Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0867-B Staff AnalysisAugust 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-867-B NAME: Chenal Valley Preliminary Plat, Block 3 LOCATION: Located in golf course area adjacent to Chenal Parkway DEVELOPER: Deltic Farm & Timber Company,lnc. 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy. Suite 330 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-0665 AREA: 25.62 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 69 FT. NEW STREET: 4,100 ZONING: "MF-611 ENGINEER: White-Daters & Associates, Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 PROPOSED USES: Single family residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 17 CENSUS TRACT: 42.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. No sidewalks within blocks. 2. Building line waivers on all lots to a dimension of 20 feet to accommodate rear access lots. August 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 1 (Continued).___.-... A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This proposal consists of a preliminary plat filing for 69 single family homes adjacent to the golf course in Chenal Valley. The development format is one of large lots on a series of streets with a single entry point to service the neighborhood. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The existing land area is undisturbed at this time with natural foliage in place. Construction is occurring along the perimeter on collector streets to serve this community. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Submit preliminary street grades, drainage areas and routing, and storm detention as this information has not been included on the plat. If the streets are not to be minor residential, center line radius waivers are necessary. Plat should indicate sidewalk locations. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: There are several issues of concern relative to the establishment of this neighborhood, the first being sidewalks. The developer proposes the construction of sidewalks on the primary streets in this neighborhood, the collectors and arterials. Development of sidewalks within the various pockets of development are not indicated on any of the several plats filed. Southwestern Bell Telephone has requested several easements. It appears that a cul-de-sac length waiver may be in order due to the distance from the collector street serving the neighborhood to the furthest point of the cul-de-sac. The remaining legal issue deals with the maintenance of the traffic islands and street rights -of -way. Maintenance of these items is typically provided within the Bill of Assurance. August 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 1 {Continued} The last legal/technical item is that the collector and arterial street system serving this area of Chenal Valley development has not been dedicated to the City of Little Rock as a public street system. Therefore, this plat does not have legal access. E. ANALYSIS: The Staff review of this preliminary plat indicates few design issues. The several points made in Item D above are the primary concerns of Staff and Engineering department. The street system to serve this area of the City is an important system, a large portion of which is being constructed to collector and arterial standards prior to the development of residential neighborhoods. Staff feels strongly committed to recommending the denial of sidewalk waivers and their installation where required by ordinance. As to the cul-de-sac length in this plat, the actual measurement of such cul-de-sacs is still a point being argued. However, this entire plat is a cul-de-sac with respect to access. This access issue is a part of an overall concern on the part of Staff and the Public Works department, having to do with the absence of an overall preliminary or pre -preliminary to guide the establishment of this neighborhood. In an area being developed as large as Chenal Valley, we feel that a pre -preliminary should be offered for our files which would be utilized for purposes of monitoring the interconnection of the various residential pockets. The primary purpose of this monitoring would be to assure that segments of critical collectors or arterial streets are not left undeveloped at a time when traffic will require their placement. The several remaining design issues to be identified by the engineer are the twelve foot drives to the rear of most lots. We feel these should either be wider, or specifically identified as one way with some type of controlling devices in place. There are several building lines that appear to require a variance or information supporting an 18% or greater natural grade. The several buffers along the boundary streets should be placed within the public right-of-way for title purposes rather than their inclusion within a common open space. Staff feels that their placement in the right-of-way will not deter maintenance on the part of the adjacent property owners. August 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 1 (Continued) Our last point of concern is that the Engineering Staff does not have a sketch grading plan for this project indicating the change in terrain associated with construction of streets and other physical improvements. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the resolution of the several items pointed out in our analysis. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 27, 1989) The application was represented by Mr. Joe White. The staff recommendation was discussed. Mr. White was instructed that he needed one additional waiver, that dealing with the 20 foot building lines on the lots. There were several design elements discussed. These dealt primarily with the parcels identified along the perimeter to be owned by the Property Owners Association. It was determined that the placement of these within the right-of-way would serve no practical purpose. Mr. White provided a description of the private access drives which are provided throughout this subdivision. He indicated that the 12 foot drives would be utilized to provide for access to all except golf course frontage lots. The access is designed in such a fashion as to limit conflict of moving vehicles. He further indicated that the drive would not impede the location of, or access to, the utility easements which may be placed along the several property lines. A discussion of the sidewalk requirement resulted in Staff suggesting that this was a matter for the full Commission to resolve in that this will be setting a pattern for the entire Chenal development area. The question of cul-de-sac length was raised as to whether a variance was required. There were several opinions expressed as to the exact point from which a cul-de-sac's length is measured. This item would also be deferred to the Commission for resolution. August 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 1 (Continued) The Committee asked Mr. White to review several items of design and to provide information in several others. These items were as follows: 1. Look at provision for fences in the Bill of Assurance, especially as related to the potential fences that would be erected at the rear point of entry to the lots. 2. Look at a redesign of the lots rearing upon the. golf course for a possible golf cart access. 3. Identify Tract 3, which is the island in the middle of the street, as a playground. 4. Provide the street names and a suggested house numbering system. 5. Provide a phasing scheme for the final platting of lots. 6. Provide the instrument number on the parkway dedication for right-of-way. The closing comments of Staff and Committee on this plat included a request for an overall pre -preliminary layout of the street system for Chenal Valley, the purpose of which would be to guide the future placement of streets and the interconnection of neighborhoods. Also, information as to the dedication on Chenal Valley Drive should be provided in connection with any final plat issued from this preliminary. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 8, 1989) The application was represented by Mr. Joe White. After brief discussion, the Commission determined it appropriate to place this item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. (It was noted for the record that this item would be forwarded to the Board of Directors for a variance to allow for no sidewalks within blocks and building line waivers on the lots with dimensions of 20 feet to accommodate rear access 1ots.)