HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-00516-A ApplicationAPPLICATION FOR REZONING
TO THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION:
FIRE DISTRICT NO. __ B=--· __ _
P.C. AI § fi}B :
P. C. DENIED --,-li-,-1 /---,-!-f--.-":f---=3:o-----
T/
19
19 ---
BD. OF DU-.APPR8V!JB: ~ 19
BD. OF DIR.DENIED : ~j J.C,f'J <t-, 19--1
• I ---
ORDINANCE NO. -ZON I NG CASE NO. Z -' I (L';I
Filing Date: _______ _
Application is hereby made to the Little Rock Board of Directors of Little Rock, Arkansas,
through the Planning Commission 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, pet ~oning for a rezoning of the following described area: ~e _.:}, . .q c t t ·)
Title to this property is vested in:
It is desired that the boundaries s~ o ~~Di ~l~~{MiP be amended and that this area ber-~c,lassi ~ed . frQ!l\...th e...PI;~et _"_n __ '_'---. --.----'--f ________ D.istrict to
" \../ 1 " \.....OM.l Y/1:; K-C-fn D1str1ct.
Present Use of Property: CJJ.}({"7,f(C/JJ!t !J .BJ"'JX7.
Desired Use of Property:
(There are) (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 Co llector's Offi ce
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 Plann ing
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 preliminary 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.
(OWNER)
or
DATE: A v G.. t... 2 I Ji, :,
(AGENT) ~~-J:.L-+.~~~~.EI~n-t--=-
PHONE:
Form ZA 12-22-72 (600)
NO. 0283 CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FILING FEES S
Little Rock, Ark ~~;pW ~ c ~~--~
($75 ) Zoning Application Fee I $ -•-...-
~$25) Bo ard of Adjustment App lication Fee $--~~--------~
$10 plu s 50¢ per lot/acre ) Preliminary Subdivision Fee $---------------4
$'10 plu s 50¢ pe r l o t /a c re ) Final Subdivision Fee $ ______________ ~
($5 plus $1 per lot ) Replat Fee $
($20 per in t ersec t io n ) Street Name Signs Fee $---------------4
The above fees shall be
paid to the City Collector,
1st. Floor, City Hall.
Address of property involved:
Name of applicant:
STATUS SHEET
P.C. CASE NO.
!.Application filed
(completed)
-z. Checked for
a.Parks plan
b.Master st. plan
c.Urban Renewal/N.D .P.
3.Placed on Ag .&Legal Ad
4.Sketch prepared
5.Land Use prepared
6.Staff Rec. completed
?.Notices in
8.Letters of Objectors
noted ""No. <!:)
9.Process P.C . Appli.
w/Com. act i on &
P.C.letter to appli.
mailed show.Com. action
(all cases)
lO.Copy of appli.to City
Clerk (i f approved)
ll.Copy o f Appli.& appeal
procedure mailed to
appl .(i f den ied)
12.Processed P.C. appl. to
.,.. __ ,. .... .: .... t... u -.+:n.:---~.: .... _
---------------4
DIREC DEPT.
By: __ ~~~~~~~~-----------------1
DATE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
Central Inspections Divis ions
Traffic Division
THIRD FLOOR CITY H ALL
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
72201
M~-bt\\ Hod~E --,1 \ v.J ~ 3~
L .l2 , /22DI
Dear
Re: Case No. 5/6-A
Addresf¥100 BLIC. S .
