Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4188-A Staff AnalysisFile No. 555-A NAME: Landscape Material and Design "Revised" PCD - (Z -4188-A) LOCATION: One-fourth mile south of Stagecoach on the west side of Sibley Hole Road APPLICANT: Allen Smith, Jr. Landscape Material and Design, Inc. Environmental Contractors 7901 Stagecoach Road Little Rock, AR 72204 Phone: 455-2962 REQUEST: Revision of an approved "PCD" project for a landscaping business. STAFF REPORT: This is a request to revise an approved PUD project. The changes consist of: (1) Moving the tool/storage/workshop from the west to the east side of the property, and expanding it from a 24' x 48' accessory building to one of 80' x 201. This building will be built up off the ground 6' with 9" x 7" piers. (2) Expanding the "greenhouse/lathe house" from 20' x 60' to 100' x 1401. This would be expanded over a period of time. The structure is a shade cloth (nylon mesh) stretched over a frame of 2" x 6" lumber supported by 5" x 5" posts. It is to be used for protection of shade and semi -shade loving landscape plants. The floor will be of gravel with no solid walls. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: (A) Those facilities proposed in the floodplain must be constructed with their minimum floor elevation 1' above the 100 -year flood elevation. File No. 555-A - Continued (B) Only plant materials will be allowed in the floodway area; no fences, construct,ion materials, pallets, etc., will be permitted. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff does not feel that the revision sought by the applicant will be detrimental to the project itself or the surrounding areas. There is a requirement, however, that all structures must set back 25' from the floodway. Staff supports the intrusion into the required setback area only if it was approved on the previous plans; otherwise, the applicant is asked to comply with the requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: It was decided that the proximity of the buildings to the floodway should not be an issue since it involved a greenhouse and a building raised 6' from the ground, provided there would be no enclosure of the raised building in the future. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant reported that he had failed to get his notices out on time. He then requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (4-25-85) There was no further review of the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-14-85) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff reported that the notice receipts were submitted. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - File No. 555-A NAME: Landscape Material and Design "Revised" PCD - (Z -4188-A) LOCATION: One-fourth mile south of Stagecoach on the west side of Sibley Hole Road APPLICANT: Allen Smith, Jr. Landscape Material and Design, Inc. Environmental Contractors 7901 Stagecoach Road Little Rock, AR 72204 Phone: 455-2962 REQUEST: Revision of an approved "PCD" project for a landscaping business. STAFF REPORT: This is a request to revise an approved PUD project. The changes consist of: (1) Moving the tool/storage/workshop from the west to the east side of the property, and expanding it from a 24' x 48' accessory building to one of 80' x 201. This building will be built up off the ground 6' with 9" x 7" piers. (2) Expanding the "greenhouse/lathe house" from 20' x 60' to 100' x 1401. This would be expanded over a period of time. The structure is a shade cloth (nylon mesh) stretched over a frame of 2" x 6" lumber supported by 5" x 5" posts. It is to be used for protection of shade and semi -shade loving landscape plants. The floor will be of gravel with no solid walls. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: (A) Those facilities proposed in the floodplain must be constructed with their minimum floor elevation 1' above the 100 -year flood elevation. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued (B) Only plant materials will be allowed in the floodway area; no fences, construction materials, pallets, etc., will be permitted. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff does not feel that the revision sought by the applicant will be detrimental to the project itself or the surrounding areas. There is a requirement, however, that all structures must set back 25' from the floodway. Staff supports the intrusion into the required setback area only if it was approved on the previous plans; otherwise, the applicant is asked to comply with the requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: It was decided that the proximity of the buildings to the floodway should not be an issue since it involved a greenhouse and a building raised 6' from the ground, provided there would be no enclosure of the raised building in the future. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant reported that he had failed to get his notices out on time. He then requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (4-25-85) There was no further review of the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-14-85) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff reported that the notice receipts were submitted. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Other Matters/Appeal NAME: Robert J. Richardson, Agent for the Owner SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission staff denial of a lot split plat titled "Cantrell Place West Addition, Lot 2 Replat" LOCATION: Approximately 150 feet south of the intersection of Cantrell Road at Misty Lane on the east side of the street REQUEST: This request is for a "yes" or "no" response to the subject appeal, the question basically being, does the Planning Commission support the -staff's rejection of the plat? STAFF REPORT: This issue is before the Planning Commission as a result of the staff rejecting a second lot split within the boundary of the first split. The sequence of events leading to the rejection --are as follows: Mr. Richardson filed a preliminary plat on the subject property in August of 1984, after having withdrawn a controversial condominium project on the site. The plat consisted of four residential lots, three in a conventional fashion and one as a pipe stem. The plat was submitted to the Planning Commission and Subdivision Committee for review. The Commission's public hearing was held on September 11, 1984, at which time the plat was denied by a vote of: 0 ayes, 8 noes, 3 abstaining. (See --attached minutes of the September meeting.) In December of 1984, Mr. Richardson filed with the Planning staff a subdivision plat entitled "Cantrell Place West, Lots 1 and 