The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutS-1665 ApplicationPage 1 of 1 Carney, Dana From: Bozynski, Tony Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:44 PM To: James, Donna; Carney, Dana Subject: FW: LITIGATION ALERT: Wildwood litigation FYI -----Original Message ----- From: Carpenter, Tom Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:38 PM To: Moore, Bruce; Brad Cazort; Brenda Wyrick; Doris Wright; Dr. Dean Kumpuris; Erma Hendrix; Gene Fortson; Joan Adcock; Ken Richardson; Lance Hines; Mayor; Mayor Stodola; Mayor Stodola; Stacy Hurst Cc: Bozynski, Tony; Beck, Steve; Floriani, Vince; Mann, Bill; Pesek, John; Engster, Bonnie Subject: LITIGATION ALERT: Wildwood litigation Dear Mayor Stodola and Members of the Board of Directors, This afternoon Judge Leon Holmes signed an order to dismiss with prejudice the federal Lawsuit filed by Wildwood, or Graham Smith, against the City. This is part of an agreement to dismiss all of the outstanding litigation. The Wildwood litigation started with a declaratory judgment action that Gordon Road, which had been closed by the Board several years ago, was in fact open. The Planning Commission had granted plat approval based upon Gordon Road providing ingress and egress. During the dispute there were three circuit court actions, one federal court action, and one administrative hearing, in place to challenge the various actions in the matter. These have been dismissed, or the parties have moved for dismissal. A realignment of the former Gordon Road has been approved by the Public Works Department, and that new road will be dedicated to the City as the development progresses. A condemnation action filed by Wildwood against Deltic resulted in a decision for Wildwood, but was on appeal until recently. It is now decided and Wildwood will be able to get title to the road base it needs. Throughout the litigation, the City has taken the position that the road was closed and that the Planning Commission did not have the authority to use a closed road for ingress and egress. While this issue has not been decided by a judge, the end of the judicial proceedings effectively upholds the City' position. In the meantime, Mr. Smith has worked with the Public Works Department, Planning, and the State Fire Marshall, to gain approval for his project. I handled this matter for the office, but received excellent assistance from Chief Deputy City Attorney Bill Mann, and Assistant City Attorney John Pesek. Please let me know if you have any questions. Tom 1 /26/2012 2011020851 Received: 4/7/2011 2:56:53 PM Recorded: 04/07/2011 03:04:41 PM Filed & Recorded in Official Records of Larry Crane, PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUMCOUNTY CLERK Fees $20.00 1 ORDINANCE NO.20,416 2 3 AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX PROPERTY TO CITY OF LITTLE ROCK 4 MUNICIPAL PROPERTY OWNERS' MULTIPURPOSE 5 IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 27 (TAYLOR PARK RECREATIONAL 6 FACILITIES PROJECT); TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY; AND FOR 7 OTHER PURPOSES. 8 9 WHEREAS, a petition to annex property to City of Little Rock Municipal Property Owners' 10 Multipurpose Improvement District No. 27 (Taylor Park Recreational Facilities Project) has been 11 filed with the Little Rock City Clerk; and 12 WHEREAS, the City Clerk has presented the petition to the Mayor; and 13 WHEREAS, the Mayor has set April 5, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. as the date and time for a hearing 14 before the Little Rock Board of Directors for consideration of the petition; and 15 WHEREAS, the Little Rock Board of Directors has determined from an abstractor's 16 certificate of property ownership that those signing the petition constitute all the owners of the 17 real property to be located in said district; and 18 WHEREAS, Arkansas Code Annotated § 14-88-503 provides that if the governing body 19 determines that all the owners of the real property to be located in the district have petitioned for 20 annexation to an existing district, it shall then be its duty by ordinance to annex the property as 21 defined in the petition to the existing district. 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 23 THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS: 24 Section 1. That the real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part 25 hereof is hereby annexed to the City of Little Rock Municipal Property Owners' Multipurpose 26 Improvement District No. 27 (Taylor Park Recreational Facilities Project) for the purpose of 27 constructing, either within or without the boundaries of the District, if the property within the 28 District will be benefited thereby, a sewage collection system, water distribution system, 29 telephone service system, cable television service system, electrical distribution system, natural 30 gas distribution system, a system of roads and streets, including sidewalks, curbs and gutters, 31 underground drainage system, a system of street lighting, retaining walls, and landscaping, and all 32 trenching, excavating, grading and all construction associated with the installation of the above 33 systems, together with facilities related to any of the foregoing within said district. [PAGE 1 OF2] I Section 2. The following three (3) individuals are hereby ratified as commissioners of said 2 Improvement District: R. Graham Smith; Tom Holmes; and Eric L. Ward. 3 Section 3. The Board of Directors hereby determines that there is a need for additional 4 infrastructure within the City and hereby determines that the passage of this ordinance will 5 facilitate construction of additional infrastructure with the City. Therefore, an emergency is 6 hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance being necessary for the public health, safety and f 7 welfare shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval. I 8 PASSED: April 5, 2011 9 ATTEST: APPROVED: 10 12 n ngle City Clerk Mark Stodola, ayor 13 APPRO D AS TO LEGAL FORM: 14 15 16 Thomas M. Carpenter, Ci Attorney 17 H 18 H 19 H 20 H 21 H 22 H 23 H 24 H 25 H 26 // 27 // 28 H 29 H 30 H 31 H 32 H 33 H 34 H 35 H [PAGE 2 OF 2] F EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1971) ROBERT S. LINDSEY 11913-1991) ALSTON JENNINGS 11917-2004) JOHN G. LI LE GORDON S. RATHER, JR. ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R, TISDALE JOHN WILLIAM SPJVEY 111 LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES T-COLEMAN EDWIN L. LOWT HER. JR. GREGORY T. JONES BETTINA E, BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN JOHN D. DAVIS JUDY SI MMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR. TROY A. PRICE KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DA V I S JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER KYLE R, WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M, SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 . FAX (501) 376-9442 NORTHWEST ARKANSAS 3333 PINNACLE HILLS PARKWAY, SUITE 510 ROGERS. ARKANSAS 72758-8960 (479) 986-0888 • FAX (479) 986-8932 www.wlj.com Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1310 jspivey®wlj.com Reply to Little Rock Office April 7, 2011 Honorable Mark Stodola, Mayor City of Little Rock 500 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D, WILSON DAVID P. GLOVER REGINA A. YOUNG PAUL D. MORRIS EDWARD RIAL ARMSTRONG GARY D- MARTS, JR. ERIC BERGER P. DELANNA PADILLA CALEY B. VO JOHNATHAN D. HORTON KATHRYN M. IRBY CHESTER H. LAUCK, III DAVID L. JONES W. CARSON TUCKER JANE A. KIM ADRIENNE L. JUNG KRISTEN S. MOYERS ERIN S. BROGDON RICHARD BLAKELY GLASGOW DIANA E. BORGOGNONI PATRICK M. YOUNG ANTWAN D. PHILLIPS BRIAN C. HOGUE MATTHEW A. GLOVER BAXTER D. DRENNON MICHAEL A. THOMPSON OF COUNSEL RONALD A. MAY ROGER A. GLASGOW BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER CHARLES S. BOHANNON JUST IN T. ALLEN Hand Deliver RE: Appeal of Wildwood Ridge Addition Preliminary Plat; File No. S-1665 and Variances Granted Therein by the Little Rock Planning Commission (the "Commission") on March 10, 2011 Dear Mayor Stodola: On behalf of Deltic Timber Corporation and pursuant to Section 31-12(c) of the Little Rock City Code (the "Code"), and all other relevant provisions of the Code, we hereby appeal the action taken by the Little Rock Planning Commission in the captioned matter including, specifically, the following variances: 1. A variance from Section 31-256 to allow a front building line on a residential lot of twenty (20) feet. 2. A variance from Section 36-254(2) to allow side yard setback on each side of the lot at five (5) feet. 3. A variance from Section 36-551 to allow an increased size of the proposed subdivision identification sign. 4. A variance from the City's Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of a portion of Phase II with the development of Phase 1. 917604-v1 RECEIVED APR 0 7 2011 BY: WRIGHT. LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP April 7, 2011 Page 2 Deltic Timber Corporation hereby respectfully requests this matter be placed on the agenda for a hearing before the Little Rock Board of Directors at your next convenience. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 4norneys n William Spivey for Deltic Timber Corporation JWS:jlh cc: Susan Langley, City Clerk Mr, Tony Bozynski, Planning Director Mr. Steve Beck, Director of Public Works 917604-v1 City o4 Little Rock Departmont of Planning and DevelopmentPlanning Zoning and 723 West Markham Subdivision Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 (501) 371-4790 FAX COVER SHEET -� D DATE: TO: O'CJ COMPANY: FAX NUMBER: PHONE NUMBER: FROM: DIVISION: FAX NUMBER: L/& e7,S--" 501) 399-3435 PHONE NUMBER: (501) l - 6, b TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: COMMENTS: wd subd.doc 03/01/10 INFORMATION SHEET FOR SUBDIVISION PUD's PD's, ZONING OR SUBDMSI6N SM PLAN REVIEWS ITEM NO. DATE L'3' I [ DEVELOPER: i L-QACA00 U-C- STREET ADDRESS Pb 667l 24zi46 CITY/STATE/ZIP LaTi Lg- ggr�&. PX - 'ZZZ TELEPHONE NO. S O ( Zl -' -'24-oo ENGINEER: !-ARM& �3�ilrSEFg-rr[L� Cam• T�an3�5 %U144LL STREET ADDRESS -3blb �� E CITY/STATE/ZIP N i TS S�9 - t7� i !_► E. A f2 s 1 is TELEPHONE NO. (,5t>1� AREA 2 '� 'q'4 C {1L FT. NEW STREET ZONING PLANNING DISTRICT 3 2 L �. VARIANCES REQUESTED, 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) NUMBER OF LOTS 85 PROPOSED USES Str4t-AL-F- FAQL"i CENSUSTRACT subd.doc 5 09/22/05 Plat Name�� Owner: UJ 1 Address: Phone: b-' s) Requested:, Justification: VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST FORM Date Filed t �1 File No. Engineer: 4 (o Address:_ LL-L 117z Phone: Ltl�__ IF EDWARD L. WRIGHT ROBERT S. LINDSEY WRIGHT, LINDSEY &JENNINGS SCTpr ANDREW (1913-1991) LLP IRBY PArRICK A LSTON JENNINGS (1917-2004) ATTORNEYS AT LAW D. WILSaN DAVIS P. CLOVER JOHN G. LILE CORDON S. RATHER, JR. REGIHA A- YOUNG PAUL D. MORRIS .ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. EDWARD RIAL ARMSTRONG GARY A, MARTS, JJOHNOHN R. TISDALE 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, JR, WILLIAM SPIVEY III LEE LEE J. MULDROW N_M. SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 PR ELANNARPADILLA CALEY B. VO NORT. C C1IARLE$ T. CpLEMAN (501) 371-0808 . FAX (501) 376-9442 A. HORTON GREGO L. T- JON ER. !R. CR EGQRY T. lOhl:S 903 NORTH 47TH STREET, KATHR N M. KATHRYN M, TROY CHEST ER III DA VID BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER MCSPADDEN SUITE 101 ROGERS, ARKANSAS 72756 J ELCK, L. ]ONES KNMTUCKER IOHN D. DAVIS (479) 986-0888 . FAX (479) 986-8932 JA•NEAAS ADRIENJIE L. JUNC JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER KRISTEN S. MOYERS RAY F. COX, JR. TROY A. www.wli.com ERJN S. OR GDON RICHARD BLAKELY GLASGOW PRICE KATHRYN A. PRYOR DIANA E. BORGOGNONI PATRICK My Y6UNG J. MARDAMS K JERKY ALLINGS Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1310 ANTWAN D. PHILLIPS BR1AN C. HOGUE WILLIAM STUAR-T JACKSON D. BARNES jSpivey®wlj.com MATTHEW A. GLOVEMICHR STSP STEPHFN FN R. LANCASTER Reply to Little Rock Office BARTER LA DTHOMON KYLE R. WILSON PSON C. TAD BOHANNON 1. CHARLES DOUGHERTY MSEAN HATCH March 102011 OF COUN%LL RONALD A, MAY , J. ANDREW VINES , ROGER A. GLASGOw MICHELLE M, KAEMMERLING BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER CHARLES S. BOHANNON JUSTIN T. ALLEN J.T. Ferstal, Chairman Thomas Brock, Commissioner Janet Dillon, Commissioner Troy Laha, Commissioner Obray Nunnley, Commissioner Keith Fountain, Commissioner Rebecca Finney, Commissioner William F. Rector, Jr., Commissioner Charles "Dan" Harpool, Commissioner William Changose, Commissioner Amy Pierce, Commissioner City Hall 500 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Item S-1665 Wildwood Ridge Preliminary Plat Ladies and Gentlemen: HAND DELIVERY On behalf of Deltic Timber Corporation (the "Company"), an adjacent the deveIaper of Chenal Valley and 1 property owner whose property adjoins the tract which is the subject of the captioned application, we write to voice the Company's concerns and objections with respect to the development plan evidenced by Item S-1665 above. A careful review of the history of the City's abandonment of Gordon Road over ten years ago and the subsequent construction of Chenal Valley Drive will substantiate the concerns raised by the City Attorney and the Planning Staff in their recommendation of denial with respect to Item S-1665. The Applicant seems to be seeking either the "reopening" of Gordon Road or to have the City repudiate its prior action abandoning the public right of way. Decisions made with 913843-v1 March 10, 2011 Page 2 respect to the routing of Chenal Valley Drive as it presently exists were dependent in part upon the abandonment of Gordon Road as a public right-of-way. The Staff s write up sets forth the standards for establishment of a public street at this location. The proposed interconnection, as presented, does not meet these standards. To reopen the long abandoned Gordon Road as proposed by the Applicant poses a serious threat of harm to travelers on Chenal Valley Drive as well as those entering and departing from the proposed development. The subject proposal also fails to take into account the interests of adjacent property owners who supported the closing of the public right-of-way and substitution therefor of a private driveway. It is also important to note that the Applicant has access to his property by this same private driveway. The abandonment of the Gordon Road right-of-way resulted in the reversion of property rights to adjacent owners including the Company which, in reliance upon the City's prior actions, has made significant capital investment in public infrastructure. The Applicant's request also fails to take into consideration the interests of those residents of the Sezanne Court and Hallen Court neighborhoods who have purchased their properties and constructed their homes in reliance upon the City's prior action closing Gordon Road. These property interests are significant and should not be overlooked. In this regard, the Applicant's request completely fails to take into consideration the interests of the Company which owns a strip of land between the end of Gordon Road and the south right-of-way of Chenal Valley Drive. It would seem that the Applicant assumes that the City's "reopening" of the road will automatically vest title to the right-of-way in the City. For a number of reasons, including the potential detriment to the property interests of adjacent property owners and the serious threats to the safety of travelers on Chenal Valley Drive, the Company endorses the City Staff s position with respect to this matter and urges the Planning Commission to deny the Applicant's request for approval of Item S-1665. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LrNPSEY & JENNINGS LLP I hn William Spivey Attorneys for the Company JWS:jlh cc: Mr. Tony Bozynski, Director of Planning Ms. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney 913843-v 1 Page 1 of 2 Carney, Dana From: Mann, Bill Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 7:34 PM To: Gene Fortson Cc: Moore, Bruce; Carpenter, Tom Subject: Re: Appeal of decision of the Planning Commission - Wildwood Ridge Director Fortson - You're welcome. Let me know if there is anything further I need to do. Bill Sent from my iPhone. On Apr 12, 2011, at 6:57 PM, "Gene Fortson" <genefortson@comcast.net> wrote: Bill. Thank you. This should calm people down. Again I am not quarreling with the need to Appeal just the feeling of some that they should have known before. Thank you for your prompt and effective response Gene Fortson On Apr 12, 2011, at 6:27 PM, "Mann, Bill" <BMann littlerock.org> wrote: Director Fortson - I wanted to let you know that I have either e-mailed, spoken with or left a message for each of the Planning Commissioners. I have copied below an e- mail I sent to each of the commissioners whose addresses were listed on the City website. They are Janet Dillon, J. T. Ferstl, Obray Nunnley, Rebecca Finney, Bill Rector and Dan Harpool. I have personally spoken with Keith Fountain and Thomas Brock. I left a voice mail message for Amy Pierce and Troy Laha. I left a message with someone at the home of William Changose. Both Mr. Fountain and Mr. Brock were very gracious and understanding. I have included below a copy of the e-mail I sent to the commissioners. Please let me know if you want to discuss this issue further. Bill Commissioners - I am writing to explain to you about the Notice of Appeal filed by the City in regard to the preliminary plat the Commission approved for the Wildwood Partners, LLC on March 10, 2011. 1 know that some of you have expressed concern about not being notified prior to the appeal being filed. First, let me apologize on behalf of the City for someone not contacting you before the 4/13/2011 Page 2 of 2 appeal was filed. That should have occurred. With respect to the appeal, please be assured that this is not a lawsuit against any of you personally. This is simply an appeal of the decision to approve the preliminary plat. As Cindy Dawson explained to the Commission in the meeting where this item was discussed and ultimately approved, the proposed point of access for the subdivision was Gordon Road. The City Board closed that road and abandoned it back in 2001. Therefore, it is the City`s position that approval of the preliminary plat under those circumstances was incorrect. The only option available to the City under the law in order to challenge the decision is to appeal to circuit court. The City Code does not permit a decision on a preliminary plat by the Commission to be appealed to the Board of Directors. Therefore, unless the City appealed the matter would have been waived. Again, this is not a personal claim against any of you. We recognize that you are volunteers who give of your time to serve the City. Your service is greatly appreciated. We are also certain that those of you who voted in favor of the preliminary plat did so with the honest belief that you were making a correct decision. However, for the reasons outlined above, the City had to appeal in order to request that the ordinance closing Gordon Road be upheld or waive the argument. After much internal discussion, it was determined that the appeal should move forward. Again, please accept our sincere apology for the failure to contact you ahead of time. William C. Mann, III Chief Deputy City Attorney Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 371-4815 bmannClittlerock.or William C. Mann, III Chief Deputy City Attorney Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 371-4815 bmann@iitttQcgck.org 4/13/2011 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 500 West Markham, Ste. 310 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 William C. Mann, III Chief Deputy City Attorney April 11, 2011 Tony Bozynski Secretary City of Little Rock Planning Commission 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Wildwood Partners, LLC c/o Graham Smith 13503 Kanis Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 Telephone (501) 371-4527 Facsimile (501) 371-4675 Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Receipt No. 7099 3400 0006 8451 3940 Certified Mail, Return Receipt Request Receipt No. 7099 3400 0006 8451 3926 Re: City of Little Rock v. Little Rock Planning Commission; and Wildwood Partners, LLC Pulaski Circuit; Ninth Division Case No. 60CV-11-1741 Gentlemen: Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-425 (West 2004) and Arkansas District Court Rule 9(f)(2)(A), please find enclosed a copy of a Notice of Appeal which has been filed by the City on this date. This appeal is from the decision of the Planning Commission on March 10, 2011, to approve the preliminary plat application of Wildwood Partners, LLC. The notice of appeal is being served in this manner pursuant to Rule 9(f)(2)(A). Sincerely, William C. Mann, III Chief Deputy City Attorney WCMIII:dab Enclosure cc: Thomas M. Carpenter, City Attorney IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS HON. MARY S. MCGOWAN - 9TH DIVISION 6TH CIRCUIT Regarding CITY OF LITTLE ROCK AR V LR PLANNING COMM & WILDWOOD PARTNERS LLC Plaintiffs Attorney THOMAS M CARPENTER Case number 60CV-11-1741 SUMMONS Plaintiff's Attorney: THOMAS M CARPENTER 500 W. Markham, #310 Little Rock AR 72201 TONY BOZYNSKI, SECRETARY The State of Arkansas to Defendant: CITY OF LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION, 723 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 1. You are hereby notified that a lawsuit has been filed against you; the relief asked is stated in the attached complaint. 2. The attached complaint will be considered admitted by you and a judgment by default maybe entered against you for the relief asked in the complaint unless you file a pleading and thereafter appear and present your defense. Your pleading or answer must meet the following requirements: A. It must be in writing, and otherwise comply with the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure; B. It must be filed in the court clerk's office within 20 days from the day you were served. C. A copy of your response must be delivered or mailed with sufficient postage to the plaintiff's attorney or to the plaintiff. 3. If you desire to be represented by an attorney you should immediately contact your attorney so that an answer can be filed for you within the time allowed. 4. Additional notices: ,,•``N� C I R {� Witness my hand and seal of said q Lgki ated �r�[1, 2011. L* 9 D, LARRY CRANE, CIRCUIT CLERK ''cv'°�3y y B DC CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI 401 W MARKHAM��' LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 `, srr� �•l �OUNTl ` SHERIFF'S RETURN STATE OF ARKANSAS (COUNTY OF PULASKI) On this day of , 20 at o'clock _am/pm, I have duly served the summons by delivering a copy thereof (or stating the substance thereof), together with a copy of the complaint, to such person being: HECK APPLICABLE SQUARE: 0 the person named therein as defendant ❑ some person residing at defendant's dwelling house or usual place of abode who is at least fourteen (14) years of age, namely: ❑ the duly authorized agent for service of process for the defendant, namely: ❑ OTHER: Officer Return filed this day of LARRY CRANE, CIRCUIT CLERK By: D.C. