pc_11 29 1988LITTLE ROCK PLANNING HEARING
NOVEMBER 29, 1988
1:00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being ten in number.
Approval of the October 18, 1988 Minutes
III. Members present: Walter Riddick, III
Kathleen Oleson
Jerilyn Nicholson
Martha Miller
John McDaniel
Rose Collins
Connie Whitfield
Stephen Leek
John Schlereth
Fred Perkins
Members absent: Bill Rector
City Attorney(s)
Present: Mark Stodola
Stephen Giles
November 29, 1988
Item No. 1 - Resolution Expressing Intent to Zone in the
Extraterritorial Area
Name: Resolution Expressing Intent to
Zone in the Planning Area
Location: The area outside the City limits
to the planning boundary,
generally a distance of some
three miles.
STAFF REPORT:
There have been discussions about zoning the planning area
for about a year. Now the City Staff is starting the Land
Use Plans to guide the zoning decisions and several property
owners have requested their property outside the City limits
be zoned. As a first step, the City has in the past issued
a statement of intent before actually zoning any property
outside the City limits. Thus, the resolution is presented
for consideration today. The resolution and notice have
been done to cover all areas which will be considered for
zoning in the future, not just those in west Little Rock.
The resolution is the first step to be followed by a Land
Use Plan for each area; next are the public meetings and
then zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
Due to confusion over whether the Extraterritorial
Subdivision signs were to be discussed, the Staff
recommended that the Commission defer the Public Hearing to
November 29, 1988. There was objection from those in
attendance and, after some discussion about whether to have
the Public Hearing or defer it to November 29th, the
Commission decided to hear those people who were present for
the item.
Mr. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff reviewed the process.
He explained that today's issue was simply a declaration of
intent to zone, and not zoning itself. He explained that
the extraterritorial area had been divided into several
planning districts. A plan would be prepared for each and
November 29, 1988
I tem No . 1 ( Continued)
then zoning would occur. The City would zone the majority
of the property "R-2" but would take rezoning requests at no
charge for those properties which complied with the Plan.
The property owner would have to submit a current survey.
Mrs. McCaleb of the Pulaski County Homeowners Association
stated her objection to Act 156 and said that zoning was a
taking. The legislation was special legislation, and thus
illegal. She also stated zoning property would run up the
land costs. In order to make the area prosper, regulations
and rules should be reduced. By increasing regulation,
power is taken from the people and given to a few creating
monopolies. All people are not treated the same by zoning.
Mrs. McCaleb requested that the City leave the development
pattern up to free enterprise.
Mr. McCaleb, the second objector to speak, stated that this
was really an economic issue - zoning increases costs and
the area loses jobs and income (we are using too many young
people already). Zoning means no growth and no jobs. In
response to a question, Mr. McCaleb stated that the City
limit has moved very slowly in the southeast (unlike the
west); thus, the controls were not needed. Further, zoning
would not be necessary since the land use pattern will be
determined before annexation. The zoning will make the land
useless. The big guy will purchase the property at a low
cost since the little guy could not get zoning. Then the
big guy will get the zoning and get the rewards which should
have gone to the person who used to own the property.
The next speaker, Mr. David Leman, stated that he used to
live in the City and he was considering purchasing land from
his father in the county. He was concerned about fines due
to subdivision actions. Mr. Leman was advised to meet with
Staff about the location of his property (his question was
whether or not his property was actually within three miles
of the City limits) and subdivision of the properties.
Ms. Jane Edwards asked how could the City zone the area if
they could not even get the meeting straight.
Mr. Strayhorn stated he had purchased some land and received
a notice about creating an illegal subdivision. He wants to
have a mixed commercial and residential use on his property.
However, his property is in the Arch Street Plan of which
most is shown as mining or residential (a problem with land
use). Mr. Strayhorn was advised to get with Staff about the
land use issue.
November 29, 1988
Item No. 1 (Continued)
Ms. Bobbie Rynda stated her land was in Saline County and it
was news to her that Little Rock could tell them what they
could do or couldn't do with land in Saline County.
