dorado Beach Drive.Staff has some concerns with the delayed development of
Dorado Beach Drive until the final phase.Staff would recommend the
connection of Dorado Beach Drive be completed with the second phase of the
development.
The applicant has not indicated any proposed signage on the proposed site plan.
Staff would recommend if signage is desired the signage be consistent with
signage allowed in multi-family zones per the Zoning Ordinance.
7
May 29,2003
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4562-B
Staff is supportive of the proposed development as filed with regard to street
design,layout and lot placement.Staff is not supportive of the request to defer
the completion of Dorado Beach Drive until the third phase.As stated Staff
would recommend the street be constructed with the second phase of the
development to ensure the street is constructed in a timely manner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 20,2003)
Mr.Frank Riggins was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval.Staff stated the
applicant had revised the phasing plan and had agreed to construct the extension of
Dorado Beach Drive in the second phase.
Staff stated the phasing plan had changed to include Lots 47 —62 in Phase I and Lots 1
—46 in Phase I.Staff stated the remaining lots would develop (Lots 63 —83)in the final
phase.Staff stated the applicant had agreed to construct Dorado Beach Drive when
any of the lots abutting the road were final platted or when Lots 17 —32 or 63 —83 were
final platted.
Staff stated the applicant had failed to notify the property owners as required by the
By-laws.Staff stated the applicant mailed the notices 14-days prior to the public
hearing and a waiver would be required to accept this notification.A motion was made
to approve the notification of property owners 14-days prior to the public hearing.The
motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes,1 noes and 3 absent.
Mr.Riggins addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed development
He stated the applicant was adhering to the covenants imposed on the site.He stated
the applicant was also leaving additional green spaces around the development which
would only enhance adjacent properties.
Ms.Brenda Richardson spoke in opposition of the proposed development.She stated
her primary concern was from lack of information.She questioned if the units would
have attached garages.Mr.Riggins indicated the units would have attached garages
She then questioned if the area to the north would be retained as a buffer.Mr.Riggins
stated the area to the north would be a 110-foot open space undisturbed buffer.He
stated there would not be any trees removed but the area would contain a walking trail.
Ms.Richardson stated she did not received her notice in a timely manner.
Ms.Robin Ombindinger stated she did not receive a notice and if not for her neighbor
she would not have known of the request.Staff questioned when Ms.Ombindinger
8
May 29,2003
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4562-B
bought her home.She stated in February.The Commission indicated this was not
enough time to allow the abstract company to pick up the title transfer.
Mr.Ron Groce spoke in opposition of the proposed development.He stated his
concern was with the placement of green spaces along the southern edge of the
development.He requested the developer extend the buffer along the southern
boundary to encompass his entire lot.
Mr.Melvin Mayfield spoke in opposition of the proposed development.He stated he did
not want Dorado Beach Drive to connect to Hinson Road.He stated if the road were
opened the traffic in the area would increase and the internal streets in Pebble Beach
Woods were not sufficient to handle the traffic.He requested the Commission go
against Staff and not approve the road connection.
Ms Neida Hill spoke in opposition of the proposed request.Ms.Hill stated she was
concerned with the extra traffic on Hinson Road.She stated her letter indicated 77
units and the proposal before the Commission was for 83 units.She stated each of the
units would have two (2)cars and at a minimum there would be 176 more cars on
Hinson Road each day.She requested the entrance not be changed or moved from
the shown location.
There was a general discussion concerning the roadways and the narrowness of the
roads and street parking in Pebble Beach Woods.Staff stated one side of the street
could be signed for no parking if there was truly a problem.Staff stated the road
needed to be constructed since Pebble Beach Drive was the only east/west connection
to Rahling Road.
Commissioner Meyer stated the site was zoned MF-6 or multi-family at six (6)units per
acre.He stated the site could be developed with 240 units.Commissioner Meyer
stated the proposed development was 2.1 units per acre well below the allowable
density.
Staff stated there were to be no trails in the undisturbed area.The applicant agreed
there would be no trails in the open area.
A motion was made to approve the application as amended to include no trails in the
open space.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
This item was to be heard by the Little Rock Board of Directors at their May 6,2003
Public Hearing.Director Michael Keck requested the item be returned to the Planning
Commission to reconsider the need for the connection of Dorado Beach Drive between
Rahling Road and Hinson Road.There have been many conversations between the
9
May 29,2003
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4562-B
neighborhood,the developer and the Board concerning the connection of the street.In
these conversations the neighborhood did not want the street connection and the
developer indicated he did not desire to build the street.Director Keck was not
convinced the Commission considered all the issues related to the street and if the
development should be developed without the through connection.He stated he was
not stating the street should not be built only that the Commission reconsider the need
for the street connection when making their decision concerning the approval of the
project.