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS APPELLANT vs. -74 -J F�ai: 14-, 7- LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION and WILDWOOD PARTNERS, LLC APPELLEES NOTICE OF APPEAL The City of Little Rock (the "City") respectfully comes before this honorable Court by and through undersigned counsel and, for its Notice of Appeal pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 14- 56-425 (West 2004) and Rule 9(f)(2) of the Arkansas District Court Rules, states: 1. On March 10, 2011, the City Planning Commission (the ".Commission") voted to approve the application for a preliminary plat for a subdivision (the "Plat") submitted by Wildwood Partners, LLC ("Wildwood"). Wildwood requested approval of the Plat in order to develop a subdivision that would encompass 27.78 acres and 85 residential lots. The Commission file number for this application is S-1665. A certified copy 'the minutes of the March 10, 2011, meeting will be submitted as soon as they have been approved. 2. The application for the Plat was approved by a vote of six (6) to four (4). One commissioner recused from the vote. 3. The Commission approved the Plat against the recommendation of the City of Little Rock Planning staff. Staff advised the Commission that the proposed access point to the planned subdivision is Gordon Road. Gordon Road had previously been vacated, abandoned and closed by the City through Little Rock, Ark. Ord. ("LRO") No. 18,431 (February 20, 2001). A certified copy of LRO 18,431 is. attached as Exhibit 1. As a result, the Commission's decision to approve the Plat is in conflict with the decision of the Little Rock Board of Directors to close Gordon Road. The Commission exceeded its authority when it approved the preliminary plat under the circumstances 'described in this paragraph. 4. The Commission's legal counsel, who is a member of the Little Rock City Attorney's Office, clearly advised the Commission on more than one occasion during the March 10, 2011, hearing that Gordon Road had been closed by LRO 18,431 and that it was no longer a public right of way. Counsel further advised the Commission that it did not have the authority to approve the Plat due to the existence of LRO 18,431. The Commission did not follow counsel's advice. 5. The staff also noted that the Plat's plan for interconnection of the subdivision with Chenal Valley Drive did not meet City standards and posed a serious threat of harm to motorists. 6. An appeal of the Commission's decision of March 10, 2011, is required to be filed within thirty (30) days pursuant to Rule 9(f)(2)(A) of the Arkansas District Court Rules. The thirtieth day fell on Saturday, April 9, 2011. Therefore, this notice of appeal is timely under the provisions of Ark. R. Civ. P. 6(a). WHEREFORE, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-425 and Rule 9(f)(2) of the Arkansas District Court Rules, Appellant City of Little Rock, Arkansas, appeals the decision of the Little Rock Planning Commission to approve the application for a preliminary plat submitted by Wildwood Partners, LLC. The City respectfully requests that the Court overturn the Commission's decision to approve the preliminary plat; award the City its costs of litigation and all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Thomas M. Carpenter City Attorney By: Thomas M. Carpenter # W24 City Attorney William C. Mann, III, 479199 Chief Deputy City Attorney City Hall - Suite 310 500 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 371-4527 -2- CERTIFICATE COUNTY OF PULASKI) CITY OF LITTLE ROCK) STATE OF ARKANSAS) I, Toya Robinson, Assistant City Clerk within and for the City aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Ordinance 18, 431 of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE VACATING AND CLOSING A PORTION OF GORDON ROAD BETWEEN GORDON ROAD AND CHENAL VALLEY DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS." passed by the Board of Directors of said City on February 20, 2001, as same, now appearing of record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal of office on the 11t' day of April, 2011. OF" _ riff �(j ••..r•'••• `�� •��"$ M i l l 111,00% i1{lV HlTI fiJ711q in e p � flf11l11fAlk01. ASSI ANT CITY RK City o Little Rock, Ar sas EXHIBIT s ORDINANCE NO. 18,431 • AN ORDINANCE VACATING AND CLOSING A PORTION OF GORDON :ROAD BETWEEN GORDON ROAD AND CHENAL VALLEY DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,-ARKANSAS, 2002173308 09/03/2002 09:38:12 AA Filed A Recorded in Official Recards of CAROLYN STALEY PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT/COUNTY CLERK Fees $11.09 WHEREAS, a petition was duly filed with the Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas on the 12a' day of January, 2001, asking the Little Rock Board of Directors to vacate and close Gordon Road between Gordon Road and Chenal Valley Drive, in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, as designated on the plat of said Addition now appearing of record in the office of the Recorder of Pulaski County, Arkansas; and WHEREAS, after due notice as required by law, the Board of Directors has, at the time and place mentioned in the notice, heard all persons desiring to be heard on the question; has ascertained that the street hereinbefore described has been dedicated to the public use as a street; has not been actually used by the public generally for a period of at least five (5) years subsequent to the filing of the plat; that all owners of the property abutting upon that portion of the street to be vacated have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the closure; and WHEREAS, the public interest and welfare will not be adversely affected by the abandonment of the alley. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS: SECTION I. Except as stated in Section 2 below, the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, hereby releases, vacates and abandons all its rights, together with the rights of the public generally, in and to the street designated as follows: All that portion of Gordon Road between Chenal Valley Drive (loop) and Chenal Valley Drive. (see attached Exhibit "A") SECTION 2. The City specifically retains the right.to use, and allow others to use, the former alley right-of-way in its entirety as a public utility and drainage easement. SECTION 3. Abutting owners of record, receiving title to the abandoned right- of-way and easement, shall at their cost remove all vestiges of public use and access as may exist; such modifications shall include, but are not limited to the following: 6`�aa�i�oa�irbQpne 04g9 '� L ' � � � � L.r +9�•�0 q Ga 4\��' A 4 �•.� r V a Q) r O* 'T� S�l•�i� � A. The entrances on both ends of the abandoned right-of-way and easement shall be offset and/or rebuilt to conform to the standard .driveway design as required by Little Rock,' Ark. Revised Code Section 30-26--50 (1988). B. The edge of pavement of the right-of-way shall be rebuilt. to conform to existing conditions in the general vicinity where the abandoned right-of-way and easement intersects with the remaining public right-of- way. a rl SECTION 4. A copy of this Ordinance, duly certified by the City Clerk, shall be filed in the Office of the Recorder of Pulaski County and recorded in the records of the County. SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and approval. PASSED: February 20, 2M ATTEST: N NCY OOD CITY CLERK APPROVED: 4 g E A LE DM �r "T'im fif 0R 2 Iw �..Wi, vAoCDOO. tMD PL40" 4 OCOCAPWW GURk'nw Scale �" QV 401 "crew up= um Roca, Am" mm ft EJACKNELSONJONES JILES & GREGORY, P.A. March 10, 2011 City of Little Rock Planning Commission City Hall 500 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Application for Wildwood Ridge Addition Preliminary Plat File No. S-1665 Dear Commission Members: ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 500 Little Rock, AR 72203 Direct Dial 501-707-5547 Facsimile 501-421-5653 Email: �eillzy�#�a iackneisonianes.eam DON A.EILBOTT, Counsel This firm represents Wildwood Partners, LLC in regards to the application for preliminary plat approval for Wildwood Ridge Addition. It is our understanding that your staff has recommended denial of the preliminary plat as filed. The recommendation of staff in part is based upon the opinion of the City Attorney that the portion of Gordon Road that lies to the east of the property under consideration was properly abandoned by City Ordinance No. 18,431. The staff recommendation in regards to this application consists of eight (8) pages without attachments. The application submitted request only four (4) variances. The staff recommendation addresses those requests and other items. The basis of the staff recommendation that the application be denied is that there is no legal access to the property from Chenal Valley Drive as a result of the action of the City in closing Gordon Road. Indeed staff has confirmed to Wildwood that it is their position that there is no legal access to this 40 acre tract from Chenal Valley Drive or any dedicated public road as a result of the action of the City in enacting and interpreting Ordinance No. 18,431. This Commission relies on staff to make knowing and intelligent recommendations in regards to pending applications. In addition, this Commission relies on the City Attorney in regards to questions of law which impact the decisions made by this Commission. Wildwood Partners is determined to go forward with its application and based on the recommendation of staff and the opinion of the City Attorney it is anticipated that this Commission will deny the application. It is important for all parties that the written records of this Commission contain a complete history of this matter to assist in regards to the inevitable later actions which will occur. rMJACK NELSON JONES JILES & GREGORY, RA, Page 2 Gordon Road has existed as a part of the road system of Pulaski County for an extended period of time. It existed on June 17, 1970 when Pulaski County Judge Mackey executed an Order in the County Court setting forth various roads in Pulaski County including Gordon Road. Prior to the development of Chenal Valley, Gordon Road generally proceeded north and south from County Road 40 to the southern base of Shinall Mountain and then extended north on Shinall Mountain to provide access to the various towers located on Shinall Mountain. A aerial photograph with imagery dates of January 1, 2004 through April 28, 2005 is attached as Exhibit 1 and reflects Gordon Road in that time frame. Attached as Exhibit 2, is an aerial photograph in the January 1, 2004 to the April 28, 2005 time period which shows the area in greater detail. Some roads set forth in the Mackey Order were subsequently brought into the City of Little Rock by annexation and appropriate ordinances. Accordingly, those roads could only be changed by affirmative vote by the City Board of Directors. Gordon Road, as configured prior to the development of Chenal Valley, ran north and south through what is now the Chenal Country Club and Golf Course. In fact, close review of the current aerial photo, attached as Exhibit 3, still reflects the faint outline of what was formerly Gordon Road. As further reflected on Exhibit 3, Chenal Valley Drive is clearly a loop proceeding northwesterly from Chenal Parkway and then subsequently due east back to Chenal Parkway. To again