HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0178 Staff AnalysisI
February 10, 1981
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME: 1100 Rock Street, Lot 12,
Block 46
LOCATION: On the Corner of Rock and
East llth Streets
APPLICANT: Marcelline E. Giroir
Rector -Phillips -Morse, Inc.
Little Rock, AR
ENGINEER: Mehlburger Engineers
1218 W. 3rd Street
Little Rock, AR
-iO' t7?
REQUEST: For preliminary opinion stating
that possibility of approving this
lot split.
r
lip
February 10, 1981
4P SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
STAFF ANALYSIS
A. PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This site is located on flat land, and in an area that
can mainly be described as urban, with both multifamily
and single family residential uses. Most of the
existing stock is characteristic of many intercity
neighborhoods with old and historic housing throughout
the area. On the particular lot in question, there are
two buildings. One, a two-story brick four-plex, faces
Rock Street with a front setback of approximately 4'.
The other, a medium sized, yellow, frame house, faces
East llth Street and is bounded by a 20' alley on the
east side. Both of these buildings are extremely close
to the property line. No drainage problems are
apparent.
B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
This applicant is requesting a preliminary opinion from
the Commission on whether or not the proposed lot
split, as indicated by the sketch, will be approved.
The applicant hopes to sell the four-plex, but would
like to retain ownership of the single family residence
for restoration purposes.
1. Conformance to Ordinance
This plan does not comply with the Ordinance's
minimum lot size requirements.
2. Legal Considerations
None evident at this time.
3. Engineering Consideration
None.
C. ANALYSIS
Staff's field check and review of this matter suggests
that this proposal fails to meet the minimum lot size
requirements as mandated by the Ordinance. The
requirement states that lots must be at least 60' wide
February 10, 1981
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
and 100' long. Since the existing lot fails to
conform, dividing it will only serve to deviate further
from the Ordinance by creating two extremely
substandard lots. Furthermore, staff does not feel
that the 36' area in back of the four-plex that is
proposed for parking purposes is sufficient for the
amount of autos indicated.
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Denial for stated reasons.
E. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
A brief discussion was held during which staff and the
applicant presented their opinions of the case.
Special concern was expressed over the location of
the buildings so close to property lines. Since this
involves existing structures where no new changes are
proposed, the Committee moved to approve subject to the
replatting of the lot so that a proper building line
may be established. The vote was: 4 ayes, 1 no, 0
absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The applicant, Marcelline Giroir, was present. Due to prior
conversations the applicant, Staff and Chairman had with the
City.. --Attorney, concern was raised over the legality of
approving this item.* It was suggested that the Board of
Adjustment's involvement might provide a remedy toward the
resolution of the issue. Several motions were made, but
died on the floor. The applicant finally withdrew at the
request of the Commission.
*Note: (The City Attorney had left the meeting during this
time. Prior to this date, he had mentioned that the
Commission would be in violation of Section 37.10 of the
Subdivision Ordinance if approval was granted. In essence,
this section states that the Commission cannot approve any
variance that is not in conformance with the the other
adopted Plans. This item is not in conformance with the
Zoning Ordinance's minimum lot -size requirements).
L7T