Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-02530 ApplicationA P P L I C A T I O N LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR A ZONING VARIANCE FIRE DISTRICT CASE NO. Z � APPLICATION WAS J GRANTD D 0C— t J 1972 i1iT}JTTCl11TS • .��w � �� o�e YA" spAcw MUMW ) 4 FES i PLUS kE(GPT 9UTA&L=�,i CUe2.� SrQ(jCTUp Chairman Little Rock Board of Adjustment APPLICANT: J• Leonarcl �� ADDRESS: :!� 1 a Lam.. ,, L, P— Phone #— 1 OWNER: r r, O rt,S � ADDRESS: �, Phone # TO THE LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: Application is hereby made to your Board pursuant to Arkanss Statutes 43-22 of the Code of Ordinances relative to property located at 2 6 0 a Street (s) described as Lot (s) PT o4 , Block 44- Fleasaewt VftAddition Zoned " m District, 9177 (1) Requesting a Variance from the _�t� �fG.$6ae-k Prov'sions ofr ection 432—A-%- ) of that ordinance to pe'ttID-0 loc. 'i / ► /y �dae . i� �a�d /61A,.,A.iA a eX - 70ro (2) (3) The Requesting a Variance from the ) Of that ordinance to permit Requesting a Variance from the ( ) of that ordinance licant feels that a strict enorcement of 1..& d -AP C" Vam t 61rO Pc. .L .rt* 4- sions of Section Provisions of Section to permit as shown on the attached plan. these provisions would be a hardship because* RP�eP-�-�--1F�'�s.sasala e�edr�1�1+� !!?�.9er�,���� s�ss+��a�seh io`� �r�r�►is� ae.t.e.�� -'fie � �,���ic� I understand that I must notify all property owners Within 140 feet of any point the property involved herein of the public hearing according to instructions furnished with this application form and that all costs incident thereto will be borne by me; and that I shall furnish to the Zoning Office not later than five (5) calendar days prior to the public hearing proof of such notification. I also understand that the required publication of legal notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City will be hand the Secretary of the Board of Adjust- ment. I will submit the names and addre es of the o s of properties concerned to the Secretary of the Board of Adjustment the timeth ro f publication is submitted to him. There are (no) covenants on record a fectinR th• tv. FILING DATEApplicant's Signature *NOTE: This application is for a Vari ce from the zoning requirements based hardship caused by unusual and, unique characteristics of the above described does not have the power to change the 'zone classification of the property to nor to make any change in the provisions of the Ordinance. PC 27 250 7-17-7'2 3 7 e No.31-12 %... on extreme property. The Board accommodate a use APPLICATION FOR REZONING TO THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION: FIRE DISTRICT NO. O P.C. APPROVED: , 19 P.C.. DENIED , 19 BD,OF DIR.APPROVED: , 19 BD.OF DIR. DENIED , 19 ORDINANCE NO. ZONING CASE N0, Z 25 30 Filing Date:��9 6 Application is hereby made to the. Little Rock Board of Directors of Little Rock, Arkansas, through the Planning Commission pursuant to Arkansas lair 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: Starting at the SW corner of Section 27, T -2-N, R -13-W, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas; thence S 890 52' 57" E 331.01; thence S 890 55' 36" E 579.2' to a point on the west R/W of I-43:0; thence N 20 53' 50" E along said R/W 48.0' to the point of beginning; thence N 480 55' 16" W 202.331; thence northeasterly on a curve to the left having a radius of 35.0' a distance of 90.47' to the P.T. of said curve; thence N 20 57' 56" E 588.7 ' t• the P.C. of a curve to the left having a radius of 343.31'; thence along sai 279.70' to the P.T. of said curve; thence N 430 42' 49" W 142.65'; then 850 31' 45" E 299.28' to a point on the West R/W for I-430; thence along a d . W on a curve to the right having a radius of 5554.58' a distance o 95.59 �e P.T. of said curve; thence continue. along said R/W S 20 53' 50" W 9I.0' t e point of beginning, containing 4.0 acres. Title to this property It is desired tat thezb be reclassified f m the » s� it a Present Use of Pronertk: Desired Use, ted "n� � . .1 airJ \1f- , - IA'r ( 'e f r�3 � i C.L)('d-t�S m on the District Map be amended and that this area -}til District to 'A District e F" x here are no) deed restrictions pertaining to the intended use of this property. R:. d 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 Arkansa-9 and Section 23 of said Ordinance, and that notice of prelimimary 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) ADD :3fDATE: - v PHONE: 3 �7 Form ZA 3-7-72 (600) Dc k i � , C� �. L� C', I V �� i1�_ C�... �� � �`� �'� 4 �' ,`�- �- 7�� � �:,� � � Z' .Z, j .5 � �� ; � i t} ► 'S � ���: � Starting at the SW corner of Section 27, T -2-N, R -137W, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas; thence S 890 52' 57" E 331.0'; thence S 890 55' 36" E 579.2' to a point on the West R/W of I-430; thence N 20 53' SO" E along said R/W 48.0' to the point of beginning; thence N 480 55' 16" W along the east line of Lot 16, Block 44, Pleasant Valley Addition 202.33'; to a point on the east line of Yosemite Valley Drive; thence northeasterly.along said east line on a curve to the left having a radius of 135.0' a distance of 90.47' to the P.T. of said curve; thence continue along the east line of Yosemite Valley Drive N 2° 57' 56" E 588,78' to the P.C. of a curve to the left having a radius of 348.311; thence along said curve 279.7' to the P.T. of said curve; thence N 43 42' 49" W 271.29' to the P.C. of a curve to the right on the east line of Yosemite Valley Drive having a radius of 611.621; then along said curve 75.61' to the SW corner of Lot 17, Block 44, Pleasant Valley Addition; thence N 53° 22' 11" E along the south line of said Lot 17 130.0' to the SE corner of said Lot 17; thence S 500 02' E 328.91; thence S 570 29' E 99.5' to a point on the west line of I-430; thence southerly along said west line of I-430 on a curve to the right having a radius of 5554.58' a distance of 635.6' to the P.T. of said curve thence continue along said west line of I-430 S 20 53' 50" W 491.0' to the point of beginning, containing 4.9 acres. Me (mac% e._ r— rl I rr S !A r -FP f- r ti e6^c k? r 1► P S, � � � �,c J e. ) o P �' � BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT QUESTIONNAIRE THIS COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE MUST ACCOMPANY THE APPLICATION FOR A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE - FILL IN OR CROSS OUT WORDS OR LINES NOT APPROPRIATE. 