HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0658 Staff AnalysisMay 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME:
Perry Place Subdivision
LOCATION: Approximately 320' West of
Point Cove Court and
Yarberry Lane, North Side of
Yarberry
nRVRT.nPRR
Odes Perry
c/o 1001 Fair Park Blvd.
Little Rock, AR 72204
Phone: 666-4418
ENGINEER:
Bill Dean
Civil Design, Inc.
1001 Fair Park Boulevard
Little Rock, AR 72204
AREA: 15.56 acres NO. OF LOTS: 60 FEET NEW ST.:
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
A. Existinq Conditions
This site is located in an area that can be
characterized as rural -like, with the general use being
residential. Elevations range from 280 feet to 310
feet.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting that he be allowed to
develop 15.56 acres into 60 lots for single family
use. He asked that a waiver be granted on sidewlaks;
since there are no sidewalk linkages which connect the
project and no arterial street designations and such a
waiver would be in keeping with the developers
objective of low-cost affordable housing. A waiver of
the 27 foot back-to-back requirement where the proposed
cul-de-sac streets is requested. A width of 24 feet is
to preferred. The reason offered is the low-cost
0
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
objective of the development. The project will be
developed in three phases.
C. Legal Issues
1. Please submit preliminary Bill of Assurance.
2. Please notify adjacent property owners as required
by the Subdivision Ordinance.
D. Analysis
The applicant is asked to: (1) justify the width of
those lots less than 60 feet, (2) check with
David Hathcock (371-4808) regarding a possible conflict
with the street name, Ponderosa, (3) show existing
right-of-way.
Staff is favorable to the request for a reduced
pavement width on the culs-de-sac; however, a waiver of
the sidewalk requirement is not recommended. Staff is
against deviating from the policy established in prior
years, regarding the waiving of sidewalks.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to comply with staff's recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was asked to explain his request for sidewalk
waivers and inadequate lot sizes. He felt that a sidewalk
variance would be compatible with the modern income concept
of the development and would submit a plan with all lots
meeting the minimum requirements. The Committe was not
May 13, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
favorable to the sidewalk waiver request.
A motion for
approval was made and if the passed,
subject
ishreduceds ton24f
"No Parking„ signs, ip noes and 0 absent.
feet. The vote 11 ayes ►
r
E
L'i