Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0686-B Staff AnalysisJuly 22, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: 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 ENGINEER: 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 ,250` Private St. ZONING: 11R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: Cul-de-Sac Length A. Existin Conditions The property involved is located north of a single family area tRiversedge's Subdivision) overhe Access Arkansas River. The topography is very will be provided from River Ridge Road. B. Develo ment Pro osal This is a proposal to plat 64.3 acres into 44 lots. A private street system of 4,250' is planned. C. Analysis rns relating to this submission. Staff has several conce 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 exthreevtimesgthas;deep asand a wtheir for p those lots that are July 22, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued widths. Also, the applicant should identify the use 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 tract number, should be identified. A turnaround or 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. 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86) of no a 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 a resse a Commission and July 22, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Approximately 15 concerned neighborhood residents were also in attendance. Staff reported that no evidence of any agreement, limiting further development until an alternate access is provided, was found. The applicant explained that he had been trying to reach an agreement with abutting property owners concerning access to the rear of their lot, and the plat had been modified to reflect Tract A as Lots 2 and 3. Another 0 July 22, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued part of the plat would be zoned open space and dedicated to property owners of the subdivision. Mr. Seth Ward spoke of an agreement that was entered into years previously wherq he thought that it was agreed there would be no further, development at the east end of River Ridge without alternate access being provided. The City Attorney and Commissioners reviewed the document. It was determined that the City was not a party to the agreement. It was reported as being a contract between certain property owners requiring that 94 acres of property in the area not be developed without some other access being constructed besides River Ridge Road. Mr. James Dunnaway of 6 River Ridge was concerned about the impact of traffic on River Ridge, which was measured to be 23 feet wide. He described it as a road designed 30 years ago as a gravel trail, and he felt that the 123 existing homes, the 40 or 50 undeveloped lots, plus the additional traffic from this new subdivision would be hazardous. Mr. Kemp Skokus of 32 River Ridge echoed similar concerns. He also felt that the lots would be smaller and the development would be good for the area. Mr. Jessburg owns property where the proposed road would intersect with River Ridge. He felt that a dangerous situation was being created due to the hill right before the intersection on River Ridge. He stated that winter would be extremely hazardous with cars coming out of the proposed subdivision and other cars sliding down the River Ridge hill. Dr. Susan Burnett complained that she and her husband have been unable to reach an agreement with the developer concerning access to the rear of their abutting property. She explained that when they bought the property they were led to believe that an easement at the rear would be developed as a public street, so they designed their home and landscaping around it. She felt that the alternatives offered by the developer were too costly. One involved building a retaining wall. Henk Koornstra, the Traffic Engineer, addressed the traffic concerns. He stated that the maximum amount of 2,500 cars per day on a residential street would be reached once the proposed subdivision is built; also, that the traffic light would barely be warranted. July 22, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued Finally, a motion for approval was made and passed. Included in the motion were variances for cul-de-sac lengths, sidewalks, street width, and lot -to -depth ratio. Approval was subject to:' ( Lci-ty 'traffic �.n_gin-ea approving the intersection from the new su i . aiDn to_ the exis ng street, aAd_ a roved tem_autczatic_ Y shou s�-5ack through the process;? ).�R-].�eu c'ontribut-.on f-or - $18 , 000 uarant Years for use as�"a traffic signa Hi' hway 10 and River Rid a Road 3y fIve years o anal plat• and 4 in- ntribution e urne to o f tment oes not any Yam?—the-z a €i3gY�t The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.