Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0155 Staff AnalysisJuly 21, 1979 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 NAME: Reservoir Heights LOCATION: East side of Reservoir Road Across from Treasure Hill Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: C.T.C.R. Partnership- Robert J. Richardson Plaza West Bldg. McKinley at Lee Little Rock, AR 72205 Plaza West Building, Suite 620 Phone: 664-0003 Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 664-0003 AREA: 9.6 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. OF NEW STREET: 110 ZONING: "A" One Family PLANNING DISTRICT: 24 CENSUS` TRACT: 22.03 PROPOSED USES: Condominiums VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. All fence requirements. 2. -Side lot line between Lots 1 and 3, and between Lots 2 and 3 to be 5'. 3. half street improvements to Reservoir Road. 4. 25' pavement width rather than 27'. r July 24, 1979 Item No. 13 - Continued A. Existing Conditions ,The site is at the top of a hill which slopes away in all directions at slopes from 9 1/2 percent to 28 percent at the steepest. It is heavily wooded. Reservoir Road adjacent is built to rural standards. All drainage originates on the site. All utilities and public services are available. B. Development Proposal The first phase of development on Lot 3 will contain 33 condominiums at a density of 8.25 units/acres. Access will be provided by alicircular access easement. Lots 2 and 3 will be retained for possible future office development. ,Prior ;to final approval, the zoning will be changed from "E-l" to the appropriate "MF" classification. r: Adjacent unimproved rights -of -way are to be abandoned. Current regulations require a 40' undisturbed buffer of a 6' fence between office/commercial developments and residential property and between multifamily and single family areas. Variance Requests 1 and 2 could reduce this to 5' on the west # side of Lots 2 and 3, and would eliminate the fences on the west sides of all three lots. Improvements to Reservoir Road have previously been waived, due to grade problems. Variance Request "4" refers to a short segment of street at the entrance, which is now proposed to be part of the service easement. C. Analysis The plan is well designed and considerably more spacious than would be , permitted by the existing zoning. D. ° Staff Recommendation .The staff recommends approval subject to: 1. Eliminate fence requirement on the east side of Lot 3 where it would be ineffective due to the difference in elevation. Require fences between Lots 1 and 3, and 2 and 3. JU14Y 24, 1979, Item too . 13 - Continued 2. Require full 40' buffer on Lots 1 and 2, or if reduced, require sufficient to fulfill the intent of the ordinance. 3. Verify full right-of-way dedication to Reservoir, but require no improvements. 4. Approve pavement widths as shown. 5. Rezonings of right-of-way abandonments to be accomplished prior to final approval. Subdivison Committee Recommendation: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval as recommended by the staff, and that the buffer and fence requirements on Lots 1 and 2 apply only in the event of office development. Planning Commission Action: The applicant was present and stated he no problem with the Subdivision Committee recommendations. The Commission voted to approve the plat as recommended by the Subdivision Committee unanimously. j Y I 5-�5' July 24, 1979 SUBDIVISIONS .1W Item No. 13 k- I NAME: Reservoir Heights LOCATION: East side of Reservoir Road Across from Treasure Hill Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: C.T.C.R. Partnership Robert J. Richardson Plaza West Bldg. McKinley at Lee Little Rock, AR 72205 Plaza West Building, Suite 620 Phone: 664-0003 Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 664-0003 AREA: 9.6 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. OF NEW STREET: 110 ZONING: "A" One Family PROPOSED USES: Condominiums PLANNING DISTRICT: 24 CENSUS TRACT: 22.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. All fence requirements. 2. Side lot line between Lots 1 and 3, and between Lots 2 and 3 to be 5'. 3. Half street improvements to Reservoir Road. 4. 25' pavement width rather than 27'. -NP d.. 4fr July 24, 1979 l CItem No. 13 - Continued A. Existing Conditions The site is at the top of a hill which slopes away in all directions at slopes from 9 1/2 percent to 28 percent at the steepest. It is heavily wooded. Reservoir Road adjacent is built to rural standards. All drainage originates on the site. All utilities and public services are available. B. Development Proposal The first phase of development on Lot 3 will contain 33 condominiums at a density of 8.25 units/acres. Access will be provided by a circular access easement. Lots 2 and 3 will be retained for possible future office development. Prior to final approval, the zoning will be changed from "E-l" to the appropriate "MF" classification. Adjacent unimproved rights -of -way are to be abandoned. Current regulations require a 40' undisturbed buffer of a 6' fence between office/commercial developments and residential property and between multifamily and single family areas. Variance Requests 1 and 2 could reduce this to 5' on the west side of Lots 2 and 3, and would eliminate the fences on the west sides of all three lots. Improvements to Reservoir Road have previously been waived, due to grade problems. Variance Request "4" refers to a short segment of street at the entrance, which is now proposed to be part of the service easement. C. Analysis The plan is well designed and considerably more spacious than would be permitted by the existing zoning. D. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends approval subject to: 1. Eliminate fence requirement on the east side of Lot 3 where it would be ineffective due to the difference in elevation. Require fences between Lots 1 and 3, and 2 and 3. aw Ak r� July 24, 1979 Item No. 13 - Continued 2. Require full 40' buffer on Lots 1 and 2, or if reduced, require sufficient to fulfill the intent of the ordinance. 3. Verify full right-of-way dedication to Reservoir, but require no improvements. 4. Approve pavement widths as shown. 5. Rezonings of right-of-way abandonments to be accomplished prior to final approval. Subdivison Committee Recommendation: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval as recommended by the staff, and that the buffer and fence requirements on Lots 1 and 2 apply only in the event of office development. Planning Commission Action: The applicant was present and stated he no problem with the Subdivision Committee recommendations. The Commission voted to approve the plat as recommended by the Subdivision Committee unanimously. 4MW U1