Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0767 Staff AnalysisMay 19, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 NAME LOCATION: T) VVF:T.nPER : Charleston Heights Subdivision South end of Wesley Drive (Deer Park Subdivision) ENGINEER: Rector Phillips Morse, Inc. White-Daters and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 7300 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72217 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: 664-7807 Telephone: 374-1666 AREA: 43.04 acres NO. OF LOTS: 107 FT. NEW STREET: 6,100 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family A. Existing Conditions This site is located in a fringe area that is rapidly developing as single family. It is south of Deer Park Addition and abuts land owned by Deltic Farm and Timber on the west and south. 8. Development Proposal The applicant is proposing to subdivide 43.04 acres into 107 lots and 6,100 feet of new street. The land will be used for single family. Several variances are requested: (1) five percent grade at two intersections; (2) fifteen foot setback as shown on steep lots only; (3) optional street across major drainage core and, (4) 480-foot right-of-way dedication with 24-foot asphalt pavement and 6-foot paved shoulders in -lieu of 49-foot arterial pavement. C. Engineering Comments 1. Stormwater detention calculations and location. 2. Sketch plan for grading for roadway and utilities. May 19, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued 3. Ninety degree intersections on Wood Dale, Wesley, optional road at both intersections. D. Analysis Staff has no problems with the use, but has several suggestions for plat revision. They are: (1) delineation of drainage easements for Creek on the plat; (2) 35-foot building lines on Chenal Valley Drive, since it is an arterial street; (3) joint drives between Lots 97, 98, and 94, 95; (4) 10-foot prohibition zone on lots facing Chenal Valley Drive, and the public alley at the rear of Lots 62-65 and 57-60. David Hathcock has indicated that Savannah Lane and Wood Dale Court are duplicate street names and the street between Wesley Drive and Chenal Valley Drive needs a name. A variance is needed on the pipe -stem to Lots 66 and 67. Staff finds no problem with the requested variances numbered 2 and 3; provided drainage structure is designed for 100-year flow (3). Engineering has no problem with the fourth request in areas of major terrain difficulties. Staff was not certain at time of this writing whether this would apply throughout. Engineering needs to discuss the limits of beginnings of areas of 24-foot pavement. Lot 67 appears to have a creek and slope across the front to Chenal valley. Sidewalks are required per ordinance. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. May 19, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant discussed staff comments with the Committee. He was asked to submit a preliminary sketch so that the street pattern of the area could be determined and a grading plan. Staff felt that a waiver should be requested on the length of Mobile Court and that sidewalks should be provided since Wesley Drive, which intersected with this street was not a through street. The applicant felt t atinstheead of Forest cul-de-sac should be measured from Wesley, Dale, so a waiver dforsidewalks sidewalkswere onnot theneeded. streetsHe rasd with staffs request required by Ordinance. Another point of disagreement involved the joint drives and rear public access recommended by the staff. Staff explained that the ordinance discouraged lots fronting on arterials. The developer agreed to work out an acceptable means of limiting drive on to Chenal Valley. The applicant explained that he desired approval of the optional street in case Chenal Valley does not go through. If it goes through in two years, then this street wouldn't be needed. Wastewater - Additional easements required for water main extensions. Water - Water extension plus on -site fire protection required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. In its recommendation, staff expressed reservations about supporting the development of Chenal Valley as a 36' street due to the amount of development taking place in the area. A revised plan was submitted in response to staff's previous comments. Most of the discussion was on the sidewalk issue and a previous agreement with the Commission on the improvement of Chenal Valley Road to a lesser standard that arterial. The developer agreed to provide sidewalks on Wesley Drive, but May 19, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued felt that there would not be a need for Chenal Valley to be built to arterial standards which are 10 or 15 years in the future. He also felt that it placed an undue burden on a residential development, and that a 48' street wouldn't be needed until property to the south is built. The Commissioners were concerned that the City would be responsible for the improvements at a later date, and that a later widening could create problems with residents since such actions are common reasons for complaints and opposition. Staff was asked to research the record ELnd report back to the Commission regarding the specifics of the actual agreement made on the development of Chenal Valley Road. A motion for a 30-day deferral was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.