Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1282 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: S-1282 NAME: Cere's Addition (Lots 13 and 14) - Waiver of Subdivision Requirements LOCATION: East and west sides of Smith Lane, north of Bailey Road and east of Arch Street Pike DEVELOPER: Jimmy Patton 11900 Arch Street Pike Little Rock, AR 72206 AREA: Approx. 9.52 acres ZONING: Not zoned PLANNING DISTRICT: 28 CENSUS TRACT: 40.03 A. BACKGROUND: SURVEYOR: Donald W. Brooks 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 Lots 13 and 14, Cere's Addition are outside the Little Rock city limits, but within the City's Extraterritorial Subdivision jurisdiction. The property is not zoned. The property owner, Jimmy Patton, has recently moved five (5) residential structures onto Lot 13, two (2) on the west side of Smith Lane and three (3) on the east side. The structures (4 duplexes and 1 single family residence) were moved from the UAMS Campus. The applicant notes that a septic system has been installed to each of the units and has been approved by the Arkansas Department of Health. A request for water service has also FILE NO.: S-1282 (Cont.) been filed with the City and is awaiting disposition of this waiver issue. B. PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on March 27, 2000 requesting a waiver of the requirement to subdivide this property. The applicant notes that he plans to rent the individual residential units and has no intent to sell any of the units or any portion of the property. The applicant has also expressed to staff a desire not to submit a multiple building site plan for this property. This is based on the fact that the buildings are already in place. The applicant has also submitted letters (see attached) from the three (3) abutting property owners, expressing no objection to the requested waiver. C. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement to subdivide the property due to the fact that he does not wish to sell any portion of the property, as well as the fact that a subdivision to place each structure on a separate lot would potentially have several variances attached to it. The potential variances which would be involved in a subdivision of this property would be as follows: 1. Minimum lot width 2. Minimum lot depth 3. Lot width to depth ratio 4. Street improvement waiver 5. Building setback variances 6. Potential variances involving Lot 14 (land -locked issues) It should also be noted that Smith Lane dead -ends just north of this property and serves only one (1) property to the north. In addition to the variance issues which would be associated with a subdivision or site plan of this property, the following question must be asked: "What would be the public's interest in requiring a subdivision or site plan review for this property?" Staff feels that there is no public interest. 2 FILE NO.: 5-1282 (Cont.) Staff feels that Mr. Patton has made a quality improvement to the property as compared to other properties in this general area. He has utilized structures which otherwise - would probably have ended up in a landfill. In addition, the City has no building permit or construction authority in this area of the county. Staff believes that based on the variance issues which would be associated with a plat and the applicant's intended use for the property, that waiver of the requirement to subdivide the property is in order. Staff also believes that based on the fact that the structures are already in place and that the City has no building permit authority in this area, a site plan review would serve no purpose. Staff's support of the waiver request is conditioned on the fact that no additional structures be placed on the property. This is due to the placement of the existing structures and the configuration of the property. The placement of additional structures on the site would create new variance issues. Another condition that staff would like placed on the property is that there be only one (1) water meter on each side of Smith Lane to serve all of the structures. This will enforce the applicant's intent to not sell any of the structures. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver of the City's requirement to subdivide property, subject to the following conditions: 1. No additional structures should be placed on the property. 2. Only one (1) water meter will be allowed on each side of Smith Lane to serve the residential structures. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 20, 2000) Jimmy Patton was present, representing the application. Staff briefly described the waiver issue. The requested waiver was briefly discussed. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the issue to the full Commission for resolution. 3 FILE NO.: S-1282 (Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2000) The staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. 4 May 11, 2000 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: 5-1282 NAME: Cere's Addition (Lots 13 and 14) - Waiver of Subdivision Requirements LOCATION: East and west sides of Smith Lane, north of Bailey Road and east of Arch Street Pike nV..VF.TXVPV..R . Jimmy Patton 11900 Arch Street Pike Little Rock, AR 72206 AREA: Approx. 9.52 acres ZONING: Not zoned PLANNING DISTRICT: 28 CENSUS TRACT: 40.03 A. BACKGROUND: STTRVRV R Donald W. Brooks 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 Lots 13 and 14, Cere's Addition are outside the Little Rock city limits, but within the City's Extraterritorial Subdivision jurisdiction. The property is not zoned. The property owner, Jimmy Patton, has recently moved five (5) residential structures onto Lot 13, two (2) on the west side of Smith Lane and three (3) on the east side. The structures (4 duplexes and 1 single family residence) were moved from the UAMS Campus. The applicant notes that a septic system has been installed to each of the units and has been approved by the Arkansas May 11, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1282 Department of Health. A request for water service has also been filed with the City and is awaiting disposition of this waiver issue. B. PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on March 27, 2000 requesting a waiver of the requirement to subdivide this property. The applicant notes that he plans to rent the individual residential units and has no intent to sell any of the units or any portion of the property. The applicant has also expressed to staff a desire not to submit a multiple building site plan for this property. This is based on the fact that the buildings are already in place. The applicant has also submitted letters (see attached) from the three (3) abutting property owners, expressing no objection to the requested waiver. C. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement to subdivide the property due to the fact that he does not wish to sell any portion of the property, as well as the fact that a subdivision to place each structure on a separate lot would potentially have several variances attached to it. The potential variances which would be involved in a subdivision of this property would be as follows: 1. Minimum lot width 2. -Minimum lot depth 3. Lot width to depth ratio 4. Street improvement waiver 5. Building setback variances 6. Potential variances involving Lot 14 (land -locked issues) It should also be noted that Smith Lane dead -ends just north of this property and serves only one (1) property to the north. In addition to the variance issues which would be associated with a subdivision or site plan of this property, the following question must be asked: "What would be the public's interest in requiring a subdivision `A May 11, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1282 or site plan review for this property?" Staff feels that there is no public interest. Staff feels that Mr. Patton has made a quality improvement to the property as compared to other properties in this general area. He has utilized structures which otherwise would probably have ended up in a landfill. In addition, the City has no building permit or construction authority in this area of the county. Staff believes that based on the variance issues which would be associated with a plat and the applicant's intended use for the property, that waiver of the requirement to subdivide the property is in order. Staff also believes that based on the fact that the structures are already in place and that the City has no building permit authority in this area, a site plan review would serve no purpose. Staff's support of the waiver request is conditioned on the fact that no additional structures be placed on the property. This is due to the placement of the existing structures and the configuration of the property. The placement of additional structures on the site would create new variance issues. Another condition that staff would like placed on the property is that there be only one (1) water meter on each side of Smith Lane to serve all of the structures. This will enforce the applicant's intent to not sell any of the structures. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver of the City's requirement to subdivide property, subject to the following conditions: 1. No additional structures should be placed on the property. 2. Only one (1) water meter will be allowed on each side of Smith Lane to serve the residential structures. 3 May 11, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: FILE NO.: 5-1282 (APRIL 20, 2000) Jimmy Patton was present, representing the application. Staff briefly described the waiver issue. The requested waiver was briefly discussed. After the discussion, the -Committee forwarded the issue to the full Commission for resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2000) The staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. 4