Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0024-TT Staff AnalysisMay 10, 1983 f SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - File No. 24L NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Kelton Brown Big K Development Corp. 13700 Beckingham Road Little Rock, AR Phone: 225-2891 Hillsborough Subd. Phase V South End of Existing Hillsborough Lane The Hodges Firm 3424 Old Cantrell Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: 664-5000 AREA: 24.29 acres NO. OF -LOTS: 47 ZONING: 11R-2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Street grade on Hickory Ridge. A. History of the Site: FT. OF NEW ST.: 3400 Previous preliminary approval reveals that there is a water service elevation limit of 560 feet. z B. Existing Conditions: This site consists of very rugged terrain and slopes ranginq from 0 to 30%. Currently, it is wooded and bounded by other single family uses or zoning. C. Development Proposal: This is a proposal to develop an -area of 24.29 acres into 47 lots for use as single family. 3,400 feet of new street will be provided. One variance to exceed the allowed street grade of 15% on Hickory Ridge has been requested. 1j May 10, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued D. Engineering Comments: (1) Preliminary check indicates grade exceeding 225. Information provided has 10-•foot contours and no street profiles. (2) Request profile of proposed grades for Hillsborough Lane, Hickory Ridge and Saddle Hill Drive. All three streets appear to have grades which greatly exceed the 15% limit for residential streets. �;. Staff Analysis: Staff had several problems with the proposal. Foremost is the fact that the staff review was inhibited due to the applicant's failure to submit a hillside analysis of the area, which provides the basis for special subdivision development standards for vehicular access easements, lot dimensions, and front and side yard setbacks in areas of steep slopes. Also, the Ordinance requires the plats with an average slope in excess of 10% be submitted with five-foot contour intervals. This submission had 10-foot contours. It appears that the previous water limit on service elevation would eliminate all the lots, except Lots 160-166. It is necessary to find out the current policy of Water Works in regards to this matter. Staff is still reluctant, however, to endorse lots above the 560-foot elevation, due to the severe constraints on design and hazardous street situations. It is recommended that the area remain as open space. Only one variance was requested for Hickory Ridge, but three are needed since grades on each exceed 15%. F. Staff Recommendation: Deferral until resolution and justification in writing and graphics that this hillside can accommodate the proposed development. U r May 10, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (Additional Information -- The Development Policies of the Suburban Plarithat 'were adopted by the Little Rock City Board of Directors on April 8, 1980, specifically recommend restricting "water service to areas which can be served in an efficient and cost-effective manner, avoiding the construction of water lines at elevations above 675 feet requiring specialized storage and pumping facilities.") The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission, subject to: (1) The applicant providing the City staff with any additional information needed for hillside and street grade analysis; and (2) A policy statement from Water Works relative to plans for serving this area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Bob Lowe of The Hodges Firm represented the developer. There were no objectors. Engineering reported that the street grade on Hickory Ridge was totally unacceptable. The Planning staf reported that some communication had been received from Water Works. The memo indicated that it may be possible to service up to an elevation of 700`, but at least two lots, which are above this elevation, are not serviceable. It was also indicated that further information was being developed relative to serving the area. These guidelines would,be forwarded when finalized. A motion was made and passed, subject to resolution of the described issues. The vote was: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.