Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0344-A Staff AnalysisMarch 13, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-344-A NAME: Parkway West Addition ............ I... LOCATION: Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Parkway West, Ltd. White-Daters & Associates, Inc. Flake & Company, Agent 401 Victory P. O. Box 990 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203 374-1666 376-8005 AREA: 19.12 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 13 FT. NEW STREET: 1100 ZONING: "C-3" PROPOSED USES: Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: Rock Creek Valley (17) CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This proposal consists of a preliminary plat filing for 13 commercial lots at the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This tract of land is generally in an undisturbed state with mature timber. The principal arterial lying along the south boundary is constructed as the connection to a new just developing part of the City. The street lying immediately on the east, Bowman Road, is constructed to City standards. 1 r March 13, 1990 SUBDIVISION Item No. 3 (Continued)_ C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: The proposed driveways on the Chenal Parkway frontage are in violation of Ordinance Nos. 14,210 and 15,239. Provide five (5) feet of additional right-of-way for Bowman Road. Construct sidewalks on the Bowman and Chenal Parkway frontages. The Chenal Parkway sidewalks should be adjacent to the right-of-way line, and not adjacent to the curb. Provide street name signs for new street. Do not use "Parkway" in name for new street. Stormwater Detention and Excavation ordinances apply. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The several issues to be introduced here are as follows: 1. The development as proposed does not comply with the ordinance standard for curb cuts. 2. The Detention and Excavation Ordinance should be applied. 3. Provide the street name for internal street. 4. A sketch grading plan for the physical improvements on the site should be provided. E. ANALYSIS: The staff review of this preliminary plat indicates few design issues. The several points made in Items C and D are the primary concerns of the Planning staff and Engineering department. From the staff point of view, this proposal requires significant redesign due to curb cut requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. There are too many curb cuts along Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road. The ordinance standard is one curb cut within 300 feet of a corner on Chenal Parkway and additional curb cuts at 300 foot intervals (Ordinance No. 14,210). F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral of this preliminary plat until the next scheduled Subdivision public hearing in order to provide sufficient time to address the concerns pointed out by Planning and Engineering staff. 2 March 27, 1990 SUBDIVISION Item No.._C (font inuedj_ SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 1, 1990) Mr. Joe White and Rett Tucker were present representing the application. Staff explained their concerns and reasons for deferral. Mr. White agreed to follow up on staff comments before the public hearing so the recommendation can be changed. Jerry Gardner pointed out that curb cut design needs to be done according to Ordinance No. 14,210 which calls for a diamond island at the entrance. A general discussion followed during which Mr. Tucker asked staff to explain the sidewalk and grading plan issues. The discussion resulted in showing Mr. Tucker appropriate sidewalk locations and deferring the grading plan requirement until a building permit is issued. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (March 13, 1990) The staff told the Commission that the preliminary plat needed to be deferred because of a notice deficiency. A motion was made to defer the item to the March 27, 1990 meeting. The motion was approved t.,7 a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (March 27, 1990) The Planning Commission briefly discussed this preliminary plat. Having received assurance from the staff concerning the reduction of the proposed driveways on the Chenal Parkway Frontage and other design factors, it was determined that this item be placed on the Concent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3