Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0786 Staff AnalysisNovember 3, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS 14 Item No. 7 NAME: Lakeside Addition LOCATION• South of Foreman Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Norman Holcombe Edward G. Smith and Associates P.O. Box 7244 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72217 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 664-1582 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 5.273 acres NO. OF LOTS: 18 FT. NEW STREET: 800 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family A. Proposal/Re uest (1) To revise an approved preliminary (Woodlake) by including additional property and increasing the lots so that they number 22. B. Existinq Conditions This plat is located in an established single family area. Foreman Lake abuts on the east. C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design (1) Ordinance disallows green space between dedicated right-of-way and plat boundary. Double -fronted lots are being created. (2) 14otify neighboring property owners. (3) Redesign Lots 12-13 so that it has dedicated frontage. (4) A 15' building line is acceptable on Lots 20-21 if desired so as to give more buildable area. ( 5 ) Redesign turnaround to simplify traffic flow; seems so complicated to go such a short distance. 1 (6) Technically, sidewalks are required on Foreman Drive. November 3, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued D. Engineerinq Comments (1) Fifty -foot right-of-way required unless granted a variance. (2) Excavation Ordinance required. E. Staff Recommendation uested Reserved until comments s aeenestreet and fplat gboundary that the green spaceated aspermanent be into street right-of-wnd dfor credesign of the open space. Several suggestions plat have been noted. F. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant agreed to include the green space adjacent to ForemanDrive andedicatedfeasementtify property owners; and providing access to Lots 20-21 within the lot; have 15 building lines on Lots 20-21; submit a letter requesting waivers on the length oo fa minor residential since this is 950' and a 90' right-of-way explained that a grade problem caused the design of the turnaround and that he would get with staff and work ant out a design before the public hearing. The stated a preference for a sidewalk waiver. Staff be mentioned that they may ThelFireuflatteron Departmentrequests portions of the property. that the radii on all culs-de-sac must be a minimum of 50 feet. 0 November 3, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS / Item No. 7 - Continued D. Engineering Comments (1) Fifty -foot right-of-way required unless granted a variance. (2) Excavation Ordinance required. E. Staff Recommendation Reserved until comments addressed. Staff requested that the green space between street and plat boundary be into street right-of-way and dedicated as permanent open space. Several suggestions for redesign of the plat have been noted. F. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant agreed to include the green space adjacent to Foreman Drive in the right-of-way; notify property owners; and include a dedicated easement providing access to Lots 20-21 within the lot; have 15' building lines on Lots 20-21; submit a letter requesting waivers on the length of a minor residential since this is 950' and a 90' right-of-way diameter. He explained that a grade problem caused the desiqn of the turnaround and that he would get with staff and work out a design before the public hearing. The applicant stated a preference for a sidewalk waiver. Staff mentioned that they may be easier built on flatter portions of the property. The Fire Department requests that the radii on all culs-de-sac must be a minimum of 50 feet. G. Planning Commission Action The applicant was present. Several persons from the neighborhood were present. Staff recommended approval of the revised plan, subject to construction of sidewalks. The applicant's engineer felt that the / construction of sidewalks would be damaging to the hillside nature of the property because an extra cut would have to be made. Staff reported that the 0 10 November 3, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued applicant had obtained signatures of approval from property owners renI�ethe artmentthat had requestedForeman radius of and that the F1 p licant agreed to work 50' on the cul-de-sac. The aPP out all problems with the Fire Department regarding their comments. Mr. Preston B. Fleischmann of 8701 Leatrice represented 30 homeowners in theLe�wooTh�ird�nnc:e°nsvisin twerewthatnot notified of this prn 7eq (1) more residents in the neighborhood should have been notified: (2) size of ��3} possible were shan maller lots and had widths affects to property values. He also requested that a restriction in the Bill of Assurance sidesof aafothe homes Mountain Subdivision requiring threeto be constructed of brick as explained btopthe eapplicant Bill of Assurance. d in this It that a revised plan was submitted foorabuttinglot tproPerty to 75' ; notice was required not be bound by owners and that the applicantBill of Assurance. restrictions in the abutting with the developer. Mr. Fleischmann requested a meeting He was informed that onhelhadepreviouslyssaidnhelhad waiving sidewalks, which no problems with. Staff reported to the onCommission that the nearest s idewalk was located A motion for approval and passed by a vote for approval of the plat was made and passed of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. A motion by a vote of the sidewalk waiver was made of 6 ayes, 3 noes, and 2 absent.