Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0285-A Staff AnalysisApril 24, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-732 NAME: The Ranch Phase II LOCATION: Off Highway 10 in Sections 13 and 14, T-2N, R14-W DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Ranch Properties, Inc. White-Daters & Assoc., Inc. P. O. Box 56350 401 Victory Little Rock, Arkansas 72215 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 224-9600 374-1666 AREA: 158.3 NUMBER OF LOTS: 229 FT. NEW STREET: 17320 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: Highway 10-1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. 15 feet setback as shown. - A. PROPOSAWREOUEST: This developer purposes the second phase some 158 acres of a larger land holding for 229 single family development. The project is bounded on the south by Leisure Arts property and the future location of a shopping center. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property on which this plat is located, is currently know as the Johnson Ranch. The area of preliminary plat is variable terrain.rising from the elevation along the Ranch Blvd. which is approximately 270 feet to an elevation on the middle part of this plat which is somewhat over 380 feet in elevation. The north boundary of the property is traversed by Little Rock Western Railroad. The principal frontage of the preliminary plat is the Ranch Blvd. which is collector. There are some fencing of use areas and a small lake. 1 April 24, 1990 SUBDIVISION Item No.: 3 (Continued): C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Indicate sidewalk where code requires or show exception. 2. Indicate minimum center line street radius at 150' residential 300' collector and 75' for minor residential unless waived. 3. Limit street grades on minor, residential and collectors streets per ordinance. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The preliminary plat is in good form with resolution of the following: 1. The source of title and book and page on the Certificate of Ownership are missing. 2. Clarify end of 36' pavement on Ranch Boulevard and end of 60' R/W. E. ANALYSIS• The Planning Staff finds no serious fault with the preliminary plat subject, however, to resolving the several items pointed out in Items C and D above, one point which the developer has raised in the cover letter on this submittal states that developer wishes to have certain flexibility if it becomes necessary to make lots smaller or larger within approved guide lines +/- 15% in number of lots without having to return for Planning Commission approval. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with flexibility .of certain +/- 15% changes subject to the resolution of the several items pointed out by Engineering and Planning staff. E April 24, 1990 SUBDIVISION TEM ntinu SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 12, 1990) Mr. Joe White and Ed Willis were present representing the application. A lengthy discussion followed involving the proposed streets and need for a collector street, if property past rail road tract be developed. Mr. Ed Willis stated that most of the land past rail road tract is 12 ft. below of floodplain level and future development is questionable. The Water Works Department pointed out that the high elevation may required close loop water systems involving additional cost. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 24, 1990) Richard Wood of the Planning Staff offered a brief comment on the staff recommendation and pointed out that the staff resolved all of the issues that needed to be resolved except discussion of the collector street standard for Ranch Boulevard all the way to the railroad track. Mr. Jerry Gardner of the City Engineer Staff was asked by the Planning Staff to provide input in the discussion for collector street. Mr. Gardner outlined several points of concerns as follows: The primary being the development north from the railroad. He pointed out that this street may provide access to multifamily development north from the railroad shown on overall preliminary plat. He stated that a 27 foot street would be substantial for residential development south from the railroad but should be built to collector standard if north of railroad track property be developed. A brief discussion then followed involving several of the Commissioners and Mr. Gardner dealing with the development north from railroad and traffic count, a specific resolution was not gained in this discussion. The Commission then asked Mr. White, the engineer of record on this project, for his comments. Mr. White addressed the concerns raised by Mr. Gardner. He indicated that the property north from the railroad is 12 feet below the floodplain and proposed development is not in place yet. He stated that the proposed development may be a marina or with multifamily or even single family but the developer is not certain yet. Mr. White proposed to build 36 foot to second intersection serving to 95 lots and the rest of the road to be 27 feet with 60 feet right-of-way to railroad track. Mr. Ed Willis, developer, then offered comments concerning the street width May 24, 1990 SUBDIVISION• ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 24, 1990) and development past the railroad road. He indicated that the land north of railroad is below the floodplain and development is questionable but he was willing to follow Joe White's suggestions. The Commission then asked Jerry Gardner for comments on Ed Willis' proposal. Mr. Gardner stated that expanding the road is not just taking out curbs and gutters. He said that this process would require reshaping the old road. He also stated that it is difficult to reinforce site improvements after the road has been built. The Commission then asked the City Attorney for comments. Mr. Steve Giles, Assistant City Attorney, stated that off site improvements can be reinforced if the record includes proper statement. Jim Harrison, owner of the property east of this plat, asked for access from this plat with stub -in street which has already been included by the Engineer of record. A lengthy discussion then followed involving all the various parties. The discussion centers primarily on amending this application to include Tract "A", being property north of railroad, including 60 foot right-of-way and 27 foot pavement to the Tract "A" and the future widening to 36 feet if 1500 cars traffic occurs. Commissioner Brad Walker suggested that the existing traffic would be counted on the road to the City standard at that time with regard to traffic and what would control the proposed project assessment estimate of traffic count. He also suggested to include all the requirements in the Bill of Assurance as a covenant of the Tract "A" to make such improvements to meet City standards for actual and projected traffic. A motion was made to approve this application as amended by Commissioner Walker. A vote was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. 4