emphasize, it is clearly a loop. The Ordinance on which the City Attorney and staff rely for their determination that Gordon Road, south of Chenal Valley Drive was abandoned and vacated by the City of Little Rock is Ordinance No. 18,431 attached as Exhibit 4. The entirety of the Ordinance as recorded in the office of the Circuit Clerk of Pulaski County Arkansas is attached. It consists of two pages. There are no exhibits to the ordinance as recorded. This Commission will rely upon the opinion of the City Attorney as to the legal aspects of that Ordinance and the legal interpretation of same. However, it is still important for this Commission to be fully advised of the known facts concerning this ordinance. Ordinance No. 18,431 was passed on February 20, 2001 and signed by the Mayor and City Clerk. It was subsequently recorded on September 3, 2002 in the office of the Circuit Clerk as Document 2002-173308. The first paragraph of the Ordinance states in part as follows: WHEREAS, a petition was duly filed with the Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas on the 12th day of January 2001 asking the Little Rock Board of Directors to vacate and close Gordon Road... The City of Little Rock is unable to produce that petition. The City of Little Rock has advised in response to a Freedom of Information Act request that the entire file is lost. The Ordinance goes on to state in paragraph 2 in part as follows: WHEREAS, after due notice as required by law, the Board of Directors has, at the time and place mentioned in the notice, heard Page 3 rmJACK NELSON JONES JILES & GREGORY, P.A. all persons desiring to be heard on the question; has ascertained that the street hereinabove described has been dedicated to the public use as a street; has not been actually used by the public generally for a period of at least five years subsequent to the filing of the plat; that all owners of the property abutting upon that portion of the street to be vacated have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the closure; and Review of the above paragraph reveals the following. It is correct that the street (Gordon Road) had been dedicated to the public use as a street. That was done by the Mackey Order and subsequent annexation into the city. The statement that the street has not been actually used by the public generally for a period of at least five years subsequent to the filing of the plat is factually incorrect on two accounts. First, there is no plat. That word was obviously lifted from a different Ordinance where the street being closed was one that had been platted as part of a plat. Further, Gordon Road had in fact been used by the public generally for a period of at least five years subsequent to the filing of the plat. Further, the statement that all owners of the property abutting upon that portion of the street to be vacated have filed with the City Clerk their written consent cannot be factually ascertained or verified because as stated previously, the file has been lost. What notice, if any, was provided to what persons is not known again because the file has been lost. The next paragraph of the Ordinance states in full as follows: WHEREAS, the public interest and welfare will not be adversely affected by the abandonment of the alley. This is the first use of the term "alley". Again, it appears to be a word that was lifted from some other document. The public interest and welfare is certainly being adversely affected by the claim by the City of the closure of this street. The persons who would otherwise utilize the street for access on both the east and west sides are being denied legal access. Those obvious defects in the ordinance call into question the validity of the entire ordinance. Even if the ordinance is valid, the wording must be interpreted. Section 1 of the Ordinance states that the City of Little Rock releases, vacates and abandons the street verbatim designated as follows: All that portion of Gordon Road between Chenal Valley Drive (loop) and Chenal Valley Drive. (see attached Exhibit "A".) As previously stated there is no Exhibit "A". This Commission should not consider that there is an Exhibit "A" because it is not filed of record in the office of the Circuit Clerk. 3 rMJACK NELSON JONES JILES & GREGORY, P.A. Page 4 The wording of the language is clear, cogent and concise that Gordon Road between Chenal Valley Drive Loop and Chenal Valley Drive is closed. There is no possible way for that language to be interpreted to close that part of Gordon Road lying south of Chenal Valley Drive. The obvious question that arises after reading the above language and noting the interpretation of that language by the City Attorney is; "why is he interpreting it that way?" The answer lies not on Chenal Valley Drive, not on the forty acres under consideration, and not on Gordon Road. The answer lies to the south in Sezanne subdivision. For whatever reason and for whoever's benefit the City interpreted the ordinance when Sezanne was platted to mean that Gordon Road as it existed and is now a part of Sezanne was closed by virtue of Ordinance No. 18,431. There is no separate Ordinance closing that part of Gordon Road which is a part of Sezanne. That is the reason for the current interpretation. The applicant is being denied the use of Gordon Road to protect a previous decision involving another piece of property. The City has multiple choices only one of which is its current interpretation. The City could enact a new Ordinance closing Gordon Road as it existed in Sezanne Subdivision. It chooses not to do so. Accordingly the City is interpreting Ordinance No. 18,431 to mean that the City closed Gordon Road south of Chenal Valley Drive and thereby rendered a forty acre tract without any legal access. The lack of access is due to the retention by Deltic Timber Company of a thirty foot ownership strip on the south side of Chenal Valley Drive which restricts the ability of any property owner to obtain access to Chenal Valley Drive, a public street, without the approval and acquiescence of Deltic. That is clearly reflected on Exhibit 5 attached hereto. This applies to not only Wildwood but also the residents of the tract to the east of Gordon Road. They too have no public access. Every person who turns south off Chenal Valley Drive onto what is marked by a City of Little Rock street sign as "Gordon Road" (Exhibit 6) is actually trespassing on Deltic Timber property. Unfortunately and inevitably, a court will have to determine the correct meaning of Ordinance No. 18,431. This Commission is being instructed by the City to interpret Ordinance 18,431 is a manner not supported by the facts, at great cost to the applicant, and for the total benefit of others. I appreciate the consideration and indulgence of this Commission in making this correspondence a part of the record of this matter. Kindest Regards, Don A. Eilbott L JACK NELSON JONES JILES & GREGORY, P.A. Page 5 Enclosures Exhibit 1- Aerial photograph -January 1, 2004 through April 28, 2005 Exhibit 2- Aerial photograph -January 1, 2004 through April 28, 2005- detail Exhibit 3- Aerial photograph- current Exhibit 4- Ordinance No. 18,431 Exhibit 5- Aerial photograph- current- detail Gordon Road Exhibit 6- Gordon Road, City of Little Rock street sign. 5 0p N EXHIBIT d 1 P `.. � - •_ram .;� •' .. - .. - i "" �I�, i. ar t.: Nr Pulaeki Area G[S`" . .. .. - i N.�"�+."�r/�2�8�2017.OEgik81Glo6e � - , .q,7,a P.�LJ�:J �z�'.•f S r� � '•i Y3�'i+ Imapa+y 0a[o6. Jan i, 2004-Apr28.2005 � � . � �� '-34`4529.44' hj 92 2VS2.OVW olov 5651t � - Evn{elf .41ao ''. �"s. i. • Q C 46 ' � �� j •Cry ' !'r �" � � �� "' r , �� . - '. s •�, i � �.� - may, �� . r �Fl �•�4-o ! • .'" . _ .�+�• . -. . . �:4`�•r,:wx :j'' `:fib+ " . �.. - - � FL Ot may.. •�... ..: 6� .. �q ti. - `�� yr. i •• � r 4i K 'ter•' •`• •:� rz s � ��•""- V .. �" `3 yi}�.• sy Jae ��^-A n �..' r�� ... + erg/ .. '�i -'• ..w .- t. ,r `r. •r u��.s =_ Tom' = _ �'•.w i. _t� �:fi .M�oia. yy £ '�'"; .,'� '' �-' '•ice t;'i - • w; � -�sx �� r �.•� _cry -! _ ■ i 1 00232 ORDINANCE NO. 18,431 -2002173308 09/03/2002 89:30;12 AM Filed 8 Recorded in Official Records of CAROLYN STALEY PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT/COUNTY CLERK Fees $11.00 AN ORDINANCE VACATING AND CLOSING A PORTION OF GORDON ROAD BETWEEN GORDON ROAD AND CHENAL VALLEY DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. WHEREAS, a petition Was duly filed with the Board of Directors of the City of Little Rack, Arkansas on the I :eh day of January, 2001, asking the Little Rock Board of Directors to vacate and close Gordon Road between: Gordon Road and Chenal Valley Drive, in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, as designated on the plat of said Addition now appearing of record in the office of the Recorder of Pulaski County, Arkansas; and WHEREAS, after due notice as required by law, the Board of Directors has, at the time and place mentioned in the notice, heard all persons desiring to be heard on the question; has ascertained that the street hereinbefore described has been dedicated to the public use as a street; has not been actually used by the public generally for a period of at least five (5) years subsequent to the filing of the plat; that all owners of the property abutting upon that portion of the street to be vacated have filed with the City Cleric their written consent to the closure; and WHEREAS, the public interest and welfare will not be adversely affected by the abandonment of the alley. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. Except as stated in Section 2 below, the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, hereby releases, vacates and abandons all its rights, together with the rights of the public generally, in and to the street designated as follows: All that portion of Gordon Road between Chenal Valley Drive (loop) and Chenal Valley Drive. (see attached Exhibit "A") SECTION 2. The City specifically retains the right to use, and allow others to use, the former alley right-of-way in its entirety as a public utility and drainage easement. SECTION 3. Abutting owners of record, receiving title to the abandoned right- of-way and easement, shall at their cost remove all vestiges of public use and access as may exist; such modifications shall include, but are not limited to the following: A, The entrances on both ends of the abandoned right -of' way and easement shall be offset and/or rebuilt to conform to the standard driveway design as required by Little Rock, Ark. Revised Code Section 34-26--50 (1988). B, The edge of pavement of the right-of-way shall be rebuilt to conform to existing conditions in the general vicinity where the abandoned right-of-way and easement intersects with the remaining public right-of- way. EXHIBIT 1oaz-m SECTION 4. A copy of this Ordinance, duly certified by the City Clerk, shall be filed in the Office of the Recorder of Pulaski County and recorded in the records of the County. SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and approval, PASSED: February 20, 2001 ATTEST: N NCY WOOD CITY CLERK APPROVED: 41- DAILEY AYOR 1 ! Y that tMa faradplrer lnsra�waltt to a 111uattd=--WM copy of the tiled In the .�70 � n1'�ft1MD11T:M1a11tOE 1 haw harNueto art MY bred red OW at tf W saft LMRY CR %W, ftwWd Arhwwaa am* cweer Clan By: DWPtyOn* - ' �. .r A. 1 . s+.:. F'... r�-ate` ► x. '•f + ' ,m,.. ."':� r nrno+u as:a+o �+•u_sea•u ruMoo" :e.x• nvr an' �" _ tr ��_� i" er•+n rraoa \\.