HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5239-B Staff AnalysisMay 21, 1991
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO. Z -5239-B
NAME: South Bluff Company - Revised Long - Form PCD
LOCATION: 300 East Roosevelt
APPLICANT•
CHARLES OWEN
300 East Roosevelt
Little Rock, Arkansas 72206
374-1902
AREA: 10.4 Ac. NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USES: Revised PCD
PLANNING DISTRICT: Central City
CENSUS TRACT• 4
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
This applicant proposes a revision of the original PCD
application. The revision proposes to add nursing home and
hospital use to all approved before uses.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
This application proposes to revise the existing PCD to
add two more uses to already approved PCD.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This site is occupied by a former VA Hospital buildings
and parking. The site is fenced and the streets are in
place.
C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
No engineering review comments (based on the assumption
that no new exterior construction of consequence is
proposed).
1
May 21, 1991
TEM NO.: 5 (Co
D. ISSUESILEGALITECHNTCALIDESIGN:
There are no issues associated with this Long -For PCD
since the property has been used as a hospital fo,
40 years.
E. ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff review of the PCD reveals no problems
with the proposal as presented.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the PCD application as
filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (May 21, 1991)
The applicant was represented by his architect, Bill Asti.
There were five registered objectors in attendance. The
Planning Staff recommended approval of the revised PCD as
filed.
Mr. Bill Asti spoke in behalf of the applicant and stated the
reason for the revision was an addition of the two uses;
hospitals and nursing homes. He also stated that the
applicant did not realize that he would lose previous uses
after approval of the PCD.
A brief discussion followed and then the Commission decided
to hear the property owners' comments.
Mrs. Tabron spoke first stating that she was concerned about
the drainage and noise. Jim Ray told the commission that he
was adjacent to the property, and he had not received any
notice of the PCD request. He was concerned about the
burning of asbestos in front of his yard and the placing of
an institution or a mental hospital, next to his property.
Mr. Asti responded that the state's Pollution Control and
Ecology (PCE) department has checked the site for asbestos
and other hazardous materials.
Mr. Jim Ray also expressed interest in meeting with the
applicant to discuss the possible changes which may occur in
the future.
Judy Lecy, Nellie Leonard and Willie Turner all said that
they were opposed to the PCD revision.
2
May 21, 1991
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.
Commissioner Nicholson then questioned Mr. Asti about the
Hospital uses versus the institution's uses. She requested
that definitions be presented. The Planning Staff quoted two
definitions from Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances that
applied to Hospital and Institution. It was determined that
the hospital use excluded any psychiatric and mental
rehabilitation facilities which are included the definition
of an institution.
The motion was made to approve this revised PCD for hospitals
and nursing homes and the exclusion of the psychiatric and
mental rehabilitation facilities. The motion passed by a
vote of 7 ayes, 2 nays and 1 open position.
3