Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0051-P Staff AnalysisDecefaber 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Don and Sharon Stark 88 E1 Dorado Little Rock, AR 227-9453 AREA: .76 acres ZONING: "R-2" Pleasant View Subdivision Lots 189A, 189B and 189C West of Intersection of Pleasant Forest Drive and Rodney Parham - South end of Garnet Court SURVEYOR: James L. Butler 222 Louise North Little Rock, AR NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: Access lot by 20-foot rear drive off platted access easement. A. Site History This site was originally platted as two lots (189 and 190) in the Pleasant View Subdivision, Phase V. B. Existinq Conditions The land in question is located in what is exclusively an area developed as single family homes. Platted access to the property is provided by Garnett Court, a cul-de-sac in Pleasant View; however, due to the severe grade, physical access from this point appears difficult. The property is abutted on the south by a private drive platted as part of Pleasant Valley (Lots 2-22, Block 9). C. Development Proposal This plan indicates the applicant's desire to replat two lots into three from single family development. Access to the lots will be provided by a private drive extending off a platted access easement from Eldorado Drive. The applicant has stated justification of the request as relating to the difficult topography/access, December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued unique shape, and location of the property. The applicant feels that the proposed plan provides a satisfactory means of developing a problem piece of property. The three lots will consist of 7,330 square feet, 6,192 square feet and 9,121 square feet respectively. D. Engineering Comments None. E. Analvsis Staff's major concern with this project is its failure to conform to the lot width requirement for "R-2." The Ordinance states that lots on culs-de-sac should be a minimum of 60 feet wide at the building line. This plan is deficient in this area, which is a very basic one in the consideration of any proposal. Past practice has indicated a reluctance on the part of the staff for support on proposals that do not meet this criteria. F. Staff Recommendation Denial based on the above analysis. G. Subdivision Committee Review The applicants were present. They explained to the Committee that their proposal was prompted by an effort to eliminate an existing drainage problem. The Committee suggested that they submit their plans for drainage to Engineering. Staff pointed out that the plan did not conform to the width requirement at the building line. The Committee felt that this situation warranted a waiver of this requirement. Staff cautioned that this -approval would not include the placement of houses on the lots, since there may be setback problems later on. The Committee felt that the main issue involved the use of the private drive off E1 Dorado, which was platted for access to specific lots in Pleasant Valley. The applicants were advised to get approval of the owners or document their ownership of the drive. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued >:RLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicants were present. No one objected. Staff expressed concern that access for these lots was provided by a private drive that ran off of a platted access easement in another subdivision (Pleasant Valley). The question presented to the applicant was whether or not he had authority to access from this easement. He stated that he did, since he owns everything from E1 Dorado up to his property. No documentation of this was presented. Engineering approved of his drainage approach. A motion was made to approve this plat, subject to satisfying staff of ownership. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open.