1. I am the (owner (legally designated agent) of the property involved in this application. 2. A Variance of this nature (- (has not) been previously requested on this property. (If Variance has been previously requested, state date: } 3. The property is presently used for !.fir, e_ -4- 4. The Variance requested is for the purpose of: (a) Adding to existing structure 9(41') New construction (c) Other (describe) 5. I (eve-) (have not) already contacted the adjacent property owners who might be affected by this requested Variance. 6. (He) (they) have indicated: (a) no objection to requested Variance (b) objection to requested Variance (c) non-commital to requested Variance 7. In my opinion, the proposed Variance (4� or (will not) result in an (increase) (dec*ea ) in traffic to and from subject property. 8. There � (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.) 9. Realizing that the Board of Adjustment considers requests for Variances where strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance causes undue hardship due to circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, I feel that my request is warranted because: O .I SIA. ouf- D 1n", 'to r 4- 1 . ■1 1 1 1 1 /0-2-772 Filing Date Form BOA - 150 7-17-72 9} !► tJ O &P re 111 4 4P 1 e we -r- J em _ S C_ Y ( VTC ice`- -.. C -a ■ - -�: 'tj' Rt s �-j3 I�14 Com; C C' -Ci �--1" - T7 ! �._. x Starting at the SW corner of Section 27, T -2-N, R -137W, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas; thence S 890 52' S7" E 331.01; thence S 890 55' 36" E 579.2' to a point on the West R/W of I-430; thence N 20 53' 50" E along said R/W 48.0' to the point of beginning; thence N 480 55' 16" W along the east line of Lot 16, Block 44, Pleasant Valley Addition 202.33'; to a point on the east line of Yosemite Valley Drive; thence northeasterly along said east line on a curve to the left having a radius of 135.0' a distance of 90.47' to the P.T. of said curve; thence continue along the east line of Yosemite Valley Drive N 20 57' 56" E 588,78' to the P.C. of a curve to the left having a radius of 34.31'; thence along said curve 279.7' to the P.T. of said curve; thence N 43 42' 49" W 271.29' to the P.C. of a curve to the right on the east line of Yosemite Valley Drive having a radius of 611.62'; then along said curve 75.61' to the SW corner of Lot 17, Block 44, Pleasant Valley Addition; thence N 530 22' 11" E along the south line of said Lot 17 130.0' to the SE corner of said Lot 17; thence S 500 02' E 328.9'; thence S 570 29' E 99.5' to a point on the west line of I-430; thence southerly along said west line of I-430 on a curve to the right having a radius of 5554.58' a distance of 635.6' to the P.T. of said curve, thence continue along said west line of I-430 S 20 53' 50" W 491.0' to the point of beginning, containing 4.9 acres. r �E' i i�C= r( r 11 P �� L )l�� ��G J�. )OPP_ r THIS IS NOT A PETITION NOTICE OF HEARING TO BE HELD BY TuE LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON AT APPLICATION FOR A ZONI"U VARIANCE FILED j(" - .`1 ,197 -2— TO TO ALL PAhT'IES IN INTEREST includinao-ti�:ers of land lying within 140 feet of the boundary property at 2 &0 0 t-. �, - - o owned by \O ICIS H==Y G \ THAT ON 197 - at 2:00 Po M. in the 11_-, 30-L-""� OF DIP1%CTORS, 2nd Floor, City Hail, Little Rock, the uncersmgned Board will ao=:: a Learing on an application filed by i ✓ r-�r%;-�� e -,.-{; ,/; (1) requests Section _ to ^er•:it a Variance from the (2) requests a Variance from the Section Provisions of of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances (Sec. 43) of that Ordinance to permit _ on said lot. Provisions of (3) requests a Variance from the Provisions of Section ( ) of that Ordinance to permit ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST MAY APPEAR AND BE HEARD at said time and place or may notify the Board of Ad-justment by letter of their views on this matter. Plans and other pertinent data are available for inspect -inn at the office of the Little Rock Planning Co=n fission, Room 304, City Hall. 111 persons interested in this request are invited to review the application in said office and to discuss the details with the Staff. Signatu_-e "of`Applicant ATTENTION: PROPERTY OWNERS The rules of tha Lizzie Rock Board of Adjust: -Le-__ require that the applicant serve notice to all parties in interest in the above matter. our signature belo'W simply incicates to this Board that yon_ <ave read this notice announcing the time, place, and purpose of the Public Bearing on case. THIS IS NOT A PETITION AP-2LICA1\TT 1 ADDRESS DjACENT P2 Y ADDRESSES 35 150 (uSE _ -- ST -7 FOR ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SPACE._ND SIGN m *.LDJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ADDRESSES I, do hereby certify that I have notified all the property owners within 140 feet of the property aforementioned that the property is being considered for a zoning Variance, and that a public hearing will be held at the time and place described above. I understand that if all interested parties are not notified at least five (5) days prior:.oche public hearing on this petition, then this application will not be considered by Board of Adjustment, and that a refiling of this case, and pay-Lment of additional fil ng fee, will be required, Date Applicant t� WEzESY CIE-RTIEY that the following is a list of all of th record owners of the lands lying within 140 feet of t h� ,following. described property: Star -ting at the SW corner of Sec. 27-214-13W; th S 890 X21 57" th S 894 55' 36t1 E 579.21 to point c;n the W 1c/W of N 2® 531 501" E along said RIW 48.01 to the point of th Pd 4 551 1611 l alo~;_ the east lire of Lot 16 BZI- Pleasant Valley Ad,dn. 202.331 ; to a point on the east lint, of Yosemite Valley Drive:; th NE'ly along said east line on 2 cu_ -%re to the left havin a' radius of 135.0' a distance of 71 to th,. P.T. of said curve; `c;h continualong the cast ii:. of Yosemi to Valley Drive N 2' 57' 5644 E 588.78' to the P.C. oy' a c -,r ;te to the left having a radius of 343.3l'; th along said curvo 279.71 tothe P. T. of said curve; th N 430 421 49" W 271,291 to t- e. Po C. of a curve ,o the ri �h.t on the east lime of Yoserite Vall,cy having a radius of 6_1.621 ; then along said curve tothe S�� co :^ne-" of Lot 17, Blk 44, Pleasant Valley Addn; th N 531 221 1144 E along the z3utoh line of said. Lot17, 130.0' to t�4e SE corner of said Lot 17 • th S 50* 021 E 328 . 