The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutS-0699-A Staff AnalysisSeptember 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. J NAME: Pleasant Heights Subdivision LOCATION: West of Hillsborough DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Darbe Development Co. Edward G. Smith and Associates 12,015 Hinson Road 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 376-8142 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 50.0 acres NO. OF LOTS: 73 FT. NEW ST.: 7,200 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. Existinq Conditions This property is located to the west of areas that are primarily developed and developing as sinqle family. The First Baptist property abuts on the north, Beckenham and Hillsborough connect on the west and Marlowe Manor, 5th Addition borders on the southeast. The land involved consists of a large amount of unplatted property that is very steep. Elevations range from 550' to 817.71. B. Development Proposal This is a submittal to plat 50 acres into 73 lots and 7,200' for single family use. The applicant is asking that all sidewalks be waived, except for those required on collector streets. Reasons for requesting included: (1) the steepness of the property; (2) problems with side hill cuts, which will be compounded by sidewalks; (3) lack of sidewalks in adjacent developments; and (4) lots in Pleasant Heights are extremely, thus eliminating density. ri September 9, 1986 AML SUBDIVISIONS Item No. J - Continued C. En ineerin Comments with the (1) The engineer should wner'sork nengineer tinn order for adjoining property Beckenham Drive to be properly aligned. As of this date, there is another preliminary plat that shows Beckenham Drive which does not match on the Section 31 line. (2) Intersection designs on two of the streets connecting with the dueto collector the street grades at the the are not acceptable intersections. (3) Stormwater detention calculations and location plat. of facilities shall be shown on the p relD. Anal sis Staff views this submisofoghesSubdiv�sion Ordinance./ uate based on he technical requirements There was not a sufficient attempt tetcdimension Theapplicant right-of-way width, building lines, is asked to explain his actualhasbbeenadividede into y a small portion of the property be a plat with this lots. Staff is reluctant to support much of open space. Access should be shown to any landlocked parcels. Notic is required. A 30' building line is required on collectors. E. Staff Recommendation Reserved until further information provided. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: kenham The issue was identified as the a isnapplicants ment of cEngineerrom the south, with this proposal. the and Mr. Bob Richardson, o n ghee souer th, had reached, angimpasds Subdivision that abuts as to the location of thi tent would tcause .hiimctorlose 12alots. ��1 that Mr. White's align September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. J - Continued Mr. White felt that Mr.- Richardson's alignment makes it financially impossible to build on both ,sides of the ❑ artment was asked to street. The City Engineering eP determine from a purely traffic and buildable design, which Staff was requested to seek an opinion alignment is better. from the City Attorney's Office as to what is to be used a guide in reaching a decision. Other issues identified included the sidewalk waiver request and the inadequately detailed plan. The applicant agreed to submit a revised plat and work out intersection design. Staff suggested that the Commission endorse only the eastern portion of this plat. it was felt that there may be collectors, or other issues to be dealt with on throf tract in the future, so there should no+: be an appearance endorsement. The applicant does not knew how he wants to plat the larger area at this time. WATER WORKS - Phase I - Water main extension required. Maximum floor elevation is 695 feet, tank site on Lot 493 and 500. Twenty-five ( 25 ) foot easement along the north line of Lots 501-504. Map does not show Municipal Water Works. SEWER - Sewer main extension required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Staff stated concern with the plat's lack of: (1) compliance with the technical 2) nondication requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, of relationship to future collectors to the west. The major issue, the alignment of Beckenham, has been workrmationed beened out with Engineering prior to the meeting. received from the City Attorney's Office stating that the location of the collector should not be based on who gets how many lots, but on the best location as related to engineering design. One concern resident was present. September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. J - Continued Mr. Joe White represented the developer. He stated that no waivers were requested, and there were two remaining issues: (1) relation of property to future collectors, (2) lack of street names shown on the plat. He stated that street names weren't known at this time, but would be known before the final plat. He requested that this issue not hold up approval of the plat. Regarding the former issue, he explained that there would be connection of this plan with the area to the southwest, due to the extreme hillsides, south of the water tank. The area shown as future development will have access on Parkway Drive through St. Charles. There will be a major arterial to the west of the site, but future lot sizes of property in that area were unknown. He modified his proposal to delete the request for sidewalk waivers. Mrs. Kathleen Olsen of #7 Chelsea, president of the Hillsborough Property Owners Association, was present. The residents were concerned with the lack of information and forethought on property to the west. She requested that the Commission and staff gather more information. She also feared extension of the Water Works Road, increased traffic through only one access point, Saddle Hill Drive and Hillsborough. It was requested that a very detailed Bill of Assurance be submitted and that the developer indicate how this plan relates to individuals in Hillsoborough. There was discussion as to what should be reflected on the plat in the area identified for future use. Staff wanted to see a Master Street Plan alignment, and received some basic information on an estimated number of lots, how the roads would connect, and phasing. One commissioner questioned whether or not it was reasonable to tie 73 lots into a 27-foot street. Mr. Bob Richardson of the neighborhood requested assurance that another stub street near Lots 58 and 59 would not be extended through Hillsborough. Mr. White explained that it would not, and that the Water Works Road would not be extended. A motion for a 30-day deferral, so as to provide more basic information on street alignments to the west, was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. U September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. J Cont� i�nued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8-28-86) The applicant submitted a revised plan that indicated the additional information -requested by staff and the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9,-9-86) The applicant was present. Ms. Kathleen Olsen represented the Hillsborough Property Owners Association. The issues for discussion were identified as: (1) the amount of traffic through the adjacent Hillsborough Subdivision, and (2) phasing and timing of the improvements to Beckenham. The City Traffic Engineer reported that Phases I and II would add about 640 cars (10 household trips per), which would place Saddle Hill Drive right at the limit of 2,800 cars; and that there would be a traffic overload until Beckenham is built. Ms. Olsen presented a diagram indicating the effects of traffic on Hillsborough. She suggested that Morrison Road be extended as an alterative, but was informed that this was required to be a cul-de-sac by previous Commission action. She stated concerns about drainage and expressed a fear that this plan may be premauture since all of the trafffc feeds to the east through one street. Other spokespersons from the neighborhood were: Mr. Bob Richardson and a Mrs. Reinhart. Finally, a motion for approval was made and passed, subject to: (1) Phases III and IV being developed only when Beckenham is constructed, (2) platting of 38 acre parcel on the north as one lot, and (3)approval ofvthe e:cul ae-sacl no variance because of the topography. and 1 absent. (No vote Commissioner Riddick.) so