Ms. Jean New stated she hoped the map showing the planning
boundary would be present at the November 29th meeting. She
stated she owned a farm inside the City (southwest Little
Rock) which was forced into the City by referendum and she
was having to pay high taxes for the Sewer District which
she was also forced into. She has since bought property in
Saline County to get away from Little Rock and now the City
is "coming to get her."
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to defer the issue
to November 29, 1988 and recess the Hearing until that date.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Staff will be presenting a revised resolution which is
substantially different from the resolution discussed at the
November 1, 1988 meeting. The resolution sets a priority
system for zoning the extraterritorial areas (see map). The
priority system is based upon the following criteria:
(a) Expression by a significant number of
property owners of a desire to be zoned and
later annexed;
(b) The amount of development activity occurring
or anticipated to occur in the near future;
(c) The City's staffing ability to handle new
territory.
The Staff recommends the adoption of the revised resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 29, 1988)
Tom Dalton, City Manager, addressed the Planning Commission
explaining why the City wished to exercise zoning
regulations in the planning area. Mr. Dalton stated that to
try to do all the planning area was beyond the Staff's
ability (not enough people). Therefore, he was recommending
the areas which have the highest growth potential and where
property owners have expressed a desire to be zoned and
later annexed. The areas affected would be west of Little
Rock and south of the port. Saline County areas and the
November 29, 1988
Item No. 1 (Continued)
planning areas south and east of Arch Street Pike would not
be included due in part to the large percentage of the area
used for mining. A map showing the gravity flow areas for
the Little Rock Waste Water system was shown to help explain
why the southern area is not included (cannot get sewer
service to the area).
Ms. Jacque Alexander, Pulaski County Circuit Clerk,
addressed the Commission on the difficulties of assuring
that deeds are for properties granted subdivision approval.
She noted that provisions of State law are conflicting and
that she does not have enough staff to check every deed.
Mr. Jim Pfeifer next spoke in favor of zoning regulations to
assure that land values are protected, and that one does not
have a junk yard next to a $300,000 home.
Some twenty people spoke against the proposed resolution.
Mrs. McCaleb of the Pulaski County Homeowners Association
spoke first restating her opposition and reasons stated on
November 1st.
Larry Mitchell, State Representative for northeast Saline
County, stated he would be introducing legislation to
prevent the City planning boundaries from crossing County
lines. He stated those he represented were against Little
Rock crossing into Saline County. He presented a draft bill
he will be introducing in the Legislature this January.
Jim Lawson of the Planning Staff outlined the three areas in
question giving the boundary lines.
Mark Moreland, Pulaski County Quorum Court from Natural
Steps, stated that if annexation was voluntary, it was okay;
otherwise the City should not force this on the people.
John McCaleb, Pulaski County Property Owners Association,
restated his positions of November 1st that zoning was
elitist and that we would be forcing out the youngest and
brightest people to Saline County, Conway, Cabot, etc.
Julia McDaniel, President of McDaniel Realty speaking for
sixty-five property owners, stated that the zoning
regulations were not needed or wanted.
November 29, 1988
Item No. 1 (Continued)
Gene New, Saline County property owner, stated that the
zoning should only be done at the request of the property
owners.
Dan Kroha, Little Rock attorney, stated that the City was
not able to enforce the regulations inside the City, much
less outside. He further said that to enact this resolution
would be legislation without representation and would be
unconstitutional. The City should not restrict freedom of
choice, though it is okay to put restrictions on those who
want to be annexed.
Oris Marie Reed, Precinct 1 Justice of the Peace in Saline
County, speaking on behalf of Parker Johnson, County Judge
of Saline County, stated that Saline County could take care
of itself. She stated the City should notify people about
what it wants to do. She further expressed the interest of
Saline County officials in working with the City.
Jerilyn Nicholson, Planning Commission member, apologized
for the way the signs were put up and said the City would
try to do better in the future.
Walter Riddick, Planning Commission member, stated the
Commission wanted to work with Saline County officials no
matter what the outcome of this vote because the area is of
mutual interest.
Gus Longley stated that he picks up junk and has a site near
I-30 and is concerned about land use regulation.
Brian Morrison, speaking on behalf of the Johnson Ranch
Homeowners Association, stated he was against zoning without
representation but was for zoning if done right. He asked
the Commission to add a County member or members.
