Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0065 Staff Analysisti January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. F NAME: St. Charles Plat (Replat of Tracts B Through F) LOCATION: SW Corner of Napa Valley and St. Charles Blvd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Bailey Corporation Edward G. Smith 401 Victory 401 Victory Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR Phone: 374-1666 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 2.24 acres NO. OF LOTS: 8 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family A. SITE HISTORY The site was originally platted as five lots in the St. Charles Subdivision. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS This site is on the eastern edge of an existing single family subdivision. It is wooded and consist of gentle slopes. Improvements are in place along St. Charles Boulevard. C. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL This is a proposal to replat five tracts into eight lots for single family use. Access is to be provided by an 18-foot private drive. D. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS None. s January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. F - Continued E. ANALYSIS Staff has no major reservations relative to the request for replatting; provided that the applicant acquires the required amount of property -owners' signatures for an amendment to the Bill of Assurance. It is felt that the private drive should be increased from 18' to 20' and a 30-foot easement provided. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Mr. Joe White and Attorney Chris Barrier represented the developer. They stated that the Bill of Assurance required signatures of 51 percent of the landowners. Since the developer still owns 50 percent of the land, only 1 percent of the residents' participation would be needed in order to modify the Bill of Assurance. The applicant agreed to provide a 20' private drive and 30' easement. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11-15-83) Mr. Chris Barrier represented the developer. Mr. Jerry Webster, president of the Property Owners Association, spoke in behalf of the neighborhood. He stated that 95 percent of the residents were opposed to the replat because they felt: (a) it was not compatible with the character of the subdivision because of an average lot width of 60' versus the existing average of 124.5'; (b) it represented a breach of faith due to statements in a developer's brochure and made by the developer's representative in the Arkansas Democrat that describe the subdivision as an exclusive area with lot sizes of about 2200 square foot a house. The residents also felt that their Bill of Assurance offered them no protection since the developer was still the majority landowner. A motion was made and passed for deferral so that the two parties could reach a compromise. The vote - 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (12-1-83) The applicant reported that the developer was still attempting to resolve the issue with the property -owners. January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. F - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Chris Barrier represented the developer. He reported that they had failed to reach a compromise with the home owners in St. Charles. A plan revised to seven lots was submitted. Mr. Jerry Rhodes, an attorney and resident, represented St. Charles Property Owners Association. He stated that the residents desired that the replat consist of only six lots. The basic objections to the proposal were against what they perceived to be a misrepresentation by the developer of the living environment to be expected in the subdivision, and an existing Bill of Assurance which offers them a minimum of protection. The Chairman called for a vote. A motion was made for approval of the revised plat. The motion was denied. The vote: 1 aye, 9 noes and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (12-29-83) The applicant reported that he had worked out an agreement with the property owners and requested that the plat be acted on by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-10-84) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made and passed to approve the plan as revised according to the agreement. The motion passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Bailey Corporation St. Charles Revised Preliminary St. Charles Boulevard (west side of plat) ENGINEER: Edward G. Smith and Associates 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR AREA: 65.8 acres NO. OF LOTS: 139 FT. OF NEW ST.: 6,150 ZONING: "R-2" - "MF-12" PROPOSED USES: Single Family - Multifamily VARIANCES REQUESTED: Three pipe -stem flag lots. A. Site History This plat has been revised to accommodate recent rezonings of an extra portion of the property from "MF-12" to "R-2" and from "R-2" to "MF-12." Staff advised the applicant at that time that both of the areas would have to be accommodated on a revised plat to restructure the changes. B. Staff Report The applicant has failed to include the areas of changed zoning within the boundaries of this submission. He has also differed from the approved preliminary by not showing Carbonnet as a stubbed out street. We have received communication from property owners to the east, who request adherence to the previous plan since it will provide them with access to their property and better potential for safety, service and protection by fire, police, postal, etc. Staff agrees with their request since the connecting street is required every 1/4 mile and our records show this on approved plan. - jai �r�..ri --IW -., ••AnL=a/�:fa.v'ics%Wcl •'��'KJ • �a i. January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to resolution of Master Street Plan issue and submission of preliminary encompassing areas of change. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee reviewed the request. Two letters requesting access were presented. The developer's engineer, Mr. Joe White, suggested that they get together with the parties involved and work out two access points, then report the results of the meeting to the Commission on December 13. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: By request of the applicant, a motion was made and passed to defer the item for 30 days. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (12-28-83) The applicant was present. A revised proposal was presented to the Commission, which connected Carbonnet Court to the property on the northeast, and Carondelet Court for property on the west, and provided a divided median on the south which is to be worked out with Traffic Engineers. The applicant requested that staff present them with a letter signed by the Planning Director stating acceptance of this agreement. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-10-84) Mr. Joe White represented the objectors. A motion was made as revised. The vote was: 11 developer. There were no and passed to approve the plan ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.