HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0442 Staff AnalysisJune 14, 1903
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME:
T_nf°nrPTnM-
DEVELOPER:
James. C. Tschiemer
2112 N. McKinley
Mabelvale, AR
Phone: 664-1325
AREA: 6.32 acres
Tschiemer Subdivision
One mile east of Arch Street
Pike, approximately 100' east
of intersection of Dixon and
Russenburger Road
f�T1Ti1 L1V �1T] �
Ralph B. Jones
NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: Outside City
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. HISTORY OF THE SITE
None.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The.property involved is rural in character and
consists mainly of flat land. It is served by a 12'
gravel driveway and covered with various green
vegetation.
C. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The applicant has submitted this as a request for
information. He is proposing to subdivide a tract of
6.32 acres so that a one acre tract may be deeded to
his daughter.
D. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
None.
June 14, 1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
E. STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff is concerned that this request represents a
departure from the Ordinance's requirement that all
lots abut upon a dedicated street. This matter is
complicated in that the four lots served by this
private drive are in large acreage.tracts which have
previously been deeded to separate owners. The
question reduces to whether or not we want to accept
the platting of these large lots on a minor road.
There is no guarantee that this owner can coerce the
others to participate in a plat for the dedication of
right-of-way.
The Suburban Development plan recognizes this as a
"mineral resources zone," which characterizes the area
as being a potential mining area that offers severe
limitations upon residential development. ❑ur solution
would be to request that the applicant submit a plat
justifying right of access to the first two lots. A
notation will be made stating that the City of Little
Rock is not endorsing this private drive for further
subdivision of the tracts.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present, the Committee decided
to pass this to the Commission without recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. Staff reported that he had
been contacted the previous day and was not likely to pursue
the request. A motion was made and passed to withdraw the
item from the agenda. It passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays
and 2 absent.
f
�•
:j q
`
�� Z