HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_04 07 1992subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
APRIL 7,1992
1:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum.
A Quorum was present being eight in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the previous meeting.
The Minutes of the previous meeting were submitted.There
were two corrections to the Minutes offered by a member of
the Commission.The corrections dealt with the vote record
on Item Nos.2 and 14.The motion was made to approve the
Minutes as corrected.The motion passed unanimously.
III.Members Present:John McDaniel,Chairman
Ramsay Ball
Diane Chachere
Kathleen Oleson
Joe Selz
Jim Vontungeln
Brad Walker
Emmett Willis,Jr.
Members Absent:Ronald WoodsBillPutnam
Jerilyn Nicholson
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
APRIL 7,1992
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Johnson —Short-form POD (Z-5243-A)
B.Car Mart —Short-form PCD (Z-4375-B)
C.T.B.Devine Addition —Replat (S-940)
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
1.Chenal Valley Blocks 16 and 17 —Preliminary Plat (S-867-V)
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
2.Kanis Mini Storage —Short-form PCD (Z-4653-B)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
3.Christ the King School —Amended Conditional Use Permit
(Z-3836-D)
4.Fellowship Bible Church —Conditional Use Permit (Z-5403-A)
5.Heritage Baptist Church —Conditional Use Permit (Z-5554)
6.Harris —Conditional Use Permit (Z-5557)
7.Broadaway —Amended Conditional Use Permit (Z-5451-B)
OTHER MATTERS:
8.Fairview Addition —Request to reduce part of the Fairview
Plat to acreage
9.Wentwood Apartments —Amendment to Bill of Assurance
10.811 Ada Lane —Request for additional water meter without
subdividing property.
Little Rock,Arkansas
II L-
I
h
4~
Al Tn'I
r I I III I Ml (I
I ~U A 1ll(I
Al I I
nto I
1 ~r.n
I%ME n II0N
Nn It'It T
IT IUA ~If\Nkl%Nlon II '"'I
~I O ~'IfI-040
MITE 0
~On I F I~*INIGN/~FII i*NET IITII t.EGG EITIFNFIIIIG%IMIA41OM
~%I%1
M .«IIT 40 ~kn O Nln
Iflk
j I ~A%An
'f n Inn I
II I(~T MIIMt%IIf4 N ~~~
TITEtN I
NI I %%5 4
Gk nf.\III I Enl ~~OT
1%1 Innn I ~I I ~~I
FIFA
IAEE NEAINlnrllff %'I~I
k
A k EII%I.0
k I An%1 i
TIEOAI%
/
E
Uk%%I TAIN I
I
I
f
~IVZA4nl'I"
I j
VICINITY MAP
PREPARED SY:
THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHSORHOOOS AND PLANNING
723 WEST MARKHAM STREET
LITTLE ROCK,AR.722OI
(SOI)37I-4790
SUBDIVISIQN AGENDA
APRIL 7,1992
April 7,1992
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO Z-5243-A
NAME:Johnson —Short-form POD
LOCATION:10801 Birchwood Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
DAVID JONES THE WILCOX GROUP
11219 Financial Center 2226 Cottondale Lane
Suite 300 Suite 100
Little Rock,AR 72210 Little Rock,AR 72202
225-6018 666-4545
AREA:0.5 Ac.NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 PROPOSED USES:Office Building (6,000 sq.ft.)
PLANNING DISTRICT:Rodney Parham
CENSUS TRACT:24.01
VARIANCES RE VESTED:
1."0"Setback on Shackleford Road
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
It is the developer's desire to create a situation that is in
keeping with the present uses of the adjacent properties.The
proposed project is to remove the existing single family house
and build a professional office building with approximately
6,000 square feet.
AD PROPOSAL RE VEST:
This proposal involves a 6,000 square foot office building
located on the Southwest corner of Birchwood Drive and
Shackleford Road.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently occupied by two single family
residences which have been used as rental property for a
number of years.The abutting roads are developed to city
standards.
1
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Continued FILE NO.:Z-5243-A
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
This property lies in the 100-year floodplain of Rock Creek.
The minimum floor elevation for any new structure is 384.0.
Sidewalks with handicapped ramps should be constructed on
Birchwood Drive and Shackleford Road,where not present.
D.ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN:
The primary issue in this area is the legal question of
compatibility with the adopted land use plan which calls
for the residential use of the property.
E.ANALYSIS:
This application is a follow-up to a withdrawn 0-1
application which was reviewed by the Planning Commission
approximately fourteen months ago.That application
proposed an identical use of the land with somewhat of a
different site proposal.The proposal has been modified and
details provided on screening,paving and the use.Staff
feels that this is a land use question,and not one of
design.The design would probably work and be efficient in
support of the activity.However,in this area the activity
is inappropriate given a residential use on the adjacent
properties which lie to the north and west.
An office development for the two lots is a departure from
the adopted I-430 District Plan and could have an impact on
the Birchwood neighborhood.This is a long standing and
developed residential area,which has been encroached upon
somewhat from the south.
The existing subdivision also has a valid Bill of Assurance
which prohibits anything other than residential develop-
ments.The covenants and restrictions are enforced until
1999,and they can be extended by a majority of owners.It
takes 604 of the owners to amend the existing Bill of
Assurance.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff reserves its recommendation on this item in order to
further develop the application,the information provided
and our position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(FEBRUARY 6,1992 )
The application was represented by Mr.David Jones and Joe White.
A brief discussion was held to generally deal with the minimum
floor elevation for any new structures in a closed neighborhood
2
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Continued FILE NO.:Z-5243-A
of 100-year floodway line.Jerry Gardner of the Engineering
staff stated that a floor elevation for a proposed structure
should be 384 feet,and this would create a 6 foot fill on the
East over the present terrain elevation.
It was also stated that the Bill of Assurance needs to be
amended before the development occurs at the proposed site.
The matter was forwarded to the full Commission for final
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 25,1992)
The Planning staff reported to the Commission that a request had
been made by the developer to defer this item to the Planning
Commission meeting on April 7,1992.
This would afford the developer sufficient time to address the
concerns of neighborhood objectors and the staff recommendation.
A motion was made to defer this item until April 7,1992 Planning
Commission meeting.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 7,1992)
There were no objectors present.The Planning Commission
received a letter from the applicant,Mr.David Jones.Mr.Jones
requested a deferral of this item until May 19,1992,the next
scheduled meeting.The Commission took note of the fact that
this is the second deferral request.Several members indicated
they had concerns about this application being filed continuously
for different rezoning or development proposals.
A motion was made to include this item within the Consent
Agenda for deferral.The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes
and 4 absent.
3
April 7,1992
4
ITEM NO B FILE NO.:Z-4375-B
NAME:Car Mart —Short-form PCD
LOCATION:5900 South University
DEVELOPER:
DYNAMIC ENTERPRISES
JOHN SCOTT
5900 South University
Little Rock,AR 72209
AREA:1.8 Ac.NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-4 PROPOSED USES:PCD —Used Car Lot
PLANNING DISTRICT:65th Street —West
CENSUS TRACT:20.01
VARIANCES RE UESTED:None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
This application has been submitted in the form of an expansion
of the existing Car Mart site location at 5900 South University.
The present zoning is C-4 and the request is to place the PCD on
the site to permit the display of automobiles within the first 20
feet of the front yard setback.C-4 prohibits open display
within the first 20 feet of a required front yard setback.
STAFF REPORT
This application has been presented to the Commission as a
request for I-2 rezoning on January 28,1992.At that time,the
Planning Commission denied the request with the option of the
applicant filing for a PCD.The site plan has been presented to
staff and approved by Bob Brown,Landscape Specialist.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1.Mabelvale Pike improvements to be half of the 36 foot
collector street.
2.Sidewalk to be 5 feet wide on Mabelvale Pike.
3.Sidewalk requirements on University Avenue frontage.
1
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Continued FILE NO.:Z-4375-B
4.New driveway on Mabelvale Pike to be a maximum of 24 feet
wide.
5.Stormwater detention and excavation permits required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval subject to the comments made above.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(FEBRUARY 6,1992)
The applicant was not present.The staff pointed out that the
issues of the site plan had been discussed thoroughly with the
Planning staff,Engineering and the applicant.The only item
remaining is submitting the revised site plan prior to the
Planning Commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 25,1992 )
The Planning staff informed the Commission that the item needed
to be deferred because of the site plan deficiency.A motion was
made to defer this item to the April 7,1992 meeting.The motion
was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 7,1992)
Staff reported to the Commission that this applicant did not
follow through with the instructions to work with staff on the
site plan modifications discussed in previous commission
meetings.The staff recommended placement of the item on the
Consent Withdrawal Agenda.
A motion to this effect was made.The motion was passed by a
vote of 7 ayes,0 nays and 4 absent.
2
April 7,1992
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO S-940
NAME:T.B.Devine Addition —Replat of Lot 1,Block 1,
Devine Subdivision
LOCATION:On Davmar Drive off Mabelvale Pike Road
DEVELOPER ENGINEER:
THOMAS D.DEVINE,JR.DEE WILSON
9414 Mabelvale Pike South
Mabelvale,AR 72103
565-0186
AREA:1.22 Ac.NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2,I-2 PROPOSED USES:Industrial
PLANNING DISTRICT:Geyer Spring West
CENSUS TRACT:20.02
VARIANCES RE
UESTED'.
Street Improvements
2.Drainage
A.PROPOSAL RE VEST:
This proposal consists of a replat of Lot 1,Devine
Subdivision into Lot 1 and 2.The proposed plat corrects
and establishes certain property lines to conform to the
original intent.Those changes will also accommodate the
existing buildings and surrounding features.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently occupied by two one-story masonry
buildings each having approximately 5,000 square feet.The
Davmar Drive is a narrow gravel road with ditches on both
sides.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
To provide the right-of-way and improvements for an
industrial subdivision street per Section 31-312 of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
1
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Continued FILE NO.:S-940
D.ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN:
Several issues to be introduced here are as follows:
1.To include all information required by the Ordinance on
the plat.
2.To provide written justification for requested waivers
of street improvements on an industrial subdivision.
3.To provide floodway information on the plat.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning staff finds very few issues dealing with this
plat.There are a number of plat elements missing on this
replat which will need to be included.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the replat subject to the
resolution of the above comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(FEBRUARY 6,1992 )
The applicant was not present nor represented.The matter was
forwarded to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 25,1992)
The applicant was not present nor was he represented.Staff told
the Commission that this replat needed to be deferred because of
a notice problem.A motion was made to defer the item until the
April 7,1992 meeting.The motion was approved by a vote of
9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 7,1992 )
Staff reported to the Commission that this applicant failed the
notice requirement for this preliminary plat.Staff suggested
the item be placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral.
A motion to this effect was made.The motion was passed by a
vote of 7 ayes,0 nays and 4 absent.
2
April 7,1992
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-867-V
NAME:Chenal Valley,Blocks 16 and 17
LOCATION:SE Corner of Chenal Parkway and Chenal Valley Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
DELT I C FARM AND T IMBER CO g INC ~WH ITE DATERS AND ASSOC ~/INC ~
g7 Chenal Club Circle 401 Victory
Little Rock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72201
821-5555 374-1666
AREA:22.98 Ac.NUMBER OF LOTS:54 FT.NEW STREET:2,650 ft.
ZONING:MF-6 PROPOSED USES:Single Family Residences
PLANNING DISTRICT:Chenal-19
CENSUS TRACT:42.06
VARIANCES RE UESTED:
1.Building setback lines as shown.
2.Centerline radius for residential streets
(less than 150 feet)
A.PROPOSAL RE VEST:
This proposal consists of a preliminary plat filing for
54 single family lots adjacent to the golf course in Chenal
Valley.The development format is one of medium lots on a
series of streets with a single entry point to service the
neighborhood.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The existing land area is undisturbed at this time with
natural foliage in place.There are streets in place
adjacent to the subdivision plat to the north and east and
the Chenal Golf Course to the south and west.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Sidewalks are waived by the "pathway"system previously
approved.The Excavation Ordinance does apply.
D.ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN:
There are no legal,technical or design problems with the
plat at this review.
1
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 Continued FILE NO.:S-867-V
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning staff's review of this preliminary plat reveals
that the plat is in a proper design,given the terrain and
circumstances of the property.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of this preliminary plat with
approval recommendation for waiver of building setbacks as
shown on the plat.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 19,1992)
The application was represented by Mr.Joe White.There were
several design elements discussed.These dealt primarily with
the 15 and 20 foot building lines on the lots.It was determined
that building lines be increased to 25 feet on the front and
reduced to 20 feet on the rear on all lots abutting the golf
course.On the remaining lots with rear access drives,the
building lines will remain unchanged.
There being no further discussion,the matter was forwarded to
the full Commission for final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 7,1992 )
There were no objectors present.Staff reported to the
Commission that this item was retained on the regular agenda for
purposes of discussing the waivers requested by the applicant.
A brief discussion of the two waivers resulted in there being no
reservations concerning the variances as requested.It was
pointed out that the golf course to the rear of most of the lots
provides a significant open green space,thereby allowing the
reduction of the rear yard.The street centerline radius was
approved by the Public Works Department as workable.
A motion was then made to approve the preliminary plat as
presented and recommended approval of the waivers to the City
Board of Directors.The motion was passed by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 nays and 4 absent.
2
April 7,1992
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:Z-4356-B
NAME:Kanis Mini-Storage —Short-form PCD
LOCATION:SW Corner of Kanis and Bowman Roads
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
UNITED PROPERTIES,INC.SUMMERLIN ASSOCIATES,INC.1616 Brookwood 1609 South BroadwayLittleRock,AR Little Rock,AR 72206666-0308 376-1323
AREA:2.36 Ac.NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 PROPOSED USES:Mini-Warehouse
PLANNING DISTRICT:21
CENSUS TRACT:42.07
VARIANCES RE UESTED:None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
This application has been submitted in the form of an expansionoftheexistingmini-storage facilities lying immediately to thenorth.The site plan,as designed,will operate in conjunctionwiththeexistingmini-storages.There will be open flow oftrafficbetweenthesetwositestherebyeliminatingtheneed foradditionalcurbcuts.
The concept for this project is a low intensity commercial
development with large buffer areas,screening and landscaping as
you approach the adjacent lower intensity uses,i.e.,CherryCreekAdditiononthewest.
An opaque fence will be provided on the sides of property whichabutsresidentialzoning.The construction will consists of fivecolored,prefabricated metal buildings with 8 foot eave heights.Each building will be constructed on the concrete slabfoundationsandthedriveareaswillbepaved.
A.PROPOSAL RE UEST:
This application consists of a proposal to expand existingthemini-storage facility on the tract of land immediatelytothesouth.Access would be taken through the existingsitefromKanisRoad.
1
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 Continued FILE NO.:Z-4356-B
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This tract of land is mainly a flat tract of ground with a
former residential structure in place on the Bowman Road end
of the property.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Provide stormwater detention facilities (3,900 square feetfacilityshownontheplans,not approved without design
calculations and details);provide right-of-way and
improvements for minor arterial on Bowman frontage.
D.ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN:
The design of the site is adequate to the site and this
proposal.However,the significant issue attached to this
filing is nonconforming with the adopted land use plan for
the area.There are a number of detail items on the site
plan which required resolution.These are as follows:
1.Structural description should be provided.
2.A lighting scheme for the building and driveway areas
should be provided.
3.Describe ways to protect trees in buffer areas during
construction.
4.Use nonreflecting materials for roofing,and slope them
away from residential neighborhood.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning staff view of this proposal is that the designisadequatefortheuseandthesizeofpropertyindicated.
However,we feel the proposal is located inappropriately.
The Planning staff felt that zoning action would be a
recognition of a need to move the commercial zoning line on
the plan to the south and extend the commercial activity on
the corner of Kanis and Bowman Roads.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff reserves its recommendation on this item in order to
further develop the application,the information and our
position.
2
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 Continued FILE NO.:Z-4356-B
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 19,1992)
The applicant was present.The Planning staff pointed out thatitfeltthisissuewasalandusematter.Also,the site plan
presented was a good design,given the property access and
configuration.
The only items of a design nature discussed were the type of
material for roofing,lighting scheme for parking and protection
of the buffer areas during construction.It was suggested that
the roof be made of nonreflecting material and lights directed
away from the residential neighborhood.
There being no further discussion on this item,the matter was
forwarded to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 7,1992)
The Planning staff offered its recommendation to deny the
application being presented to the Commission.Staff stated the
proposal was incompatible with the adopted land use plan because
the proposes that the subject property as multifamily.
The applicant was represented by Mr.Bill Hastings and
accompanied by Mr.Jim Summerlin,the engineer for the project.
Mr.Hastings offered an extensive overview of the project,he
identified the treatment proposed for the site and described the
buildings as to their composition and the type of roof.
Mr.Hastings commented on a statement from the Public Works
Department in the staff write-up.He stated that his client
would be willing to construct the improvements and dedicate the
right-of-way on Bowman Road at the time that frontage is
developed.Mr.Hastings presented a copy of the site plan for
the Commission to review.He and Mr.Summerlin answered
questions about the various elements of the plan by the
Commission.Mr.Summerlin expanded his comments by detailing the
effects of site preparation;identifying where cuts and fills
would have to be accomplished and retaining walls along the south
property line.
The Commission and the applicant then entered into a general
discussion of the mixture of land uses within the immediate
neighborhood,including the landscape business and liquor store
at the Bowman and Kanis Intersection.
Mr.Hastings then offered comments concerning the hours of
operation and the manner in which the business is currently
operated.He identified it as an excellent business,both in
3
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 Continued FILE NO.:Z-4356-B
appearance and operation.In a response to a question from one
of the commissioners,Mr.Summerlin stated that the closest the
proposed buildings would be to the adjacent residential property
line would be approximately 80 feet.He further indicated the
top of the buildings,for the most part,would be below the
elevation of the adjacent residential lots due to the cut in the
western area of the development,plus there will be a 6 foot
board fence erected along the west property line.
In response to a question from the Commission,the applicant
indicated the proposed landscaping would be compatible with the
existing on-site which would have to meet the Ordinance
requirement.
A question was then asked as to whether the buildings would be
all metal in construction and if there would be masonry as on the
face as the existing Kanis Road frontage.The applicant's
responded by saying the buildings are all prefabricated metal
type structures and would be similar in construction to the
existing along Kanis.However,there would not be a concrete
block facing as on the existing building.Mr.Hastings indicated
that the buildings,like most mini-warehouse structures will be
mainly overhead doors on the exterior sides and would be the view
presented internally.The ends of the building will,of course,
be solid without doors.
A question was then asked by a commissioner as to whether or not
the residential owners in the immediate area to the west had been
contacted as well as the builders and developers.Mr.Hastings
responded by saying they had been contacted,and to his knowledge
there had been no objection expressed by any current owner.
Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters was then asked to present
her comments on the issue.She stated that she found it
difficult to support changes in plans which had been developed
fully by the staff and the Board through the public hearing
process,unless the applicant makes a very good case for his
proposal.
In responding to Mrs.Bell's comments,Mr.Hastings stated that
in his conversation with the developers and builders of the
residential area,they had a preference for this type of usage
rather than the multifamily proposed by the plan.
A question was then asked about the operational hours of the
business.Mr.Hastings stated the hours will be 7:00 a.m.,on
most days,and operate until sundown at which time they will
close the gate and lock up.They are open on Saturdays,but
closed on Sundays.A lengthy discussion then followed involving
several of the commissioners,staff and the applicant.It was
determined during the course of this conversation that there were
4
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 Continued FILE NO.:Z-4356-B
no record objectors,except Mrs.Bell.A commissioner pointedoutthatthisissuecomesdowntooneoflanduse,not design,
which is the particular decision to be made.Several comments
were made by commissioners in the form of statements,that,theyfeltlikeatsomepointtheplanmustbeviewedasgeneralinnature,and the Planning Commission exercise good judgment indealingwiththesetypesofcases.
Jim Lawson asked the applicant if it was his intent to make theoperationalhours,as outlined above,a part of the PCD approval.
Mr.Hastings responded in the affirmative.Mr.Hastings alsoidentifiedhiscommitmenttoanonreflectiveroofstructure.
Mr.Lawson asked Mr.Hastings what type of lighting system was
proposed for this development.Mr.Lawson then went on to saythatalthoughthestaff's original recommendation was denial.Heindicatedtheconcernhereisaboutthesignificantamountofscreening,buffering,the design of the building and other
accommodations to the location suggested by staff.He felt that
perhaps in this case,the land use plan can be modified and he
pointed that we should,in this case,identify the plan as
general in nature.The line as discussed previously beinggeneral,but not specific.He said the existing warehouse
complex to which this will be tied supports this proposal.
Mr.Lawson stated he felt the remaining issue here to be dealt
with,as far as impact on the neighborhood,would be the lights
shining into the neighborhood.He stated that he would like to
add a requirement that on any approval,where the lights wouldnotshineoutsidetheproject,but be cast downward and inward.
Mr.Hastings indicated this could be worked out and it would be
made part of the plan.
Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters then asked of the notices
mailed,what persons were they mailed to and were thereresidentialownerswithintherequirednotificationdistance.Staff pointed out that to the extent of their knowledge there
were houses within the 200 feet and did receive a notice.There
were about 16 or 17 mailed to various land owners.Staffidentifiedsixorsevenlotsfromthenoticelistthatwere
possibly single family lots with at least one of them apparentlyoccupied
Mrs.Bell expanded on the question by asking if most of thenoticesweresenttopeoplewithundevelopedtractsordid some
homeowners receive the notice.Staff's response was they reallycouldnottellbytheabstractlist,but there were severalpotentialwithinthenoticedistance.
Mrs.Bell then expanded her comments to what she identified as a
major concern,that being her fear that the Planning Commission
by its discussion and actions taken here were developing criteriaforchanginglanduseplans.The Chairman's response to
5
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 Continued FILE NO.:Z-4356-B
Mrs.Bell's concern was that the Commission typically responds toactions.If there are large numbers of people present,the
Commission will obviously listen to their concerns and perhaps
follow their direction.Where there is little or no concern
expressed by the neighborhood,then the Commission must take it
upon itself to use its best judgment.
One commissioner specifically stated that he viewed it as a land
use plan of general guideline.Boundaries have been established,
but,that,when you deal with specific application such as this
with specific boundaries,then you need to look at the
surrounding property and use within.
The question was then called by the Chairman at the suggestion of
one of the members.He asked if there were addendums or items to
be attached prior to taking a vote on the matter.Jim Lawson
stated that he felt that the several items that Mr.Hastings have
agreed to should be made a part of the PCD approval and the
motion.
Mr.Lawson expanded by saying that he needed some clarification
from Mr.Summerlin,the project engineer,as to whether or not hefeltthe50footopenspacestripalongthewestsidecouldbe
protected against construction immediately adjacent.A general
discussion of this matter was held with the conclusion being,that the staff and the developer would have to agree at the time
of final plan approval on the manner in which the 50 foot buffer
was to be protected against intrusion.It was pointed out thatthisisanordinancerequirement,and not an option.The
Chairman then stated that the staff will respond to the
applicant's plan when it is submitted with the conditions of this
approval included.The Chairman then asked for a vote on a call
for question.The vote produced 6 ayes,1 nay and 4 absent.
The PCD is approved with the several conditions agreed upon by
Mr.Hastings.
6
April 7,1992
ITEM NO.:3
NAME:Christ the King Church/School
Amended Conditional Use Permit
(Z-3836-D)
LOCATION:4000 North Rodney Parham
OWNER APPLICANT:Catholic Diocese of Little Rock/
Joe White,Agent
PROPOSAL:An amended Conditional Use Permit
is requested to allow use of the
property for modification of
existing driveway locations.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
Adjacent to a minor arterial (North Rodney Parham Road)and
a residential street (Woodland Heights Road).
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
The church/school is an existing use that has received three
previous Conditional Use Permit approvals.Office uses are
adjacent to the south and east,with single family located
to the north and vacant land to the west.The use is
compatible with the surrounding area.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
This site has four existing access drives (three from North
Rodney Parham Road and one from Woodland Heights Road)and
297 parking spaces.The proposal contains a drop-off loop
(25 to 22 feet in width)along with an exit drive on
Woodland Heights (20 feet in width).
4.Screenin and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use the existing landscaping.
Additional landscaping borders are required to protect the
landscaped areas from vehicular use.
5.Cit En ineer Comments
Traffic Engineering will not approve the new driveway on
Woodland Heights due to sight distance concerns.Provide
handicapped ramps in the existing and new sidewalk at all
corners and driveway intersections.Storm water detention
facility required for the new parking lot.
1
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Continued
6.A~nal sis
As previously mentioned,this is the third Conditional Use
Permit on this site,but the first amendment.The applicantisproposinganewexitdrive(20 feet in width)on Woodland
Heights Road and a drop-off drive which varies from 22 feetto25feet.
The staff feels that the use existing is compatible with the
surrounding area.In addition,the staff feels that all the
requirement of engineering should be met.To allow the curb
cut on Woodland Heights would create a site distance problem
due to the fact the fence is right on the property line.
7.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to the engineering and
landscaping requirements being met.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 19,1992)
Joe White represented the applicant.Staff gave an overview of
the applicant's request.Jerry Gardner of Engineering stated
that the drive off of Woodland Heights will not be allowed
because it creates a sight distance problem.Joe White asked if
the sight distance problem was corrected would Engineering have a
problem with the drive.Jerry Gardner stated that he would have
to see a site plan before he could give a recommendation.Joe
White state he would get a site plan together and meet with
Engineering.Bob Brown stated that the proposed drop-off drive
will have to be reduced to 20 feet in order to meet the 6 foot
side landscaping screening with shrubs and four (4)trees.No
other discussion took place.This item was sent on to the full
Commission for action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 7,1992)
Joe White represented the applicant.There were no objectors in
attendance.As part of the Consent Agenda this item was approved
per the engineering requirement.The vote was 7 ayes,0 noes and
4 absent.
2
April 7,1992
ITEM NO.:4
NAME:Fellowship Bible Church—
Conditional Use Permit (Z-5403-A)
LOCATION:12601 Hinson Road
OWNER APPLICANT:Fellowship Bible Church/
Darrell Odom,Agent
PROPOSAL:A Conditional Use Permit is
requested to allow use of the
property for a multipurpose
building.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
Located at the Southwest corner of Hinson and Napa Valley
Roads.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
The site is compatible with the neighborhood.There exist a
school,residences and multifamily uses.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
Existing on-site is a circular driveway with curb cuts off
of Hinson and Napa Valley Roads.The required parking,
paving and stripping will be required for the new structure.
4.Screenin and Buffers
There exist some landscaping on the site.However,the
applicant will have to provide more landscaping in order to
meet the new landscaping requirements.
5.Cit En ineer Comments
There are no engineering comments to report.
The Little Rock Fire De artment and Little Rock Munici al
Waterworks are requiring an additional fire hydrant.
6.~Anal sis
The proposed building is a two story,21,000 square feet
education and activity building,including classrooms,
restrooms,kitchen and gymnasium space.Staff feels the
proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding area.
1
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 Continued
The existing site of 10.91 acres has 341 parking spaces
to which 101 new parking spaces will be added including
two handicapped accessible spaces.Parking requirements
are determined by the present 700+seat ratio which requires
175 spaces.
In regards to the additional fire hydrant that is required,
the applicant should work out some type of an agreement with
Pulaski Academy to possibly share one.
7.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit
subject to the landscaping requirement being met,as well
as the fire department and Water Works.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 19,1992)
Mr.Muriel Lewis represented the applicant.Staff gave an
overview of the applicant's request.Mr.Lewis explained further
in detail.Staff informed Mr.Lewis that the new construction
would require some additional landscaping.Mr.Lewis stated he
had no problem with meeting the landscaping requirements.No
other discussion took place.This item was sent on to the full
Commission for action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 7,1992)
A representative for the applicant was in attendance.There were
no objectors present.As part of the Consent Agenda,this item
was approved by a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes and 4 absent.
2
April 7,1992
ITEM NO.:5
NAME:Heritage Baptist Temple—
Conditional Use Permit (Z-5554)
LOCATION:4910 Stagecoach Road
OWNER APPLICANT:Heritage Baptist Temple/
Rev.Graham Lewis,Agent
PROPOSAL:A Conditional Use Permit is
requested to allow use of the
property for a doublewide mobile
home.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
Located in the Northeast corner approximately 806.4 feet
along Colonel Glenn Road and approximately 1607.2 feet
along State Highway 5 (Stagecoach Road).
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
The church/school is compatible with the neighborhood.
No adverse impact will be placed on the adjacent property
owners.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
Access to the site is taken off of two existing driveways.
There is also a circular drop-off of which the existing
driveways connect.
4 ~Screenin and Buffers
The applicant plans to use the existing screening and
buffers.If more is needed,the applicant will comply.
