HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1059-A Staff AnalysisSeptember 19, 1995 .
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: 5--1059-A
NAME: KINGWOOD PLACE ADDITION, LOTS M-1 & M-2 -- PRELIMINARY
PLAT
LOCATION: Approximately 200 feet south of Pine Valley Road and
600 feet northwest of Sunset Circle.
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
H. Bradley Walker Joe White
WALKER REAL ESTATE WHITE-DATERS�&'ASSOCIATES, INC.
2224 Cottondale Ln., Suite 201 401 S. Victory'St.
Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72201
666-4242 374-1666
AREA:
2.59 ACRES
NUMBER OF LOTS: 2
FT. NEW STREET: 500±
ZONING:
R-2
PROPOSED USES:
Single -Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 3
CENSUS TRACT: 22.01
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of a private street in an access
easement for access from a public street to the lots.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a two -lot subdivision of an existing lot,
and proposes to provide access to the two lots by way of a
private street in an access easement across another owner's tract
which lies between the applicant's tract and a public street.
Since the public street, Pine Valley Rd., is a dedicated right-
of-way and is a partially improved roadway for a portion of its
length from Sunset Circle, the applicant proposes to extend a
driving surface, to be in keeping with the width and type of the
existing roadway, from the present end of the pavement to the
proposed private street access point. A variance is requested to
be approved by the Planning Commission for the private street and
access easement. No other variances or waivers are requested.
A. PROPOSAL RE ❑EST:
Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested
for a preliminary plat for a two -lot subdivision. Approval
by the Planning Commission is requested for a private street
and access easement to provide the needed access to the two
lots.
September 19, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A nt. FILE NO_; -10 -A
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is presently heavily wooded and is on an extremely
steep hillside. There is approximately 100 feet of
elevation change across the two lots, dropping from the
southeast corner of the east lot to the northwest corner of
the west lot. There is approximately a 20 foot elevation
differential form the north edge of the lots to Pine Valley
Rd. where the proposed private street is to intersect;
however, there is a 30-50 foot deep draw which lies between
the lots and Pine Valley Rd.
The existing zoning of the site is R-2, with'R-2 zoning
being the exclusive zoning district of all surrounding,land.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The Public Works staff provided the following comments:
1) There is required information missing from the
preliminary plat. A complete listing of the
deficiencies is available from the Public Works staff.
2) The Pine Valley right-of-way has significant horizontal
and vertical alignment changes. The road has a
dedicated right-of-way; however, there only exists a
10' asphalt lane that dead -ends at the residence
opposite the planned private drive. Pine Valley will
require improvements to minimum City standards to the
point of access to this private drive. There needs to
be a proper turn -around constructed at the end of Pine
Valley Rd.
3) The preliminary plat indicates that an access easement
will provide access to lots which do not abut a public
street; therefore, the street should be designed as a
private residential street with construction conforming
to City standards. Waivers of the grades, radii, turn-
around, width of street, and provision for open
drainage should be sought (unless the street will
conform to the standards of the Little Rock Code of
Ordinances). Private streets require Public Work's
approval of the construction and plans.
4) Open ditches are generally not permitted by the
Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches
are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat
and approved by the City Engineer. Any planned
drainage ditches must be shown on the preliminary plat.
Show water courses entering the subdivision and the
planned exit points for drainage. Easements off -site
for this drainage may be required.
V,
September 19, 1995
SUBDIVIOIP
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1059-A
Water Works comments that a water main extension will be
required.
Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension,
with easements, will be required. Pump stations will not be
acceptable.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. Their
drawing proposes a 15' easement at the perimeter of the
subdivision, and a 15, easement straddling the Lot M-1-M-2
line.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. commented.that easements
will be required. They show a 10, easement along the east,
south, and north perimeter of the subdivision.
The Fire Department notes that the grade of the roadways to
the lots are far too steep for fire apparatus to negotiate
in inclement weather; that this could keep the fire
department from getting to the location. A maximum grade of
14% needs to be maintained for all roadways.
D. ISSUESILEGALITECHNICAL DESIGN:
Sec. 31-231 states: "Every lot shall abut upon a public
street, except where private streets are explicitly approved
by the Planning Commission". Sec. 31-207 states: "The
design standards shall conform to public street standards as
specified in this chapter." The applicant is seeking
Planning Commission approval of a private street in .an
access easement to provide the required access to the lots.
Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information
furnished, the following be identified: the type of
subdivision being proposed; the name and address of the
owner of record and the source of title giving deed record
book and page number or instrument number; any existing and
the proposed covenants and restrictions; and, the source of
water supply and the means of wastewater disposal.
Sec. 31-89 requires that on the plat, in addition to the
information shown, the following be provided: the design of
the street improvements; the front yard setback; natural
features (i.e., drainage channels, bodies of water, wooded
areas, and watercourses) and cultural features (i.e.,
bridges, culverts, utility lines, pipelines, power lines,
and park areas); a storm drainage analysis and preliminary
storm drainage plan; the names of recorded subdivision
abutting the proposed site, with plat book and page number
or instrument number; the names of all owners of landlocked
parcels which are contiguous to the subdivision; an accurate
3
September 19, 1995
Al
ITEM A nt. FILE -1 -A
E.
F.
physical description of all
classifications of the plat
Proposed PAGIS monuments are
ANALYSIS•
monuments; and the zoning
area and of all abutting lands.
to be identified.
If a subdivision of land meets the minimum requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance, the approval of that subdivision
of land cannot be denied. The R-2 zoning district requires
a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet, with a minimum lot
width of 60 feet and a minimum lot depth of 100 feet. The
Subdivision Ordinance requires that either'a-lot have
frontage on a public street or a private-otreet. It
requires approval by the Planning Commission for a private
street, and sets certain tests for approval of a private
street. (See. Sec. 31-207) The Subdivision Ordinance
requires that a private street meet the requirements of the
Ordinance as to design standards.
The proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances for size. The request for
access to the lots by way of a private street in an access
easement meet the requirements for approval. The question,
though, is can a roadway be constructed which meets City
standards within the access easement which has been
indicated on the plan? The City Engineer states that it
cannot. The Fire Department reports that the grades which
would be necessary for the private street to follow the
contours shown would be too steep. The requirement of Sec.
31-207, wherein the requirement that private streets meet
public street standards for design and construction, cannot,
according to the information shown and furnished, be met.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of preliminary plat due to access to
the site not being able to be provided which will meet Code.
SUBDIVI5IOU COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JUKE 8, 1995)
No one was present to present the application. Staff outlined
the request, and the Planning and Public Works staff discussed
with the Committee members the staff concerns noted in the
discussion outline. The Committee forwarded the item to the full
Commission for the public hearing.
4
September 19, 1995
ITEM O. • A Cant . ) FILE NO.: -1 2=A
PLANNING COMMISSION AQTIO :
(JUNE 27, 1995)
The Chairman identified this item for public hearing and recognized
Deputy City Attorney, Stephen Giles, for purposes of offering
commentary prior to the hearing.
Mr. Giles recognized this as an opportunity to once again deal
with planned areas within the city limits. He pointed out that
he would make a preliminary statement and bring out a couple of
issues he felt needed to be discussed. Giles pointed out that
several commissioners had indicated apparent confusion about the
role of the Planning Commission in this matter; He pointed out
that this is not a zoning issue or rezoning application and it is
a subdivision plat. He pointed out that the zoning Ordinance
establishes land use districts and allows residential uses.
These uses are located on property is the subject of the
Subdivision Regulations. The issue here according to Mr. Giles
is whether or not this plat as submitted meets the requirements
for the Subdivision Ordinance. He also pointed for the record
that he is an adjacent property owner owning a small portion of
Tract M. His property fronting upon Ringwood Drive.
Giles stated that he made this statement in order to place it in
the record. He felt he could participate in this hearing because
he was not a voting member of the Planning Commission. Giles
then moved to his commentary to issues involving subdivision
plats. He specifically covered the issue of the Robert
Richardson replat and the Robinwood-Foxcroft neighborhood. The
ramifications of the decision in that case and how they apply in
this matter. Giles then pointed out that the Planning
Commission's only role in this application is a determination as
to whether the plat conforms to the Subdivision Ordinance. He
pointed out that the Planning Commission's secondary role in this
application is the determination of the appropriateness of the
extension of a private road to serve the lots.
Giles concluded his remarks by briefly reading various excerpts
from the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to private drives,
the replatting of properties and this plat in general.
