Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0516 Staff AnalysisMarch 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 NAME: Cedar Branch Addition LOCATION: NW Corner of Fairview Road (Corner of Fairview and proposed Pleasant Ridge) DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Phillips Development Corp. Edward G. Smith & Associates 1421 University, N-335 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 6.2 acres NO. OF LOTS: 18 FT. OF NEW ST.: 800 ZONING: PROPOSED USES: Multifamily VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site History None. B. Existinq Conditions The land involved is currently wooded with elevations of 540' to 580'. It is bordered on the north by single family zoning, on the west by a PUD, and on the east by Fairview Road, and on the south by proposed Pleasant Ridge Road (which is now under construction). The sole structure on the property is a yellow frame house. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to plat a tract of 6.2 acres into 18 lots for multifamily development. Access is to be provided by 800' of new streets. The applicant is planning to place 18 fourplex units on the property. No variances have been requested. D. Engineering Considerations 1. Improve Fairview Road to residential standards. 2. Clarify where Fairview Road is to be closed in relation to the development. March 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued E. Analysis Staff's concern with this project does not necessarily involve the layout, but the approach taken. The 'IMF-12" District was not designed to accommodate small -lot development due to the restriction against front yard parking and the fact that the densities do not yield an equitable return. The small lots will penalize the developer because of the loss of density. In this district, no more than eight functional structures can be built on the property as proposed. The plan also involves an excessive amount of street. The applicant should be aware that a previous street improvement district issue involved neighborhood suggestions to abandon Fairview and Woodland Heights Roads, so that through traffic from Rodney Parham would be discouraged. It is possible that the issue has not been resolved. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee reviewed the proposal. Staff explained its view that the calculation of the right-of-way and the gross density causes a problem as to the distribution of the units among the lots proposed. The issue was generally described as involving a theoretical density that doesn't lend itself to this type of development. The applicant pointed out that a precedent had been set for this. Staff pointed out that it did not want to repeat this, since it causes design constraints on individual lots, resulting in Board of Adjustment applications for variances from builders. By approving this proposal, the Commission would be approving a plan, which would automatically build into the process variance requests. Staff recommended a PUD approach or submission of site -specific plans. It was determined that the City Attorney should be consulted on the legality of whether or not to include right-of-way in the calculation of gross density.