Representative Jim Keet said he would introduce legislation
regarding County representation from extraterritorial areas
on the Planning Commission.
In addition, Mr. Forest Maus and Mr. Sydney Job, among
others, spoke against the resolution.
After discussion, the Planning Commission voted in favor of
the resolution 7 for, 3 against and 1 absent.
November 29, 1988
Item No. 2 - Ordinance to Regulate Adult Entertainment
Businesses
Name: Regulation of Adult Businesses
Location: Various
STAFF REPORT:
Over the last several months the City Attorney's Office has
been working on an ordinance which would regulate the
location of adult oriented businesses (bookstores, topless
bars, etc.) and the definition of an adult business. The
Planning Staff served a support role gathering information
and discussing alternatives.
Currently there is no difference between an adult bookstore
and Walden's Books in the City Ordinances. Due to the
effects that adult businesses have had in other communities,
the Staff feels additional regulations are needed. (Studies
have shown a correlation between adult businesses with
increased blight and higher crime levels in the
neighborhoods which had such a business in them.) The City
recognizes that these businesses have a Constitutional right
to exist. However, the City also has regulator powers to
assure that the community is protected. (See City
Attorney's write-up for Ordinance outline.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (October 18, 1988)
The Staff feels that the proposed ordinance achieves the
proper balance between the businesses' right to exist and
the community's right to regulate businesses which can cause
harm to surrounding land uses.
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 18, 1988)
Stephen Giles of the City Attorney's office said that his
department needed to perform further research relating to
the ordinance. The Commission voted to defer this item to
November 29, 1988 by a voice vote (10 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent).
November 29, 1988
Item No. 2 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 29, 1988)
Mark Stodola, City Attorney, reviewed the memo (attached)
concerning current regulations and legal cases. He stated
currently the City has no regulations on location of these
businesses. Mr. Stodola displayed a map to show all the
areas where one of the businesses could locate using only
the bookstore, video store definition method and notes that
only economic issues control the locations. The ordinance
is an attempt to control these uses which can have negative
secondary impacts on neighboring uses. The City Staff
looked at limiting the use to one zoning district but that
only concentrated them in certain areas. Therefore, the use
of a 750 foot setback appears to be the most appropriate way
to regulate the uses. Similar ordinances have been enacted
in Las Vegas, Austin, Dallas, etc. Mr. Stodola stressed
that the obscenity issue, while related, was not the
question, just land use. These businesses may or may not be
legally considered obscene.
Reverend Robert L. Jones spoke in favor of the ordinance.
He stated this started due to "X-rated businesses" on Asher
Avenue. The police were not doing anything because there
were no complaints. After working with the police and
attorney Chris Piazza, many have been eliminated. However,
without land use regulations, the businesses will just
reopen with new managers.
Mr. John Schlereth, Planning Commissioner, stated his
concerns about amortizing the businesses. He did not want
this ordinance to be a precedent to be used in the future
for eliminating other nonconforming uses.
The Planning Commission voted to approve the ordinance by a
vote of 7 for, 0 against and 4 absent.
City of Little Rock
Mark Stodola
City Attorney
City Hall
Markham at Broadway
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
501 /371-4527
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: MARK STODOLA
CITY ATTORNEY
RE: REGULATING THE LOCATION OF
SEXUALLY ORIENTED B USINESSES
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 1988
In response to continuing and increasing complaints from
citizens and community groups throughout the City, Mayor Lottie
Shackelford has requested that we research and draft the
attached ordinance regulating the location of sexually oriented
businesses. It is submitted to you for your review. The proposal
suggests that the City utilize its zoning power, in light of
these special problems to best serve it citizens.
Currently in Little Rock, there exists no type of
regulation, zoning or otherwise, of sexually oriented
businesses. These businesses may operate as a permitted use
under the title of commercial amusement, book and stationary
store, bar, lounge, or tavern, private club, regular or drive-in
theater, and possibly even others. Under these classifications,
a sexually oriented business may currently operate in any area
of the City that is zoned O-2, O-3, C-1, C-2, C-3, or C-4. These
zoning classifications are located on every major Little Rock
thoroughfare, next to residential areas, parks, schools,
churches, hospitals and historic sites and are generally
scattered throughout the City. There is nothing in the current
zoning ordinance to prevent them from operating in various
locations throughout the entire City. Indeed, they have cropped
up in historic district areas of the City (Regina's Place) and
next door to residential neighborhoods. (Books and Looks).
