Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0548-D Staff Analysisho LJ r] January 3, 1989 Item No. B _ NAME: Candlewood Subdivision III LOCATION: Located off Candlewood, west of Marine Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: AREA: 36.385 acres NO. OF LOTS 5 FT. OF NEW ST. 0 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family A. Proposal 1. To subdivide 36.385 acres into five lots for single family development. The lots range in size from 6.181 acres to 8.758 acres and are to be served by a 50 foot private drive, utility and drainage easement. 2. Easement across lot 3 for future development to the west. 3. Access to the lots will be by private street. B. Existing Conditions A wooden, rugged topography characterizes this site that consists of elevations which range from 250 feet to 620 feet. The property is abutted by single family on the south and east, a 100 foot railroad right-of-way on the north, and undeveloped property to the south. C. Engineering Comments At the proposed street must be private, a dedicated turn -around or cul-de-sac at the end of the public maintenance should be provided. Private streets should be built to public standards as protection against future conversion to a public road. Conformance to Storm Water Detention will be required. January 3, 1989 Item No. B (Continued) D. Issues/Legal/Technical/Design 1. Discussion of private street access. 2. Notices required. 3. Discussion of potential for use of private street for future development involving two or more lots. E. Analysis This proposal represents a continuation of development of properties by the Char -Beck Trust. Phases I and II abut this site. One of Staff's major concerns involves the proposed and potential use of a private street. The Ordinance now allows development of private streets, but Staff usually feels that these streets should be developed to the same standards as those of public streets. Staff requests that specific design criteria for the private street be submitted prior to the Public Hearing_ Notices should be given to abutting property owners. Due to the small number of lots on the steep topography, Staff is not recommending construction of sidewalks. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to resolution of the issues noted. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (November 3, 1988) The Applicant was not present, but the item was briefly discussed. Staff explained that private street requirements applied. A public access easement is to be provided and reflected in the Bill of Assurance. No gate is to be in front of the public street and Water Works must approve the fire hydrant location. Engineering requested a cul-de-sac at the end of Marina Drive. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) A motion for deferral, as requested by the Applicant, was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. �c� 0 January 3, 1989 Item No. B (Continued) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (December 22, 1988) The Engineer for the project was present. Mr. Holloway offered comments on the proposal and brought the Committee up to date on several issues. He stated that the developer would have no problems with providing a hammerhead turnaround as suggested by the Public Works Department at the end of Marina Drive or the appropriate location. He further stated that the pump station issue had reached a point of resolution and that contracts would be firmed shortly on that development. There were no new issues raised. The matter is forwarded to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 3, 1989) There were no objectors in attendance. The application was represented by the engineer. The Planning Commission determined it appropriate to place this matter on the consent agenda. A motion was then made to approve the application as filed subject to five conditions as follows: 1. Maintenance contract to be provided the Little Rock Water Works on the water main and fire hydrant. 2. A turn -around to be provided on the access street as approved by the Public Works Department. 3. The fire hydrant location to be by the Little Rock Water Works. 4. No gates or barriers on the entrance to the plat. 5. The pump station issue to be resolved prior to signing of the final plat. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent.