HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0133-A Staff AnalysisMarch 13, 1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-133-A
NAME: Lot 6R Coney Replat
LOCATION: South of Asher on University Avenue
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Quality Day Care Center McGetrick Engineering
11225 Huron Dr., Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72211
223-9900
AREA: 5.2 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C-3" PROPOSED USES: Commercial
PLANNING.._DI.STRI_CT: Boyle Park (10)
CENSUS TRACT: 21.02
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Sidewalk on University Avenue.
PLAT DEFICIENCIES:
1. Provision of owner's name and source of title on the
plat.
2. Direction of flow of water courses entering and leaving
the site.
3. Contour lines.
4. Existing zoning on site and adjacent properties.
5. Source of water and sewer.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
This developer proposes the creation of four new
commercial lots involving lot sizes ranging from
1.5 acres to 0.7 acre. All the lots would be serviced
by a 50 foot wide easement access connected to
University Avenue.
1
March 13, 1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No. 4 (Continued)
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This site is currently undeveloped and covered with the
natural foliage of the area. There are no structures.
The north boundary of this property is bordered by a
shopping center and the south part of this tract is
under floodway. There are also several easement
crossing this property.
C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
All floodway lands should be dedicated. The plat does
not show details of access to all lots from a dedicated
street. Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances
apply.
D. ISSUES /LEGAL,/TECHNICAL_/DESIGN:
The replat is basically in good form with resolution of
the following several items required:
1. Adjacent subdivision and owners' names should be
reflected on the plat.
2. Source of title, book and page on the certificate
of ownership are missing.
3. Also, contour lines are missing as an important
element of a plat with floodway involvement.
E. ANALYSIS:
The Planning staff finds no serious fault with the
replat subject, however, to resolving the several items
pointed out in Items C and D above.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff reserves its recommendation on this item
until the Subdivision Committee meeting in order to
further develop information concerning existing
easement access and missing elements of this replat.
2
March 13, 1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.4 nt_._.—u_
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 1, 1990)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the preliminary
plat. Mr. McGetrick stated that the staff recommendation
presented no problem. He agreed to connect easement lines
on Lots 2 and 3, dedicate the floodway to the City, and
compute all plat deficiencies.
In the brief discussion with staff, it was pointed out that
easement connection to the nearest public street needed to
be shown on the plat. Mr. McGetrick indicated he would
follow through on those items.
There being no further discussion, the matter was forwarded
to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION_ ACTION: (March 13, 1990)
The applicant was represented by Mr. Pat McGetrick. The
Planning Commission briefly discussed this replat. Having
received assurance from the staff concerning the sidewalk
waiver, it was determined that this item be plgced on the
consent agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was
made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstention
(Fred Perkins) and 0 absent.
(It was noted for the record that this item will be
submitted to the Board of Directors for sidewalk waiver.)
3