Commissioner Willis then acting as Chairman asked that Mr. White,
representing the Engineering firm of White-Daters, proceed with
making a presentation. He discussed the design elements of the
modified roadway to provide the private street from Pine valley
Road to the two lots that will be served. Mr. White pointed out
that the design presented for this private street meets all of
Public Works' design criteria. He pointed out that there were no
waiver requests attendant to this application.
61
September 19, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-10-A
Mr. White identified Mr. Gene Ludwig who was attending the
meeting with him who could offer information if required. Mr.
Ludwig then came forward to address the Commission and offered
comments to the effect that people should not be concerned about
these two lots being a forerunner to a larger development of this
area. That is not the intent here and various conditions written
into this proposal restricts any further development of this
property. The covenants that are being offered by Mr. Brad
Walker and two adjacent property owners will be part of the
record if approval of this plat is obtained.
After the conclusion of Mr. Ludwig's remarks, the Chairman then
directed attention to numerous cards that had -been submitted by
persons attending and wishing to speak against -this application.
There were 13 of these cards. He requested that if there was a
spokesperson for the neighborhood and the objection, let that
person come forward but he would not limit anyone's ability to
speak on the matter.
Jim Lawson, the Planning Director, at this point asked the
Chairman for permission to insert staff commentary on this
subject in as much as the staff has not offered his position or
recommendation. Lawson pointed out that the Staff does recommend
approval if the plat as being in conformance with the Ordinance.
He stated, Public Works should be heard on thin -matter.
A brief discussion was inserted at this point concerning the
covenants opposed by Mr. Walker and offered by Mr. Ludwig.
Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, addressed these as being
important elements of the application filing, especially for the
comfort level of the neighborhood and purchasers of the lots.
The Chairman then recognized David Scherer, of Public Works, for
purposes of that City department's comments. Scherer offered a
full review of the application and its construction elements as
proposed involving Pine Valley Road and the private street. He
stated the plan that had been submitted appears to meet all
residential street standards for a private street as required by
Ordinance. Scherer described Pine Valley Road and this area
where it leaves Sunset Lane and traverses the hillside toward
this development as being a very narrow 10± foot wide driveway.
It in no way meets minimum street standards for residential
street.
He then offered additional commentary on communication between
his office and Mr. Walker and Mr. White concerning the design
requirements Public Works would insist upon for Pine Valley Road.
Scherer stated that Pine Valley needs to be improved beyond its
existing 10 foot width.
A lengthy discussion then followed involving the Chairman and
Mr. Scherer discussing the design requirements of the private
6
September 19,'1995
HDIVI T
ITEM NO.,-..;- Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1059-A
street and Pine Valley. Scherer stated that his assumption was
that Pine Valley Road's improvements would include curb and
gutter.
Commissioner Doyle Daniel then inserted a question that he
addressed to Mr. White. His question had to do with whether or
not Pine Valley Road would be properly expanded in width to
accommodate emergency vehicles. Mr. White's response was yes.
The Chairman then recognized Mr. Phillip Anderson who came
forward as a spokesperson for the neighborhood. He identified
himself as being an attorney with the firm of Williamson and
Anderson. He stated for the record that he represented Chuck and
Margaret Ensminger, Walter Hussman and his wife and Ben Hussman.
Mr. Anderson presented a graphic outlining the location of
various lots of the persons that he represented and their
relationships to the application. He then moved his comments to
discussion of the process involved in this application.
Mr. Anderson's' first point offered was that he took issue with
Public Works' statement that there was not a waiver. He then
identified that Mr. Gene Levy would address the Commission with
some specific issues and that he would then be followed by
Mr. Walter Hussman. He stated that he wanted to assure the
record reflected there was a general plan for this neighborhood.
He then entered into some commentary about the Staff. He thought
that perhaps in this instance the Staff of the Planning
Commission was not as diligent as with most developers when
dealing with this application of its chairman. He included a
comment that perhaps there was procedural items and issues that
were not covered in a manner that other owners and developers
would perhaps be required to follow.