�\w. Pagel of 2 James,Donna From: Graham Smith [grahamsmith@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 11:15 AM To: jd@wilcompany.com; becky@beckyfinney.com; wfr@pa.net; jtferstl@comcast.net; dan.harpool@complete.com; obray@aol.com; Amy Pierce Cc: mstodola@catlaw.com; James, Donna Dear Commissioners, I am concerned that I may not be allowed to be heard at the public hearing Thursday on my development application, "Wildwood Ridge" or that even if heard, my comments will be overcome by the legal position of the City Attorney. I am therefore taking this opportunity to advise you of several aspects of this matter. The position the City is taking is not supported by the facts or law. The City is stating that Ordinance 18431 closed Gordon Road on the east of my property. It is necessary that I be able to utilize Gordon Road for access to Chenal Valley Drive. If Gordon Road is in fact closed, then I have no access to my property. That will have resulted from the action of the City in closing the road and thereby assuring that no one can develop that 40 acre tract. I desire to make 3 points. 1. I am attaching a copy of Ordinance 18431 exactly as filed at the Circuit Clerk's office. The document is 2 pages, time stamped and page numbered. I have enclosed the first page of the next ordinance filed to show the page numbers in sequence to show there was no Exhibit A filed of public record. The two pages of what staff is considering exhibits is not part of the document. Like everyone, I rely on what is filed with the Circuit clerk. That is why the City filed it. We requested the supporting file, and were informed us that it is lost. The file is lost and the City is saying they abandoned a right of way with the help of a private party, and allowed that private party to build a new road 40 feet from this property effectively taking the rights of right of way from this property. The ordinance clearly states that the right of way is still open and that only the part of Gordon Road inside the loop of Chenal Valley Drive was closed. My property is south of Chenal Valley Drive. 2. Public Works comments are not accurate as to the design of the road. Chenal Valley Drive was designed as a collector on the master street plan. The recommended speed for a collector is 30 mph not 45 mph as stated. I know this by the previous applications that were submitted for neighborhoods on Chenal Valley Drive dating from 1999 to as late as 2009. Every application was submitted by one developer, had a requirement of 200 foot site distance, requested more variances than mine and each of those was supported by staff. 3. The statement that this road was built with a curve because this was to be a private drive is simply not true. It was built with a curve because two land owners did not want to sell their land to a 3/8/2011 Page 2 of 2 large developer and the curve is going around their property. I do not know what you can do at this point based on the City Attorney's recommendation. However, I wanted you to all know the facts of what you are voting on. If the City of Little Rock has taken part in land locking this piece of property, it is a shameful act and one that I am not proud of being a resident of Little Rock for the last 40 years. Please examine the enclosed documents so that you are able to make an informed decision with your vote. These were the only emails available on the city's website. Will you please forward to anyone not on the list that is on the commision? Graham Smith Graham Smith Companies PO Box 242146 Little Rock, AR 72223 office 501-217-8400 fax 501-217-8401 cell 501-580-9123 3/8/2011 100232 ORDINANCE NO. 18,431 2002173308 09/03/2002 09:30:12 AN Filed & Recorded in Official Records of CAROLYN STALEY PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT/COUNTY CLERK Fees $11.00 AN ORDINANCE VACATING AND CLOSING A PORTION OF GORDON ROAD BETWEEN GORDON ROAD AND CHENAL VALLEY DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. WHEREAS, a petition vyas duly filed with the Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas on the 12"' day of January, 2001, asking the Little Rock Board of Directors to vacate and close Gordon Road between Gordon Road and Chenal Valley Drive, in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, as designated on the plat of said Addition now appearing of record in the office of the .Recorder of Pulaski County, Arkansas; and WHEREAS, after due notice as required by law, the Board of Directors has, at the time and place mentioned in the notice, heard all persons desiring to be heard on the question; has ascertained that the street hereinbefore described has been dedicated to the public use as a street; has not been actually used by the public generally for a period of at least five (5) years subsequent to the fling of the plat; that all owners of the property abutting upon that portion of the street to be vacated have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the closure; and WHEREAS, the public interest and welfare will not be adversely affected by the abandonment of the alley. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. Except as stated in Section 2 below, the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. hereby releases, vacates and abandons all its rights, together with the rights of the public generally, in and to the street designated as follows: All that portion of Gordon Road between Chenal Valley Drive (loop) and Chenal Valley Drive. (see attached Exhibit "A") SECTION 2. The City specifically retains the right to use, and allow others to use, the former alley right-of-way in its entirety as a public utility and drainage easement. SECTION 3. Abutting owners of record, receiving title to the abandoned right- of-way and easement, shall at their cost remove all vestiges of public use and access as may exist; such modifications shall include, but are not limited to the following: A. The entrances on both ends of the abandoned right-of-way and easement shall be offset and/or rebuilt to conform to the standard driveway design as required by Little Rock, Ark. Revised Code Section 30-26--50 (1988). B. The edge of pavement of the right-of-way shall be rebuilt to conform to existing conditions in the general vicinity where the abandoned right-of-way and easement intersects with the remaining public right-of- way. ,<Jkyy--� 3 1oo2M SECTION 4. A copy of this Ordinance, duly certified by the City Clerk, shall be filed in the Office of the Recorder of Pulaski County and recorded in the records of the County, SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and approval. PASSED: February 20, 2001 ATTEST: APPROVED: NANCYNVOOD .i DAILI; Y CITY CLERK WAYOR .q f •i "°'+` : I lm Y 00 k9y t1w U- f-WO p9 kntrtl WM to a am* MA awma a.W, of the low In "OB tQ(ie�,,,,��+� fZ2— al MWKOIPY YMwor, ..rru �sl7'h Y h ya h-sunto m my ewa wa.w a sly 4MM LARRY CRANE, PW-kl Co-W Arkw C4aW! Cowlty CWk "y` D."tfCW t ORDINANCE NO. 18,432 2002173309 99/03/2802 09:30:13 AM Filed R Recorded in Official Records of CAROLYN STALEY NLASK,1 COUNTY CIRLUIT/WINTY CLERK Fees $41.08 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE CHENAL VALLEY- MUNICIPAL PROPERTY OWNERS MULTI -PURPOSE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVO234 OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. WHEREAS, property owners, claiming to be all the owners of record title of real property located within the territory hereinafter described have filed petitions on February 9, 2001, praying that a municipal property owners improvement district be established pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. Title 14, Chapter 94 for the purposes herein set out, and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas has authority to create such a municipal property owners improvement district in that all of the said territory lies completely within the boundaries of said municipality, and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas has heard all the parties desiring to be heard, and has ascertained that said petitions were signed by all the owners of real property within said territory, now, therefore, IT IS ORDAINED by the Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas: Section 1. There is hereby established a municipal property owners improvement district embracing the property in the City of Little Rock, State of Arkansas, described in the attached Exhibit A, for the purposes of (1) constructing a 18,000 linear feet extension of Chenal Valley Drive, a 2,200 linear feet extension and improvement of Gordon Road and 1,300 linear feet of a new collector street from Chenal Valley Drive extended to Denny Road, together with such other street and road improvements incidental thereto as depicted in the map attached as Exhibit B; and to open, grade, drain, pave, curb, gutter or otherwise improve such other streets, roads, highways, and every other way for passage and use ..+■""'++p vehicles and including sidewalks pedestrian trails and walkways, viaducts underpasses and ,■ t � g � P y > rP •• C' 4 • � t ent lighting, either within or without the boundaries of the district if the property of the district dheftted thereby, and such purpose shall include the acquisition of rights of way by purchase or cn.. Thomas, Please forward this on to the appropriate party at public works that is asking us to meet an SSD of 360 feet and an ISD of 500 feet and stating that the speed limit on Chenal Valley Drive is 35 miles per hour and the 85 percentile speed is 45 miles per hour. In documents provided to me under the Freedom of Information Act, I have a letter dated March 8, 2001 written by David Hamilton with public works. The letter pertains to the creation of Chenal Valley Drive. It clearly states in item 2 under Traffic Engineering that the developer is not meeting the SSD requirement of 200 feet having curves with SSDs of 178 ft SSD. It is said they must meet a standard of 200 feet. They were being held to a 30 mph standard. In their response — item 2 under traffic Engineering dated March 22, 2001 — the developer's engineer states that they have redesigned curves to meet the 200 ft SSD in 5 locations. They also state that they want a variance in three locations where they are not able to meet the 200 SSD requirement. Therefore, it is clear Chenal Valley Drive was created to the 30 mph 200 ft SSD standard. It is clear Public Works allowed Deltic to locate the road 40 feet away from my property leaving me one right of way point on Gordon Road as notated on the conditional use permit Z-5055D which clearly shows Gordon Road closed across the golf course and clearly shows it still open from the proposed Chenal Valley Drive to my property. It also clearly shows the curve they let Deltic build. So I conclude that pubic works would not let a developer land lock a piece of ground owned by another party - leaving one access point to the other property owner in which the city is going to hold to a standard much higher than they have required of the adjoining land owner/developer who caused the action. There are examples right across the street (Verannes and Hallen) of exceptions allowed by the city. I have measured a new road, Miramont, that was added on Chenal Valley Drive this year that does not meet this standard. Verranes does not come close and there are several other examples of new roads on Chenal Valley Drive that do not meet this standard. There are also future curb cuts for future neighborhoods that are worse. In the meeting dated April 19, 2001 — the application was approved based on the developer putting in traffic calming devices on Chenal Valley Drive