UU1\/Ef$1T'/
Public Works
Real E s tate
This is to advise you t:htat in connection with your applica~t ·on for a change in
zoning from A District to -I ..... -=~~ ..... ------------District, the following action was taken by the Planning Commission at its
meeting on J 0 / Ll /]3 :
I I
(a) Denied your request as submitted
(b) ------------Recommended approval as applied for
(c) ------------Recommended approval -provided:
(d) -----------Recommended rezoning to
(e) --~~.~------Deferred to (at your request)
(f)
An ordinance effecting this rezoni ~ll (will not) be submitted to the Board
of Directors for its consideration at its meeting ---------------------------
6-8-73
250
Yours very truly,
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
Don R. Venhaus
Secretary
September 29, 1973
CERTIFIED "!'fAIL
RETUP~ RECEIPT REQUESTED
Little Rock Planning Commission
3rd Floor, City Hall
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
ATTENTION: Mr. Russell HcLean, Chairman
Gentlemen:
Hith reference to Hr. Cliff Peck's request for change in zone classification
from "A" One Family to. "G-1" Cormnercial, the property that is,
"Part of Tract 42, Graceland Subdivision,
Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas,
described as: Beginning at a point 161.3
feet East of the SVT corner of said Tract
42, thence continue ~ast along the South
line of said Tract 42 a distance of 179.56
feet thence North 150 feet to the NE
corner of Lot "A", thence South 24 degrees
40 minutes \<!est 16.72 feet, thence South
51 degrees 40 rr,inutes West 220 feet to
the SE corner of Lot "B" to the point of
beginning, containing 0.3 of an acre, more
or less.",
we, the undersigned property Ol~ers residing in the area of this property
are opposed to the rezoning for the following reasons:
1. The noise level produced by the commercial use of this property would
be extremely high for the several residences located in the 6700, 6800 and
6900 blocks of Mabelvale Pike, which are located directly behind and adjacent
to the property in question. The workshop located near Mr. Peck's South ·
property line is only 50 to 55 feet away from the front of the home at 6901
Mabelvale Pike. The noise produced by any type auto repair or equipment
installation shop would be unpleasant in a residential area for a distance
of 1 to 2 blocks, and especially so at a distance of 50 feet.
Several of us are already adversely affected by the noise level produced hy
loud speakers used by Mr. Peck and an adjoining commercial establishment,
which are in operation during the hours 7:30a.m. to 9:00p.m., and we are
also at times aware of the traffic noises produced by moving vehicles from
one area of the parking lot to another and in and out of the servicing areas
and workshops. To have these unpleasant by-products of commercial establishments
brought any closer to our homes would make our neighborhood a much less pleasant
living area.
2. We believe the rezoning of this property would lower the value of our homes.
We feel the presence of Cliff Peck Chevrolet and other commercial establishments
-2-
Little Rock Planning Commission September 29, 1973
whose property boundaries come within a few hundred feet of our residential
properties has already devalued our properties on the residential sales
market as very few people would want to purchase a home where the surrounding
scenery consists of asphalt parking lots, automobiles and workshops; where
the usual neighborhood sounds are drowned out by vehicular motor sounds and
loudspeakers calling for employees of these establishments; where it is
impossible to enjoy the quiet darkness usually associated with the evening
hours because of the almost daylight effect created by the many very bright
night watcher lights installed for the security of these commercial establishments,
along with the constant hum of the electrical transformers required to keep
these lights burning, and where during heavy rainfall your property may
become flooded due to the runoff from the many paved parking lots.
We cannot realistically expect to compensate for this devaluation by selling
our properties for commercial uses as the residential property fronting on
Mabelvale Pike most likely will not be rezoned commercial anytime within the
foreseeable future.
We believe Mr. Peck has further devalued our residential properties and made
our neighborhood a less pleasant area in which to live by moving a house onto
Lot A of Tract 42, which he plans to use as rental housing. This particular
house is poorly constructed and is very unsightly being situated quite near
the street, with no suitable lawn space or landscaping as most of the homes
in the neighborhood have. We believe that Mr. Peck plans to move another
house onto Lot B of Tract 42. We feel the presence of either one or both
of these houses, being used as rental housing in an area populated mostly
by people who own their residences, and being below the standards of most
of the homes in the area, makes our neighborhood a less desireable one.
To bring the boundaries of commercial property even closer, as Mr. Peck is
requesting would make an already bad situation even worse and devalue our
homes further still.
We can sympathize with Mr. Peck in that he purchased the property in question
most likely with the intention of putting it to commercial use and the
refusal of this Board to grant the rezoning could cause him to have to make
changes in his plans, however, we feel we have alr~ady suffered losses to our
properties as previously set forth and that we would suffer even further if
this rezoning were permitted. Not only have we suffered property devaluation,
our neighborhood has been affected aesthetically and it is difficult for
home owners to have deep pride in their homes and lawns when they are adjacent
to commercial establishments such as the one operated by Mr. Peck.
Taking into consideration the facts available to you and our desires and wishes
as expressed herein, we respectfully request of the Commission that Mr. Peck's
petition for rezoning be denied.
We would further like to bring to the attention of this Commission several
matters pertaining to the property in question. As the result of a Board
of Adjustment Hearing held on March 19, 1973, Mr. Peck was instructed to meet
-3-
Little Rock Planning Commission September 29, 1973
certain requirements with respect to this property before requesting that it
be rezoned. We would like to make you aware of certain situations in which
we feel Hr. Peck has not met these requirements.