91 ; th S 57' 29 E 99651 to a paint of the gest line of I-430; th southerly alon -- said west line of 1-430 on a curve to the rig" havi g a rae''s of 5554,,50' a distance of 635,61 to the P. T. of said cu-.�= ; t ance continue along; said west line of I-430 S 2m 531 50" to the point of beginning, cont. 4.9 acres; as s' -,c4' n by the last teed of record in the office of the Circuit -.d Lx -Officio Recorder of Pulaski County, Arkansas: Pleasant Valley, Inc. Maureen E. Brooks 3. L. Scott Pleasant Valley, Incur Sl -ie as above Sarre as above Snore as above Same as above PLE'ASr.NT VALLEY ADD? . LOT BLOCK 15-16-17 44 l$ 12-13 14 10-11- 12 0-1112 to 15 inc. 6-7-8 Pt W12 S 71; Sec. 27-2N-13Lt. Lula Yui BOOKER HEIGHTS ADDN. c : -� e. Ct / 1.. -, : ..., o October 9, 1972 $r, -.r •? R0I'X n S T FUCIT COMPANY Asst. Secretary 3-24 44 43 43 42 41 40 J Noi. 0344 CITY OF LITTLE ROCK DEPARTMENT OF COAUJNITY DEVELOPMENT FILING FEES Little Rock, Ark., F - 219 ($75) Zoning Application Fee ($25) Board of Adjustment Application Fee T$10 plus 50¢ per lot/acre Preliminary Subdivision Fee O plus 50� per lot/acre Final Subdivision Fee ($5 plus $1 pe- lot) Replat Fee ($20 per intersection) Street Name Signs Fee f a 153RX! be P - to the City$F llector,OCT 1971 r,� Floor, Gita:.. 11. I r' DIRECTOR rO CCC DICK JONES. Ad6k'%-fsC9t-%(?Pty involved: Name of applicant: - .r "� $ TOTAL $ ,..J r� r NO.:o33Q CITY OF LITTLE ROCK DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FILING FEES Ark. 45,19 ($75) Zoning Application Fee $` ($25) Board of Adjustment Application Fee $ ($10 plus 50c per lot/acre Preliminary Subdivision Feb $ ($,10 plus 50c per lot/acre Final Subdivision Fee $ ($5 plus $1 per lot) Replat Fee $ ($20 per intersection) Street Name Signs Fee $ Little Rock, TOTAL The above fees shall b paid to the City e 1st. Floor, City � By:_ Address of propertgr %To Y COLL` Name of applicant: APPLICATION FOR REZONING TO THE LITTLE ROCK PLANKING COMMISSION: FIRE DISTRICT NO. P.C. APPROVED: , 19 P.C. DENIED 19 BD,OF DIR.APPROVED: , 19 BD.OF DIR. DENIED : , 19 ORDINANCE N0. ZONING CASE N0, Z ?—,550 Filing Date: G:—C..'17W 1W 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, petitioning for a rezoning of the following described area: Starting at the SW corner of Section 77, T -2-N, R -13-W, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas; thence S 890 52' 57" E 331.01; thence S 890 55' 36" E 579.2' to a point on the west R/W of I-430; thence N'2° 53' 50" E along said R/W 48.0' to the point of beginning; thence N 480 55' 16" W 202.33'; thence northeasterly on a curve to the left having a radius of 135.0' a distance of 90.47' to the P.T: of said curve; thence N 20 57' 56" E 588.78' to the P.C. of a curve to the left having a radius of 343.311; thence along said curve 279.70' to the P.T. of said curve; thence N 43° 42' 49" W 142.651; thence N 85° 31' 45" E 299.28' to a point on the West R/W for I-430; thence along said--R/W-on a -curve to -the right having a radius - of 5554.58' a distance of 695.59' to the P.T. of said curve; thence continue along said R/W S 2° 53' 50" W 491.0' to the point of beginning, containing 4.0 acres. Title to this property is vested in: L'r-dv,,-tr-� + - nJ IC t Terra, tru ;4!*.S IA�- It is desired that the boundaries shown on the District Map be amended and that this area be reclassif.i d fr m the present '' E-1 District to tr,'Z -t -S District. Present Use of Property: c-' + y P p r i 3 Lr� s v 6� i fi� C ,, T—'7-1 Desired Use of Propert � I m s � 1 R� 5.; �� . f� ),-,-t Q, U L- � � � e 1 (Th4&r�) (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 Citi' 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 prelimimary 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: 9 ._ 5- - Form ZA 3-7-72 (600) (OWNER) or (AGENT) 2 PHONE: APPLICATION FOR REZONING TO THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION: FIRE DISTRICT NO. P.C. APPROVED: 19 P.C. DENIED 19 BD,OF DIR.APPROVED: , 19 BD.OF DIR. DENIED : 19 ORDINANCE N0, ZONING CASE N0, Z Filing Date: Q , ,C_'7'7 Application is hereby made to the Little Rock Board of Directors of Little Rock, Arkansas, through the Planning Commission pursuant to Arkansas lays 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: Starting at the SW corner of Section 27, T -2-N, R -13-W, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas; thence S 890 52' 57" E 331.01; thence S 890 55' 36" E 579.2' to a point on the west R/W of I-430; thence N 20 53' 50" E along said R/W 48.0' to the point of beginning; thence N 480 55' 16" W 202.331; thence northeasterly on a curve to the left having a radius of 135.0' a distance of 90.47' to the P.T. of said curve; thence N 20 57' 56" E 588.78' to the P.C. of a curve to the left having a radius of 343.31'; thence along said curve 279.70' to the P.T. of said curve; thence N 43° 42' 49" W 142.651; thence N 85° 31' 45" E 299.28' to a point on the West R/W for I-430; thence along said R/W on a curve to the right having a radius of 5554.58' a distance of 695.59' to the P.T. of said curve; thence continue along said R/W S 2° 53' 50" W 491.0' to the point of beginning, containing 4.0 acres. Title to this property is vested in: _-.1 • LG c^ +P? m4 �P—,n a, �>rt It is desired that the boundaries shown on the District Map be amended and that this area be reclassified from the esent " ���°° District to 11 1) " A ?�,-et tip� s District. Present Use of Property: v A ff-Xo I -Z> 7 e, i,J%�tJri1�� LoT� Desired Use of Propert :kms rt M. � < < � I ;{ 1 5uG4 ¢'1,f c,; t[ 6e (7701 (4beve-,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 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 prelimimary 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: ) - S; A -� ;?- Form ZA 3-7-72 (600) f `(OWNER) \-_ or f -- ADD :Z1 2_ S h C PHONE: 170- i z k/ THIS COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE MUST ACCOMPANY THE REZONING APPLICATION (Fill in or cross out words or lines not appropriate) 1. I am the (owner) (legally designated agent) of the property involved in this application. 