HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0065-CC Staff AnalysisSeptember 19, 1989
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-65-CC
NAME: St. Charles Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Continuation of Loyola Drive west of St. Charles
Boulevard.
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Winrock Development Co. White-Daters & Associates, Inc.
P. 0. Box 8080 401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201
663-5340 374-1666
AREA: 79.5 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 184
FT. ...... NEW__STREET: 12, 500
ZON_I__NG: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single family residences
PLANNING DISTRICT: 17
CENSUS TRACT: 42.03
.....................................................................
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Fifteen (15) foot building setback lines.
A. P.ROPOSAL.,(REQUEST:
This proposal consists of a preliminary plat filing for
184 single family homes. The development format is one
of large lots on a series of streets with four entry
points to serve the neighborhood.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Existing land area is undisturbed at this time, with
natural foliage in place, principally hardwood. There
are no structures The north boundary of this
property is bordered by the Darbe development. The
south side is bordered by Parkway Village where there
are houses and street construction projects adjacent to
this subdivision.
1
September 19, 1989
SUBDIVISION
Item No.3 LCoLnLjnued
C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Show preliminary street and drainage information.
Indicate sidewalk locations. Conform to the Detention
and Excavation requirements. Royale Court is a street
name duplication.
D . I S.SES/ _ULEGAL/TECHN I CALjDES I GN
There are several issue of concern related to th.e
establishment of this neighborhood, the first being
sidewalks. The developer proposes the construction of
sidewalks on the primary streets in this neighborhood.
The development of sidewalks within the various pockets
of development are not completely indicated on the
plat. The remaining legal issue deals with the
maintenance of the open spaces and jogging trails.
Maintenance of these areas are typically provided
within the Bill of Assurance.
The last legal/design item is that the open space
behind Lots 449-451 are not labeled as to specific use.
E. ANALYSIS:
Staff review of this preliminary plat indicates few
design issues. Several comments were made in Item D
are primary concerns of the Engineering Department.
Staff feels strongly committed to recommending the
denial of any sidewalk waiver as their installation is
appropriate and required by ordinance.
Several remaining design issues to be identified by
Engineering Staff are the drainage and preliminary
street information. We feel those with steep grade,
15% or greater natural grade, could create future
problems and require additional information.
Our last point of concern is that the Engineering staff
does not have information concerning detention and
excavation requirements.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat
subject to resolution of the several items commented
upon in our analysis.
2
September 19, 1989
SUBDIVISION
Item No. 3 ...(Continued).
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(September 7, 1989)
The application was represented by Mr. Joe White. The
Planning staff offered a brief overview of the problems
noted in review of this plat submittal. It was oointed out
that there are sidewalks missing from some parts of the
plat. Mr. White explained that there will be sidewalks
along the collector streets to connect with others in St.
Charles Addition.
Discussion of the sidewalk requirements resjilted in staff
suggesting that this was a matter of approving pathways in
lieu of sidewalks. The question of sidewalk variance
requirement was raised. Staff explained that it has been
required in the past. The closing comment of the staff on
this plat was to include sidewalk layout on the final plat
indicated with color pencil.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 19, 1989)
The application was represented by Mr. Joe White and Ron
Tyne. Staff recommended approval subject to approving
pathways in lieu of sidewalks. Mr. White stated that
Winrock Development Company had agreed to build sidewalk
system in any proposed area according to the present
ordinance.
Mr. Tyne was representing Winrock Development Company. He
reported that they had arranged meetings with St. Charles
Property Owners Association to resolve the potential
overloading of recreational facilities. He expressed
concerns and hoped for new resolutions.
Ms. Bobbie Guerra was representing the property owners
association. She stated that not only sidewalks and
recreation facilities had been concerning the owners of St.
Charles properties, but also the additional extension which
had not been included previously in St. Charles Subdivision.
She agreed to work with Winrock Development Company on the
sidewalk and recreational facility issues. The only issue
of concern to Ms. Guerra was how to control the growth of
St. Charles Subdivision.
In response to the question, Staff explained that property
owners, being majority owners of lots, control the Bill of
Assurance and size of the subdivison.
3
September 19, 1989
SUBDIVISION
Item No,, 3 (Continued)
The Planning Commission briefly discussed both issues and
agreed to vote on the submitted plat. A motion was made for
approval of the preliminary plat with required sidewalks per
ordinance. The motion, as amended, passed by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstention, 2 absent.
2