Documented statistical evidence shows that the secondary
effects associated with sexually oriented businesses can be
detrimental to the community where they exist. Increased
drug - related arrests, prostitution, rapes, vagrancy, and a
general nuisance environment which results in decay and
declining property values are a few examples. The U.S. Supreme
Court in City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, 106 S.Ct. 925
(1986) specifically gave municipalities the authority to control
these secondary effects, by placing legitimate and reasonable
restrictions on sexually oriented businesses through the use of
zoning power. This is the purpose of the proposed ordinance.
Having researched this issue thoroughly, it is my
position that the types of problems that have been experienced
in other cities across America can be prevented in Little Rock.
The adoption of the proposed ordinance will be a solid step
forward in early prevention. The ordinance is in no way intended
to restrict the constitutionally protected rictht to freedom of
speech. The purpose is to deal with this special land use in the
same fashion any other special land use would be dealt
with -- regulated to best provide for the health, safety and
welfare of Little Rock's citizens. The ordinance is not intended
to burden one area of the City more than any other. The intent
and effect is to regulate these special land uses in a
responsive manner taking into account those areas most adversely
affected. The same restrictions and requirements will be equally
applied to all quadrants of the City in an attempt to do all
that is constitutionally allowed to better the City of Little
Rock for its citizens.
The proposed ordinance is based on ordinances similar to
those enacted in Dallas; Renton, Washington; St. Paul; Seattle;
Austin; Amarrilo and Detroit, which have been upheld by the
courts. The proposed ordinance is similar in format to the other
cities ordinances, but has been updated to best suit Little
Rock's needs as well as conforming to constitutional
requirements as defined by the courts. Sexually oriented
businesses are a special type of land use that is associated
with special problems. Therefore, this permitted business
operation must be dealt with like any other land use that has
special secondary effects attached.
The first point to recognize is that not all "speech" is
constitutionally protected. According to the United States
Supreme Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973),
"obscene" speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
However, pornographic, vulgar, and usually even offensive speech
is shielded by constitutional protection. The Supreme Court
fashioned a test in Miller to determine what is and is not
"obscene ". After determining what was "obscene ", the Court said
a business that sells "obscene" products or services is subject
to regulation based on its content. Therefore, a business which
sells "obscene" products or services is subject to regulation by
the laws of the states, and since Arkansas has enacted laws
against "obscenity ", that business may not legally operate
within the State of Arkansas. However, even though a business
sells products or services that are "distasteful" or "vulgar ",
that business has under the law as much a constitutional right
to operate as any other business and cannot be regulated on the
basis of its content. The Supreme Court later held that, even
though protected speech cannot be content-regulated; in most
circumstances, a time, place, and manner content-neutral form of
regulation is not an infringement on freedom of speech. The
Court stated in Young v. American Mini Theaters, 427 U.S. 50
(1976) so as long as the regulation is "content-neutral ", not
arbitrary or discriminatory, and the "speaker" has adequate
alternatives, then the regulation will be valid, and will not be
violative of the First Amendment.
Seeing the Young case as a legal opportunity to deal with
the detrimental secondary effects of sexually oriented
businesses, the City of Renton, Washington, implemented a zoning
ordinance which defined these businesses and restricted their
operation to a limited area of the city where the least
detriment to Renton citizens would occur. The U.S. Supreme Court
said in Renton that it is possible for a time, place and manner
restriction to become so restrictive on speech that it becomes
content -based regulation, in violation of the constitution.
However, the Court held that while the ordinance limited the
amount of land available for sexually oriented business
operation, it still provided an adequate amount receptive to
this type of use. The Court held the Renton ordinance was a
valid use of content - neutral, time, place and manner regulation
that is available for protected speech regulation.