at various locations including Wildwood Drive. As noted in paragraph D of this report — developer to put in traffic calming devices to be approved by public works in order to slow speeds on this road. Where are they and why hasn't public works required this section of the ordinance to be met? On June 5, 2001 this was approved by the Board. My conclusion is that I am well within what has been established as to the 200 SSD mentioned above. Chenal Valley Drive was designed to this standard. Therefore, I do not think a variance is needed. If the required traffic calming devices are installed as the city board required, then that would alleviate the problem too. Any problem created here has been created by the city. Why don't you ask David and Bill to review the referenced documents and rethink this for me? They can get them from their city attorney if needed. Ask them if we need to ask for a variance. I would think they would be supportive since they have supported the same situation within the last twelve months on the back of Chenal Valley Drive at Miramont, at Verannes and Hallen among others. The good thing in their questioning is that it allowed me to dig in deeper into the right of way issue. It is clear that by the minutes in these meetings that Gordon Road was closed across the golf course and the right of way was left open at my property. The map for the conditional use permit confirms it even more. I will forward this to my attorney, Don Eilbott at Jack, Nelson & Jones. They are welcome to call him at 707-5547 or they can call me at 217-8400 if they have further questions of us. Please have them respond as to whether we need a variance and if so if they will be supportive of it Thank them for there efforts in helping me bring another quality neighborhood to the city of Little Rock. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 500 West Markham, Ste. 310 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 William C. Mann, III Telephone (501) 371.4527 Chief Deputy City Attorney Facsimile (501) 3714675 May 6, 2011 Tony Bozynski Secretary, City of Little Rock Planning Commission 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Wildwood Partners, LLC c/o Graham Smith 13503 Kanis Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Receipt No. 7099 3400 0006 8451 3902 Certified Mail, Return Receipt Request Receipt No. 7099 3400 0006 8451 3896 Re: City of Little Rock v. Little Rock Planning Commission; and Wildwood Partners, LLC Pulaski Circuit; Ninth Division Case No. 60CV-11-1741 Gentlemen: Pursuant to Arkansas District Court Rule 9(f)(2)(A), please find enclosed a copy of a Notice of Filing which has been filed by the City on this date. This notice is being filed in order to provide the Court with certified copies of the minutes of the March 10, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. Since I am aware that Don Eilbott represents Wildwood Partners, LLC, I am providing him with a courtesy copy of the notice. To the extent additional documents are filed prior to him entering an appearance as attorney of record, I will continue to provide courtesy copies. Sincerely, William C. Mann, III Chief Deputy City Attorney WCMIII:dab Enclosure cc\enc: Don Eilbott IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS NINTH DIVISION CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS APPELLANT Eil.ED ' Sr` E.111 1'A-,!-, VS. CASE NO.60CV-2011-1741 La r v lcr ana Pu __ �fi '_,.i r ui f GLet . LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION and WILDWOOD PARTNERS, LLC APPELLEES NOTICE OF FILING The City of Little Rock (the "City") respectfully comes before this honorable Court by and through undersigned counsel and, pursuant to Rule 9(f)(2)(B) of the Arkansas District Court Rules, states: 1. On April 11, 2011, the City filed a timely Notice of Appeal of the March 10, 2011, decision of the Little Rock Planning Commission to approve the application for a preliminary plat for a subdivision proposed by Wildwood Partners, LLC. 2. According the Arkansas District Court Rule 9(f)(2)(B), within thirty (30) days after filing its notice of appeal a party shall file "certified copies of all the materials the parry has or can obtain that document the administrative proceeding" that is the subject of the appeal. 3. In accordance with the rule cited in paragraph 3, the City has attached to this Notice of Filing as Exhibit 1 a certified copy of the minutes of the March 10, 2011, Planning Commission meeting that pertain to the Commission's decision on the Wildwood Ridge Addition Preliminary Plat, File # S-1665. Exhibit 1 constitutes the materials that document the administrative proceeding before the Planning Commission that the City has appealed to this Court. 4. Pursuant to District Court Rule 9(f)(2)(B), the parties opposing this appeal have thirty (30) days from the date of the City's filing to supplement the record with certified copies of any additional documents they believe are needed to complete the administrative record on appeal. At the conclusion of this thirty (30) day period, the City respectfully requests that the Court establish a schedule for briefing, hearings and any other matters necessary to resolve the appeal as provided for in District Court Rule 9(f)(2)(C). Respectfully Submitted, Thomas M. Carpenter City Attorney Thomas M. Carpenter #77024 City Attorney William C. Mann, III, #79199 Chief Deputy City Attorney City Hall - Suite 310 500 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 371-4527 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon Tony Bozynski, Secretary, Little Rock Planning Commission, 723 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 and Wildwood Partners, LLC, c/o Graham Smith, 13503 Kanis Road, Little Rock, Arkansas 72211, via certified mail, return receipt requested and Don A. Eilbott, Jack, Nelson, Jones and Bryan, P.A., 2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 500, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 by placing the same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, this 6 ay of May, 2011. William C. Mann, III -2- City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Subdivision Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 37t-6863 Certification of Minute Record Copy File # S-1665 I certify that the attached copy is a true and correct copy of the Minute Record for Wildwood Ridge Addition Preliminary Plat, File # S-1665. Tonv Sozyn�ki, D(rjct�r of Planning and Development 4 . 7—Z _ April 22, 2011 EXHIBIT OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 500 West Markham, Ste. 310 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 William C. Mann, III Chief Deputy City Attorney 23, 2012 Mr. Don. A. Eilbott Jack; Nelson, Jo & Bryant 2800 Cantr oad, Suite 500 Little ck. Arkansas 72202 Wildwood Partners, LLC v. City of Little Rock U.S.D.C. No. 4:11-CV-355 JLH Dear Don: Telephone (501) 3714527 Facsimile (501) 371.4675 Please find enclosed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal which I filed this date with the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk's Office. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William C. Mann, III Chief Deputy City Attorney WCMIII:dab Enclosure cc/enc: Tony Bozynsla CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon Tony Bozynski, Secretary, Little Rock Planning Commission, 723 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 and Wildwood Partners, LLC c/o Don A. Eilbott, Jack, Nelson, Jones and Bryan, P.A., 2800 Cantrell Road Suite 500 ittle Rock, Arkansas 72202 by placing the same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, thisg3 ray of January, 2012. William C. Mann, III -2- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS NINTH DIVISION CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS VS. CASE NO.60CV-2011-1741 APPELLANT LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION and WILDWOOD `' EES= PARTNERS, LLC AI,'' MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL The City of Little Rock (the "City") respectfully comes before this honorable Court by and through undersigned counsel and, for its Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, states: 1: The parties have resolved the issues that led to this appeal. The Appellant therefore moves for voluntary dismissal of the appeal with prejudice pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 41(a). 2. A proposed order granting dismissal with prejudice accompanies this motion. WHEREFORE, the Appellant prays that the Court will grant its Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss and all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Thomas M. Carpenter City Attorney B1 �_- Y William C. Mann, III, #79199 Chief Deputy City Attorney City Hall - Suite 310 500 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 371-4527 bmann littlerock.or Pagel of 2 Bozynski, Tony From: James, Donna Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 4:07 PM To: Bozynski, Tony Subject: Fwd: RE: Please print so we will have for the file Begin forwarded message: From: "Moore, Bruce" <BMoore(a-littlerockorR> Date: July 7, 2011 3:26:08 PM CDT To: "Carpenter, Tom" <TCarpenteralittlerock.or&>, "Graham Smith" <grahamsmith@sbcRlobal.net>, "James, Donna" <DJamesQlittlerock.or-R>, "board" <bo and @ l i ttl ero ck. orgy Cc: <george(u�abg cym>, "Don Eilbott" <deilbott aeknelsan'ones.com>, "Florian, Vince" <VFlorianiR1itt1erock.org>, <maxbrantleyAarktimes.eom, "Mann, Bill" <BMann , ,littlerocic.or>, "Engster, Bonnie" <BEn sg ter(d)littlerock_org> Subject: RE: All, I have reviewed this situation with staff and provide the following update: The City issued 1 (one) notice of violation for lack of erosion control this morning. This action was taken after a complaint was received from a neighbor and the City investigated. Issuing notices without merit is not tolerated within this organization. Bruce From: Carpenter, Tom Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:16 PM To: 'Graham Smith'; James, Donna; board Cc: george@abpq.com; Don Eilbott; Floriani, Vince; maxbrantle arktimes.com; Moore, 7/8/2011 Page 2 of 2 Bruce; Mann, Bill; Engster, Bonnie Subject: RE: Importance: High Dear Mr. Smith, I have no idea what you are talking about, nor have I heard any such comments. I WILL, however, see what can be found out. The primary rule I have always had in this office is that everyone is treated the same in terms of enforcement actions, or the result of traffic tickets and fines. I suppose that you feel uncomfortable to give me a name of the employee that provided this tidbit of information, so all I can do is assure the Board and the City Manager that we are not behind such action, and that we would not tolerate such action. In the event an enforcement action is taken against you or any of your companies, please send a copy to my office (fax 371- 4675) and we will determine that equal treatment is being followed. This does not mean that I will dismiss a charge; simply that I will assure that any action against your companies is the same as any action we would take against other companies. Disparate treatment is not tolerated. NOW, this is a topic outside the various litigation ongoing between you and the City. I note that you copied Mr. Eilbott, so I do not have as much of a problem in responding to this email. However, if in the future you would work through your counsel to send the information noted, it would make things much cleaner as far as my ethical obligations not to be in contact with a party I reasonably believe