2" as a lot split. The staff review indicated that the proposed lot split was in technical compliance with the subdivision ordinance; however, the staff determined that May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued contact should be made with the Planning Commission Chairman and the City Attorney for instruction as to our options. After several discussions of the matter, we were instructed to permit the lot split inasmuch as the ordinance was quite clear and no denial mechanism indicated. The plat was signed on December 11, 1984, and recorded, thereby creating two lots, one on Cantrell Road in a conventional corner lot relationship and one lot fronting only on Misty Lane. The next event was a filing by Mr. Richardson of a two -lot split of Lot 2 of the first plat, Lot 2 being the lot fronting on Misty Lane. This action occurred during March and April when staff had several conversations and written communication with Mr. Richardson whereby we rejected his platting effort. (See staff letter April 5, 1985). The formal filing occurred April 9, and a second response by the staff followed April 10, 1985. (See attached staff letter dated April 10, 1985.) In our letter of April 5, 1985, it was stated that we understood the appeals process included the Planning Commission as the next step, although not specifically indicated in the ordinance. The request before the Commission at this time is that a simple "yes" or "no" answer be given Mr. Richardson in order that he might take the appropriate follow-up actions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:` -(-4'30-85) The applicant was present. There were no other interested parties in attendance. The Planning staff made a presentation of the issues and additional background. A lengthy discussion was held during which Mr. Richardson offered comments. A motion was made to request a legal opinion from the City Attorney's Office inasmuch as a written opinion has not been presented. Several members stated support toward the request for the opinion., A vote on the motion resulted in its passage by_a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (John Schlereth). A second motion then followed for purposes of deferring the request to the May 14th Subdivision Public Hearing. This motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 1 no and 3 absent. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-14-85) The applicant was present. There were several interested parties in attendance. The Planning Commission requested from the City Attorney, Mark Stodola, an opinion as to whether the Planning Commission should hear this appeal or take any action in light of the current litigation. Mr. Stodola's response generally was that the Planning Commission should make that decision. He stated that the appeal matter certainly could be dealt with at this time. He further stated that the issue before the Commission is a valid request by Mr. Richardson. A general discussion then followed with various commissioners commenting on their feelings as to a proper approach to resolution of this matter. A motion was offered which proposed the deferral of the appeal until such time as the lawsuit was completed. Prior to the vote, the Planning Commission determined that it would be appropriate to hear comments from both sides of the matter as to their feelings on deferral. The applicant, Mr. Robert Richardson, addressed the Planning Commission on his concerns and stated that he felt the item should be heard and not continued. Mr. Don Hamilton, an attorney representing neighborhood residents, addressed his concerns. He offered a mixed response to deferral which generally was- supportive of deferral if the Commission's inclination was to approve the appeal. The motion for a deferral was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (John Clayton). A question was then raised as to whether the Planning Commission could rescind or undue administrative action. The City Attorney addressed the point by stating that he felt the-orlin_ance did not deal, with the subject, nor did it deal with the appeal process. The Planning Commission requested that Mr. Stodola perform a review of this subject and provide a written response for the Planning Commission giving direction as to their authority to modify or overturn actions of the staff. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued Mr. Stodola stated for the record that Mr. Hamilton's request of the Commission was appropriate and should be dealt with by the Planning Commission after litigation of the matter is resolved if in fact further action will be required. That will be determined by the product of the litigation. A motion was then made to disallow the hearing of additional items associated with this project at this time or until the litigation was resolved. This motion was passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 abstention (John Clayton). April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - File No. 555-A NAME: Landscape Material and Design "Revised" PCD - (Z -4188-A) LOCATION: One-fourth mile south of Stagecoach on the west side of Sibley Hole Road APPLICANT: Allen Smith, Jr. Landscape Material and Design, Inc. Environmental Contractors 7901 Stagecoach Road Little Rock, AR 72204 Phone: 455-2962 REQUEST: Revision of an approved "PCD" project for a landscaping business. STAFF REPORT: This is a request to revise an approved PUD project. The changes consist of: (1) Moving the tool/storage/workshop from the west to the east side of the property and expanding it from a 24' x 48' accessory building to one of 80' x 20'. This building will be built up off the ground 6' with 9" x 7" piers. (2) Expanding the "greenhouse/lathe house" from 20' x 60' to 100' x 1401. This would be expanded over a period of time. The structure is a shade .cloth (nylon mesh) stretched over a frame of 2" x 6" lumber supported by 5" x 5" posts. It is to be used for protection of shade and semi -shade loving landscape plants. The floor will be of gravel with no solid walls. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: (A) Those facilities proposed in the floodplain must be constructed with their minimum floor elevation 1' above the 100 -year flood elevation. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued (B) Only plant materials will be allowed in the floodway area; no fences, construction materiels, pallets, etc., will be permitted. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff does not feel that the revision sought by the applicant will be detrimental to the project itself or the surrounding areas. There is a requirement, however, that all structures must set back 25' from the floodway. Staff supports the intrusion into the required setback area only if it was approved on the previous plans; otherwise, the applicant is asked to comply with the requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: It was decided that the proximity of the buildings to the floodway should not be an issue since it involved a greenhouse and a building raised 6' from the ground, provided there would be no enclosure of the raised building in the future. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant reported that he had failed to get his notices out on time. He then requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - File No. 555-A NAME: Landscape Material and Design "Revised" PCD - (Z -4188-A) LOCATION: One-fourth mile south of Stagecoach on the west side of Sibley Hole Road APPLICANT: Allen Smith, Jr. Landscape Material and Design, Inc. Environmental Contractors 7901 Stagecoach Road Little Rock, AR 72204 Phone: 455-2962 REQUEST: Revision of an approved "PCD" project for a landscaping business. STAFF REPORT: This is a request to revise an approved PUD project. The changes consist of: (1) Moving the tool/storage/workshop from the west to the east side of the property, and expanding it from a 24' x 48' accessory building to one of 80' x 201. This building will be built up off the ground 6' with 9" x 71' piers. (2) Expanding the "greenhouse/lathe house" from 20' x 60' to 100' x 1401. This would be expanded over a period of time. The structure is a shade cloth (nylon mesh) stretched over a frame of 2" x 6" lumber supported by 5" x 5" posts. It is to be used for protection of shade and semi -shade loving landscape plants. The floor will be of gravel with no solid walls. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: (A) Those facilities proposed in the floodplain must be constructed with their minimum floor elevation 1' above the 100 -year flood elevation. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued (B) Only plant materials will be allowed in the floodway area; no fences, construction materials, pallets, etc., will be permitted. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff does not feel that the revision sought by the applicant will be detrimental to the project itself or the surrounding areas. There is a requirement, however, that all structures must set back 25' from the floodway. Staff supports the intrusion into the required setback area only if it was approved on the previous pians; otherwise, the applicant is asked to comply with the requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: It was decided that the proximity of the buildings to the floodway should not be an issue since it involved a greenhouse and a building raised 6' from the ground, provided there would be no enclosure of the raised building in the future. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant reported that he had failed to get his notices out on time. He then requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (4-25-85) There was no further review of the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-14-85) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff reported that the notice receipts were submitted. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. MEETI DATE: May 14, 1985 3-TENi_ NQ.: ( Z -4188-A) NAMUREQUESSTT: Landscape Material & Design "Revised" PCD LOC6T1_U: 1/4 mile south of Stagecoach on the west side of Sibley Hole Road E E ER EN NEER: Allen Smith, Jr. with Landscape Material & Design, Inc. EXISTING STATUS: Landscaping Business PROPOSED USE: Landscaping Business STAFF RE_Q=BNDATION: Approval of the plan, provided there will be no future enclosure of the raised building. Staff originally felt that all of the structures should be set back 25' from the floodway. During Sudbivision Committee review of the plan, Engineering felt that the set -back was not an issue since the building was raised 6' and the use involved a greenhouse, which is encouraged in flood areas. The Planning Staff then modified its position to agree with Engineering. PLA_N_N1N__OMSSZON RECOMiEN�ATTQN : Approval of the plan, subject to comments made. RECOMMENDATInN_PQRWARDED wIM 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - File No. 555-A NAME: Landscape Material and Design "Revised" PCD - (Z -4188-A) LOCATION: One-fourth mile south of Stagecoach on the west side of Sibley Hole Road APPLICANT: Allen Smith, Jr. Landscape Material and Design, Inc. Environmental Contractors 7901 Stagecoach Road Little Rock, AR 72204 Phone: 455-2962 REQUEST: Revision of an approved "PCD" project for a landscaping business. STAFF REPORT: This is a request to revise an approved PUD project. The changes consist of: (1) Moving the tool/storage/workshop from the west to the east side of the property and expanding it from a 24' x 48' accessory building to one of 80' x 201. This building will be built up off the ground 6' with 9" x 7" piers. (2) Expanding the "greenhouse/lathe house" from 20' x 60' to 100' x 1401. This would be expanded over a period of time. The structure is a shade cloth (nylon mesh) stretched over a frame of 2" x 6" lumber supported by 5" x 5" posts. It is to be used for protection of shade and semi -shade loving landscape plants. The floor will be of gravel with no solid walls. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: (A) Those facilities proposed in the floodplain must be constructed with their minimum floor elevation 1' above the 100 -year flood elevation. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued (B) Only plant materials will be allowed in the floodway area; no fences, construction materials, pallets, etc., will be permitted. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff does not feel that the revision sought by the applicant will be detrimental to the project itself or the surrounding areas. There is a requirement, however, that all structures must set back 25' from the floodway. Staff supports the intrusion into the required setback area only if it was approved on the previous plans; otherwise, the applicant is asked to comply with the requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. R SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: It was decided that the proximity of the buildings to the floodway should not be an issue since it involved a greenhouse and- a building raised 6' from the ground, provided there would be no enclosure of the raised building in the future. ))�LANNING OMMISSION ACTION: The applicant reported that he had failed to get his notices out on time. He then requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.