The proposed ordinance has an extensive definition
section clearly defining what is meant by a sexually oriented
business. The ordinance then prohibits any such business from
operating within 750 feet of any: (1) residential district or
use, (2) public or private elementary or secondary school, (3)
public park, (4) hospital or other medical facility, (5)
properties listed on the National Historical Register or
included in the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program. No
sexually oriented business may operate within 750 feet of
another such business. This distance requirement is intended to
prevent the detrimental secondary effects from occurring near
sensitive areas of the city, while still allowing the sexually
oriented businesses an area of the City where they may operate,
pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of
the Constitution.
The proposed ordinance also has a provision which deals
with the currently existing sexually oriented businesses which
will be rendered non-conforming uses due to their location prior
to passage of the proposed ordinance. Currently in Little Rock,
there are approximately five sexually oriented businesses in
operation. They are generally open 24 hours a day, seven days a
week. This number changes from month to month, and the fewer
that are in existence when the proposed ordinance is passed, the
more effective the ordinance will be. Prompt action on this
issue would be beneficial at this time, due to the low number
currently operating.
Those businesses which are operating when the ordinance
is passed will be rendered non-conforming uses. The proposed
ordinance creates an amortization period of three (3) years for
sexually oriented businesses. Once the ordinance is passed,
those businesses which are rendered non - conforming uses will
have three years in which to recoup their investments and
expenditures. At the end of that time, the business must close
and comply with the special zoning requirements. If, for some
extenuating circumstance, it would be an unreasonable burden on
the sexually oriented business owner to close within three
years, the Planning Commission would be able to grant an
extension if deemed appropriate. If, at any time during the
three year amortization period, the business ceases to operate
for a period of ninety (90) days or more, the right to operate
as a non-conforming use would be lost. The lost non-conforming
use cannot be regained as a non-conforming use in the future.
The amortization period and the ninety (90) day
discontinued use provision of the proposed ordinance are more
restrictive than current amortization or non-conforming use
provisions of the current zoning ordinance. Even though these
more restrictive requirements apply only to sexually oriented
businesses and to no other business, there is no constitutional
violation. According to Fisher Buick, Inc. V. City of
Fayetteville, 286 Ark. 49, 689 S.W.2d 35 (1985), the
amortization period must be "reasonable ", and take into account
such things as expected business losses, decrease in real
property value, cost of removal, and ordinary costs. A three
year period in most cases will be sufficiently reasonable, but
if not, "flexibility" is calculated into the ordinance at the
discretion of the Planning Commission. The discontinued use
period must be basically long enough to determine intent to
abandon use, and actual abandonment. A ninety (90) day period is
reasonably sufficient. Neither provision is in violation of the
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.
The City of Little Rock has an obligation to its citizens
to do everything legally possible to provide for their health,
safety and welfare. A Little Rock zoning ordinance which
restricts the available location for operation of these
businesses, rather than allowing them to operate virtually all
over the city, is recommended. The most logical and
constitutionally sound method of dealing with the problems
associated with sexually oriented businesses is to prevent their
operation anywhere near areas of the city which should be
protected from the attributable secondary aspects, and prevent
their operation anywhere near another such sexually oriented
business, to avoid creation of a "district" which would multiply
the secondary effects in a given area.
Thank you for your consideration.
MS:lm
November 29, 1988
Item No. 3 - Northwest Area Land Use Plan
Name: Northwest Extraterritorial Area
Land Use Plan
Location: Generally north of Kanis/Denny
Road to the Arkansas River and
west of the city limits to
Ferndale
STAFF REPORT:
At the October 18, 1988 Planning Hearing the proposed land
use map was discussed. A copy of the plan was distributed
for the Commission to review at that time.
This is the first of the land use plans leading to the
zoning of the extraterritorial area. This plan generally
reflects the Highway 10 and Extraterritorial Plans. Much of
the area is currently zoned (Chenal Valley and the 2-Mile,
5-Mile River Zoning Area) or will be zoned with Deltic's
north slope proposal. The only area of additional
commercial shown on the Plan is on Highway 300 where a
collector is to connect. This is an existing condition. If
the Commission and Board approve the proposed Land Use Plan,
then the Staff will begin the zoning process. All areas
will be zoned "R-2" unless the property owner requests a
more intense zoning which complies with the plan, and the
owner provides a current survey. Areas which do not comply
with the plan must follow the normal rezoning process.