to be presented by counsel. Tom 7/8/2011 FILE NO.: S-1665 NAME: Wildwood Ridge Addition Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located on the West side of Gordon Road and South of Chenal Valley Drive DEVELOPER: Wildwood Partners, LLC P.O. Box 242146 Little Rock, AR 72223 r=nl(,INFFR• Thomas Engineering Co Attn: Thomas Pownall 3810 Lookout Road North Little Rock, AR 72116 AREA: 27.78 acres CURRENT ZONING: PLANNING DISTRICT NUMBER OF LOTS: 85 R-2, Single-family 19 - Chenal CENSUS TRACT: 42.11 VARIANCESM/AIVERS REQUESTED: FT. NEW STREET: 3472 LF 1. A variance from Section 31-256 to allow a front building line on a residential lot of twenty (20) feet. 2. A variance from Section 36-254(2) to allow side yard setback on each side of the lot at five (5) feet. 3. A variance from Section 36-551 to allow an increased size of the proposed subdivision identification sign. 4. A variance from the Citys Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of a portion of Phase 11 with the development of Phase I. FILE NO.: S-1665 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANTS STATEMENT: The developer is requesting preliminary plat approve for a subdivision containing 27.78 acres and 85 single-family residential lots. The lots are proposed with a minimum and average lot size of 60-feet by 130-feet. The lots are proposed with a variance from the Citys Subdivision Ordinance to allow a reduced front building line and a reduced side yard setback. The front building line is proposed at 20-feet and the side yard setbacks are proposed at 5-feet. The development is proposed in two (2) phases. The first phase will include the development of Lots 1-10 Block 3 and Lots 1-8 Blocks 1 and 2 and Lots 1-16 Block 4. The request includes variances to allow an increase size for the subdivision identification sign and to allow grading of a portion of Phase II with the development of Phase I of the subdivision. The request also includes the right of way abandonment for the portion of Gordon Road adjacent to Lot 1 Block 4. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is densely wooded located south of Chenal Valley Drive. Access to the site is via a narrow drive extending from Chenal Valley Drive. There is a single- family home, also access from this drive, located to the east of the proposed plat area. South of the plat area is a developing single-family subdivision. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received a several informational phone calls from area property owners. A few of the callers have indicated opposition to the proposed subdivision. All abutting property owners of the site and the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Gordon Road including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development adjacent to the proposed development. The street improvements should be made on Gordon Road to Chenal Valley Drive to meet residential street standards. The proposed street infrastructure accessing the subdivision is substandard. The current street width is 18 feet. 2. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct street improvements to all streets within the subdivision to residential street standards including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. 2 FILE NO.: S-1665 (Cont. 3. A permanent turnaround must be provided at the southern end of Gordon Road. The turn around should be at least 80 feet in length and the same width as the street. Instead of a turnaround, the street can be terminated with curb and gutter at Meadow View Drive. If the right-of-way is determined not be abandoned and the applicant desires to construct curb and gutter across Gordon Road, a petition will be required to be submitted to the City of Little Rock, Planning Department to abandon that part of the right-of-way. 4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Detention locations are being shown. During the grading and drainage plan review process, calculations must be provided showing the stormwater going to the proposed detention facilities is of sufficient volume for the entire development. 5. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). 6. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. A variance is being requested for advanced grading within the Phase II portion of the development with construction of the Phase I portion. 7. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 8. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. 9. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction. 10. Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or operation of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site shall be repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 11. If the subdivision is proposed to be private, no residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets unless the property owners association provides a waiver of damage claims for operations on private property. 12. Temporary turn arounds must be provided at the end of Summershade Drive as the phased construction is completed for City and emergency vehicle turnaround. The turn arounds must provide at least 80 feet in length or diameter for vehicle maneuvering and the same width as the street. 13. City records show Gordon Road right-of-way to be abandoned or is no longer public and is not maintained by the City of Little Rock. Is the 4 FILE NO.: S-1665 (Cont. applicant requesting to dedicate the Gordon Road private right-of-way or access easement to Chenal Valley Drive to the City of Little Rock? With current conditions, public streets are shown to gain access from a private street. With Gordon Road being private, access to public streets could be denied by the owner(s) of Gordon Road and damage could occur to Gordon Road by City vehicles accessing the public streets for service. 14. Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan as required per Section 29-186 (e). Show 100-year stormwater overflow path through the subdivision. 15. A traffic circle should be provided at Summershade Drive and Meadow View Drive for traffic calming. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, for this project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater utility for additional information. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center -Paint Energy: Approved as submitted. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be needed to provide water service to this property. Please submit plans for water facilities to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities. Approval of plans by Central Arkansas Water, the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire Department is required. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will apply to this development in addition to normal charges. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CI FILE NO.: S-1665 (Cont. CATA: No comment. Parks and Recreation: No comment. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 17, 2011) Mr. Graham Smith and Mr. Thomas Pownall of Thomas Engineering were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the development stating there were a number of outstanding technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing prior to the Commission acting on the request. Staff stated the right of way for Gordon Road appeared to have been previously abandoned. Staff stated the developer was meeting with the City Attorney to determine if the right of way access to the site was abandoned or was still in place. Staff noted a number of items which would need to be included on the revised preliminary plat to complete the review process. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff questioned if advanced grading was being requested for the development. Mr. Pownall stated the developer would grade off site to allow detention for the Phase I portion of the development. He also stated some grading would occur to allow the proper turn -around as requested by Public Works staff. Mr. Pownall noted the streets would be constructed as public streets. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing the technical issues associated with the request. The applicant has indicated a small amount of grading will take place within the Phase II portion of the development with the development of the Phase I portion of the subdivision. The applicant has indicated the areas to be advanced graded are within the proposed detention areas and to allow for the proper turn -around on Summershade Drive. The advanced grading will require a variance from the Citys Land Alteration Ordinance. FILE NO.: S-1665 (Cont.) The applicant has also indicated a subdivision identification sign six (6) feet in height and ten (10) feet wide will be placed at the entrance to the subdivision. The Subdivision Ordinance typically allows the placement of a subdivision identification sign six (6) feet in height and thirty-two (32) square feet in area. The sign size as proposed will require a variance from the Citys Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for a parcel containing 27.776 acres and 85 lots. The development is proposed with an overall density of 3.06 units per acres. The proposed plat indicates two variance requests from the typical lot development standards of the Subdivision Ordinance. The front building setback per Section 31-256 is 25-feet. The applicant is requesting to be allowed a front building line of twenty (20) feet. A variance from Section 36-254(2) to allow side yard setback on each side of the lot at five (5) feet is also requested. The ordinance typically requires the placement of a side setback of ten (10) percent of the lot width not to exceed eight (8) feet for R-2, Single-family zoned property. The request also includes the right of way abandonment for the portion of Gordon Road adjacent to Lot 1 Block 4. The applicant has not provided staff with approval from the various utilities as to the abandonment request. The abandonment will be addressed as a separate item from the proposed preliminary plat. Ordinance No. 18,431 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 20, 2001, vacated and closed a portion of Gordon Road between Gordon Road and Chenal Valley Drive. The ordinance states abutting owners of record, receiving title to the abandoned right of way and easements shall at their cost remove all vestiges of public use and access as may exist; such modifications were to include the entrances on both ends of the abandoned right of way and easement is to be offset and/or rebuilt to conform to the standard driveway design as required by Little Rock, Ark. Revised Code Section 30-26-50(1988) and the edge of pavement of the right of way is to be rebuilt to conform to existing conditions in the general vicinity where the abandoned right of way and easement intersects with the remaining public right of way. Chapter 30 states all driveways into private property must be concrete from the street curbline to the property line on approved grades. Single and two-family driveways may be constructed of asphalt except where there is a sidewalk adjacent to the property. In such cases the driveway is to be concrete to the back edge of the sidewalk. The connection of the former Gordon Road right of way has been constructed as required by the ordinance for residential drives. The City Attorneys office has reviewed this ordinance and their opinion is that the portion of Gordon Road that lies to the east of property now owned by Graham Smith was properly abandoned by City ordinance (Ordinance No. 18,431) after