HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0143 Staff Analysis4#1 3
October 14, 1980
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME: Shady Oak Subdivision Preliminary
LOCATION: West side of Sardis Road 1/2 Mile
South of Alexander Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Ben J. and Everett Roland
Conner Spickes Roland, Inc.
7714 Westwood Ave. P.O. Box 9003
Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR
Phone: 562-1513 Phone: 455-2575
AREA: 19.24 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 8 FT. OF NEW STREET: 900+
ZONING: Outside City PROPOSED USES: Single Family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 22
CENSUS TRACT: 41.03
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Private street/with rural gravel road standard.
2. Street improvement on Sardis - sidewalk, one-half of
a 48' pavement and curb and gutter.
.b.#
.-7
S % -
October 14, 1980
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
STAFF ANALYSIS
1. PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The land involved is gently rolling and falls east and
west from a flat in the eastern portion of the tract.
There are no significant drainage ways on the site. A
rough cut roadway has been developed recently and is
presently barricaded. The land is well timbered.
2. EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The area is not now served by water or sewer, nor is
the plat inside the City. The City limits is
contiguous on the west side of the plat requiring
annexation prior to receiving City services. Sardis
Road is a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan but
exists totally as a two lane rural road with sparse
development on the Pulaski County side of the county
line.
3. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The owner proposes an eight lot development with a
private street system and a request for total exemption
from street improvements on Sardis Road. The building
site preparation should have little effect since the
unit per acre density is 0.4. Since no public
dedication is proposed, the developer has not requested
a waiver of cul-de-sac length. It is shown at 900'+.
The Ordinance limit is 750'.
4. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The project could best be characterized as a rural
development, given the improvement package proposed.
The tract sizes run over two acres.
5. COMPLIANCE TO ORDINANCE STANDARDS
The plat generally conforms, except for physical
improvements for which variances have been requested
and cul-de-sac length.
Mr
r
92
October 14, 1980
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
STAFF ANALYSIS
6. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
None evidenced at this writing which would effect
completion of the plat.
7. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
Require in lieu of contribution on Sardis Road. Need
perculation test approval letter from County.
8. ANALYSIS
This plat presents several concerns, some of which are
policy, some ordinance. The first is there is no
utility service. Sewer service to this area is
predicated on two things: (1) annexation, (2)
formulation of a sewer district; therefore, the lots
will most likely be served by on -site septic systems
for a number of years. Secondly, the water district
proposed to serve this area is stalemated by Board
policy and district service problems, Therefore, water
will be on -site well service.
An area of concern for which we have few answers is
the Master Street Plan and improvements to Sardis.
Although the street is defined as an arterial and
serves a large area (Saline County), there is no
scheduled improvement project to that standard, plus
all of the existing roadway is two lane county road.
Our problem is, do we attempt to obtain in -lieu
contributions to some future projects when the
structure for the process is not on the books.
9. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the plat except to waiver request. We
believe that Sardis Road is an important street serving
a two county area and should be improved. Although
there is no immediate prospect for widening arterial
standards that should not be a deterent to an in -lieu
fee being accepted.
October 14, 1980
14 SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
The internal street system should be constructed to
City standards and a dedicated right-of-way provided as
this is an area which does not lend itself to private
street systems.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the plat and denial of waiver requested on
street improvement. Cul-de-sac length is acceptable. The
Committee recommended that the owner and his engineer meet
with the City Engineer to determine a means for partial
contribution or phased compliance with in lieu fee. The
Committee instructed the owner and his engineer to come
early on the 14th in order to discuss the improvement
package. The vote was 3 ayes and 0 noes.
RECONVENED COMMITTEE MEETING, October 14, 1980 at 12:30 p.m.:
The Committee heard comments from the Attorney representing
Mr. Spickes (Ben D. Rowland). A lengthy discussion ensued,
the result of which was a recommendation to the Commission
that the plat be approved, but that the variances be
,off+ denied. The vote: 4 ayes, 1 nay.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors. The owner and his attorney left
prior to the hearing. A discussion was held, with the
result that the plat was approved with all variances denied.
The vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent.
-01