Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0686 Staff AnalysisJuly 8, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 NAME: LOCATION: TWUFT.0'PRP Ridge River Pointe Joint Venture 111 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-4242 River Ridge Pointe North and West of River Ridge Road F.NGTNEER s Edward G. Smith and Associates 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 64.3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 44 FT. NEW ST.: None 4,250' Private St. ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: Cul-de-Sac Length A. Existing Conditions The property involved is located north of a single family area (Riversedge's Subdivision) over the Arkansas River. The topography is very rugged. Access will be provided from River Ridge Road. B. Development Proposal This is a proposal to plat 64.3 acres into 44 lots. A private street system of 4,250' is planned. C. Analysis Staff has several concerns relating to this submission. Designs necessary to accommodate the sensitive topography is understood by staff; however, the applicant should formally request a waiver of the cul-de-sac due to excessive length; and a waiver for those lots that are three times as deep as their July 8, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued widths. Also, the applicant should identify the use of all tracts indicated by a letter. If they are common open space, their maintenance must be provided for in the Bill of Assurance along with the private street system. A landlocked parcel near the railroad, with no tract number, should be identified. A turnaround or a cul-de-sac is needed around Lots 28 and 29. Notice should be given to abutting owners with 2.5 acres or more and the applicant should identify access to L.M. Lewis property. Sidewalks are required. The applicant should adhere to the hillside requirements. D. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86) The issues discussed were: elimination of the turnaround at mid point of the street. This was determined to be inappropriate on a private street system closed to the public; no current sewer available and method for service; extending the lots on the north to absorb the tract along the railroad; easements to loop the water system and notice to adjacent property owners; and wastewater needs for an easement along an existing 8-inch main. The applicant was generally receptive to staff design suggestions on the street as to drainage, curbing and street alignment. The waivers requested were determined to be nonissues. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86) The applicant was present. There were several objectors in attendance. The staff offered its recommendation of approval. It was pointed out that the applicant had agreed to the several street design recommendations and that he had decided to provide the mid -point turnaround on the private street. Sidewalks were pointed out as being needed. The applicant, Mr. Walker, then addressed the Commission and July 8, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued gave a general overview of the plat. He identified the several areas shown as Tracts and stated their usage. He agreed to make Tract A two homesites and to make the 50 foot strip running to Highway 10 a permanent open space or discuss deeding this strip to adjacent owners. He also offered to fund a traffic signal at Highway 10 intersection with River Ridge Road if the warrants are in place and the State Highway Department agrees to a need. All of this would be predicated on a study of the intersection. The objectors then offered their comments. Mr. Seth Ward discussed access to the entire area and stated that a prior Planning Commission had agreed to require an additional access from this isolated area before additional development occurs. He was not specific as to when the agreement was established or who may have initiated an agreement. Mr. Ward discussed current traffic problems at the intersection with Highway 10 and narrow street conditions in the subdivision. James Dunnaway discussed the need for a second access and current traffic problems. Bob Harrold discussed the notice provided neighbors and stated that he felt it was deficient as to its timing. He had concerns about Tract A and its future usage. Elizabeth Murphy commented on the traffic problems. Henk Koornstra was then asked to respond to some of the issues. He responded by stating that the best he could determine, the traffic condition on River Ridge Road at the current time was within the design capacity for this street. After further lengthy discussion of the platting proposal, a request was made of Mr. Walker by the Commission to defer this item until July 22, 1986, in order to allow sufficent time for the staff to research their records on the second access agreement. Mr. Walker agreed to the deferral. A motion was made and passed to defer the item to July 22, 1986. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.