Mr.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning,gave a presentation to the Board of Directors
concerning traffic in the area.The Commission was not given this presentation.The
presentation contained background material concerning when the street was proposed
as a collector street to the City's Master Street Plan,the current development patterns
in the area and traffic counts on Pebble Beach Drive.Director Keck indicated he did
not feel the Commission had all the relevant information and therefore did not consider
the street connection issue or if the subdivision should be developed without the
connection.
The Commission first considered the connection in 1995 when Pebble Beach Estates
was preliminary platted.At the time two (2)streets were proposed to extend eastward
into undeveloped areas;one of which is now developed as Pebble Beach Woods,the
other area is the site being considered by this application.At the time the applicant
proposed to subdivide 39.87 acres into 116 single-family lots.There were two (2)
connections proposed one (1)Beckenham Road and the other Dorado Beach Drive.
Beckenham Road has been shown on the Master Street Plan as a collector street since
1988.Staff and the Commission at the time of the proposal for Pebble Beach Estates
requested Dorado Beach Drive be constructed to Collector Standards.[Per the Master
Street Plan the Commission has the authority to request additional streets at the time of
subdivision."The exact location and additional need for Collectors will be determined
by the Little Rock Planning Commission upon advise of Staff."]
When the Commission reviewed the Woods at Hinson,now known as Pebble Beach
Woods in June of 1997,the Commission once again requested Dorado Beach Drive be
constructed to Collector Standards.This request extended the street to the west
property line of the current proposed development.The Master Street Plan was never
officially amended to include this connection but the minute record indicates the
Commission's desire for Dorado Beach Drive to extend from Hinson Road to the west.
There is currently one east/west connection in the area,Pebble Beach Drive,The
current traffic counts on Pebble Beach Drive indicate approximately 1,500 automobiles
per day of through traffic.The service volume of a collector street is 5,000 cars per
day.Other average daily traffic counts in the area indicate Pebble Beach Drive carries
approximately 550 automobiles northbound and 575 automobiles southbound on
Montvale Drive.On Valley Park Drive the average daily traffic counts indicate 775
northbound automobiles and 1080 southbound automobiles.The final area analyzed
10
May 29,2003
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4562-B
was on Pebble Beach Drive just east of Valley Park Drive.Estimates indicate there are
approximately 2950 automobiles per day eastbound in this area and 2790 automobiles
per day westbound.
Currently Pebble Beach Estates and Pebble Beach Woods are 85 percent "built-out".
Of the homes constructed there are a number of the homes currently vacant.In
addition there are an additional 50 plus lots,which have been approved with a
preliminary plat but have not yet began construction in the Chenal Ridge Subdivision.
The current proposal involves the completion of the connection of Dorado Beach Drive
to Hinson Road.The applicant has stated he is willing to make the connection and
move forward with the project.Staff feels the connection is desirable and should be
completed.With construction of Dorado Beach Drive extending from Hinson Road to
the west and connecting to the current terminus the current traffic pressure on Pebble
Beach Drive would be relieved.Although Beckenham Road has been identified on the
Master Street Plan as a collector street staff does not feel Beckenham Road will be
constructed in the near future.Once the connection is made this will aid in relief of
traffic pressure on Pebble Beach Drive and Dorado Beach Drive should traffic volume
become an issue.
Staff has received numerous phone calls from the Pebble Beach area concerning
Dorado Beach Drive.AII of the callers have indicated the need for another connection
to Hinson Road.The traffic is heavy and dangerous on Pebble Beach Drive according
to the ca lie rs.
Staff feels this current proposal should be constructed as presented.Staff feels Dorado
Beach Drive should be extended,as dedicated by the Master Street Plan,to the east
from the current terminus to Hinson Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 29,2003)
The applicant was present.There were residents from the Pebble Beach Subdivision
present in favor of the road connection.Mr.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and
Development,gave the staff presentation and recommendation.Mr.Lawson stated the
item was approved by the Commission at their March 20,2003 Public Hearing,
Mr.Lawson stated the item was forwarded to the Board of Directors.He stated there
were conversations between the Board members,residents and the developer
indicating the desire to not have the road connected.Mr.Lawson stated the Board was
present information the Commission did not consider in making their decision on the
road connection.He stated at that point Director Keck questioned if the item should be
returned to the Commission for a review in light of the new information.Mr.Lawson
stated the Board members voted the Commission should be furnished the additional
information to make their decision and the item had been returned to the Commission.