Mr. Anderson then offered additional statements in support of his
accusation that staff had not required the proper review and
submittal of information. He itemized the various items from the
Subdivision Ordinance including names, various forms and other
submittal requirements. He specifically pointed out that a
letter required by Ordinance was supposed to have been faxed to
him, but was in fact, not ever delivered. He concluded his
remarks by again offering a statement that the Commission should
be aware by his presentation that all of the requirements of
Ordinance have not been met; thereby, bringing into question the
issue of whether or not the plat is complete and in conformance
with the Ordinance. Mr. Anderson pointed out that this is the
one opportunity for the neighborhood to have its input and review
the information in the plat.
He then raised a question while leaving the lectern that the
issue of the cul-de-sac length should be addressed. He
specifically directed that to Mr. White and then asked that
Mr. Levy come forward and address this matter. Mr. Levy came
7
September 19, 1995
BDIVI I
ITEM ND. • A (Co FILE NO.: S-1059-A
forward and offered his thought on the cul-de-sac length issue as
being that he felt the street was being extended greater than the
1,000 feet allowed by ordinance.
A lengthy discussion then followed involving Commissioner Willis,
acting Chairman, and the attorney for the neighborhood. The
discussion primarily centered upon the Staff's involvement and
the filing of this application and whether their actions were
appropriate.
Commissioner Putnam then offered a comment that the Commission
and the persons speaking to the matter from the audience were
getting away from the issue at hand, and we should return to the
application.
Jim Lawson, the Planning Director, then added a comment at this
point that many of the issues raised for discussion by the
objectors' attorney are matters of record in the Staff's office.
We do not have to be told what these items are as far as the
persons' address, names and such.
Mr. Gene Levy then came forward to offer his comments and
objection to this application, and in support of those offered by
Mr. Anderson. He briefly described Pine Valley Road, its current
physical state. Mr. Levy then presented a series of photographic
representations of the neighborhood. He presented a map and then
indicated the ravine that is principally involved in the creation
of the private roadway. His presentation illustrated the
neighborhood environment.
Mr. Levy then moved his comments to describe the individual
properties along Pine Valley Road and the adjacent area to the
subject plat. Identifying persons building these homes and the
architects involved, Mr. Lawson injected a comment into the
presentation offering to the Commission that the presentation as
being made was entering into land use kinds of concerns and
getting away from the plat at hand.
The Chairman again admonished the presenters for the objectors to
maintain the issue at hand and not stray to other issues and
being redundant. Mr. Levy then returned to his presentation and
offered some photographic and other graphic materials indicating
in the topographic, the physical layout of the area and the
structural involvement of the neighborhood. Mr. Levy added
additional commentary about the length of the street combining
Pine Valley as well as the private road added further comments
about the location of the turnaround device. He also stated that
a variance had not been requested for the lengthy roadway and one
should be required.
Mr. Levy then offered a lengthy discussion on the construction
involved in placing the private roadway across the ravine. He
8
September 19, 1995
SVBDIVISIOt�
ITEM Ha.: A (Cont;,) FILE NO,: -1 -A
offered a estimate from computations that he had available to him
that it would take approximately 16,000 cubic yards of dirt to
accomplish the private road construction as identified by
Mr. White's drawing. Mr. Levy offered a statement that it would
take 1,600 dump truck loads in order to move that much dirt into
the neighborhood. He also offered that it would do severe
violence to the neighborhood streets.
After additional lengthy comments on design of the private road
and dangers to the neighborhood, Mr. Levy stated that his
estimate was that it would cost $250,000 and off -site
improvements in order to access these two lots.^ Mr. Levy then
offered extensive commentary by quoting sections of the Ordinance
dealing with the design of private streets. In concluding his
remarks, Mr. Levy additionally added to the commentary that he
had previously offered about the design and the floor work that
would have to be accomplished and the excavation and change of
grade to accommodate the roadway and the ravine.
Commissioner Willis then stated that he had a question for Staff
as to whether or not Pine Valley Road currently is wide enough to
service emergency vehicles. David Scherer, of Public Works,
responded by saying that in its current condition it is not but
it has been offered by Mr. Walker to widen the street to a
sufficient width to accommodate vehicles. During the course of a
lengthy discussion between several commissioners and Mr. Scherer,
the Deputy City Attorney posed a question as to whether or not
the 27 foot street could be constructed within the 50 foot right-
of-way existing on Pine Valley without moving into the creek.
Scherer indicated that he could not determine that with the
information he had at hand.
A brief discussion was held between Commissioner Rahman and
Scherer dealing with whether or not permits of various types
would be needed for soil control and erosion and flood control.
