HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0141 Staff Analysisr
August 12, 1980
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
E.
0
NAME: Roper School
r. 7r,r . ,, „ _ -1-- -
r
'# /C//
Roper School, Inc. Brooks & Curry, Inc.
9510 Geyer Springs Road P.O. Box 897
Little Rock, AR North Little Rock, AR 72115
Phone: 758-3001
AREA: 4.36 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. OF NEW STREETS: 0
ZONING: 11R-2" - "R-4" PROPOSED USES: School
PLANNING DISTRICT:
n r-+wn rrn mr-n r+m _
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
(1) Side yard to allow existing structures to remain.
(2) Front yard to allow existing structures to remain.
(3) Buffer zone on Lot 2 be waived entirely.
(4) Buffer zone on front 315' of Lot 1 be waived entirely.
(5) All street and drainage improvements be waived entirely
or allow escrow.
(6) Allow Lots 1 and 2 to be recorded separately.
r
August 12, 1980
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
ROPER SCHOOL ADDITION
STAFF ANALYSIS
A. EXISTING CONDITIONS
This tract is at present occupied by one small
commercial building located on what will be Lot 2 and
several buildings on Lot 1 used as a school and
kindergarten. The large unoccupied part of Lot 1 is
the reason for plat filing in that the school owner_
desires to expand, and this is the only option open.
The land is generally flat with the only drainage
problem along Geyer Springs Road. The only street
abutting the plat is Geyer Springs Road, an arterial
which is at present a two lane county standard roadway.
Severe traffic problems occur during peak hours of
school days.
B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The owner of the school desires to utilize the large
open area as playground for the immediate future. He
will purchase the land from the owner of Lot 2 shown on
the plat leaving the ownership as a 157' x 315' with a
50' drive easement along the south line to serve the
school. Structural additions are viewed as future
development by the owner of Lot 1.
C. CONFORMANCE TO ORDINANCE STANDARDS
The plat as filed generally conforms. The exceptions
are those noted as variances. The one problem of
consequence is the submission of the justification for
variances. At this writing, it has not been filed, and
this is the second meeting for which the plat has been
prepared by staff for review.
D STAFF RECOMMENDATION
We find little problem with the development proposal,
but have difficulty developing a firm recommendation
until we can view the applicant's justification of
variance. In general, we are supportive of the
variance package except for street improvements. This
seems to be a major problem for the owners due to the
significant cost of one-half street improvements on a
60' street section, a drainage problem and sidewalks.
This being a two lot plat past practice has indicated
no phasing allowed but file both lots at one time.
y
r-'*1
f August 12, 1980
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Approval as recommended by staff, except that:
1. The owner be allowed to file the lots as separate,
final plats.
2. The Full Commission to determine the extent of street
improvements and the manner for providing same.
The vote - 5 ayes, 0 noes.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A brief discussion was held after which the Commission voted
to approve the plat as recommended by the Subdivision
Committee, except the Commission determination on street
improvements is that a cash contribution be provided in lieu
of construction. The vote 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent and 1
open position.
0