Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0463-B Staff AnalysisI i File No. 4451-A NAME: TnrnmTnM- DEVELOPER: B.G. Coney 10500 West Markham Little Rock, AR 224-0362 AREA: 8.68 acres Eagle Point - Planned Residential District NW Corner of Napa Valley Drive at Ridge Haven Road V Mn TMVP.A. White-Daters and Assoc., Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 374-1666 NO. OF LOTS: 40 FT. NEW STREET: 1,560 ZONING: "MF-6" and "OS" Open Space PROPOSED USE: Single Family DT.LNNTNn DTSTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 42.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None.. A. Proposal UNITS PER ACRE: A.6 To construct a small lot subdivision with lots as small as 6000 square feet on a tract with definite design and use limitations. The 40 lots would be accessed from Ridgehaven Road at two points through what is shown on the zoning map as a 50 foot permanent "oS" buffer zone. The development density proposed is 4.6 units per acre utilizing all of the 8.68 acres within the site. The houses would be of two typicals, one scaled for a 40 foot plan, the other for a 50 foot. The minimum floor area will be 1800 square feet. The streets are to be public with a high level of landscaping. B. Engineering Comments (1) Plans should be engineer stamped. File No. 4451-A - Continued (2) Stormwater detention amounts and location. (3) Sidewalks on Ridgehaven and handicap ramps. (4) Excavation permit prior to grading or tree cutting. (5) Follow-up on discussion to widen Ridgehaven to three lanes at Napa Valley as previously proposed. C. utility Comment Approval as submitted. reporting utility. D. Analysis Southwestern Bell is the only This plat and plan presents two issues which may be solveable at the coming meeting -on August ll.- These are (1) to reconcile the "OS" and 50 foot buffer strip with a single family plat, and (2) access to Ridgehven Road that the Traffic Engineer wants to review as a better access; he recommends possibly at the northeast corner of the property onto Napa Valley Road. It has been suggested by at least two adjoining ❑wners that the plan violates what was assured to the neighborhood at the time of rezoning that the density access and screening would not change. The proposed density of 4.6 units per gross acre is less than the "MF-6" Multifamily in place; however, it does encroach more than such an "MF" project. This being a Planned Unit Development, it would be appropriate to specify the setbacks on side and rear of each lot especially since the lots vary in width. E. Staff Recommendation Deferral in order to provide sufficient time to research and develop the buffer and access issue. 0 Y-1 0 File No. 4451-A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87) Mr. Joe White was present representing the developer. Mr. White offered brief comments on the proposal and addressed the issue of the adjacent property owner. He indicated that the developer will extend the current brick wall along Napa Valley along the entire frontage to Ridge Haven. Further, that he would look at the Napa Valley access as suggested by the Traffic Engineer. This would be a one point access. However, there may be site distance problems that will require further analysis. Mike Batie of the En ineering De artment raises issues th Rid ehaven im rovements as ed on the oc on of the a roval of Mr. Melvin Bell's preliminary Plat at the west end of R�I(51 ven. Mr. White indicated that an improvement district was selling bonds and was underway today establishing the right-of-way and improvements on Ridgehaven as originally agreed. Mr. White further indicated that there would be no rear driveways on these lots as provided in the plat on the north. These driveways had caused concern for adjacent owners; therefore, front lot access from the internal street would be the method used. Mr.'White also reported that he was entered into discussions with Laura Gold, the resident immediately to the west. The discussion centered upon a 50-foot buffer along that 600-foot property line with 25 feet of undisturbed land on either side. Mr. White indicated if he could not work out the details of this plat prior to the meeting on the llth, he will make a request for deferral. The staff agreed with Mr. White that in this proposal the side yard requirements would be per Zoning Ordinance, and the only established platted building line would be the front yard on each lot. The Little Rock Water Works then reported that a main extension plus on -site fire protection would be required plus an acreage and front change may apply. The Wastewater Utility reported that a main extension will be required. File No. 4451-A -- Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-11-87) The staff presented its recommendation of approval with conditions on access and buffering. There were several objectors present and one letter presented from Mrs. Laura Gold. Mr. Joe White was present as agent for the owner. He made comments on the history of this site and the adjacent small lot developments to the north. He reported that he had met with Henk Koornstra on -site and discussed access to Ridge Haven Road. He and Henk commented that the access shown on the revised plan at one point could help circulation within the plat. Mr. White further commented on discussions with Mrs. Gold, the adjacent property owner on the west, about the buffers. Mr. White.stated that he is offering a 40-foot buffer undisturbed as a change frorn the 25 feet now shown on the plan. He further stated that the rearing upon the buffer will require a waiver of rear yard setback to accommodate the buffer. This waiver