Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0812 Staff AnalysisMarch 8, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 NAME: LOCATION: r) VX7R.T.(IUP.R Allen G. Gold 12600 Ridge Haven Road Little Rock, AR 72207-0227 Gold Addition Ridge Haven Road west of Napa Valley VMnTMPPD- White-Daters & Associates, Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 AREAS: 5 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. Proposal/Request To subdivide five acres into two for single family use. B. Existing Conditions The area is composed of acreage tracts with ongoing construction of a smaller lot single family subdivision to the immediate east of the site. C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design 1. Justify/explain lot design/configuration. 2. Fire Department comments that the proposed driveway is not of the required minimum width. March` 8 ; 119 8-18 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued 3. Twenty -foot right-of-way dedication. 4. Indicate access easement to Lot 2. D. Engineerinq Comments Will comment at the meeting. E. Staff Recommendation Reserved until issues addressed. Staff does not have objections to division of the five -acre into two and the removal of existing driveway; however, some explanation is needed as to the design of the two lots whereby 50' is left to the west of Lot 1 and 100' to the east. The applicant should resolve the Fire Department. F. Subdivision Committee Review: The applicant and her engineer were in attendance. Mr. Joe White, the engineer, stated that the request was prompted by the desire for a new home, but a reluctance to move. He explained that the layout was designed to allow future development of the property by the children of the applicant if desired. The applicant agreed to resolve the Fire Department issue and widen the 50' portion of the property on the west to 601. Staff pointed out that a depth to width variance would be needed in the future. Sewer main extension required from Eagle Pointe Subdivision. March 8, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion to approve this application as recommended by the staff was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.