2. (a) The rezoning of this property has been requested before (Yesr� (b) The rezoning of this property was requested previously (date) changing it from District to District 3. For what purpose is property presently used: L �--n-JL (no) 4,. The intended use of this property is: p,;. C4(1�x,f.;,, 5. I (do) (Ae-ae-t-� 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 (b) Plan to develop in the future - (Yes4__(-r- (c) Plan to sell after rezoning - (yes) (ne) 7. The proposed rezoning: (a) Is compatible with the established land -use pattern of adjacent properties in the immediate area (yes) (} (b) Would create an isolated zoned lot or tract incompatible with adjacent zoned property (3-&-s (no) 8. The basic land -use pattern of the immediate area has changed recently - (yes) - (no-) 9. The proposed zoning: (a) (w-i-� (will not) in my opinion adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood (b) (vail+) (will not) in my opinion, adversely affect the value of adjacent properties (c) (1-)- (will not) in my opinion, deter the improvement or development of adjacent property (d) (w4-1+) (will not) in my opinion, adversely affect the character of the immediate area 10. ' The general character of the immediate area is "built up" (b) The general character of the immediate area is vacant land 11. In my opinion, the rezoning of this property 4w!-14-)- (will not) result in an (increase) (�) 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) 13. If property is rezoned: (a) Sufficient parking is now available (yes) (nom (b) The required additional parking will be provided (yes) (no) 14. There (4-s- (is not) any restriction on this property imposed by a Bill of Assurance - (should there be one, I realize I gfiill be liao e property owners having a common interest in this matter) Z__1 ign ture of Owner, or legally Authorize ent. Date:_ 12-6-71 200 NO. 870 CITY OF LITTLE ROCK DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FILING -FEES Little Rocky Ark. KI19� ($75) Zoning Application Fee $ 2 a ($25) Board of Adjustment Application Fee $ ($10 plus 500 per lot/acre)Preliminary Subdivision Fee $ ($10 plus 500 per lot/acre) Final Subdivision Fee $ ($5 plus $1 per lot) Replat Fee $ ($20 per intersection) Street Name Signs Fee $ TOTAL $ The abo e�:ee sThe part h ector, lst� oor, City r)ICK JONES Add rgsfTVEC b*cFrq (?evo I ved : �'q Name of applicant: �-� �? - In aAAA) - DIRECTOR 01�,MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT, By: Tract No. 9 - Z-2530 - 2600 Block I-430 From: "MF 18" Multi -family District To "D" Apartment District The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends denial of requested "D" Apartment zoning. This site was zoned "MF 181° on December 2, 1971 at which time the agent said he would recommend such zoning to the owners and at which time the Commission denied "MF 241° on the adjacent 11+ acres to the north. There has been no apparent change in the neighborhood which would warrant any change i -n the zoning which the Commission recommended at its meeting December 2, 1971, and which was subsequently rezoned. The 12th phase of Pleasant Valley Subdivision lying immediately west is in process of development and the existing "MF 18" zone would be more compatible with these large lot properties. A higher density than "MF 18" would generate considerable more traffic through this addition which would be highly undesirable in this neighborhood." (A letter dated 9-27-72 from Mr. J. Leonard Venable was received asking for deferral) A motion was made to defer this matter until the November 2nd meeting, which was seconded and passed. �9 LITTLE ROCK OFFICE .� ��—�Jj• O F F I C E R S GEORGE ROSE. CHAIRMAN ' OF THE BOARD J. R. GROBMYER DIRECTOR LOUIS A. LANFORD DIRECTOR PAUL M. LEIRD . . DIRECTOR HUGO W. NORVELL DIRECTOR H. C. JOHNSTON EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN H. CHARLES JOHNSTON . . . PRESIDENT GEORGE B. TYLER . SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY R. DOUGLAS WRIGHT VICE-PRESIDENT AND TREASURER J. LEONARD VENABLE VICE-PRESIDENT LOUISE MCCARTY COMPTROLLER NORTH cb LITTLEROCK •. OFFICE —i City of Little Rock City Hall Broadway and Markham Streets Little Rock, Arkansas Attention: Mr. Richard Wood Gentlemen: September 27, 1972 312 Louisiana Street • Little Rock, Ark. SUBJECT: 2600 No. Interstate 430 Zoning Case No. Z-2530 We ask that the above -captioned rezoning case be deferred as we are seeking another avenue to solve our problem. If we can accomplish this, we will withdraw the petition before the next meeting. Thank you for your cow in this matter. J. Leonard Venable Vice -President JLV:br CHARTERED AND SUPERVISED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THIRD FLOOR CITY HALL Planning Division LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Traffic Division 72201 J, L. � - 1U�f� s .3 Dear Public Works Real Estate Re: Case No, Z *153c) Address 426W �J ` T-41� >Q This is to v e tw that in connection with your app ation o1'With e ' g from District to� District t e&follgwing�a. . on was taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting on (d) IJ (e) (f) Denied Approved as applied for Approved - provided: Rezoned to Deferred ti)' An ordinance ectin s rezo - g will (will not) be submitted to the Board of Directors for i con ion at its meeting 1-10-72 250 Yours very truly, TITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION Don R. Venhaus, Secretary. 32 �V 3A 'ASANT VALLEY , �•'�- HASE 8 ! I C M TAYLOR PARK i NI 3 ✓i 94 E �nLa EY L- - - - — I € 4444 z8 Z-2530 / L LIL REPT 2 Cr,OO I� k �� ©CT 5172' P L a. 5 -`� LEY LEA ANT VALLEY PLEASANT NOu3 w � 1g ¢, 9 B p i G L L 3 I � t�♦ \ 335 3 Ely,, r� COCONO ALLE1 DR 321 328 l 299 276 Y V3 327 .:297 272 Q 'd7Q 2 307 93 tee 305 2w 1_y y 11.9ac, _,4Af7F'V va_ EY _, L2� 2 1-4 3w- j1 269 2Bb 264 243 �y 02, 2&2 146 f 1 L rz t 194 109 i48 F { SHENANDOAH VALLL" Dei - 14 1 \ 16,5 f&W I 173 -� �_ � r`. � 1161 JJ 4 f -SITELL,_ PLEA TCi l 60 co I ' b2�!596. r3 1 •k ..