Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0224-B Staff AnalysisF1 March 30, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Westover Hills Addition Replat, Lot 23 LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Randy Davis AREA: 1 Acre ZONING: "R-4" McKinley at Pine Valley APPLICANT: Robert J. Richardson 12015 Hinson Road Little Rock, AR 72212 NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. OF NEW ST.: PROPOSED USES: Duplex VARIANCE REQUESTED: Lot Depth A. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The location of this property is in a quiet, residential neighborhood that generally consists of 14bv single family uses. The site, which has double fronts on Pine Valley Road and North McKinley Street, is nestled between a single family home on the north, and a small corner store immediately to the south. Physically, the land can be characterized as low, damp and principally occupied by a drainage way through the middle. Presently, the lot is cluttered with weeds, grass and large lumps of soil and debris. The existing zoning is "R-4," for duplex use. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to develop this property into two lots, which are indicated on the sketch as 23A. and 23B. Specific lot areas are to be 4,992 square feet and 4,907.5 square feet, respectively. The plan includes a request to vary from the Ordinance's lot depth requirement of 7,000 square feet. Justification for the request has been stated as "not enough land for two lots because of the double frontage nature." n l March 30, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 ---Continued C. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS None, except notification to property owners. D. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS 1. North McKinley: Provide pavement widening and curb/gutter on the alignment of the curb/gutter adjacent on the south. 2. Provide a drainage system; inside a drainage easement to connect the existing storm sewers on either end of the lot. An underground system is recommended. E. ANALYSIS This is part of a very old plat which has been submitted several times for multifamily development, but has always been denied. Staff's position has always been that it was not feasible to put more than one structure on the lot, mainly because of the drainage problem and the size. This position still holds true for this proposal. We are strongly opposed to recommending approval of a variance from the lot depth requirement based on the justification given. Furthermore, the applicant does not identify the drainage way on the plat. Fie should submit specific plans for treatment of the ditch, and provide improvements to the property in the form of sidewalks, curb/gutters and drainage structures. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial, as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The applicant/engineer, Mr. Bob Richardson and the owner, Mr. Randy Davis, were present. Mr. Richardson presented the facts to the Committee. The Committee decided that they agreed with the basic principle that the developer wanted to accomplish with this site; however, it was determined that IF l March 30, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued further guidance was needed from the Commission since the proposal created a problem. A motion was made and passed to send this to the Commission without recommendation. The vote - 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (3-9-82): The applicant was in attendance. There were no objectors. It was determined that this item, as proposed, poses the legal question of whether or not the Commission has the authority to reduce minimum lot -size requirements. The City Attorney was instructed to give a legal opinion at the next Public Hearing. A motion for deferment to the March 30th Public Hearing (Zoning) was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3-30-82) Mr. Bob Richardson represented the developer. Due to a legal opinion issued by the City Attorney's Office which inferred that this request was invalid, the applicant requested withdrawal of the application. A motion to do so 1.411 was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.