1. It was our understanding that Mr. Peck was to construct a 6 ft. solid
fence 10 ft. from Mabelvale Pike and use the enclosed space to park automobiles.
Instead, he has set the fence back approximately 150ft., divided the property
between it and Mabelvale Pike into two lots, and moved one house onto Lot A.
This does not seem to be in compliance with his request for use of the property,
nor with the Board's approval of use of the property.
2. The property outside the required 6 ft. fence was to be landscaped,
however, no landscaping whatsoever has been done and the grass in that area
has not been kept mowed on a regular basis during the last few months and
trash has also been allowed to collect on the property bordering Mabelvale
Pike, prompting some of the residents to clean up the trash near their
homes rather than have ,it detract from the neatness of their own property.
3. The minutes of that meeting indicate "Before any use is made of the
structures on Tract 42, an application be filed to rezone all but the west
120 ft. thereof. Recommendation on rezoning conditioned on satisfactory
completion of screening, landscaping and paving requirement on entire site."
As indicated above, the landscaping has not been done, nor has the property
been paved. However, Mr. Peck has made use of one of the houses on this
site as rental housing. A family has lived in the house since late April
or early May and during that time the septic tank on the property has not
worked properly, and every time there is a heavy rainfall the sewage rises
to the top of the ground and can be smelled by several of the residents
in the area. It is our understanding that one of the other structures on
this site is being used as a storage building.
4. During the March 19, hearing Hr. Peck indicated he intended to
limit access to Mabelvale Pike to only one gate, however, the fence that
~..ras constructed has t\olO gates, one of which ha5 been used regularly by the
family residing in the rental house, and by Mr. Peck's employees storing
equipment in the storage building.
5. The Board ruled that Mr. Peck would have to provide adequate drainage
on the property, so that water would not back up on adjoining properties.
Mr. Peck has had a drainage ditch dug from the West side of Tract 40, but it
has not accompolished the desired effect, as it does not carry the water all
the way to South University Avenue on the East side of this tract as will
be necessary in order to drain the surrounding area satisfactorily.
-4-
Little Rock Planning Commission September 29, 1973
P.S. Gentlemen, we request that this letter be read aloud at the October 4,
meeting for the information of those interested parties present.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
Central Inspections Divisions
Traffic Division
THIRD FLOOR CITY HALL
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
72201
Re: Case No. Z "SfG, -A
Public Works
Real Estate
M£-. ·l3, ''...:I bJ~~
l' I kl I 5~ -:5"7 ,
L, e./ !)Lt.. -,..-z-,4
Address ~7[)() BtL · S. tJAJt()f'L:S/7'-f
Dear
This is to advise you A at in connection with your applicati~o for a change in
zoning from District to -I ----~~--------------District, the following action was taken by the Planning Comm~ssion at its
meeting on -='-=-1.,_/..._,t},__...7....;;;3"---------l f
An
of
(a) ~ Denied your request as submitted
r
(b) -----------Recommended approval as applied for
(c) -----------Recommended approval -provided:
(d) -----------Recommended rezoning to
(e) -----------Deferred to (at your request)
(f)
ordinance effecting this rezoning ~ (will not) be submitted to the Board
for its consideration at its meeting _l~l,~~~~~~:Z~~~---------------Directors
1 t
Yours very truly,
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
Don R. Venhaus
Secretary
6-8-73
250
.. _
Little Rock Planning Commission Minutes
October 4 1973.
Item No. 4 -Z-516-A -6700 Block South University Avenue
From:
To
"A" One-family District
"G-1" Commercial District
4.
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "This property has
a long and complicated history of rezoning requests and variances
which are too involved to attempt explanation here. As several
issues involved may rot be cleared up until shortly before meeting
time on October 4th, the Staff will address to the issue at the
meeting."
A letter of opposition containing 15 signatures was read and placed
on file.
Mr. Bill Hodge was present to represent the applicant. He stated
that following the March meeting of the Board of Adjustment, the
Department directed a letter to him on behalf of Mr. Peck setting
out a number of areas which they thought needed some action. They
mentioned that the area where cars were going to be parked should
be paved before the area was used for that purpose. Since that
meeting, an additional area beyond the land that was being used
for parking cars for storage purposes has been extended to include
part of the property that is now enclosed by a 6 ft. redwood fence.