+ i '1�e0 179 57 69 67 - w' r i HOUSE RD r c5 24 22 555 5A 551 DATE 10-26'61$ DRA*NI 6..WJM I "1l_` — .."da=-Mm� Tract No. 3 - Z-2530 Applicant: Terra Properties, Inc. Location: 2600 Block N. I-430 Description: Long legal Classification: "MF 18" Multi -family District Variance: Requests a Variance from the interior yard provisions of Section 43-4.5 (2)-(c) of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction of 4 -unit apart- ment buildings closer than permitted to side lot lines (2 story buildings) The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. To allow the development of this "MF" District as proposed would destroy the character intended of the "MF" District with its expanse of green livability area. Whereas, in the "MF District side yards to the property line are equal to the height of the structure. The request and proposed design in this instance reduces the distance between structures, not property lines, to 25 ft. which is considerably below that required in an "MF" District. As this area is rapidly being developed with single family homes of substantial character on rather large lots, it is felt that the adjacent multi -family development should be substantially of the same open space character." Mr. Venable, 312 Louisiana Street, representing the applicant, stated that at the present time this is under the existing zoning of "MF 18" of which we are concerned with the southernmost point of 3.8 acres. Under the "MF 18" there can be approximately 68 units designed and built thereon. According to the proposed plat you have in front of you, the southernmost 12 lots are the lots we are talking about. We have looked at this property in connection with developing on it a cluster concept, and because of its long and narrowness, we feel as though the cluster concept can not be very easily designed at this point. As a result, we have asked for a variance that will permit us to build units on these various lots -- between 4 and 6 units. Most of them are 4 units and 3 are rather large under the "MF" zoning, that you can obtain 6 units on these 3 lots -- the most southern lots and the 2 lots toward the north are rather large. Now this would provide 54 units as compared to 68 units under the existing zoning. So we are reducing about 14 units. According to our request, we are asking for a 25 ft. green area between each dwelling -- a 10 ft. side yard on 1 side, a 15 ft. on the other. There is a purpose for this difference. One is to provide a driveway on the larger side, eliminating 2 driveways side by side in this proposed development. Secondly, we are not permitting any parking in the front. Therefore, there would be no parking in the front area, so it would be green, plus the driveway. In listening to the Staff's recommendation of denial, I can't help but wonder when they say we are going to increase the, or reduce the density, or reduce the green space between the buildings. This, I can not understand why that statement has been made because as most of you know, under the "MF 18" the side yard requirements are of equal to the height of building, all right that is approximately 20 ft. If we only had one lot for this area, we could put units within 10 ft. apart. So, we could, under existing zoning as it is today, line up buildings 10 ft. apart along this whole 1300 ft. In our opinion, this is bad design and bad development. We propose 25 ft. between each building, giving more green area than it possibly could be developed under regulations as it is now. The Chairman said, "You are speaking of distance between the structures. Whereas, the Code speaks of distance from the structure to lot line." Mr. Venable said that under existing zoning right now the side yard on a building is equal to the height of the building. If there was not division here, you would only have one lot 1300 ft. long. Mr. Compton said to get the Planning Commission to accept a replat. Mr. Venable said that if they would accept the layout design you can have buildings within 10 ft. apart. Mr. Shanks asked if you would not wind up with a bunch of green space on one end or the other if you did that? If you start putting them in there 10 ft. apart, assuming they approve this change, and let this be one big lot, somewhere down the line you would run up to the maximum occupancy and you would have a 300 x 300 ft. piece of green space. In other words, you would have a mini -park at the end. Mr. Venable stated that at that rate we could get 68 units as it calls for now, but we don't want to do it that way. We think it is bad. We think 4 to 6 unit complexes is more adaptable to the neighborhood, to the area. Of course, all these plans have to be approved by Pleasant Valley-- no parking in front. In our opinion, the development of this property on 85 ft. lots with 25 ft. between each building is much more adaptable to the residential housing across the street than what it could be in a cluster concept. Mr. Shanks stated that as he understood this, the citizens would get more green space square foot area from this 3.9 or 3.7 acres by allow- ing 68 units to be built under the zoning than the citizens would get in allowing 54 units to be built. "Are the units going to be bigger? I don't understand how you can arrive at that." Mr. Taylor explained that in the Staff's opinion, you are looking at a 25 ft. strip between each building and the intent of "MF' District to cluster these buildings. That is the reason we allowed them to go within 10 ft. of each other. You might make 8 units to a building and you would end up eventually with 14 additional units. You would end up with some of these areas that would be larger rather than just a 10 ft. green strip and the other 15 ft. for driveway. That would give you larger open area where there is open area. Mr. Shanks stated that you might have 3 of these units and you might have 75 ft. of green space and 4 more is what you are saying instead of cutting it up like a pie? Mr. Taylor replied that was right. Mr. Venable stated that they had the property directly north of this property which will be put in the condominium concept. Therefore, we are retaining these 3 lots for private entrance into this northern property. We are retaining that to have separate identity going into the project. In our opinion, there would be just as much green area, if not more, in what we propose to do than under the existing zoning now. Mr. Shanks said that was not the answer he got. Mr. Taylor stated that he didn't know what size buildings they were planning but if they were to make 8 unit buildings, they would end up with more green space on the total end of at least 60 or 70 ft. wide. At least you would have something more than just one little narrow green grass strip in between each building. Somewhere along the line