Two areas are called out for future study. These areas are
outside the current zoning area, at the intersection of what
are proposed to be major roads, and are likely to be
developed eventually at a higher density. These areas are
outside the expected fifteen year urbanization area. As the
western portion of the county urbanizes, a more accurate
determination can be made as to the development of these
areas. Notices have been posted and published to publicize
the hearing on the proposed Northwest Extraterritorial Land
Use Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
November 29, 1988
Item No. 3 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 29, 1988)
Jim Lawson of the Planning Staff reviewed the plan and a
problem area west of Glenn Johnson Ranch Road. He
recommended that the area at Highway 10 and the multifamily
area to the south of Highway 10 just west of Glenn Johnson
Road be deferred to December 13th. A question about the
floodway locations was asked, and Mr. Lawson stated he felt
they were the approximate locations shown on the floodway
maps.
Brian Morrison of the Johnson Ranch Homeowners Association
stated they met with Deltic representatives but wanted the
two areas deferred for now as outlined by Staff.
Betty Saugey stated she owned a small business on
Highway 300 shown as commercial on the plan and wanted to
know if her fee would be waived. Also, would she have to
dedicate right -of -way. The answer to both was "yes ".
Mrs. McCaleb stated some people who were here earlier did
not understand this plan would come up today and asked for a
deferral.
Mr. Longley stated we need more businesses for more tax
revenues and jobs. Further, that we should let everyone
work.
A motion to defer was made by Stephen Leek (no second).
Jack Castin, representing Deltic, was asked if a deferral
would impact Deltic. He stated Deltic wanted the plan
approved with the agreed to areas deferred. A motion to
recommend approval of the plan, subject to deferral of the
two designated areas to December 13, was made and seconded.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 no and 3
abstentions.
November 29, 1988
Item No.. 4 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Package
NAME: Amendment Package to the Little
Rock Zoning Ordinance for certain
definition modifications and
procedural revisions
STAFF REPORT
This is a package of Zoning Ordinance amendments which deal
with the home occupation section, preliminary plat procedure
and side yard setback provisions. The package was reviewed
at the October 28th Planning Commission retreat.
In order not to overload the Commission with amendments,
City Staff will bring zoning and subdivision amendments
before the Commission in smaller packages. The first is
presented today and is composed of three amendments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION,ACTION: (November 29, 1988)
There were no objectors or other interested parties in
attendance. Richard Wood of the Planning Staff presented a
brief overview of the three amendments proposed by Staff.
Wood identified the three issues as those presented to the
Commission at their fall retreat at Pinnacle Mountain. He
briefly outlined what each amendment consisted of and
responded to questions of several Commissioners. After a
brief discussion, the Commission voted on a motion to
recommend approval of these amendments to the City Board of
Directors. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 3
absent.
November 29, 1988
Item No. 5 - 1989 Calendar
Name: Planning Commission Calendar for
1989
STAFF REPORT:
The City Staff developed a meeting date calendar for 1989.
We will continue the three meeting (zoning, subdivision,
planning) rotation next year.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, unless there is a major conflict for several
Commissioners
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 29, 1988)
The Planning Commission briefly discussed the calendar and
determined it to be appropriate. A motion was made to
approve the calendar for 1989. The motion passed
unanimously. (8-0-3)
November 29, 1988
Item No. 6 - Eagle Point PUD Modification
Name: Eagle Point Planned Unit
Development
Location: Northwest corner of Ridgehaven
Road at Napa Valley Road
Request: Planning Commission approval of a
modification to the approved
plan. The modification proposes
the reduction of the vehicle
access zone along Ridgehaven Road
from 25 feet to 15 feet on
Lots 1, 20 and 22.
STAFF REPORT:
Richard Wood of the Staff presented the request to the
Commission with a recommendation of approval indicating that
the proposed reduction would not affect the conventional
setback requirements for a corner lot. Mr. Joe White of
White - Daters Engineers was present to represent the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 29, 1988)
The Planning Commission discussed the proposal briefly. The
discussion was followed by a motion to approve the
modification in the plat and plan. The vote passed by a
vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 abstention.
November 29, 1988
There being no further business, the Planning Commission
adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
DATE:
Secretary Chairman