Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0347-A Staff AnalysisMarch 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Joe De Palo #4 River Mountain Road Little Rock, AR 72211 Hilltop Subdivision Preliminary of Plot 2, Country Homes Addition North side of River Mountain, Rodney Parham & Highway 10 ENGINEER: Mehlburger, Tanner & Associates P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375-5331 AREA: 5.013 acres NO. OF LOTS: 19 FT. NEW STREET: 690 ZONING: 11R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site History The site was before the Commission on December 18, 1984, for PRD approval of a condominium project. The application was denied. B. Existing Conditions The land involved currently has one single family frame residence on the site. Elevations range from 525 to 5701. Scattered trees and other vegetation are apparent. The area consists of large lots, single family, except for a church to the south of the site. "OS" strip serves as a buffer area between the church and the property. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to develop 5.013 acres into 19 lots for single family development, with 690 feet of new streets. The average lot size is approximately 11,486 square feet and the minimum is 7,350 square feet. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued D. Engineering Comments 1. Improve River Mountain Road to minor arterial standards. River Mountain Road and the right-of-way is controlled by A.H.T.D.; discuss street and drainage plans with them. 2. Submit internal drainage and detention plan; discuss plan with Mike Batie, 371-4861. E. Analysis Technically, the proposal meets the ordinance requirements. Staff does not oppose the use of the land. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant discussed the proposal with the Committee. He explained that the Bill of Assurance restrictions expired in 1964; the homes would be 1,800 to 2,000 square feet, and the plan remained open for the Commission's input as to how to develop the property or what restrictions to place in the Bill of Assurance. Staff gave its support of the plat, but stated that both the Suburban Plan and the recent Corridor Study designates this area for large lot single family. The Committee then discussed whether or not this plan constituted large lot single family. One Committee member felt that this plan was not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. Other Committee members requested that an alternate plan with a mid -rise overlooking the River be submitted. They felt that such a plan reviewed under the PUD process would maintain the existing frontage and visual quality of the area. The applicant was advised that the Commission's responsibility was to assess the overall impact of the proposal to the entire area, not only the site. They felt that whatever development occurs on this site would set a precedent and have a significant impact on how the entire hillside will be developed. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued "PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-12-85) The applicant, Mr. Joe DePalo, was present. He was accompanied by Mr. Joe Kemp, his attorney, and Mr. Don Chambers, the architech. An alternative plan showing a mid -rise was presented, as was requested by the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Chambers explained that his client was attempting to use his property to its highest and best use. They felt that the highest and best use was once large lot residential, but since development of the church, it is now a dense residential use. He also explained that the property could contain 25 lots, but he only proposed 19. If the mid -rise were to be considered as a PUD, it was requested that the single family plat be continued until the PUD was approved or denied. Mr. Chambers further explained that the proposed plan included homes of 1800 to 2000 square feet at a cost of $150,000 to $200,000;=and that his client's general feeling was that the total environment of the property would change due to the intrusion of the church, which was a nonresidential use. He stated this proposal only represented an attempt to buffer the office use by a higher residential use. Mr. DePalo then explained his position. He had acquired the property in 1981 and was advised that the corridor was subject to be changed, but that "R-2" would be the prevailing use. At the time, he was unaware that a church could be built in the area. When the church was considered by the Commission, he asked his neighbors to join him opposing it; but they didn't. He then proceeded to pass pictures around illustrating the damaging effects of the church. He stated that he was a landowner within the law who had the right to develop his property. He assured the Commission that he intended to reside on the land and that his approach was not that of vengeance. He mentioned that Mr. Darragh had made what he considered to be a "hollow gesture" to purchase his property. Mr. Herb Rule represented the property owners to the east. He felt that the proposal was not in keeping with the neighborhood and that his clients had tried unsuccessfully to work with DePalo. He stated that there was a sign up for 8 to 10 years on the church property before Mr. DePalo bought the church property advertising the construction of a church and that during Commission review, the church was required to leave two acres and green space as a protective buffer for Mr. DePalo. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued Mr. Darragh agreed that he was asked by Mr. DePalo to oppose the church. He explained that he couldn't since the residents to the east knew that a church would be built and preferred this to a commercial or office use. He assured the Commission that if he bought DePalo's property, it would remain large lot single family. Mr. DePalo spoke again. He questioned whether or not his neighbors to the east should have been knowledgeable about the "R-2" zoning, just as he was expected to be knowledgeable about the church in an "R-2" zone. Mr. Rule stated that the property should be zoned "R-1,' instead of "R-2." He felt that "R-2" was an insult to the property. The Commission discusseq the item. Several Commissioners had mixed feelings about the development since it was realized that Mr. DePalo had the right to develop his property. On the other hand, a proposal of 19 or 20 lots would be a drastic departure from what was existing, and the neighbors also had the right not to have their entire environment totally uprooted. It was explained that the Commission's duty was to consider not only this site but what was fair on both sides and what was beneficial for the community at -large. The Commission felt that what happened on this property determined how the entire hillside would be developed. Mr. DePalo was asked to defer the item for 30 days and work out a solution with abutting property owners. Mr. DePalo stated that he resented the fact that he was within the law and still had to compromise on a right that he is entitled to enjoy. He felt that there must be some question that right existed. Finally, he agreed to defer for 30 days and work out a solution with his neighbors. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (2-28-85) There was no review of this item. Water Works - An 8 inch watermain extension will be required. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued LANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3-12-85) A motion for a 30-day deferral, as requested by the applicant, was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 NAME: Hilltop Subdivision Preliminary of Plot 2, Country Homes Addition LOCATION: North side of River Mountain, Rodney Parham & Highway 10 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Joe De Palo #4 River Mountain Road Little Rock, AR 72211 Mehlburger, Tanner & Associates P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375-5331 AREA: 5.013 acres NO. OF LOTS: 19 FT. NEW STREET: 690 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site History The site was before the Commission on December 18, 1984, for PRD approval of a condominium project. The application was denied. B. Exsiting Conditions The land involved currently has one single family frame residence on the site. Elevations range from 525 to 5701. Scattered trees and other vegetation are apparent. The area consists of large lots, single family, except for a church to the south of the site. "OS" strip serves as a buffer area between the church and the property. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to develop 5.013 acres into 19 lots for single family development, with 690 feet of new streets. The average lot size is approximately 11,486 square feet and the minimum is 7,350 square feet. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS i 9/• .. / i.• •it / 1. Improve River Mountain Road to minor arterial standards. River Mountain Road and the right-of-way is controlled by A.H.T.D.; discuss street and drainage plans with them. 2. Submit internal drainage and detention plan; discuss plan with Mike Batie, 371-4861. E. Analysis Technically, the proposal meets the ordinance requirements. Staff does not oppose the use of the land. FW e) 41414.0 DEW CGRIJ Approval, subject to comments made. The applicant discussed the proposal with the Committee. He explained that the Bill of Assurance restrictions expired in 1964; the homes would be 1800-2000 sq. ft. and the plan remained open for the Commission's input as to how to develop the property or what restrictions to place in the Bill of Assurance. Staff gave its support of the plat, but stated that both the Suburban Plan and the recent corridor study designates this area for large -lot single family. The Committee then discussed whether or not this plan constituted large -lot single family. One Committee member felt that this plan was not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. Other Committee members requested that an alternate plan with a mid -rise overlooking the river, be submitted. They felt that such a plan reviewed under the PUD process would maintain the existing frontage and visual quality of the area. The applicant was advised that the Commission's responsibility was to assess the overall impact of the proposal to the entire area, not only the site. They felt that whatever development occurs on this site, would set a precedent and have a significant impact on how the entire hillside will be developed. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued �LANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 1% The applicant, Mr. Joe DePalo, was present. He was accompanied by Mr. Joe Kemp, his attorney, and Mr. Don Chambers, the architect. An alternative plan showing a mid -rise was presented, as was requested by the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Chambers explained that his client was attempting to use his property to its highest and best use. They felt that the highest and best use was once large lot residential, but since development of the church, it is now a denser residential use. He also explained that the property could contain 25 lots, but he only proposed 19. If the mid -rise were to be considered as a PUD, it was requested that the single family plat be continued until the PUD was approved or denied. - Mr. Chambers further explained that the proposed plan included homes of 1800 to 2000 square feet at a cost of $150,000 to $200,000; and that his client's general feeling was that the total environment of the property would change due to the intrusion -of the church, which was a nonresidential use. He stated this proposal only represented an attempt to buffer the office use by a higher residential use. Mr. DePalo then explained his position. He had acquired the property in 1981 and was advised that the corridor was subject to be changed, but that "R-2" would be the prevailing use. At the time, he was unaware that a church could be built in the area. when the church was considered by the Commission, he asked his neighbors to join him opposing it; but they didn't. He then proceeded to pass pictures around illustrating the damaging effects of the church. He stated that he was a landowner within the law who had the right to develop his property. He assured the Commission that he intended to reside on the land and that his approach was not that of vengeance. He mentioned that Mr. Darragh had made what he considered to be a "hollow gesture" to purchase his property. Mr. Herb Rule represented the property owners to the east. He felt that the proposal was not in keeping with the neighborhood and that his clients had tried unsuccessfully to work with DePalo. He stated that there was a sign up for 8 to 10 years on the church property before Mr. DePalo bought the church property advertising the construction of a church and that during Commission review, the church was required to leave two acres and green space as a protective buffer'for Mr. DePalo. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued Mr. Darragh agreed that he was asked by Mr. DePalo to oppose the church. He explained that he couldn't since the residents to the east knew that a church would be built and preferred this to a commercial or office use. He assured the Commission that if he bought DePalo's property, it would remain large lot single family. Mr. DePalo spoke again. He questioned whether or not his neighbors to the east should have bee.n knowledgeable about the "R-2" zoning, just as he was expected to be knowledgeable about the church in an 11R-2" zone. Mr. Rule stated that the property should be zoned "R-1,' instead of "R-2." He felt that "R-2" was an insult to the property. The Commission discussed the item. Several Commissioners had mixed feelings about the development since it was realized that Mr. DePalo had the right to develop his property. On the other hand, a proposal of 19 or 20 lots would be a drastic departure from what was existing, and the neighbors also had*the right not to have their entire environment totally uprooted. It was explained that the Commission's duty was to consider not only this site but what was fair on both sides and what was beneficial for the community at -large. The Commission felt that what happened on this property determined how the entire hillside would be developed. Mr. DePalo was asked to defer the item for 30 days and work out a solution with abutting property owners. Mr. DePalo stated that he resented the fact that he was within the law and still had to compromise on a right that he is entitled to enjoy. He felt that there must be some question that right existed. Finally, he agreed to defer for 30 days and work out a solution with his neighbors. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Joe De Palo #4 River Mountain Road Little Rock, AR 72211 Hilltop Subdivision Preliminary of Plot 2, Country Homes Addition North side of River Mountain, Rodney Parham & Highway 10 ENGINEER: Mehlburger, Tanner & Associates P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR' 72203 375-5331 AREA: 5.013 acres NO. OF LOTS: 19 FT. NEW STREET: 690 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site Histor The site was before the Commission on December 18, 1984, for PRD approval of a condominium project. The application was denied. B. Existinq Conditions The land involved currently has one single family frame residence on the site. Elevations range from 525 to 570'. Scattered trees and other vegetation are apparent. The area consists of large lots, single family, except for a church to the south of the site. "OS" strip serves as a buffer area between the church and the property. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to develop 5.013 acres into 19 lots for single family development, with 690 feet of new streets. The average lot size is approximately 11,486 square feet and the minimum is 7,350 square feet. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued D. Engineering Comments 1. Improve River Mountain Road to minor arterial standards. River Mountain Road and the right-of-way is controlled by A.H.T.D.; discuss street and drainage plans with them. 2. Submit internal drainage and detention plan; discuss plan with Mike Batie, 371-4861. E. Analysis Technically, the proposal meets the ordinance requirements. Staff does not oppose the use of the land. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant discussed the proposal with the Committee. He explained that the Bill of Assurance restrictions expired in 1964; the homes would be 1,800 to 2,000 square feet, and the plan remained open for the Commission's input as to how to develop the property or what restrictions to place in the Bill of Assurance. Staff gave its support of the plat, but stated that both the Suburban Plan and the recent Corridor Study designates this area for large lot single family. The Committee then discussed whether or not this plan constituted large lot single family. One Committee member felt that this plan was not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. Other Committee members requested that an alternate plan with a mid -rise overlooking the River be submitted. They felt that such a plan reviewed under the PUD process would maintain the existing frontage and visual quality of the area. The applicant was advised that the Commission's responsibility was to assess the overall impact of the proposal to the entire area, not only the site. They felt that whatever development occurs on this site would set a precedent and have a significant impact on how the entire hillside will be developed. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-12-85) The applicant, Mr. Joe DePalo, was present. He was accompanied by Mr. Joe Kemp, his attorney, and Mr. Don Chambers, the architech. An alternative plan showing a mid -rise was presented, as was requested by the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Chambers explained that his client was attempting to use his property to its highest and best use. They felt that the highest and best use was once large lot residential, but since development of the church, it is now a dense residential use. He also explained that the property could contain 25 lots, but he only proposed 19. If the mid -rise were to be considered as a PUD, it was requested that the single family plat be continued until the PUD was approved or denied. Mr. Chambers further explained that the proposed plan included homes of 1800 to 2000 square feet at a cost of $150,000 to $200,000; and that his client's general feeling was that the total environment of the property would change due to the intrusion of the church, which was a nonresidential use. He stated this proposal only represented an attempt to buffer the office use by a higher residential use. Mr. DePalo then explained his position. He had acquired the property in 1981 and was advised that the corridor was subject to be changed, but that "R-2" would be the prevailing use. At the time, he was unaware that a church could be built in the area. When -the church was considered by the Commission, he asked his neighbors to join him opposing it; but they didn't. He then proceeded to pass pictures around illustrating the damaging effects of the church. He stated that he was a landowner within the law who had the right to develop his property. He assured the Commission that he intended to reside on the land and that his approach was not that of vengeance. He mentioned that Mr. Darragh had made what he considered to be a "hollow gesture" to purchase his property. Mr. Herb Rule represented the property owners to the east. He felt that the proposal was not in keeping with the neighborhood and that his clients had tried unsuccessfully to work with DePalo. He stated that there was a sign up for 8 to 10 years on the church property before Mr. DePalo bought the church property advertising the construction of a church and that during Commission review, the church was required to leave two acres and green space as a protective buffer for Mr. DePalo. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Mr. Darragh agreed that he was asked by Mr. DePalo to oppose the church. He explained that he couldn't since the residents to the east knew that a church would be built and preferred this to a commercial or office use. He assured the Commission that if he bought DePalo's property, it would remain large lot single family. Mr. DePalo spoke again. He questioned whether or not his neighbors to the east should have been knowledgeable about the "R-2" zoning, just as he was expected to be knowledgeable about the church in an "R-2" zone. Mr. Rule stated that the property should be zoned "R-1,' instead of "R-2." He felt that "R-2" was an insult to the property. The Commission discussed the item. Several Commissioners had mixed feelings about the development since it was realized that Mr. DePalo had the right to develop his property. On the other hand, a proposal of 19 or 20 lots would be a drastic departure from what was existing, and the neighbors also had the right not to have their entire environment totally uprooted. It was explained that the Commission's duty was to consider not only this site but what was fair on both sides and what was beneficial for the community at -large. The Commission felt that what happened on this property determined how the entire hillside would be developed. Mr. DePalo was asked to defer the item for 30 days and work out a solution with abutting property owners. Mr. DePalo stated that he resented the fact that he was within the law and still had to compromise on a right that he is entitled to enjoy. He felt that there must be some question that right existed. Finally, he agreed to defer for 30 days and work out a solution with his neighbors. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (2-28-85) There was no review of this item. Water Works - An 8 inch watermain extension will be required. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3-12-85) A motion for a 30-day deferral, as requested by the applicant, was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: There was no further review of the item. LANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff reported that a letter was received by the applicant that requested a 30-day deferral. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - File No. 374-A NAME: Hilltop Subdivision Preliminary of Plot 2, Country Homes Addition LOCATION: North side of River Mountain, Rodney Parham & Highway 10 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Joe De Palo Mehlburger, Tanner & #4 River Mountain Road Associates Little Rock, AR 72211 P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375-5331 AREA: 5.013 acres NO. OF LOTS: 19 FT. NEW STREET: 690 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site Histor The site was before the Comm-ission on December 18, 1984, for PRD approval of -a condominium project. The application was denied. B. Existing Conditions The land involved currently has one single family frame residence on the site. Elevations range from 525' to 5701. Scattered trees and other vegetation are apparent. The area consists of large lots, single family, except for a church to--the-south of the site. "OS" strip serves as a buffer area between the church and the property. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to develop 5.013 acres into 19 lots for single family development, with 690 feet of new streets. The average lot size is approximately 11,486 square feet and the minimum is 7,350 square feet. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued D. Engineering Comments 1. Improve River Mountain Road to minor arterial standards. River Mountain Road and the right-of-way is controlled by A.H.T.D.; discuss street and drainage plans with them. 2. Submit internal drainage and detention plan; discuss plan with Mike Batie, 371-4861. E. Analysis Technically, the proposal meets the ordinance requirements. Staff does not oppose the use of the land. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, -subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant discussed the proposal with the Committee. He explained that the Bill of Assurance restrictions expired in 1964; the homes would be 1,800 to 2,000 square feet, and the plan remained open for the Commission's input as to how to develop the property or what restrictions to place in the Bill of Assurairee.-_ Staff gave its support of the plat, but stated that both the Suburban Plan and the recent Corridor Study designates this area for large lot single family. The Committee then discussed whether or not this plan constituted large lot single family. One Committee member felt that this plan was not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. Other Committee members requested that an alternate —plan with a mid -rise overlooking the River be submitted. They f-e'lt that such a plan reviewed under the PUD process would maintain the existing frontage and visual quality of the area. The applicant was advised that the Commission's responsibility was to assess the overall impact of the proposal to the entire area, not only the site. They felt that whatever development occurs on this site would set a precedent and have a significant impact on how the entire hillside will be developed. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-12-85) The applicant, Mr. Joe DePalo, was present. He was accompanied by Mr. Joe Kemp, his attorney, and Mr. Don Chambers, the architech. An alternative plan showing a mid -rise was presented, as was requested by the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Chambers explained that his client was attempting to use his property to its highest and best use. They felt that the highest and best use was once large lot residential, but since development of the church, it is now a dense residential use. He also explained that the property could contain 25 lots, but he only proposed 19. If the mid -rise were to be considered as a PUD, it was requested that the single family plat be continued until the PUD was approved or denied. Mr. Chambers further explained that the proposed plan included homes of 1800 to 2000 square feet at a cost of $150,000 to $200,000; and that his client's general feeling was that the total environment of the property would change due to the intrusion of the church, which was a nonresidential use. He stated this proposal only represented an attempt to buffer the office use by a higher residential use. Mr. DePalo then explained his position. He had acquired the property in 1981 and was advised that the corridor was 'sub-}e-ct to be changed, but that "R-2" would be the prevailing use. At the time, he was unaware that a church could be built in the area. When the church was considered by the Commission, he asked his neighbors to join him opposing it; but they didn't. He then proceeded to pass pictures around illustrating the damaging effects of the church. He stated that he was a landowner within the law who had the right to develop his property. He assured the Commission that he intended to reside on the land and that —pis approach was not that of vengeance. He mentioned that Mr. Darragh had made what he considered to be a "hollow gesture" to purchase his property. Mr. Herb Rule represented the property owners to the east. He felt that the proposal was not in keeping with the neighborhood and that his clients had tried unsuccessfully to work with DePalo. He stated that there was a sign up for 8 to 10 years on the church property before Mr. DePalo bought the church property advertising the construction of a church and that during Commission review, the church was required to leave two acres and green space as a protective buffer for Mr. DePalo. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Mr. Darragh agreed that he was asked by Mr. DePalo to oppose the church. He explained that he couldn't since the residents to the east knew that a church would be built and preferred this to a commercial or office use. He assured the Commission that if he bought DePalo's property, it would remain large lot single family. Mr. DePalo spoke again. He questioned whether or not his neighbors to the east should have been knowledgeable about the "R-2" zoning, just as he was expected to be knowledgeable about the church in an "R-2" zone. Mr. Rule stated that the property should be zoned "R-1,' instead of "R-2." He felt that "R-2" was an insult to the property. The Commission discussed the item. Several Commissioners had mixed feelings about the development since it was realized that Mr. DePalo had the right to develop his property. On the other hand, a proposal of 19 or 20 lots would be a drastic departure from what was existing, and the neighbors also had the right not to have their entire environment totally uprooted. It was explained that the Commission's duty was to consider not only this site but what was fair on both sides and what was beneficial for the community at -large. The Commission felt that what happened on this property determined how the entire hillside would be developed. Mr. DePalo was asked to defer the item for 30 days and work out a solution with abutting property owners. Mr. DePalo stated that he resented the fact that he was within the law and still had to compromise on a right that he is entitled to enjoy. He felt that there must be some question that right existed. Finally, he agreed to -defer for 30 days and work out a solution with his neighbors. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (2-28-85) There was no review of this item. Water Works - An 8 inch watermain extension will be required. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3-12-85) A motion for a 30-day deferral, as requested by the applicant, was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: There was no further review of the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff reported that a letter was received by the applicant that requested a 30-day deferral. A motion for approval 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: (5-14-84) The applicant requested withdrawal of the item. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.