11
May 29,2003
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4562-B
Mr.Lawson stated the information furnished to the Board was related to the Master
Street Plan in the area.He stated the Master Street Plan calls for three (3)Collector
Streets in the area.He stated currently only one Collector Street has been constructed,
Pebble Beach Drive.He stated the current traffic counts on Pebble Beach Drive
indicate the road was near capacity.
Mr.Lawson stated in 1995 when Pebble Beach Estates was considered the
Commission determined Dorado Beach Drive should be constructed to Collector
standard.He stated when Pebble Beach Woods was reviewed the Commission once
again reaffirmed Dorado Beach Drive should be constructed to Collector standard.He
stated the intent was when the final piece of property,the site being considered,was
developed Dorado Beach Drive would help relieve some of the traffic on Pebble Beach
Drive.
Mr.Lawson stated the residents of Pebble Beach were assured additional streets would
be constructed in the area to relieve concerns of cut-through when the connection of
Pebble Beach Drive was made to Rahling Road.Mr.Lawson stated there were two
proposed Collector streets in the area.One was Dorado Beach Drive and the second
was Beckenham.He stated a large portion of the land area to connect Beckenharn
was owned by one property owner and there were no immediate plans for development
of the land.
Mr.Lawson stated currently the traffic in the area traveled Montvale or Valley Park
Drive.He stated Montvale was constructed to Collector standard but Valley Park Drive
was a 27-foot residential street.He stated the road was not designed to carry the 2000
cars per day the street currently carries.Mr.Lawson stated Montvale did not carry near
the traffic Valley Park Drive carried.Mr.Lawson stated the applicant had indicated
they would construct the road but not the entire road in the first phase.He stated
typically roads were constructed in phases with developments.He stated the city could
not dictate when roads were constructed only that the roads were constructed to
standard.
Commissioner Lowry questioned were the developer stood on the construction of the
road.Mr.Hathaway spoke for the applicant stating the developer was on board to
construct the road as was previously approved by the Commission.He stated the
agreement was when one of the lots abutting the road was developed then the road
would be constructed.
Mr.Danny Broaddrick spoke in favor of the road construction.He stated he lived on
Valley Park Drive.He stated the road should be constructed entirely in the first phase
since Valley Park Drive was carrying more traffic than intended.He requested a time
certain that the road would be constructed.Mr.Broaddrick stated five to ten years was
not reassuring to the residents in the area.
12
May 29,2003
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.F I I E NO.:Z-4562-B
Mr.Hathaway stated the road would be constructed when one of the abutting lots was
developed or in four (4)years.
Mr.Broaddrick questioned why an impact study was not preformed when the western
subdivisions were developed and why this development should bear the brunt of the
cost.Staff stated the city did not require off-site improvements.
Mr,Bill Trice stated he was requesting from the Commission any relief possible.He
stated he lived on Pebble Beach Drive and traffic was a great concern.He stated when
the Commission could require additional east west connections from Hinson Road to
Rahling Road as a part of development this act would help to relieve the traffic on
Pebble Beach Drive.
A motion was made to reaffirm the Master Street Plan and to accept the modification
offer by the applicant to construct the road in four years or as one of the abutting lots
developed.The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
13
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
VO
T
E
RE
C
O
R
D
DA
T
E
~
I
V
I
2
t
&a
!
3
EM
I
S
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
FL
O
Y
D
,
NO
R
M
v'A
N
G
L
A
I
S
,
GA
R
Y
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
V
ME
Y
E
R
,
JE
R
R
Y
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
,
JR
.
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
ST
E
B
B
I
N
S
,
RO
B
E
R
T
v
4l
f
E
M
B
I
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
v'
l(
FA
U
S
T
JU
D
I
T
H
i
r.
W
3,
'
g
5
FL
O
Y
D
,
NO
R
M
3o
I"
LA
N
G
L
A
I
S
,
GA
R
Y
u
~
l~
s5
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
ME
Y
E
R
,
JE
R
R
Y
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
,
JR
.
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
v'E
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
ST
E
B
B
I
N
S
,
RO
B
E
R
T
Me
e
t
i
n
g
Ad
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
'
&
P.
M
.
~
AY
E
+
NA
Y
E
A
AB
S
E
N
T
~A
B
S
T
A
I
N
~R
E
C
U
S
E
May 29,2003
There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was
adjourned at 4:02 p.m.
Date i~LQ
I
/
4
S re ary Chairma