This additional area has been graded and covered with fill and
crushed gravel. It has been prepared for the final seal coat which
would accomplish the paving. The reason that a hot mix has not
been placed on top of the crushed gravel because several months of
settling was required on the advice of the paving contractor who
did that work. All the areas which are being used for parking cars
for storage purposes~l1Leither paved with hot mix or covered with
fill and crushed gravel surface which is the base for the paving
which will be done in the future. The 6 ft. opaque fence of redwood
has been erected around the property that was under discussion at
that Board of Adjustment meeting. The fence was not placed within
10 ft. of Mabelvale Pike as requested but was placed close to
Mabelvale Pike along the western edge of the northern 3/4 of the
Peck property and set back 150 ft. from Mabelvale Pike along the
western edge of the south ~ of the property. The additional gate in
the new fence was made for the sole purpose of allowing access to
the house on the property. The residents have moved and the gate is
now padlocked.
Some discussion was given at the meeting to planting shrubbery on
the Mabelvale Pike side of any fence that would be erected and shrubs
are available for planting there but it is our position that the
shrubbery would actually detract. There are a number of large trees
between the fence where it now sits and Mabelvale Pike. The ground
is covered with grass. A drainage ditch which is approximately
2~2~ has been dug from the end of the drainage culvert.
The Chairman said that the Commission felt that the requirements had
not been met and the matter should be deferred until this is
accomplished.
.. •
/
I
'
Little Rock Planni~g Commission Minutes
October 4 197i
Mr. Venhaus said that since the residents feel that certain things
have not been done, the Staff w~~ look at the site in terms of
what has been done and what was originally required and repo~t
back to the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Jack Adcock, 6808 Mabelvale Pike, was present in opposition.
She was opposed to the houses on subject property.
Mr. Hodge asked for a deferral until the November meeting.
5.
A motion was made to defer the matter until the November 1st meeting
at which time the Staff report on the requirements that have been
laid down by previous actions by the Planning Commission and the Board
of Adjustment, which was seconded and passed.
Little Rock Planning Commission Minutes
November 1 1973
Item 3.-z-516-A-6700 Block South University
From:
To
"A" One-family District
"G-1" Commercial District
8.
Mr. Taylor said that the applicant has basically complied with the require-
ments set forth by the Planning Commission and the Staff would recommend
approval of the application.
The Chairman read a petition signed by several objectors.
Mrs. Fonda T. Lyle, 6901 Mabelvale Pi~e, was present in opposition. She
stated that her house is 50 ft. from the particular tract in question
for rezon~ng to commercial. We don't object to his using this portion to
park cars 'but would object to a garage or repair shop in this area. Such
commercial use would cause noise, bright lights and odors. We still feel
that the applicant has not completely complied with the requirements of
the Board of Adjustment.
Mrs. Jack Adcock, 6808 Mabelvale Pike, was present in opposition and stated
that she lived directly across the street from subject property. The
applicant has not provided any care for the green area between the fence
and Mabelvale Pike. There is all kinds of trash in this area. We under-
stand that he .plans to operate a 24-hour truck repair shop on the portion
to b~.rezoned. Also, the houses placed on the property have inadequate p lumb1.ng.
Mr. Bill Hodge was present to represent the applicant and stated that the
applicant had provided one of his employees with a residence with access
off of Mabelvale Pike. The resident has moved and the gate has been locked.
The house referred to by Mrs. Adcock is oil "A" zoned property and will
require some modification before it is ready to be used.
A motion was made to deny the application, which was seconded and passed.
October 29, 1973
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Little Rock Planning Commission
3rd Floor, City Hall
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
ATTENTION: Mr. Russell McLean, Chairman
Gentlemen:
With reference to Mr. Cliff Peck's request for change in zone classification
from "A" One Family to "G-1" Commercial, the property that is,
"Part of Tract 42, Graceland Subdivision,
Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas,
described as: Beginning at a point 161.3
feet East of the SW corner of said Tract
42, thence continue East along tli~ South
line of said Tract 42 a distance of 179.56
feet thence North 150 feet to the NE
corner of Lot "A", thence South 24 degrees
40 minutes West 16.72 feet, thence South
51 degrees 40 minutes West 220 feet to
the SE corner of Lot "B" to the point of
beginning, containing 0.3 of an acre, more
or less.",
please refer to the attached copy of a letter mailed to you on September 29.
If there are new members on the Commission we would greatly appreciate their
reviewing the attached letter as well as the background on this matter.
We cannot see that there has been any change in the situation since the
hearing on October 4. Again we respectfully request of the Commission
that Mr. Peck's request for rezoning be, denied so that we will not suffer
possible further devaluation of our properties and in order to control
the noise level near our homes, as indicated in our letter of September 29.
