Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0516-C Staff AnalysisNAME: Cedar Branch PUD, Phase II LOCATION: Immediately west of the intersection of Summit and Fairview Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER/APPLICANT: Phillips Development Corp. Edward G. Smith & Associates 1421 N. University 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 7.26 iicres NO. OF LOTS: 14, FT_. OF NEW ST.: and 1 tract ZONING: "R-2" Proposed Zoning PUD PROPOSED USES: Residential A. Site History None. B. Proposal 1. The construction of 14 fourplex lots, a single family lot, and one tract for future development on 7.26 acres. 2. Development will be as follows: Schedule of Units No. Total Size Single Family Lots 1 1 14 sq. ft. Fourplex Lots 14 56 800 sq. ft. Future development 1 16 600 sq. ft. 73 Units per acre: 73/7.26 = 10.05 3. Parking is to be behind front building setback lines. A 1 1/2 parking to unit ratio will be maintained. Cedar Branch PUD - Continued 4. Side yard setback lines will be 10 percent of lot width on all single family and fourplex lots. The closure of a portion of Fairview Road, and end Fairview from the south with a cul-de-sac. Fairview on the north will merge with Summit Street. C. Engineerinq Considerations 1. Dedicate right-of-way and improve Fairview Road to residential standards. 2. Request clarification of street closure on Fairview; closure should not be made until Pleasant Ridge Road is completed; recommend curb section be constructed on Fairview to align with new roadway. 3. Request large cul-de-sac adjacent to Lots 3 - 7 be private area with standard driveway off the main street. D. Analysis Since this property constitutes in excess of seven acres, it should be reviewed as a long form PUD. This will require the developer to submit a detailed development statement/objective, specific layout on every lot, elevations, and any other necessary requirements as noted in the Zoning Ordinance. A 40-foot buffer and 6-foot fence should be provided between this property and any abutting residential tracts. This plan does not represent a commitment to the street closure. The applicant should file the necessary documents with the staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation is reserved until further info is received. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He requested that he be allowed to depart from the usual PUD submission requirements relative to specific building details. He also wanted to eliminate any density requirement for the area for future development from this request. Staff stated that the use would still have to be specified. A discussion was held concerning submitting this as a regular rezoning/subdivision application versus that as a PUD. It was decided that the proposal could be reviewed as a preliminary PUD with the owner of each lot being required to come back to the Commission with the final PUD. Cedar Branch PUD - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant's engineer was present. Mr. Steve Bowman represented an abutting property owner on the north. He raised concerns about the provision of a buffer since his client's property was zoned "R-2." The project engineer, Mr. Joe White, requested that the plan be modified to delete the area specified for further development. A motion for approval was made and passed subject to: (1) Engineering comments, (2) 25' landscape buffer with 15' to be retained in its natural state or replanted with ground cover natural to the area and a 6' fence, and (3) Planning Commission approval of the plan for each separate lot. The motion passed by a vote of S ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.