will also allow the lots to be buildable. He answered a c6mment of the Commission by saying that he could pull the stub streets back from the north property lire approximately 15 feet or more if possible. Mr. Chris Barrier, an attorney for Mrs. Gold, then presented objections to the application. Mr. Barrier stated that "MF-6" zoning and density was a better development. He said that a less dramatic stepdown in use is needed. The perimeter treatment is very important. He also requested a deferral in order to get together on a consensus on design and density. The objectors present included two additional persons who addressed the Commission. The first of which was Dr. Robert Walls, a neighbor on the west of Dr. Gold. Dr. Walls addressed the plat by commenting on the meetings of neighbors and their concerns about this project. He stated that they were not opposed to the project but would like to have more time to work out the issues. He felt the density was too high for the area and would like a deferral. ❑r. Cheers offered comments on traffic and the density issue. He felt that it would help if Napa Valley Road were the only access. He further stated that a wall should be constructed on both the south property line adjacent to Ridge Haven and the west property line along Dr. Gold's property. 1 File No. 4451-A - Continued Mr. White then answered questions on deferral and access. He also commented on the 40-foot buffer and the proposed six-foot wall along Napa Valley now in the plan. He said he could omit the Ridge Haven access but that Henk Koornstra wanted to retain it for circulation. He said that he preferred a wood fence along the south frontage over brick construction because of the cost. He added that maybe a wall could be placed along the south boundary of Lot 1 adjacent to Mrs. Gold's property along Ridge Haven. Mrs. Johnson, a neighbor, then added comments on traffic and a potential conflict with the Golds' gate at the property corner. A general discussion then followed. At the end of this lengthy discussion a motion was made to approve the amended application subject to: 1. Pull the stub streets back from the property lines. 2. Increase the buffer to 40 feet undisturbed with a property owners association to provide ownership and assurance of protection. 3. Rear yard waived on the west tier of lots to allow the houses zero foot setback against the 40-foot buffer. 4. A six-foot brick wall the full length of Ridge Haven except within the blind corner area at Napa Valley. 5. Narrow the interior corner lots to adjust for the 40-foot buffer. 6. Sidewalks on both street frontages. 7. No access onto Ridgehaven Road. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention (David Jones), and 1 open position. 13 City of Little Rock Office of Comprehensive Planning September 30, 1987 City Hall Markham at Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 371-h790 MEMORANDUM. TO: CASE FILE Z-4451-A FROM: GARY L. GREESON OFFICE OF COMPREHEPIS VF PLANNING SUBJECT: WIDENING OF RIDGE HAVEN ROAD At the Board of Directors meeting on September 15, 1987, Joe White agreed to a request of the City Engineer that Ridge Haven Road be flared to three lanes at the intersection of Ridge Haven Road and Napa Valley Road. The widening would occur for a distance of about 100 ft. in order to facilitate turning movements at that intersection. Due to the fact that Joe White agreed to the widening, the matter was not brought up before the Board of Directors for discussion. The Board action approving the Eagle Point long -form PRD, therefore, was subject to the flaring to three lanes. The final plan for the PRD should reflect the flaring to three lanes. GLG/se November 3, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 22 NAME: Eagle Point "Long -Form" PRD Final Development Plan LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Ridge Haven and Napa Valley Road APPLICANT_: Joe White White-Daters Associates, Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock,.AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 STAFF REPORT: This is a request for final plat confirmation of an approved "PUD." Engineering would like to find out if the 36' widening for turning lane onto Napa Valley has been dropped. Engineering is also requiring stormwater detention locations, methods, and calculations, and the plan needs to conform to the Excavation Ordinance requirements. Indicate why there are no hammerheads at the end of the streets. David Hathcock requests that all streets be given a name. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission. The applicant submitted a plan showing the planting of trees and redwood along the west property line in accordance with an agreement with Doctor and Mrs. Gold and in line with the 40' buffer. Staff reminded the applicant of an agreement to flare Ridgehaven to three lanes at its intersection with Napa Valley Road. The widening would occur for about 100' in order to facilitate turning movements in that direction. Mr. White stated he would honor the agreement but objected to having to do it. He was directed to meet with Engineering to work out an alternate agreement. r November 3, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 22 - Continued PLANNING CO1,24ISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. A letter was received from the abutting property owner absolving him of any responsibility toward the construction of improvements on Ridge Haven Road. A motion for approval was made and passed, subject to Traffic Engineering's decision on the need for a left hand turning lane. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.