Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0320 Analysis. March 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - File No. 320 NAME: r_nr nTTnN DEVELOPER: Cherrylane Preliminary Subdivision Napa Valley South of Rainwood ENGINEERI : David H. Pickering Edward G. Smith and Associates 401 Victory 401 Victory Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 4.66 acres NO. OF LOTS: 19 FT. OF NEW ST.: 535 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: (1) 15' building setback. (2) 20' building setback as shown. (3) Dead-end Pickering Drive with barricade. A. EXISTING CONDITIONS Generally, this is an area in which much of the land is comprised of single family zoning districts. The site in question is covered with an abundance of trees and other vegetation. It consists of a gradual slope which is steepest on the northwest corner of the property at 490 m.s.l. There are two drainageways on the east and south sides. No improvements are in place. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL This is a proposal submitted by the applicant to preliminary plat 19 lots on 31.5 acres for single family use. 5351 of new street will be provided though a cul-de-sac that will serve the length of the development. The applicant is asking for three variances: March 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued (1) 15' setback on Lots 1-7 and 13-19. (2) 20' setback on Lots 7-13. (3) Dead-end Pickering Drive with barricade. C. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS None. D. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS (1) 1/2 minor arterial street as shown. (2) New 27' street as shown. E. ANALYSIS This proposal presents several concerns. The applicant has requested three variances. Unless convincing justification is submitted, staff sees no reason for granting the waivers. They do not appear to be needed since the lots are large, and the applicant has enough room to accommodate this type design according to ordinance standards. We are not necessarily pleased with his proposal to barricade Pickering Drive. The utility of Lot 10 is questionable due to its position at the end of a cul-de-sac and with two streets backing up to it on opposite ends. Most of the lots are 60' at the building line. Those that aren't average out to be at least 601. The Ordinance usually requires these type lots to be at least 60' at the building line, but allows an average to be taken of those that do not meet this requirement and which are adjacent to a cul-de-sac. Finally, the applicant should indicate what is meant by the area designated as a closed 40' street on the plat. He appears to have incorporated 20' of this right-of-way inside the plat boundary on the north. He should present some clarification and provide us information as to when this action occurred. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the plat, but no variances, conditioned upon addressing the comments made above. March 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The applicant responded to the points raised by staff. He stated that the variances were requested because of a tremendous ditch on the property which leaves 40' of some lots in the drainageway; and the type of units proposed would not be the usual single family house, but more on the style of a PUD-type, much larger in depth than in width. The request to close Pickering Street was to appease the neighbors to the west who prefer a dead --end street and do not want it to extend on through. Staff modified its position to support the design of the project and the barricade since it was desired by the neighbors. A motion was made for approval of the project subject to the applicant submitting a plan which improved Lot 10's position. The motion carried by a vote of 2 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Attorney W.P. Hamilton represented the developer. There were no objectors. A discussion was held regarding the Subdivision Committee's recommendation for revising the plan to improve Lot 10, and applicant's request to barricade Pickering Street. A motion was made and passed to deny the plat as submitted with a cul.-de-sac design, but requiring extension of the throuqh street. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, 1 abstention. (Abstaining - Commissioner. Jones)