HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0674 Staff AnalysisNovember 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G
NAME:
Tanphil Addition
LOCATION: The East Side of Highway 10;
South of Taylor Loop
DEVELOPER/ENGINEER:
Orson Jewell
#27 Vista Drive
Little Rock, AR 72210
Telephone: 225-8430
AREA: 10.94 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 30 FT. NEW STREET: 1,300
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES:
Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Cul-de-sac length
A. Existing Conditions
This proposal is located south of Highway 10. The
general area consists of mixed uses, which include a
Pet Shop and Veterinary Clinic abutting on the
immediate north. Taylor Loop Creek runs through the
middle of the property. It appears that approximately
90 percent of the site is located in the floodway.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing to plat 10.94 acres into 30
lots for single family use and 1,300' of new street.
Access from Highway 10 is proposed through a 27'
cul-de-sac, Tanphil Circle, that is approximately
1,200' in length. A 50' drainage easement is proposed
along the western and southern boundaries.
C. Analysis
This proposal presents multiple problems. Foremost, is
advice from the City's Engineers that the plan cannot
be done as proposed. Before any of this is done,
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G - Continued
an approved hydraulic study by Engineering and FEMA
must be obtained showing revisions to the floodway.
Secondly, the applicant can't rechannel the ditch as
proposed, without an agreement from abutting property
owners who will possibly be impacted. Additionally,
(1) the floodway and floodplain should be shown on the
plat; (2) a cul-de-sac waiver is needed; (3) an access
easement with participation on the abutting property
owners to the north should be indicated, since Tanphil
crosses their property and it provides the only access
to this site; (4) in -lieu contributions are required
for Highway 10; (5) Tanphil Circle should be called
Tanphil Court.
D. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant, Mr. Orson Jewell, requested a 60-day deferral
so that he could address the comments made by staff.
WATER WORKS COMMENTS - Water main extension is required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made and passed to defer this item for 60 days.
The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8-28-86)
The staff reported that the applicant had requested a 60 day
deferral.
November 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-12-86)
A motion for a 60-day deferral as requested by the applicant
was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of 8
ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.