either at one end or both ends or in the middle, you would have some large green area, plus the 25 along the front. Mr. Venable stated that if you take 14 units out of there you are adding a lot more green space to the area. Mr. Taylor said that if you make 8 or 12 units to the building you still are going to have just one driveway. Mr. Venable said, "If you were living across the street, would you rather have a 12 unit building in front of you, or would you rather have a unit with 4 plexes looking real nice? If you get into 8 units in one building, you are getting into a long building in front of you. Now, we were trying to develop this thing in context with the develop- ment across the street. We felt like 4 units would be much more in context than a long large building." The Chairman asked if this was one tract or was it actually 10 or 12 lots? Mr. Venable replied that at the present time it is one tract of land 15.6 acres. The tract that you are looking at now is the southern part of this 15.6 acres. We have taken the southern part where it is long and narrow and put it on the plan here showing the 12 most southern lots and what we would like to do with it. So,they could be sold and developed into this type of development. Mr. Shanks asked, "You mean individuals will build these things instead of one developer? If I owned a $60,000 house across the street, it would concern me that anybody could come in and build a 4 Alex on a lot -- there could be a brick one, cardboard one, etc. Is there somebody guard- ing against this?" Mr. Venable said that they had very strict regulations on this property to make sure that they are of ample size, will meet the architectural design and approval of the whole area. They are very strict. Mr. Shanks asked, "Who is they?B0 Mr. Venable replied, "Pleasant Valley, Mr. Sam Reynolds. He is here to answer on this particular point." Mr. Sam Reynolds, Agent for Pleasant Valley, stated that they did make u the sale to these developers. Pleasant Valley was extremely happy with this change in plans. The reduction in the number of units, plus the fact that we are going to control the architect of everyone of these units. We felt that they were trying to give the residents out there a much more residential view. We are going to see that these structures are attractive. We felt that the residents would rather have a multi-plexity of design rather than have one long row of houses or one large group of houses. That was Pleasant Valley's attitude when Mr. Venable came to Pleasant Valley with this proposal. The builders we talked to were very happy. Mr. Woolsey asked, "You represent the original developers of Pleasant Valley, is that correct? Do you represent the Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association?" Mr. Reynolds replied, "No, I do not represent the Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association. This particular group of lots at the present time, I would say in excess of 90% of these lots, are still owned by contractors. These lots in this particular area (across the street); all of our plats, all of our drawings, all of our publicity, have clearly shown this strip as being for apartments, and when we sold these lots, we made sure that everybody had a plat and apartments were written all over that plat." The Chairman asked, "Do I understand that you have possibly as many as 12 or 14 different contractors, or developers, who will ultimately build these apartments?" Mr. Venable replied that he is in the finance business and has handpicked 4 builders. They said that if he could work it out, they would buy and build. They are considered very good builders. The Chairman asked, "Are you aware that our variances are only good for 90 days? Is this going to present a problem to you? If we granted this variance today, as I understand it, it runs out 90 days hence." Mr. Taylor said, 1°Six months." Mr. Flake said, "To my knowledge for the past 3 or 4 years, this is the first time we have had a request for variance for something that is not yet platted. Normally, it is my understanding, that this is covered through the Subdivision Committee or the Planning Commission where deviations from ordinance specifications are covered at the same time that the Subdivision Committee covers it. Is this not true?" Mr. Taylor replied, "What you consider here is a proposed subdivision. The Planning Commission normally plat the building lines along the street property line. I don't know of any place where the Planning Commission ever waived the side yards which in effect is what you are getting into in this. Normally, it complies to the zoning ordinance on the side yard. I can't recall a request for waiver on a side setback line. Normally, in a residential you have a 25 ft. front yard require- ment. They are waived due to terrain or grade, or something like that, but I can't remember a rear yard or a side yard waiver." Mr. Flake stated, "It just now occurred to me. I never have come into this procedure before. Normally, a lot is already platted when the variance is requested." Mr. Taylor explained, 1°That would be your normal procedure. What they want on this -- this is all one tract. This is the portion under question at this time. If they are required to comply to the side yards, then I wouldn't think they would want these lots platted -- say at 80 ft. If they have to comply to the side yard to the height of the building, they may want to make these 100 ft. lots-- if they want to sell them off as lots. They are trying to get this waiver of the Board of Adjustment prior to the platting of the lots; otherwise, it would have to go back and replat it into one large tract." Mr. Compton stated, "I feel that there is some justification in certain cases where you can waive one of the side yard requirements in order to get a greater open space between the next adjacent building. This has been used in planning various different other places around the country, but I am a little bit reluctant -- you are not really gaining in this particular case -- in other words, you don't squeeze some together to gain some here. This is just a matter of squeezing everything together in order to get this type of construction on this particular piece of property. You point out the fact that you could develop some giant con- struction, long and