Scherer indicated that there were permits for most of these, but
there would not be permit requirements for environmental
concerns. He indicated that if there were permits required from
state level those would be the kind of things that he would work
with the applicant on.
Commissioner Putnam then stated that he would like to ask
Mr. Levy a question. The question was whether improvement
requirements to Pine Valley Road included in the $250,000
estimate projected by Mr. Levy. Mr. Levy responded by saying
that there were improvement requirements approximately 10 feet of
widening into Pine Valley included into that figure.
The Chairman then recognized Mr. Walter Hussman who came forward
to offer comments and objections. Mr. Hussman offered a brief
history of the neighborhood from his perspective having moved
into that neighborhood several years ago. He offered that there
September 19, 1995
SUHDIVISIQH
ITEM A(Cont.)FILE NO.: -1 -A
had been no changes since 1950's style development area until
such time as the Planning Commission moved into the area. He
offered a concern that weighs very much on the minds of the
people of the neighborhood, that being the potential for future
sales of additional lots. Mr. Hussman then described the
dimensional relationships of his lots and his adjacent neighbors
to the Pine Valley Road. He stated that this development would
fundamentally change the neighborhood. He stated that he felt
like the widening or the construction of Pine valley Road to the
standards proposed would impact the adjacent yard area or the
creek side of the right-of-way. A lot of trees would be moved or
cut from this site during this project.
Mr. Hussman stated his observation was that the plan offered by
Mr. Walker keeps changing. He offered some thoughts on the
projected numbers of dump trucks and fill material to be brought
to the site. He then offered comments on the economics of
selling these two lots with the enormous cost of tax the physical
improvements that will have to be installed. Mr. Hussman then
offered his perspective on how many lots could be obtained from
this valley area if additional development is to occur that being
some 45 in number. Developing everything down to the river that
is not now developed. He then offered commentary on the geology
of the area bluffs overlooking the Arkansas River and the
attractiveness of maintaining the current development status
along the river overview.
Mr. Hussman then offered comments related to an agreement
presumably entered into with Mrs. Law, a current property owner.
Such agreement had not been presented to him and he had not had
the opportunity to observe its content.
Mr. Hussman continued his commentary by stating that he had
Mr. Gene Levy, a design professional, as well as the Mehlburger
Firm's staff present. The professionals have reviewed these
proposals and prepared their commentary. He stated that these
gentlemen were reluctant because they work with this Commission
and would feel uncomfortable dealing with this matter in the
fashion required. Mr. Hussman concluded his remarks by
requesting that the Commission not do this to him, to his
neighborhood or to his city.
Mr. Anderson then returned to the lectern and told the Chairman
that the mayor of Cammack Village was present and would like to
offer comment on this matter. Acting Chairman Willis then
instructed the audience that he is still had numerous cards
before him of persons wishing to speak on the matter. He
reminded these persons that they should address the issue
specifically and not repeat information that had previously been
offered. At this point, Mr. Anderson indicated that the persons
who have addressed the Commission had addressed the concerns that
they have desired to, although he could not speak for everyone.
10
September 19, 1995
OUBDIVFSIQN
ITEM NO.: A (Corit. FILE NO.: --1 5 -A
After a brief discussion between Mr. Anderson and Acting Chairman
Willis, it was determined that there were approximately three
additional persons wishing to address this matter. The first of
these to approach the lectern offering his comments was Mr.
Robert Eubanks. He identified himself as the mayor of Cammack
Village and a practicing attorney. He offered extensive
commentary on the effect of the projected 1,600 dump trucks on
the streets between Cammack Village and the lots, and the
destructive effect of their passage. He then offered some
commentary on his perception of the history of this case and his
surprise of learning that this proposal was before the
Commission. He continued his commentary by offering that the
Cammack Village area is a community of narrow streets without
sidewalks and certainly some congestion in certain areas. Mayor
Eubanks of Cammack Village indicated that children in the area
play in the creek and he fears this will be affected by this
project.
