HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0621-B Staff Analysistember 9, 1986
)IVISIONS
n No. 1
E:
LOCATION:
Cedar Ridqe Two
The north side of Kanis at
Parkwav Place Drive
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Winrock Development Co. Edward G. Smith and Associates
P.O. Box 1260 401 Victory
N. Little Rock, AR 72115 Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 663-5340 Telephone: 374-1666
AREA: 20 Acres
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES:
NO. OF LOTS: 72
Sinqle Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
Block 7)
FT. NEW STREET: 3,250
Double frontage lots (17, 18 and 19,
A. Exksting Conditions
The property involved is located in an area that is
developing as single family. Elevations ranqe from 470
feet to 550 feet. There are no street improvements on
Kanis or Nix Road.
B. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to subdivide 30 acres into 72 lots
for single family development and four tracts for an
undetermined use. New streets will consist of 41352
feet. A request has been made to allow double frontaqe
lots on 17, 18 and 19, Block 7.
C. Engineerinq Comments
(1) Stormwater detention required.
(2) One-half street residential standards and
right-of-way dedication required.
;eptember 9, 1986
XBDIVISIONS
tem No. 1 - Continued
). Analysis
Staff is concerned about the lack of commitment to a
specific use on the southern 100 acres of this
proposal. The northern 20 acres is viewed as an
extension of a similar type of development that is
currently underway in the area. It is recommended that
a third phase be shown, if the bottom 10 acres
iwill
be
comprised of another land use. The applicant
ed
to specify intended uses.
Staff is favorable to the waiver request provided a 25'
platted building setback line is required from both
streets and a 10' platted vehicle prohibition zone from
Nix Road is provided.
Sidewalks should be constructed on Burkwood Drive. A
waiver is needed for excessive cul-de-sac length.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
It was decided that the southern 10 acres and the northern
20 acres should be considered separately. The applicant was
asked to revise the plan and submit it to staff. He also
agreed to comply with all other comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.