Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0024-K Staff Analysiss�;?el,ldr- 40 July 14, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Hillsborough Subdivision, Phase IV LOCATION: Hillsborouqh Subdivision south of Phase 1 of DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Kelton Brown Bob Richardson 7101 West 12th, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72204 Phone: 664-0003 AREA: 10.57 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 21 ZONING: "R-2" Single Family PROPOSED USE: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: 24 CENSUS TRACT: 42.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. FT. OF NEW STREET: 1,000+ f ,4V M \V July 14, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued A. EXISTING CONDITIONS This site is located in what is strictly a residential area that is very hilly. Many of the slopes are in excess of 18 percent; therefore, a hillside analysis is needed. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to develop this plat of 6.22 acres into 21 lots for single family use. Hillside data reveals that the minimum lot size is 14,2001, the average lot size is 18,900 square feet, and the average slope of the lots is 21.67 percent. The applicant has indicated that Lot 112 is not in conformance with the hillside regulations. No waivers have been requested. C. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS (1) Engineering Division questions cures on street on west leg of proposed street. (2) Request plan for alley/access on north side of properties. D. ANALYSIS (June 9, 1981) Staff is concerned mainly with two matters in regard to this application. First of all, the applicant needs to provide information as to who the 20' access easement to the north of these lots will serve. This should also be reflected in the Bill of Assurance. The easement is currently serving as the only access to three lots that were previously' developed, Staff is suggesting that the applicant make this easement a part of these four lots when the final is submitted, since the owners have legal access anyway. The' plat shows a pipe stem as a separate tract that serves two lots. This .sh-ou-Id— redesigned. The fact that one lot does not meet Hillside regulations is not an issue since the Ordinance requires that 80 percent of the plan should conform to the minimum required lot size. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION (June 9, 1981) Approval, subject to Staff's comments. (See later comments.). ON M July 14, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A brief discussion was held with the staff presenting a report on various approaches which could resolve the conflict. The staff recommendation was submitted as follows: (1) That the plat be approved as to content and design subject to the items set forth in the Staff Analysis. (2) The plat to provide a 20' access easement adjacent to the north line of Lots 99, 100, 101, 102, Phase 4. Said easement to be identified in the Bill of Assurance as to permitted users, required maintenance and set forth that the City of Little Rock shall not be a party to enforcing maintenance. (3) That physical improvements in the easement meet Ordinance standards (Section 3`/.32.1) or design acceptable to the City Engineer, especially with respect to surface material and drainage. The owner and engineer stated that they had no objection to this approach. The attorney for one adjacent owner, Bill Terry, stated that his client was willing to accept this recommendation so long as proper improvements were required and installed. Mr. Wittenburg, an adjacent owner, voiced his approval also. The Commission voted on a motion to approve as recommended. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. July 14, 14R1 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Hillsborouqh Subdivision, Phase IV LOCATION: Hillsborouqh Subdivision south of Phase 1 TWUP.T.nPRY? . ENGINEER: Kelton Brown Bob Richardson 7101 West 12.th, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72204 Phone: 664-0003 AREA: 10.57 Acres NO. OF .LOTS: 21 FT. OF NEW STREET: 1,000+ ZONING: "R-2." Single Fami1v PROPOSED USE: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: 24 CENSUS TRACT: 42.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. July 14, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued A. EXISTING CONDITIONS This site is located in what is strictly a residential area that is very hilly. Many of the slopes are in excess of 18 percent; therefore, a hillside analysis is needed. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL C. D. F. The applicant proposes to develop this plat of 6.22 acres into 21 lots for single family use. Hillside data reveals that the minimum lot size is 14,200', the average lot size is 18,900 square feet, and the average slope of the lots is 21.67 percent. The applicant has indicated that Lot 112 is not in conformance with the hillside regulations. No waivers have been requested. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS (1) Engineering Division questions curves on street on west leg of proposed street. (2) Request plan for alley/access on north side of properties. ANALYSIS (June 9, 1981) Staff is concerned mainly with two matters in regard to this application. First of a].1, the applicant needs to provide information as to who the 20' access easement to the north of these lots will serve. This should also be reflected in the Bill of Assurance. The easement is currently serving as the only access to three lots that were previously developed. Staff is suggesting that the applicant make this easement a part of these four lots when the final is submitted, since the owners have legal access anyway. The plat shows a pipe stem as a separate tract that serves two lots. This should be redesigned. The fact that one lot does not meet Hillside regulations is not an issue since the Ordinance requires that 80 percent of the plan should conform to the minimum required lot size. STAFF RECOMMENDATION (June 9, 1981) Approval, subject to Staff's comments. (See later comments.) July 14, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A brief discussion was held with the staff presenting a report on various approaches which could resolve the conflict. The staff recommendation was submitted as follows: (1) That the plat be approved as to content and design subject to the items set forth in the Staff Analysis. (2) The plat to provide a 20' access easement adjacent to the north line of Lots 99, 100, 101, 102, Phase 4. Said easement to be identified in the Bill of Assurance as to permitted users, required maintenance and set forth that the City of Little Rock shall not be a party to enforcing maintenance. (3) That physical improvements in the easement meet Ordinance standards (Section 37.32.1) or design acceptable to the City Engineer, especially with respect to surface material and drainage. The owner and engineer stated that they had no objection to this approach. The attorney for one adjacent owner, Bill Terry, stated that his client was willing to accept this recommendation so long as proper improvements were required and installed. Mr. Wittenburg, an adjacent owner, voiced his approval also. The Commission voted on a motion to approve as recommended. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. Tiily 14, 19R1 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Hillsborouqh Subdivision, Phase IV LOCATION: Hillsborouqh Subdivision south of Phase 1 DEVELOPER: ENGINRR.Re Kelton Brown Bob Richardson 7101 west 12th, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72204 Phone: 664-0003 AREA: 10.57 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 21 ZONING: "R-2" Single Family PROPOSED USE: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: 24 CENSUS TRACT: 42.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. FT. OF NEW STREET: 1,000+ n July 14, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A brief discussion was held with the staff presenting a report on various approaches which could resolve the conflict. The staff recommendation was submitted as follows: (1) That the plat be approved as to content and design subject to the items set forth in the Staff Analysis. (2) The plat to provide a 20' access easement adjacent to the north line of Lots 99, 100, 101, 102, Phase 4. Said easement to be identified in the Bill of Assurance as to permitted users, required maintenance and set forth that the City of Little ROCS{ shall not be a party to enforcing maintenance. (3) That physical improvements in the easement meet Ordinance standards (Section 37.32.1) or design acceptable to the City Engineer, especially with respect to surface material and drainage. The owner and engineer stated that they had no objection to this approach. The attorney for one adjacent owner, Bill Terry, stated that his client was willing to accept this recommendation so long as proper improvements were required and installed. Mr. Wittenburg, an adjacent owner, voiced his approval also. The Commission voted on a motion to approve as recommended. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. 0 f July 14, 1981. SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued A. EXISTING CONDITIONS This site is located in what is strictly a residential area that is very hilly. Many of the slopes are in excess of 18 percent; therefore, a hillside analysis is needed. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to develop this plat of 6.22 acres into 21 lots for single family use. Hillside data reveals that the minimum lot size is 14,200', the average lot size is 18,900 square feet, and the average slope of the .lots is 21.67 percent. The applicant has indicated that Lot 112 is not in conformance with the hillside regulations. No waivers have been requested. C. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS (1) Engineering Division questions curves on street on west leg of proposed street. (2) Request plan for alley/access on north side of properties. D. ANALYSIS (June 9, 1981) Staff is concerned mainly with two matters in regard to this ax)plication. First of all, the applicant needs to provide information as to who the 20' access easement to the north of these lots will serve. This should also be reflected in the Bill of Assurance. The easement is currently serving as the only access to three lots that were previously developed. Staff is suggesting that the applicant make this easement a part of these four lots when the final is submitted, since the owners have legal access anyway. The plat shows a pipe stem as a separate tract that serves two lots. This should be redesigned. The fact that one lot does not meet Hillside regulations is not an issue since the Ordinance requires that 80 percent of the plan should conform, to the minimum required lot size. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION (June 9, 1981) Approval, subject to Staff's comments. (See later comments.)