Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0170-E Staff AnalysisI September 13, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - File No. 170-E NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Western Little- Rock Co. 1075 Union Bank Plaza Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 376-4432 Pleasant Valley Addition SE of Intersection of Hinson and Woodberry Roads, adjacent to Longlea Addition ENGINEER: Finley Williams 210 Victory Street Little Rock, AR Phone: 375-3525 AREA: 58.1 acres NO. OF LOTS: 47 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site History This parcel is in an area that has been involved in transfer of development rights due to a limited sewer capacity. B. Existing Conditions This plat is located in an area with varied residential uses. It is immediately abutted by single family on the north and west, the Pleasant Valley Golf Course on the•east and on the south by property belonging to the same owner that has been approved for development as condominiums. An unimproved portion of Hinson Road, identified on the plat as a roadway easement abuts on the west. Elevations on the site -range from 400' to 600', with slopes of less than 10 to 40 percent. Water service is currently not available to all of the site. C. Development Proposal This proposal involves the development of 58.1 acres into 47 lots for single family. Access to the site will be provided by a private street system with ditches. At the time of writing, no variances had been formally requested. September 13, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued D. Engineering Comments 1. Preliminary review of drainage and street grades indicate that this plan will be within City requirements. Details of drainage and street plans at the "switch back" should be submitted to the City Engineer for review. 2. Improvements to Hinson Road have previously been assured. Dedicate Hinson Road right-of-way to minor arterial standards. E. Analysis Staff recognizes this as an attempt by the applicant to provide a high quality single family residential community. We feel that the layout is impressive, but can be optimized by eliminating what is viewed as an excessive amount of pavement. The applicant should work to revise the proposal along these lines. No variances have been requested, but the plan does not comply with requirements for streets to serve such a development. The Commission needs to determine whether or not this private street system justifies a waiver, since the Ordinance requires that private streets should be in the form of a cul-de-sac or loop street. The cul-de-sac length also varies, since it is in excess of the usual length of 750'. The applicant has proposed a lot of road per lot, basically 132 linear feet per lot. The switch back on the first private drive turnout seems dangerous, due to the limited site lines and vertical geometry of street which may force vehicles to use much of the street for turning. Finally, the dedication of Hinson Road right-of-way the full length of this plat is requested. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He stated that they were currently working to resolve the problem of water service. He also stated that this proposal presented no problems relative to the sewer density limitation due to the purchase September 13, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 e Continued of property from Pleasant Valley. Staff reported that an alternative to the proposed development had been designed which reduced the amount of street and had large lots. The applicant felt that the amount of pavement was justified due to the use of only one side of the street throughout the project. He also stated that he had received Fire Department approval of the drive. The Committee passed the item to the Commission without recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The application was represented by Mr. Finley Williams and Mr. Floyd Fulkerson. There was a brief discussion of title to a portion of the land which had been suggested was being purchased from Pleasant Valley, Inc. The issue was not completely resolved. However, the Commission did not take a position relative to the status of the plat if the sale is not consummated. The Planning Commission then voted on a motion to approve the plat as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstention (Richard Massie).