5.Cit En ineer Comments
Provide principal arterial right-of-way dedication (for a
total of 55 feet from centerline)on Stagecoach Road and
Colonel Glenn Road frontages.
6.A~nal sis
The proposal before the Commission is for a doublewide
mobile home for security reason.Presently,there is a
single wide mobile home on the site.The mobile home has
been on the site since 1976.At this time,the mobile home
is in need of major repairs,and the church feels that it
would be more economical to replace it than to repair it.
1
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Continued
The new mobile home will be a 1989 Sunshine doublewide unit,
28 X 48 feet.It is also the desire of the church to move
the new doublewide mobile home approximately 100 feet from
the existing location.
By moving the mobile home,the grounds and maintenance
person will have a better view of the main structure.View
of the main structure is blocked by the bus garage.
7.Staff Recommendation
Staff's only concern about this request is the fact that
there are several junk buses on the site.Staff feels that
the junk buses should be removed.
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit
subject to some arrangement being made regarding the removal
of the junk buses on the site.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 19,1992 )
The applicant was not present nor was there a representative in
attendance.Staff gave an overview of the applicant's request.
A small discussion took place,however one member asked how many
of the mobile homes on the site are being used for residential
purposes.This item was sent on to the full Commission for
action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 7,1992 )
Staff informed the Commission that the notice requirements have
not been met.This item would have to be deferred until the
May 19,1992 meeting.As part of the Consent Agenda a deferral
was approved by a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes and 4 absent.
2
April 7,1992
ITEM NO.:6
NAME:Harris —Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5557)
LOCATION:3001 West 65th Street
OWNER APPLICANT:Arian Harris
PROPOSAL:A Conditional Use Permit is
requested to allow use of the
property for a bookstore.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1.Site Location
Located at the intersection of West 65th Street and Murray
Road approximately 150 feet.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
The site is compatible with the neighborhood.Surrounding
the site is a mixture of uses from commercial to industrial.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
There exist three on-site drives to the site,one off of
Murray Road and two off of West 65th Street.The applicant
plans to meet the parking requirements.
4.Screenin and Buffers
There will have to be new landscaping in order to meet the
Ordinance requirement.
5.Cit En ineer Comments
There are none to be reported.
6.A~nal sis
The proposal before the Commission is for an adult
bookstore.Presently,the applicant has one bookstore in
the area,but will have to relocate in order to meet the new
Ordinance requirement for uses of this type.
The business will be private and will require a membershiptoenter.No one under 18 years of age will be given a
membership card.There will be books,video tapes and gaggiftspertainingtosexuallyorientedmaterial.There also
will be booths for viewing of tapes.Staff feels that this
location of the business is a more compatible area than the
1
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 Continued
existing location.Zoned I-2 Light Industrial,this use ispermittedasaConditionalUsePermit.The site at one timewasaservicestationandhasbeenvacantforanumberofyears.The expansion of the existing structure along withtheotherCityrequirementswillhelptorestoreamuchneededarea.
7.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permitsubjecttothelandscapingrequirementsbeingmetandthepavingandstrippingoftheparkingareas.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 19 g 1992)
The applicant was in attendance.Staff gave an overview of theapplicant's request.No additional discussion took place.ThisitemwassentontothefullCommissionforaction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 7g 1992)
The applicant was in attendance.There was one person present inoppositiontotheConditionalUsePermit,Charles Q.Hinkel,whoisalocaldivisionmanagerforNAPA.
Mr.Hinkel was asked to speak first before the Commission.Hestatedthatheneededsomeclarification.Mr.Hinkel stated whenthegentlemancamebythestore,he was not there.He asked,according to his understanding,if the Harris Bookstore is to beanadultbookstore.The Chairman responded by saying yes thatwashisunderstandingaswell.Mr.Hinkel then stated as arepresentativeofNAPA,Inc.he was at the meeting to object.Heexplainedthereweretwoprimaryreasonsforattendingthehearing:(a)This type of use would be detrimental to thepropertyvaluesintheareaand(b)would be a serious threat totheretailcustomerswhichnowfrequentthepartsstorejustbecauseofthereputationofthistypeofstorehas.
A commissioner asked Mr.Hinkel where was his property located inregardstothebookstore.Mr.Hinkel stated that NAPA is locatednextdoorat6519SouthMurray,which is to the south.
Stephen Giles,Assistant City Attorney,was asked to explain theOrdinanceregardingclosingdowntheadultbookstoresinthecity.Mr.Giles stated the City started at the end of anamortizationperiod,under a separate city ordinance,to allowcertainadultbusinessusestobelocatedwithindesignatedareasoftheCity.With this action,the City deemed to be a moreappropriateareaforthebusinesstooperateandawayfromthe
2
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 Continued
residential areas or close to occupied structures.Mr.Harris
has looked around the City and found one such availableindustrialareatorelocateto.
Mr.Giles explained that the intent of the Ordinance is toprotectresidentialareas,historic districts,and things whichareverysensitivetothesetypesofintrusionsthatcanoccur
through commercial development.The City has spent a lot of time
and effort in making available areas.Therefore,the City could
not just close the businesses and not let them relocate anywhereinthecity,this would be unconstitutional.The City is inlitigationwiththeapplicantandothersconcerningtheconstitutionalityoftheOrdinance.He stated that thisapplicationisagoodfaitheffortonthepartoftheapplicant
and City to reach some type of agreement for a location which is
not agrestial to the public.However,to come into thisparticulararea,the Ordinance allows this type of use under aConditionalUsePermit.
A board member then asked if there were zones which would allowthisusebyright.Staff stated yes,C-2 or C-3 would allow abookstore,but not one of this type.Mr.Giles stated,becauseofthespacingrequirementsoftheOrdinance,these particular
types of businesses have a much harder task in finding a location
when compared to a typical bookstore,which would not have to
have the same type of separation as the one before the
Commission.
