HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0479-A Staff AnalysisMay 19, 1992
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.-. 5-940
NAME: T. B. Devine Addition - Replat of Lot 1, Block 1,
Devine Subdivision
LOCATION: On Davmar Drive off Mabelvale Pike Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER/ENGINEER:
THOMAS D. DEVINE, JR. DEE WILSON
9414 Mabelvale Pike South 2400 Pike Avenue
Mabelvale, AR 72103 North Little Rock, AR 72114
565-0186 758-8333
AREA: 1.22 Ac. NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING• R-2, I-2
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT: 20.02
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
PROPOSED USES:
15 NAME:
1. Street Improvements
2. Drainage
A. PROPOSAL REQUEST:
Industrial
Geyer Springs West
This proposal consists of a replat of Lot 1, Devine
Subdivision into Lots 1 and 2. The proposed plat corrects
and establishes certain property lines to conform to the
original plat intent. Those changes will also accommodate
the existing buildings and surrounding features.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently occupied by two one-story masonry
buildings each having approximately 5,000 square feet. The
Davmar Drive is a narrow gravel road with ditches on both
sides.
C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
To provide the right-of-way and improvements for an
industrial subdivision street per Section 31-312 of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
1
May 19, 1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A Continued FILE NO.: 5--940
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Several issues to be introduced here are as follows:
1. To include all information required by the Ordinance on
the plat.
2. To provide written justification for requested waivers
of street improvements on an industrial subdivision.
3. To provide floodway information on the plat.
E. ANALYSIS•
The Planning staff finds very few issues dealing with this
plat. There are a number of plat elements missing on this
replat which will need to be included.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the replat subject to the
resolution of the above comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(FEBRUARY 6, 1992)
The applicant was not present nor represented. The matter was
forwarded to the full Commission for resolution.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(APRIL 30, 1992)
The applicant was not present at the Committee meeting. A brief
discussion between staff and the Subdivision Committee members
resulted in the item being forwarded to the full Commission
without further comment.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(FEBRUARY 25, 1992)
The applicant was not present nor was he represented. Staff told
the Commission that this replat needed to be deferred because of
a notice problem. A motion was made to defer the item until the
April 7, 1992 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
2
May 19, 1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A Continued FILE NO.: S-940
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 7, 1992)
Staff reported to the Commission that this applicant failed the
notice requirement for this preliminary plat. Staff suggested
the item be placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral.
A motion to this effect was made. The motion was passed by a
vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 4 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 19, 1992)
Staff reported to the Commission that this applicant had again
failed the notice requirement for this preliminary plat. Staff
suggested the item be placed on the Consent Agenda for
withdrawal, with instruction to the owner, that if he chose to
pursue this plat he must refile. A motion to this effect was
made. The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and
1 absent.
3