The next person to approach the lectern to offer his commentary
was Mr. Jim Conner. Mr. Conner, a resident of the Sunset Drive
area, identified himself as a professional planner, real estate
investor and Little Rock businessman. He then continued by
offering his commentary on this proposal. His assessment covered
the potential impact both of this project and the potential for
additional development in the area. He expressed some concern
that Mr. Walker would submit an application of this nature with
this neighborhood opposed. He said that nobody knows what the
legal relationships are involved in this proposal, he sees a
clear conflict of interest. Mr. Conner requested that Mr. Walker
withdraw the application, and if such does not occur he stated
that he would like to see the Planning Commission deny this
matter. He stated that he would like to see the Ensminger's
replat their properties into a single one house lot. Mr. Conner
concluded his remarks.
The Chairman then recognized the next speaker being Ruth Bell, of
the League of Women Voters. Mrs. Bell offered a statement that
she had often observed applications hartily contested during
hearing before the Commission cause additional development in an
area.
A follow-up question to that statement was how would the
Commission react to such future applications if this item is
approved. Acting Chairman Willis pointed out that the only
answer he could offer is that each application would be handled
on its on merits. That concluded the speakers from the audience.
The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Putnam for a comment.
Commissioner Putnam offered his historical relationship to the
Graham Hall property, which is now occupied by the Ensminger
family and that he purchased the land for that structure. He
11
September 19, 1995
,gUBDIVISI❑
ITEM NO.; A cnt. FILE N 1 -A
offered various comments on his relationship to developments in
the immediate area overlooking the river. He concluded his
remarks by stating that he would like to see the area left alone
and let this development in this neighborhood remain much as it
is.
Acting Chairman Willis then recognized Commissioner Daniel for
his thoughts. There was an interruption by a person in the
audience identifying herself as having turned in a card and
desiring to speak on the matter. The Chairman again reminded the
audience that he had asked for the show of hands for speakers but
would allow additional speakers if so desired and announce their
intention at this point. This person identified herself as being
an owner in the area and she stated to the Chairman that she
hated to see the item proceed to a conclusion without having all
of the information from both sides of the matter.
By request from the Chairman, this speaker identified herself as
being Yvonne Law. Commissioner Daniel responded to a question by
the Chairman by stating that he would hold his question to a
later point in the hearing. Ms. Law then approached the lectern
and proceeded to offer her comments on the subject. She offered
general commentary on the current state of access and the matter
in which the private street would be gated and controled for
access to the two lots. These access points would not be
observed from Sunset Drive. Ms. Law stated that this road at one
point did go down to the river. Her family had a 40 year history
in this property adjacent to Pine Valley Road and had a part in
its termination at its current end.
Ms. Law stated that current termination of Pine Valley Road was
not an accident. Ms. Law produced a graphic illustrating the
area and she also offered a brief history of the agreement that
was being offered for attachment to the land. She offered
general information as to who owned what property at various
areas around Sunset Drive and Pine Valley Road. Ms. Law then
introduced to the Commission a copy of a plat having preliminary
plat approval status from the Planning Commission authorizing
Mr. Ensminger to subdivide into 7 lots. She pointed out
particularly that the plat proposes the reopening of the closed
abandoned portion of Pine Valley Road. Her perception of this
plat was, that, it indicated that Ensminger at least at that
point had no concern for the development of adjacent properties
surrounding their residence.
She then moved her comments to the agreement discussed with
Mr. Walker to control access and development of the two lots
that are projected out of this Tract M. She indicated that any
attempt to use the easement for any other purpose or access to
these two lots would cause the easement to revert to her family.
She concluded her remarks by stating that the Ensmingers who
owned property on one side of Pine Valley Road have a right to
12
September 19, 1995
IIBDIVi I
ITEM N A Cont. FILE NO.: --10 -A
use that road and take access. But apparently, the Ensmingers
feel that persons owing property on the other side of Pine Valley
Road do not have the right to develop their property.
Chairman Willis then moved the discussion back to the Commission.
Commissioner Daniel then made the statement that he had asked
permission to offer previously. This had to do with a visit to
the site and his perceptions of the existing roadway terrain and
adjacent properties. He expanded his comment to include
emergency vehicles and problems with access and turning radius
onto this narrow roadway. A
Chairman Willis then posed a question to Joe White. He asked
Mr. White to address the issue of the number of trucks coming to
the site and possible time frame or duration of their accessing
this property, and as to what routes that they might possibly
utilize. Mr. White responded that any material coming to the
site would have to come down Pine Valley Road. Mr. White
indicated that they had looked at the design of these slopes and
they would possibly use such devices as gabions. The utilization
of these devices would significantly reduce the number of trucks.
