Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0205 Staff AnalysisDecember 15, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 NAME: Tiffany Terrace Preliminary LOCATION: Off Hinson immediately north of Marlowe Manor Subdivision DEVELOPER: ENGINEER/APPLICANT: Pleasant Valley Place Bob Lowe Partnership Hodges, Vines, Fox, Inc. c/o Robert Palmer 3426 Old Cantrell Road Properties P.O. Box 7416 11323 Arcade Drive Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 664-5000 AREA: 23.582 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 46 FT. OF NEW ST.: 4,260' ZONING: "MF-6" and "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Waiver of public streets. A. EXISTING CONDITIONS This site is located on land that is relatively hilly. Currently, the site is partially wooded. Hinson Road borders on the south, Pleasant Valley on the north and single family homes on ;the east. The present zoning is "MF-6" and "R-2." Water Works is requesting 12' easements on each side of the private roadways. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL This is a proposal to develop a parcel of 23.582 acres into 46 lots for single family development. Most of the lots provided are in excess of the minimum lot requirements. The proposal involves a security -type development with a guardhouse. Access will be provided by 4,260' of new streets. The applicant intends to construct these streets 25' wide back to back of curbs in a 45' easement. Streets will be private drives with public service, vehicle access and shall be constructed December 15, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued in accordance with City standards for minor residential streets. Drainage calculations will be submitted to City Engineering. C. CONFORMANCE TO ORDINANCE The only variance requested has been cited. D. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS (1) An internal drainage plan has been received but has not been considered as part of the preliminary plat review. (2) Engineering does not object to waiver of public streets. (3) Hinson Road to be improved to minor arterial standards. E. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff feels that this project could be enhanced by several factors, mainly related to design. Staff is suggesting that the parking around the private common area, be eliminated and placed elsewhere on the plat. As currently depicted, the stalls require backing into the streets. There is some question as to the design of the islands within the cul-de-sac. Engineering will provide further comment at the meeting. The applicant should specify the width of pavement in the cul-de-sac buttons. The conventional building setbacks are not adhered to in some instances, and a waiver of a 40' building line along Hinson was not requested for the double frontage lots which back up to the street. Staff does not feel that adequate justification has been given for requesting the private drive vs. public streets. The applicant should certainly develop the looped street as a 27' residential street, and the cul-de-sacs as minor streets. A staging plan should be submitted, and the land should be rezoned to conform to the use proposed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, subject to City and staff's comments. December 15, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: The applicant, Mr. Bob Lowe, was present. Staff reported that some of the streets within the development had less than a 75° point of intersection. Mr. Lowe agreed to redesign the plat according to all of Staff's suggestions. He was instructed by the Committee members to clear the redesigned proposal with the Staff before the Planning Commission meeting. A motion for approval, subject to the submission of a plat in conformance with Staff's recommendations was made and passed by a vote of 2 ayes, 0 nays and 3 open. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors; however, two abutting property -owners on the east, Mr. Harry Haney and Mr. Rogers, voiced concerns over the provision of sewer easements. They were assured by both the Staff and the applicant that easements were shown on the plat adjacent to their property. - Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a revised plan that was in conformance with the suggestions relative to design. The applicant stated his intent to comply with the suggestion for down -zoning, but said that the other request for a staging plan was not necessary, since the entire project would be completed at one time. He also amended the application so that several other variances were included. They are: (1) A 20' building line on Lot 46; (2) A 25' building line on cul-de-sacs measured from the back of the curve; and (3) A 20' building line around the clubhouse and tennis court. Staff modified their recommendation to include approval of additional variances. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.* *(Commissioners Turner and Rector were absent.)