ugly. Certainly this would be possible. I am really reluctant to get into a situation where we set up some kind of precedence beginning to squeeze down the requirements for the open space between individual units." Mr. Venable asked, "Why?1° Mr. Compton stated, "My feeling is that when they set up the "MF" zoning that we are dealing with here they certainly had in mind all the possi- bilities for which you would develop, and I don't think it is our job to sit here and choose up sides between all the alternatives you might have and say, "Yes, we would be better off in letting this go by with a waiver than seeing a long narrow unit there." I am not sure that is our job. I am not reluctant to give a waiver if you are going to squeeze some up between two buildings in order to gain more space between the other two adjacent buildings. That doesn't bother me. But to squeeze them all up, that bothers me. That is my personal opinion." Mr. Venable asked if they realized that they were reducing the density from 68 to 54? Mr. Compton replied, t°Yes, I do." Mr. Shanks stated, "Which increases the square feet of green space. I don't know how that works out but that is what they tell me. In other words, you can put 68 units in "X" number of square feet of green space. If you put 54 units, if we approve this thing, then you are going to reduce the amount of green space. Reduce units -- reduce green space. I don't know how that works out on paper, but that's what they are telling us." The Chairman asked what would be the height of these buildings? Mr. Venable replied they would be 22 ft. The Chairman stated that would mean that the structures would have to be 44 ft. apart. Mr. Shanks asked, "Who originally requested the zoning?" Mr. Reynolds replied, "The original request for "MF 24" zoning was made by Mr. Ted Sternberg who had an option to purchase from Pleasant Valley. The Staff recommended "MF 18" which was granted by the Planning Com- mission. At a later date, Mr. Venable purchased the option from Mr. Sternberg." The Chairman asked for a motion. A motion was made to approve the reduced side yard on one side only; therefore, on alternate sides leaving it the ordinance requirement which would probably give an average of 32 ft. instead of either 44 ft. or the reduced as in the application. Mr. Barber asked, "What would be the reduction? If you reduce one side yard -- what would be the remaining side yard?" Mr. Flake replied, "It would be the ordinance requirement." Mr. Barber stated, 1°Side yard in "MF" District is equal to height of building. If you reduce to one-half on one side, then leave the other side full?" Mr. Flake said, "It would be the full height on the other side." The Chairman asked what would it be on the reduced side? Mr. Flake'said, "It would be the 10 ft. requested on the reduced side. As long as these are required to be alternated (in the plat) that would give you the combination of 10 ft. plus the height in between every structure." The Chairman asked for a second to the motion. The motion to approve the reduced side yard on one side oily; there- fore, on alternate sides leaving it the ordinance requirement which would probably give an average of 32 ft. instead of either 44 ft, or the reduced distance as applied for, was seconded and passed by 3 ayes and 2 noes. Tract No. 2 - 7-2530 - 2600 Block 1-430 From: "MF 18" Multi -family District To "D" Apartment District This application was with yawn October 30, 1972 by request. ?'LAIu 1�'STI7G t�i3 l Siff F __LrKG MINUTES OF L Tract No. 8 - Z-2530 - 2600 North I-430 From: "A" -One -family District To • "MF 1$ and "MF 24" Multi -family Districts The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends denial Of the application, and recommends instead "MF 12" Multi -family District for both tracts. These tracts are so located by the developer of the Pleasant Valley Subdivision to provide a buffer between the I-430 to the east and single-family to the west. A church property lies immediately north. (A petition to rezone to an apartment district the adjacent tract of land to the south has been filed for consideration by the Commission at its January, 1972 meeting.)" Mr. Sam Reynolds, realtor, agent for Pleasant Valley, Inc., the applicant, was present. He stated that this property is under option to a developer subject to the zoning as requested, and at present there is being developed a number of lots which will go on sale within a few weeks. Mr. Reynolds explained that there is a long narrow strip along I-430 on which they could not put 18 units per acre, but on the other hand there are certain areas in which they could get a few more. Parking is a problem, he said, and the developers are asking for "MF 18" for more flexibility. There is a church to the north and there is an easement which varies from 10' to 95'. There are a lot of trees which mould be an additional buffer between these apartments .and single-family lots, he said. Pleasant Valley is maintaining architectural control of this property and would not allow anything that would be detrimental to the area. As far as density is concerned on 1200 acres the density is 2 families per acre overall, and there has been no objection from the neighbors. A motion was made for approval of "MF 12" multi -family zoning for both tracts, but failed for lack of sufficient affirmative votes. A motion was then made to grant the rezoning as requested by the applicant, "MF 18" and "MF 24" Multi -family Distracts, but failed for lack of sufficient affirmative votes. Mr. Reynolds then stated that he would recommend to the owners that they accept "MF 18" Multi -family District zoning on both tracts, and a motion to this effect was made, which was seconded and passed. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THIRD FLOOR CITY HALL FR 4-4311 Planning Division LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Permits & Inspections Division Traffic Division 72201 I- / C, Z r�� ,, �2 Dear Public Works Real Estate Re: Case No. Z-.