Chairman Willis then asked Mr. White to respond to the question
of dust. Mr. White pointed out that these haulers would have to
be permitted and the roadway would have to be maintained and wet
down to reduce dirt and the City would control those types of
things. The Chairman then queried the Commission members as to
further comments. At this point, Commissioner Mizan asked
Mr. White if he was not going to use the design that was offered
by the opposition. Mr. White stated that it was similar and the
grades would be similar; however, the construction types would
not necessarily be the same. The horizontal configuration would
be much the same but their slopes would be different. He stated
they would probably use a fill and gabions that would reduce the
slope.
Commissioner Adcock then asked Mr. White if he still would have
to cut down a significant number of trees. Mr. White pointed out
that the design that he hoped to utilize would not remove as many
trees as was offered in the illustration.
The Chairman then recognized Mr. Walker's attorney who returned
to the lectern. He offered a lengthy comment concluding that the
law in this matter is clear. If you meet minimum standards, it
must be approved. He went on to offer a reading from the
Richardson case that had previously been discussed by various
persons in this hearing. He stated that since Mr. Walker was
willing to accept the higher standards to meet the Ordinance and
avoid a waiver, the law requires the Commission to approve this
application.
13
September 19, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A ant. FILE N S-109--A
He stated that many of the issues he identified as "picky little
issues" had been addressed by the court in the Richardson case.
He pointed to the fact that it must all be resolved before the
final plat is concluded. He stated that nothing will take place
here unless a final plat is approved. Before the final plat is
approved, Mr. Walker will have to fully comply with the
requirements. He stated that many of the arguments presented had
been a "smoke screen" and that Mrs. Law has capably covered the
issue of access and future development of this area. Anyone
desiring to develop further in this area would have to come
before the Planning Commission. He stated that although there
had been some objection to the provision of a private street, he
felt that the construction of a private street,.at'this point
would enure to the benefit of everyone in the area by excluding
people who had no business in the area.
He went on to say, that, although it had been suggested by one of
the speakers that no changes had occurred in this neighborhood
for 50 years, Mrs. Law had pointed out, the Ensmingers had filed
a plat to had six additional lots to their property. He closed
his remarks by requesting that Mr. Walker not be discriminated
against simply because he is on the Commission and he has done
everything to eliminate discretion.
Chairman Willis then closed the discussion on this item. After a
brief commentary, Willis suggested to the applicant that the
applicant should perhaps pursue the idea of curb and gutter
versus a lower street standards.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for a vote
instructing them that they were voting on the plat identified
Item 111A" on the agenda consisting of Lots M1 and M2. The vote
on the application produced a count of 5 ayes, 4 nays and
2 absent.
The Chairman then questioned the Deputy City Attorney as to the
status of the application. It was agreed that the application
was automatically deferred per bylaw requirement. In this
instance, the application did not receive 6 votes affirmative or
negative. Commissioner Chachere posed a question at this point
of whether or not this was the second deferral of this item with
this circumstance and what happens at this point. Does it go to
the Board? Mr. Giles, of the City Attorney's Staff, advised the
Commission that this was a first deferral because the previous
application had been withdrawn because it was a different
property. This is a resubmittal on a separate site. The
Chairman then asked the staff to produce a date for deferral of
this item. Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, identified
August 8, 1995 at 9:00 A.M. being the rehearing date.
14
September 19, 1995
S-UHnIVI I
ITEM NO.: A(Cont.)FILE NO.: -10 -A
PLANNING CQMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 8, 1995)
The Planning Commission was in receipt of a letter from Mr. Brad
Walker, the applicant, stating that the applicant and abutting
neighbors were currently discussing resolution of this
subdivision matter. The letter requested that the application be
deferred to September 19, 1995.
The Commission determined that appropriate to include this item
in the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to that effect was
made. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, O^nays, 4 absent
and 1 abstention (Brad Walker).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter, dated
August 24, 1995, reporting that he no longer retained an interest
in the subject property, nor authorization to proceed with the
application, and asking that the item be withdrawn from the
agenda. The request to withdraw the application was included on
the Consent Agenda for withdrawal, and the withdrawal was
approved with the vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstention
(Walker), and 1 open position.
F1•7