HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0208-A Staff AnalysisSeptember 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Harold and Jane Bristow
14606 Cooper Orbit Rd.
Little Rock, AR
Telephone: 758-6271
224-2810
Bristow Subdivision
The 1400 Block of Cooper Orbit
Road (north side)
ENGINEER:
Olan D. Wilson
212 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 376-7222
AREA: 9.4 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET:
ZONING: Outside Citv
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Boundary Street improvements
2. Mackey Court Order
right-of-way establishment
of 50 foot versus Master
Street Plan requirement of
60 feet
A. Existinq Conditions
This proposal is located in an area that is developed
as rural, single family uses. Elevations range from
450' to 5301. Two parcels have been sold from this
ownership. There is an existing 25' ingress and egress
easement shown, crossing one out -parcel as well as
lots two and three; which has been of record for some
time and provides access to parcels under ownership for
others
On -site waste disposal and water supply systems
will serve the site.
r]
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
B. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 9.4 acres into five parcels
for single family use. The plat dedicates 30' for
right-of-way on Cooper Orbit Road. A waiver of
boundary street improvements is requested.
C. Engineering Comments
(1) Bad vertical and horizontal site distance on
Cooper Orbit. Anything other than "R-2" single
family will not have access onto Cooper Orbit from
each lot.
(2) Stormwater detention required.
(3) Right-of-way/street improvements required.
(4) Dedication should be reflected from the centerline
10 of the right-of-way.
D. Analvsis
Staff is not favorable to the requested waiver of
street improvements. The applicant has stated in his
letter that a right-of-wav of 50' has been established
by the Mackey Court Order as of June 17, 1970; even
though the Master Street Plan requests 601.
Staff asked that the plat encompass the parcels that
have been sold and be numbered as lots. The interior
roadway should be increased to a 45' private access
easement, since it serves several lots and abutting
ownerships. They should be improved with some type of
all-weather two-lane surfacing with 22' to 24' of
pavement.
The applicant is cautioned that Lot 1, as designed,
does not provide for future divisions. Sidewalks
should. be provided.
E. Staff Recommendation
(1) Denial of waiver request.
fe (2) Approval of plat subject to comments made.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. He explained that it would not
be possible to do street improvements, since he was not
doing what he considered as a large subdivision.
foOf theur two
lots sold illegally, one was sold approximately
hs
ago and another and was done some six years previously.
They felt that in some instances, improvements would be a
problem because of the terrain. He stated that he was
unaware of nonconformity to the regulations when the
property was sold.
The Committee explained to the applicant that the law must
still be adhered to. There was some discussion about
talking with the
hatCounty
deeds beCircuit
acceptedClerk,
withoutsince
aAplatSas state
law requires
It was thought that some type of phasing plan could possibly
provide some type of alternative.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There Were no objectors. The
applicant was requested to amend his proposal to combine
Lots 2 and 3 into one lot, provide right-of-way dedication
on the other two lots, and to file a 3-lot final plat.
Staff was instructed to research legally
and t with
the Anted in'theffuturenandwreportabackttotthesCommission.
prevente
A motion for approval as amended was made and passed by a
vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.