HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0045-A-6 Staff AnalysisOctober 31, 1989
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 F)LE NO.: S-791-B
NAME: Otter Creek Industrial Park
LOCATION: Mabelvale West Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Otter Creek Development Co. Garver & Garver, P.A.
P. O. Box C-50
Little Rock, AR 72203-0050
501-376-3633
AREA:
3.49 acres
NUMBER OF,LOTS:
4 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING:
"C-3"
PROPOSED USES:
Daycare
PLAN N-1 NG.-D !STRICT : 15
CENSUS TRACT: 42.04
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
This proposal consists of a large lot replatting into
four smaller lots varying in size from 0.52 acre to
1.75 acres. Access to Lots 4 and 5 is proposed to be
via a 45 foot wide access easement on the Otter Creek
Park site. Also, a common drive easement is proposed
between Lots 4 and 5. The common drive easement will
be 27 foot wide with a 24 foot street.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property currently consists of rolling terrain with
no improvement. Some modification of the land area has
been accomplished in previous Otter Creek site
improvements. The roadways are in place which will
provide the principal immediate access to the property.
The adjacent streets are developed to City standard.
C. ENG.I..NEER.I NG.._ COMMENTS :
Conform to detention and excavation ordinances.
1
October 31, 1989
SUBDIVISION
Item No. 2 (Continued)
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The only issue in this category which would avoid
request for a Board of Adjustment variance in the
future will be platting building lines with five foot
setback from the property line.
E. ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Engineering staffs find little issue
with this plat. It is well drafted and well designed.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the plat subject to the
minor modifications.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (October 19, 1989)
Mr. Ronnie Hall was present representing the preliminary
plat. He discussed the proposal and its location. He also
oriented the project in the terrain and pointed out that
Lot 5 will be used as a daycare in the future to serve
hospital employees.
A lengthy discussion followed involving the adjacent streets
and building layout.
There being no further discussion on the matter, this item
was forwarded to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 31, 1989)
The applicant was represented. After a brief discussion,
the Commission determined it appropriate to place this item
on the consent agenda for approval. A motion to that effect
was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent,
1 open position.
2