�' Address��� This is to a ise you that in connection with from District the follow ng action was taken by the Planning j),;� (a) Denied (b) Approved as applied for ' (c) Approved - provided: (d) Rezoned to (e) Deferred (f) yourlicatioU:1 r change in zoning to / District, Commission at its meeting on An ordinance effecting this rezoning will (wit) be submitted to the Board of Directors for its consideration at its meeting Zue /Q 2u Yours very truly, LITTLE ROCK PLANNING.COMMISSION Don R. Venhaus, Secretary 5-7-71 250 i APPLICATION FOR REZONING TO THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION: FIRE DISTRICT NO. C P. C APPROVED: C� . - , 19 -LL P D , 19 BD.OF DIR. APPROVED:, 19 BD.OF DIR., 19 ORDINANCE N0. ZONING CASE NO, Z 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, petitioning for a rezoning of the following described area: Title to this property is vested in: ; GASA. "T A't..:SN ) IPJ C_ Itis desired that the boundaries shoA on the District p be amended and that this area be eclassifi ied from the resent " " QMr-`'� i v District to ii R � r< /ear Present Use of Property: l Desired Use of Property: S (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 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 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. DATE: Form ZA 5-4-71 (600) (OWNER) Zze 0 J i ., '/ '� /' .' - .+ r _ or �^ (AGENT)..�l..f G - ADDRESS: —_7.03 C",.2-4, rC _- _ PHONE : 37,40". lw%l3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF MF 18 DISTRICT Commencing at the SW corner of Sec. 27, T2N, R13W, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas; THENCE S 89° 52' 57" E for a distance of 331.00 feet to a point; THENCE S 890 55' 36" E for a distance of 579.20 feet tots point; THENCE N 2° 530 50" E for a distance of 48.00 feet to OF BEGINNING; THENCE N 480 55' 16" W for a distance of 202.33 feet to a point on a curve to the left having an internal angle of 38° 23' 46"3 a radius of 135.00 feet, and a tangent of 47.01 feet; THENCE northeasterly along said curve for a distance of 90.47 feet to the point of tangency thereof; THENCE N 20 57' 56" E for a distance of 588.78 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left having an internal angle of feet; 46° 40' 45", a radius of 343.31 feet, and a tangent of 148. ; THENCE northwesterly along said curve for a distance of 279.70 feet to the point of tangency thereof; THENCE N 43° 42' 49" W for a distance of 142.65 feet to a point; THENCE N 850 31' 45" E for a distance of 299.28 feeot to a point on angle of 7 10' 30", a a curve -to the right having an internal radius of 5554.58 feet, and a tangent of 348.25 feet; THENCE southerly along -said curve for a distance of 695.59 feet to the point of tangency thereof; THENCE S 2° 53' 50" W for a distance of 491.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said tract containing 3.769 acres more or less. . LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF MY A DISTRICT Cencing at the SW Corner of Sec. 27, T2N, R13W, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas; THENCE S 890 52' 57" E for a distance �f 331.00 feet to a point; a THENCE S 890 55' 36" E for a distance of 579.20 feet to a point; THENCE N 20 53' 50" E for a distance of 887.25 feet to a point; THENCE N 40 16f 40" W for a distance of 348.25 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 850 31' 45" W for a distance of 299.28 feet to a point; THENCE N 430 42' 49" W for a distance of 128.64 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right having an internal angle of 70 05' 0011, a radius of 611.62 feet, and a tangent of 37.85 feet; THENCE northwesterly along said curare for a distance of 75.61 feet to a paint; THENCE N 530 22' 11" E for a distance of 130.00 feet to point; THENCE N 310 56' 28" W for a distance of 78.74 feet to a point; THENCE N 220 29' 36" W for a distance of 80.78 feet to a point; THENCE N 180 37' 30" W for a distance of 300.00 feet to a paint; THENCE N 210 35' 33" W for a distance of 113.46 feet to a paint; THENCE N 270 31' 35" W for a distance of 113.46 feet to a point; THENCE N 330 27' 40" W for a distance of 113.46 feet to a point; THENCE N 530 34' 19" E for a distance of 50.00 feet to a point; THENCE N 120 01' 11" W for a distance of 86.14 feet to a paint; THENCE N 10 02' 14" E for a distance of 50.00 feet to a point; THENCE N 460 32' 31" E for a distance of 21.28 feet to a point; THENCE N 770 16' 45" E for a distance of 4+68.07 feet to a point; THENCE S 120 49' 10" E for a distance of 47.75 feet to a point; THENCE S 50 41' 40" E for a distance of 201.60 feet to a paint; THENCE S 190 54' 54" E for a distance of 200.40 feet to a point; THENCE S 60 26' 51" E for a distance of 780.60 feet to a point; THENCE S 850 43' 20" W for a distance of. 25.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said tract containing 11.911 acres more or less. THIS COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE MUST ACCOMPANY THE REZONING APPLICATION (Fill in or cross out words or lines not appropriate) 1. I am the (owner) (°,......11y desigf ^}dagent) 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: l c r a „ /- gt- -11, r/1 11.1 /'.11 1/ - 4. The intended use of this property `' iss : 'i 0 CA - /7 /C Y Q" "Z-- n ki - If_T Ai.. 5. I -(4e- (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) - (- `f (b) Plan to develop in the future - (yes) wo} (c) Plan to sell after rezoning - (yes) (am:) 7, The proposed rezoning: (a) Is compatible with the established land -use pattern of adjacent properties in the immediate area (yes) ) (b) Would create an isolated zoned lot or tract incompatible with adjacent zoned property ) (no) 8. The basic land -use pattern of the immediate area has changed recently - (yes) - (neo) 9. The proposed zoning: (a) ) (will not), in my opinion adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood (b) (W (will not), in my opinion, adversely affect the value of adjacent properties (c) O (will not),in my opinion, deter the improvement or development of adjacent property (d) (will not),.in my opinion, adversely affect the character of the immediate area 10. (a) 'The`'gerteyai ehetree•ter of tircim ete4ia is LL� ..pn (b) The general character of the immediate area is vacant land 11. In my opinion, the rezoning of this property (will) Wit) result in an (increase) ( ) 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) 13. If property is rezoned: (a) Sufficient parking is now available (yes) 10W (b) The required additional parking will be provided (yes) 14. There ( ) (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.) Signature of owner, or regally authorized agent Date: 5-4-71 PC 150 C2 nP(",7a