The Board of Adjustment has already granted Mr. Peck permission to use the
property in question as a parking area, so your denial of his request would
not prohibit him from using it in·conjunction with his business, but it
would protect us from the unpleasant possibility of having a noisy garage
or repair shop so near our homes.
and thoughtful consideration will be greatly appreciated.
September 29, 1973
CERTIFIED ~.AIL
RF.TURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Little Rock Planning Commis~ion
3rd Floor, City Hall
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
ATTENTim~: Mr. Russell 'fcLean, Chai rnan
Gentlemen:
With reference to Hr. Cliff Peck's request for change in zone classification
from "A" One Family to "G-1" Commercial, the property that is,
"Part of Tract 42, (;raceland Subdivision,
Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas,
described as: Beginning at a point 161.3
feet East of the SW corner of said Tract
42, thence continue East along the South
line of said Tract 42 a rlistance of 179.56
feet thence North 150 feet to the NE
corner of Lot "A", thence South 24 degree<;
40 minutes West 16.72 feet, thence South
51 degrees 40 minutes West 220 feet to
the SE comer of Lot "R" to the point of
be~inning, containing 0.3 of an acre, more
or less.",
we, the undersigned property owners residing in the area of this property
are opposed to the rezoning for the following reasons:
1. The noise level produced by the commercial use of this property would
be extremely high for the several residences located in the 6700, 6800 and
6900 blocks of Mabelvale Pike, which are located directly behind and adjacent
to the property in question. The· workshop located near Hr. Peck's South
property line is only 50 to 55 feet away from the front of the home at 6901
!-fabelvale Pike. The noise produced by any type auto repair or equipment
installation shop would b~ unpleas3nt in a re!'itdentt.,l 3rea for a ctfFt.rmce
of 1 to 2 blocks, and especially so at a distance of 50 feet.
SevPral of us are already adversely affected by the noise level produced hy
loud ~peakers used by Hr. Peck and an adjoining commercial establishment,
which are in operation during the hours 7:30 a.a. to 9:00p.m., and we are
also at times aware of the traffic noises produced by moving vehicles from
one area of the parking lot to another and in and out of the servicin~ sreas
and workshops. To have these unpleasant by-products of commercial establishments
brought any closer to our homes would make our neighborhood a much less pleasant
living area.
2. We believe the rezoning of this property would lower the value of our homes.
We feel the presence of Cliff Peck Chevrolet and other comMercial establishments
-2-
Little Rock Planning Commission September 29, 1973
whose property boundaries ca.e within a few hundred feet of our residential
properties has already devalued our properties on the residential sales
market as very fev people ¥ould want to purchase a home where the surrounding
scenery consists of asphalt parking lots, automobiles and workshops; where
the usual neighborhood sounds are drowned out by vehicular motor sounds and
loudspeakers calling for employees of these establishments; where it is
impossible to enjoy the quiet darkness usually associated with the evening
hours because of the almost daylight effect created by the many very bright
night watcher lights installed for the security of these commercial establishments,
along with the constant hum of the electrical transformers required to keep
these lights burning, and where during heavy rainfall your property may
become flooded due to the runoff from the many paved parking lots.
We cannot realistically expect to compensate for this devaluation by selling
our properties for commercial uses as the residential property fronting on
Mabelvale Pike most likely will not be rezoned commercial anytime within the
foreseeable future.
We believe ~r. Peck has further devalued our residential properties and made
our neighborhood a less pleasant area in which to live by moving a house onto
Lot ..\ of Tract 42, which he plans to use as rental housing. This particular
house is poorly constructed and is very unsightly being situated quite near
the street, with no suitable lawn space or landscaping as most of the homes
in the neighborhood have. We believe that Mr. Peck plans to move another
house onto Lot B of Tract 42. We feel the presence of either one or both
of these houses, being used as rental housing in an area populated mostly
by people who own their residences, and being below the standard~ of most
of the homes in the area, makes our neighborhood a less desireable one.
To bring the boundaries of commercial property even closer, as Mr. Peck is
requesting would make an already bad situation even worse and devalue our
homes further still.
We can sympathize with Mr. Peck in that he purchased the property in question
most likely with the intention of putting it to commercial use and the
refusal of this Board to grant th-2 rezoning could cause him to have to make
changes in his plans, however, we feel we have already suffered losses to our
properties as previously set forth and that we would suffer even further if
this rezoning were permitted. Not only have we suffered property devaluation,
our neighborhood has been affec-ted aesthetlcally anci it 1.!'1 diffi<:'•1lt for
home owners to have deep pride in their homes and lawns when they are ildjacent
to commercial establishments such' as the one operated by Mr. Peck.