Mr.Giles further stated that unless this application is totally
incompatible with the surrounding area and found to be
detrimental to the properties,then staff's position is approvalforthelanduse.It should not be the position of the
Commission to set judgment on this type of use.
Arlene Harris,the applicant then addressed the Commission.HestatedthatallhewasdoingwascheckingtheOrdinance.The
Ordinance says this type of business can be located on the site,
and he is trying to do so.
Staff stated since the application is for a conditional use
permit,then the Commission can place conditions on the approvalifMr.Harris and Mr.Hinkel can reach some kind of an agreement.
For example,the hours of operation could be restricted,or
parking or signage.
A board member then asked what percentage of the Sign Ordinance
applies in industrial zoning?One of the historic things withthistypeofbusinessistopaintthesideofthewall.Can anyassurancebegivenastotheamountofsignagewhichwillbeonthesite?
3
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 Continued
Mr.Harris stated that what he is doing is making an investment.
He has a tenant,and the City is forcing this person to move.
Therefore,he is making an investment to move the tenant.The
signage would not be any different from the one down the street.
Mr.Harris stated all that is happening is the one down thestreetismovingtothislocationinordertocomplywiththe
Ordinance.The business is already in existence.A board member
then asked Mr.Harris if he was the owner or applicant?
Mr.Harris stated he was the one applying for the use.He alsostatedhewastestingtheOrdinance.The City said in federal
court that an adult bookstore could be located on this site and
he was trying to find out.
Staff stated that signage in industrial districts is less than inotherdistricts.Mr.Harris stated there is one little square
sign at the present location.It is probably 3 feet tall and
2 feet wide.There will be no painting on the sides of the
building.Mr.Harris was asked if he would be willing to amendhisapplicationtostatetherewillbealowkeysignandnone on
the facade.Mr.Harris stated he had no problem with the
amendment.
Mr.Hinkel addressed the Board again.He stated that to allowthisusewouldbeverydetrimentaltothebusinessbecauseof the
type of clientele this type of use caters to.A board member
asked Mr.Hinkel what type of customer frequented his store?
Mr.Hinkel stated the typical customer is male between the agesof18to55whichisabout804ofthebusiness.Approximately,
354 of the total walk in trade would be women between the agesof20to40yearsold.
A board member asked if this was going to be new construction and
what would be the separation between the two businesses?Staffstatedthatthesitehasanexistingbuilding.Mr.Harris planstoenlargethisstructureandputinlandscapingandparking.
Bob Brown then stated since the new construction is so much,the
Landscape Ordinance would apply 100%.There is approximately
20 feet of separation between the two
buildings'he
Chairman then ended the public hearing and more discussion
took place among the Commission and applicant.A commissioner
asked Mr.Harris what would be the hours of operation.
Mr.Harris stated that presently the hours are 24 hours a day.
However,he would be willing to reduce them if the application is
approved.
Stephen Giles then asked the commissioners if they were aware of
the ramifications of whether the request is approved or denied.
He explained the application is really the focal point of the
lawsuit against the City.The applicant and other parties are
challenging the City by using the new Ordinance.They feel the
4
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 Continued
Ordinance's intent is to run this type of use out of the city.
The City's whole position throughout the lawsuit has been there
are other locations within the city for this type of use.This
particular site is as a suitable place within the allowed areas
in the city.It may be that the court will review a denial of
this application to uphold Mr.Harris'awsuit.If that happens,
the Ordinance would be rendered unconstitutional and the business
would be allowed to stay where it is presently located.
Several commissioners gave their opinions regarding the
application.Those opinions ranged from (1)there are other
areas in the city for this type of use which would be more
acceptable,(2)the Commission has a right to take a closer look
at the application regardless of what the City and federal court
have decided,(3)can the applicant get an extension if the
application is denied?(4)the type of zoning,and (5)how long
has the property been vacant?
The Chairman then called for the pleasure of the Board.A motion
was made to accept the amended application restricting the
signage and facade.The motion died by a vote of 4 ayes,4 noes
and 3 absent.Due to the item not receiving six votes either
way,it was automatically deferred to the April 21,1992 meeting.
5
April 7,1992
ITEM NO.:7
NAME:Broadaway —Amended Conditional Use
Permit (Z-5451-B)
LOCATION:4716 Baseline Road
OWNER APPLICANT:Dale Broadaway
PROPOSAL:A amendment to the Conditional Use
Permit is requested to allow for a
delay in meeting the paving
requirements.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
This site is located on Baseline Road between Doyle Springs
and Statton Roads.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
The surrounding land use is a mixture of residential and
commercial,but the zoning is all residential.The use is
compatible with the neighborhood.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
There exists an on-site drive off of Baseline Road and
thirteen parking spaces.
4.Screenin and Buffers
The applicant will be required to provide landscaping in
accordance with the landscaping ordinance.
5.Cit En ineer Comments
There are none to be reported.
6.A~nal sis
The applicant is back before the Commission requesting a
delay in meeting the paving requirements for the Conditional
Use Permit granted on February 25,1992.The Conditional
Use Permit was for the construction of four mini-warehouses
on an existing mini-warehouse site.The four new mini-
warehouses will be done in a two phase process with the full
completion expected within three years.
At the present time,the applicant is planning on building
only two of the four buildings.It is not economically
feasible with limited development to pave the driveways and
1
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 Continued
parking areas.Therefore,the applicant is requesting a
three year extension from the Ordinance requirement.This
would allow additional time for the SB2 surface to compact
and provide a better base on which to pave.
7.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the three year deferral for the
required paving.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 7,1992)
The applicant was represented.There were no objectors in
attendance.As part of the Consent Agenda,this item was
approved by a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes and 4 absent.
2
April 7,1992
ITEM NO.:8
NAME:Fairview Addition plat —reduce to
acreage
LOCATION:Off Arch Street Pike in Section 22,
T-l-N,R-12-W
OWNER APPLICANT:Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company/Guy Amsler,Jr.,Agent
ADDRESS:1200 Union National Plaza
124 West Capitol Avenue
Little Rock,AR 72201-3742
~RE VEST:
This applicant proposes to gain approval from the Planning
Commission to be able to reduce part of the Fairview Addition
platted land to acreage.This conversion will also involve
closing part of Arch,Broadway,Spring,Center,Louisiana,
Whittington,Oakwood and Granite Streets.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 7,1992)
Planning staff offered its recommendation of approval.There
were no objectors in attendance.After a brief discussion,the
Commission determined to place this item on the Consent Agenda
for approval.A motion was then made to that effect.The motion
passed by a vote of 7 ayes,0 nays and 4 absent.
1
April 7,1992
ITEM NO.:9
NAME:Wentwood Valley Apartments
LOCATION:2221 Wentwood Valley off Arkansas
Valley Drive in Pleasant Place
Addition
APPLICANT:Herbert W.Kell,Jr.,Agent
REVEST:
This applicant requests a review by the Planning Commission of a
Bill of Assurance Amendment.The purpose of this amendment is to
reduce the minimum square footage for one bedroom units from 800
square feet to 600 square feet.
STAFF REPORT:
A proposed amended Bill of Assurance has been offered for staff
review.In our reading of the instrument,we found no problems
presented by the language that is proposed.Staff recommends
approval of the amended Bill of Assurance as drafted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning staff recommends approval of the amended Bill of
Assurance as drafted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 7,1992)
The Planning staff offered its recommendation of approval of the
amended Bill of Assurance.There was a brief discussion of the
proposal.Staff recommended this item be placed on the Consent
Agenda for approval.A motion was made to that effect.The
motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,0 nays and 4 absent.
1
4
April 7,1992
ITEM NO.:10
NAME:Parker Water Service Request
LOCATION:811 Ada Lane
APPLICANT:Robert A.Parker
~RE VEST:
This applicant has made a request to the Little Rock Water Works
and the City staff for an extension of water service to two lots
that are at this time landlocked without frontage upon a
dedicated street.The applicant approached the Subdivision
Committee at its last meeting with a request for resolution of
his problem which involves an extension of a water main and
replatting of his property to accommodate the Subdivision
Ordinance requirements.The staff and Committee discussed this
item with Mr.Parker with the resolution being an agreement with
Mr.Parker that he would have a design professional do a four lot
plat which would be submitted to the Planning Commission at its
meeting on May 19,1992.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 7,1992)
Richard Wood of the Planning staff reported to the Commission
that this item is before the Commission as informational material
only.In as much as the applicant and the Subdivision Committee
had reached an understanding on his approach to solving his
problem,there is no need for a vote or action by the Commission
at this hearing.
1
April 7,1992
ITEM NO.:11
NAME:Capitol Keyboard PCD (Z-5178-D)
LOCATION:13401 Chenal Parkway
APPLICANT:Mr.Dell Rich
STAFF REPORT
The Planning staff has had several contacts with Mr.Rich as wellasrepresentativesoftheLittleRockCommunityTheater.Thisorganizationproposestoproducetwoorthreeofitsfourannual
shows at the current location of Capitol Keyboard.The CommunityTheaterwillusethefacilitiesthatwereconstructedwithintheexistingbuildingwhichwillseatapproximately50to75personsintheaudience.The facility also contains a complete soundstageandperformancearea.
The item,as presented to the Planning Commission,at this
meeting is for purposes of identifying that the staff was unabletoplacethisitemontheformalagendaandgothroughallofthereviewprocessforApril7.However,this has been corrected and
we will be presenting the complete material within the Zoning
Agenda for April 21.
The Subdivision Administrator prepared the legal ad for thisitem.It was published with this date given,therefore,we must
make a public record of the hearing and formally defer the itemtothemeetingonApril21.A motion was made to this effect.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
1
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
V
O
T
E
R
E
C
O
R
D
D
A
T
E
I
—
t
'
&
E
K
P
A
~
C
o
w
s
s
w
T
A
w
Q
P
A
~
r
-
'
E
M
B
E
R
Z
.
l
o
l
l
l
5
c
2
+
Q
/
8
B
A
L
L
,
R
A
M
S
E
Y
C
H
A
C
H
E
R
E
,
D
I
A
N
E
W
I
L
L
I
S
,
E
M
M
E
T
T
v
'
m
M
C
D
A
N
I
E
L
,
J
O
H
N
N
I
C
H
O
L
S
O
N
,
J
E
R
I
L
Y
N
A
F
i
O
L
E
S
O
N
,
K
A
T
H
L
E
E
N
V
O
N
T
U
N
G
E
L
N
,
J
I
M
P
U
T
N
A
M
,
B
I
L
L
W
O
O
D
S
,
R
O
N
A
L
D
A
S
E
L
Z
,
J
O
E
H
.
W
A
L
K
E
R
,
B
R
A
D
y
,
A
T
I
M
E
I
N
A
N
D
T
I
M
E
O
U
T
B
A
L
L
,
R
A
M
S
E
Y
C
H
A
C
H
E
R
E
,
D
I
A
N
E
W
I
L
L
I
S
,
E
M
M
E
T
T
M
C
D
A
N
I
E
L
,
J
O
H
N
N
I
C
H
O
L
S
O
N
,
J
E
R
I
L
Y
N
O
L
E
S
O
N
,
K
A
T
H
L
E
E
N
I
V
O
N
T
U
N
G
E
L
N
,
J
I
M
;
3
d
P
U
T
N
A
M
,
B
I
L
L
W
O
O
D
S
,
R
O
N
A
L
D
S
E
L
Z
,
J
O
E
H
.
W
A
L
K
E
R
,
B
R
A
D
/
:
s
7
T
t
P
h
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
~
~
P
.
M
.
A
Y
E
N
A
Y
E
A
A
B
S
E
N
T
E
A
B
S
T
A
I
N
April 7,1992
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 2:12 p.m.
0-/fez
Date
C
airman ary