Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0172 Staff Analysist ,4,:*!/-77, e October 14, 1980 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 NAME: Hazel Heights LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Southmont at West 65th , DEVELOPER: P?17n_TMWVn. Thurston Hazel Everett Roland 26 Rosemoore Drive P.O. Box 9003 Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR AREA: 1.8 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. OF NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 20 CENSUS TRACT: 20.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Waiver of West 65th improvement. 2. Lot depth to width on Lot 1 (ratio). 3. Lot depth on Lots 4 and 3 4. Lot width on Lot 1. 5. Building line on W. 65th Street (25' instead of 35'). flir October 14, 1980 40 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued STAFF ANALYSIS 1. PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS/CONDITIONS The land involved is a gentle slope, falling from north to south. There are no drainage problems of concern. The site is occupied by a single frame residence in the east portion of Lot 2 proposed. This residence is sited to provide a 65th Street frontage with side yard on Southmont Drive. The neighborhood is one of single family detached with a scattering of churches. 2. EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES All in place except the W. 65th Street improvements. 3. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The owner proposes four lots for use as single family. The existing house is to remain and is a primary reason for the odd shape of Lots 2 and 3. The development proposal does not provide contribution to improvemens of W. 65th Street and asks a variance. The lot configuration as proposed by this owner is to allow retention of the existing house which would be redeveloped/remodeled to face east. 4. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS A definite plan of structural location has not been submitted; however, it is assumed to be conventional housing types and placement as exist adjacent. 5. CONFORMANCE TO ORDINANCE STANDARDS The lots in this plat offer five areas of noncompliance. These are depth, width, ratio of depth to width, street improvement and building line. 6. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS None evidenced at this writing which would effect completion of the plat. J October 14, 1980 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued 7. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS Require in lieu of fee on W. 65th Street and denial of improvement waiver. 8. ANALYSIS The staff field check and review of the information filed suggests to us that too many lots are proposed. If this site were unencumbered by structures, a clear four lot design could possibly be obtained. In the absence of a clear site, there is little option except to reduce the number of lots to three. There are two possible designs whereby three lots of good size could be obtained. 1. This design would provide a 60' lot lying along the north property line with two lots fronting on W. 65th Street. 2. The second scheme would provide three lots fronting on Southmont Drive. As to the variance request, we believe there is no justification to support such exceptions. The terrain location and site configuration all lend potential to a plat without variance. There are no unique site circumstances, only financial gain to the owner in a four lot platting as filed. 9. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Denial of the plat as filed and the attending variances. We would recommend a three lot plat oriented to W. 65th Street with no variance. This would permit the owner to retain the existing house. The corner lot could be built upon toward the rear to gain a better siting. The improvement to W. 65th Street should be required and arrangements with Engineering made to provide in lieu of contributions. October 14, 1980 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Committee recommends that the plat be carried forward to the public hearing without specific recommendation. In the interim, the owner and his engineer are to develop the site plan for each lot, locating the new structures as well as the one to be retained. This plan is to be presented to the Committee in a review session prior to the 1:00 p.m. Agenda Meeting. The Committee also determined that the W. 65th Street improvements should be required, and instructed the applicant to discuss this further with the City Engineer as to in -lieu of filing process and an amount to be contributed. The vote - 3 ayes, 0 nays. RECONVENED COMMITTEE MEETING - 12:30, October 14, 1980: The Committee was presented with a revised plan, locating the structures and dimensioned yard space. A brief discussion was held with the result that the owner agreed to the street improvement contribution. By a vote of 3 ayes, 2 nays, the Committee forwarded the plat to the Commission with recommendation for approval of the plat and Waivers 2, .40 3, 4 and 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION - October 14, 1980: There were no objectors. The applicants were present. A brief discussion was held. A motion was made to approve the plat and Waivers 2, 3, 4 and 5 as requested. The street improvements on West 65th Street are to be assured by cash contribution to an in lieu of holding account for the bond project. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 2 nays, 3 absent.