Taking into consideration the facts available to you and our desires and wishes
as expressed herein, we respectfully request of the Commission that ~r. Peck's
petition for rezoning be denied.
We would further like to bring to the attention of this Commission several
matters pertaining to the property in question. As the result of a Board
of Adjustment Hearing held on March 19, 1973, Mr. Peck was instructed to meet
-3-
Little Rock Planning Commission September 29, 1973
certain requirements with respect to this property before requesting that it
be rezoned. We would like to make you aware of certain situations in which
we feel Mr. Peck has not met these requirements.
1. It was our understanding that Mr. Peck was to construct a 6 ft. solid
fence 10 ft. from Mabelvale Pike and use the enclosed space to park automobiles.
Instead, he has set the fence back approximately 150ft., divided the property
between it and Mabelvale Pike into two lots, and moved one house onto Lot A.
This does not seem to be in compliance with his request for use of the property,
nor with the Board's approval of use of the property.
2. The property outside the required 6 ft. fence was to be landscaped,
however, no landscaping whatsoever has been done and the grass in that area
has not been kept mowed on a regular basis during the last few months and
trash has also been allowed to collect on the property bordering ~abelvale
Pike, prompting some of the resident~ to ~lean up the trash near their
hones rather than have 1t J~tract trom tt1e neatness of their own property.
3. The minutes of that meeting indicate "Before any use is made of the
structures on Tract 42, an application be filed to rezone all but the west
120 ft. thereof. Recommendation on TPzoning conditioned on satisfactory
completion of screening, landscaping and paving requirement on entire site."
As indicated above, the landscaping has not been done, nor has the property
been paved. However, Mr. Peck has made use of one of the houses on this
site as rental housing. A family has lived in the ho11se since late April
or e a rly :-t ay and during that time the septic tank on the property has not
woTked p roperly, and every time there is a heavy rainfall the sewage rises
to the top of the ground and can be smelled by several of the residents
in the area. It is our understandin?, that one of the other structures on
this site is being used as a storage building.
4. During the March 19, hearing ~r. Peck indicated he intenciecl to
limit access to ~~belvale Pike to only one gate, however, the fence that
was constructed h~s two gates, one of which ha~ been used regularly hy the
family residine in the rental house, and by Mr. Peck's employees storing
equipment in the storage building,
S. The Ro2.rd ruled that Mr. Peck would have to provide adequate drainage
on the property,~,:-that w."ltPr would !".-• '-.··\· "~ "'" ::1rHnfning proyerti.es.
Mr. Peck has had a drainage ditcl1 dug from the West si~e of Tract 40, but it
has not accompolished the desired effect, as it does not carry the water all
the way to South University Avenue on the East side of this tract as will
be necessaD· in order to drain the surrounding area satisfactorily.
-4-
Lirtle P.ock Plannin~ Comt'lissi.on September 29, 1973
P.S. Gentle~en, wP. request that this letter be read aloud at the October 4,
meetin~ fnr the irformation of thosP interested par ties present .
r
A
A
I
CLIFF PECK
INC.
F
G ·1
----
F
I
F I
;·
I
I
_j
I
I
'
G. A. DENHAM
CIVIL ENGINEER
212 SOUTH VICTORY STI!EET
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
G.: A. DENHAM
'R~C:16TEA£D
LAND SURVE110R
IITU& OP'
ARKANSAS
NO. IIG
P L 0 T P L A N
PHON& FR 5-7222
_A~} T~a~~ :~' t ~~~c~l~~~~~~~~v;s;o,,: l !ttie ~~~k;';;tjl~~kl -~:~~;;.,·
/Arkansas, described as: Beginning at a point 161.3 feet East of the SW corner
/ of said Tract 42, thence continue East along the South line of sald Tract 42
a distance of 179.56 feet, thence North 150 feet to the NE corner of Lot qA",
thence South 24°40' Wn.st 16.72 feet, thence South 51°40 1 'vVest 220 feet to the
SW CORlUt'KSE corner of Lot/'s" ·to the point of beglnnlng, contalnlng 0.3 of an Acre more
\'R ~C.\ 4;-'2. or I ess.
For USt~ and beneflt of:
At~~ , G • PJ..·. f?en~
Cl fff Peck Reg. E ngr. #468
··: .
..........
I
I
NO. 2
I