a public hearing. The City has taken subsequent steps in accord 0 FILE NO.: S-1665 (Cont. with the abandonment and nothing has occurred subsequently to make the former Gordon Road property a street dedicated to the public. In addition Chenal Valley Drive was laid out and constructed based on this access being a driveway and not a dedicated City street. At this location the minimum sight distance is not adequate to meet minimum sight distance requirements of the Master Street Plan for a street in the City of Little Rock. The development is proposed with a minimum of 85 residential lots. Based on typical traffic patterns residential lots typically generate a minimum of ten trips per lot per day. The development would generate a minimum of 850 vehicle trips per day utilizing this access. The intersection sight distance is 266 feet. AASHTO Green Book Standards requires an intersection sight distance of 500 feet for a street with vehicles traveling 45 mph. The Subdivision Ordinance states every lot shall abut upon a public street, except where private streets are explicitly approved by the Planning Commission. The Master Street Plan states local streets should be developed with a minimum right of way of 50-feet and a minimum paving width of 26-feet. Sidewalks are required on one -side of the street. The service volume of a local street is 2,500 vehicle trips. The Subdivision Ordinance states private streets are to be built to public street standard. In some instances one side of the street is developed prior to the development of the other side. In these cases the minimum paving width typically allowed is 20-feet. Although very substandard, this minimum pavement width allows for two cars to pass and allows for City services to be provided. The access/driveway to this site does not meet this typical minimum standard. Based on the City Attorneys opinion that Gordon Road is no longer a public right of way and the applicant cannot provide adequate access to serve the proposed subdivision staff cannot support the preliminary plat request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the preliminary plat as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 10, 2011) Mr. Graham Smith and Mr. Don Eilbott were present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Smith addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated his company had purchased a 40-acre parcel and was proposing to develop the site as a single-family subdivision. He stated staff had raised concerns related to access and 7 FILE NO.: S-1665 (Cont.) sight distances. He stated he felt the right of way for Gordon Road was open. He stated the sight distance should not be an issue. He stated the road was constructed as a collector street in 2000. He stated the speed for a collector street was 30 mph. Chairman Ferstl questioned Deputy City Attorney Cindy Dawson as what the Commission was to review. Ms. Dawson stated official City records included a four -page document indicating the road was closed. She stated something different was filed at the Circuit ClerKs office but the text of the ordinance clearly stated to see Exhibit A. She stated it was clear the road was closed by ordinance. She stated the City had allowed a subdivision to be created and platted over the former right of way. She stated she nor the Commission had the authority to over ride a City ordinance. There was a general discussion by the Commission as to the closing of Gordon Road and land locking property. Ms. Dawson stated the property was not land locked. She stated the property had access through a prescriptive easement along the eastern boundary. She stated although it was not practice there were cases where City streets signs were placed on driveways. The Commission questioned Mr. Smith as to when he purchased the property. He stated his company closed on the property in January of 2011. He questioned why the City would allow the construction of Chenal Valley Drive in a manner that would land lock a parcel. Mr. Don Elibott addressed the Commission. He stated he felt the difference was in interpretation of the ordinance. He stated it was clear that what was abandoned was from Chenal Valley Drive to Chenal Valley Drive. He stated nothing south of Chenal Valley Drive was abandoned. He stated the City only recorded ordinances, which affected real estate. He stated these ordinances were filed with the Circuit Clerk. He stated the clear way to see if property owners consented to the abandonment was to look at the file. He stated there was no file. The Commission questioned if there was a mechanism to allow land locked parcels to be provided with access. Mr. Eilbott stated there was a process. He stated the process involved the County Judge and involved payment for access. He stated his client had access on Gordon Road, which was a public street. Ms. Dawson stated once again the property was not land locked but did not have proper access for a subdivision. She stated there were concerns with allowing the subdivision to take access at this location due to sight distance concerns. She stated the Commission did not have the authority to over ride a City Ordinance. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item subject to all staff recommendations and comments except that of denial. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 4 noes, 0 absent and 1 recusal (Commissioner Pierce). Page 1 of 1 James, Donna From: Bill Spivey aspivey@wlj.com] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:57 PM To: James, Donna; Bozynski, Tony Cc: Carpenter, Tom Subject: Wildwood Ridge: Appeal of Variances Donna This is to confirm our earlier conversation in which I informed you that on behalf of Deltic Timber Corporation, we are withdrawing the appeal of the variances requested in connection with approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Wildwood Ridge Subdivision. I trust that this will be sufficient notification but should you require other documentation, please let me know. Sincerely, Bill Spivey 2/3/2012 • �• •• .....•• R2 A f ♦ ♦ CUP ♦ A ♦ r R2- ♦♦ f :G ♦ f f ti, ♦ 1 f ♦ 1 • ♦ f PD-R PD-R 0 C .X k 0 R2 � Ca CUP f City Limits 1 Area Zoning Case: S-1665 N Location: West of Gordon Road and south of Chenal Valley Drive Ward: 5 PD: 19 CT: 42.11 TRS: T2N R14W27 0 175350 700 Feet S-1665 OWlLowooD RIDGE ADDN. PRELIMINARY PLAT01 City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 March 11, 2011 Thomas Engineering Attn. Thomas Pownall 3810 N. Lookout North Little Rock, AR 72116 Planning Zoning and Subdivision Re: Wildwood Ridge Addition Preliminary Plat (S-1665), located on the West side of Gordon Road and South of Chenal Valley Drive Dear Sirs: This is to advise you that in connection with your request concerning the above referenced file number the following action was taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting on March 10, 2011: x Approved with conditions. Recommended approval with conditions. Recommended approval as submitted. Denied your request as submitted. Deferred to the Other: Meeting. If you have any questions concerning any other matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 371-6821. Respectfully, Donna James, AICP Subdivision Administrator subd.doc 03/01/10 INFORMATION SHEET FOR SUBDIVISION PUD's PD's, ZONING OR SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN REVIEWS ITEM NO. DATE f . L DEVELOPER: JAJI LDWCJO LL.C. STREET ADDRESS Pb $o71 24Z14(v CITY/STATE/ZIP ZT-7-3 TELEPHONE NO. (S o 6z i -+- QA-w ENGINEER: M 4 F-4121466 1 dfn GJ- -146MALS Q0 r10.%-L STREET ADDRESS 3blO LCX>V-ouT QD CITY/STATE/ZIP N o c A L1iTl1- ebcx . +1& "11 2j l to TELEPHONE NO. (5bcod AREA 2 7 - :�-4Co {1L , FT. NEW STREET L.F. ZONING 2 2 PLANNING DISTRICT VARIANCES REQUESTED 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) NUMBER OF LOTS $5 PROPOSED USES 5 t N(: U-- FAMI L' ( CENSUSTRACT Et City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 DATE: January 31, 2011 ❑ Entergy (2) ❑ Center Point - ARKLA ❑ AT & T (2) ❑ Central Arkansas Water ❑ Little Rock Wastewater ❑ Pulaski County Planning ❑ Little Rock Fire Department NAME: Wildwood Ridge Addition Preliminary Plat TYPE OF ISSUE: Single-family Subdivision FILE NUMBER: S-1665 Planning Zoning and Subdivision LOCATION: on the West side of Gordon Road and South of Chenal Valley Drive ❑ Public Works: Engineering, Traffic (2) 0 Parks and Recreation Department Planning and Development — Site Plan Review ❑ Planning and Development Graphics ❑ CATA TO WHO IT MAY CONCERN: On March 10, 2011 the Little Rock Planning Commission will consider the above referenced issue. NOTE: The Interdepartmental Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on February 11, 2011. NOTE: The Subdivision Committee Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on.February 17 2011. A copy of the plan for the referenced issue is enclosed for your consideration, and your comments and/or recommendations will be appreciated. Sincerely, Donna . mes, AICP Subdivision Administrator (Please respond below and return,this letter with your comments for our records.) Approved as Submitted. PLEASE RETURN COMMENTS BY February 14.2011. Easement (s) required (See attached plat or description.) *To all utilities: If an easement is requested which is in excess of 10 feet in width, provide justification for the easement or the request will not be included in the Planning Commission agenda. Comments: E Enclosure Et City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Subdivision Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 DATE: January 31, 2011 Entergy (2) Center Point - ARKLA AT & T (2) Central Arkansas Water Little Rock Wastewater Pulaski County Planning Little Rock Fire Department NAME: Wildwood Ridge Addition Preliminary Plat TYPE OF ISSUE: Single-family Subdivision FILE NUMBER: S-1665 LOCATION: on the West side of Gordon Road and South of Chenal Valley Drive Public Works: Engineering, Traffic (2) Parks and Recreation Department Planning and Development — Site Plan Review Planning and Development Graphics CATA TO WHO IT MAY CONCERN: On March 10, 2011 the Little Rock Planning Commission will consider the above referenced issue. NOTE: The Interdepartmental Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on February 11, 2011. NOTE: The Subdivision Committee Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on February 17, 2011. A copy of the plan for the referenced issue is enclosed for your consideration, and your comments and/or recommendations will be appreciated. Sincerely, KDa ►nes, AICP Subdivision Administrator (Please respond below and tarn this letter with your comments for our records.) Approved as Submitted. PLEASE RETURN COMMENTS BY February 14, 2011. Easement (s) required (See attached plat or description.) *To all utilities: If an easement is requested which is in excess of 10 feet in width, provide justification for the easement or the request will not be included in the Planning Commission agenda. Comments: City of Little Rock Planning and Development Filing Fees Date j 3 1 24 Annexation Board of Adjustment Cond Use Permit/T UP Final Plat Planned Unit Dev Preliminaiy Plat Special Use Permit Rezoning Site Plans Street Name Change Street Name Signs Number at ea Public Hearing Signs IVumberat ea Total Ile No C€Tv, OF LI I T Lt R 0 C K BUIf ING CODS r �• City of Little Rock IR' City Attorney's Office City Hall 500 W Markham St. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1400 7099 3400 0006 84513902 Tony Bozynski qe-,o,rP.tnry T.1rilP Rnrlr Planning Cnmmiccinn