Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0757-A Staff AnalysisMay 31, 1.988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 NAME: Summit Ridge Revised Preliminary LOCATION: South of Parkway Place east of Kanis Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Winrock Development Co. White-Daters and Associates, Inc. 2101 Brookwood Drive 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 663-5340 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 15.4519 acres NO. OF LOTS: 53 FT. NEW ST.: 2,000 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Residential A. Proposal/Request to To revise an approved preliminary of 15.4619 acres, 53 lots, and 2,000 feet of new street. 2. Revisions are as follows: Original Approval Modification Area 25.63 acres 15.4619 acres No. of Lots 86 53 New Street 3,500' 2,000' Variances 15' building None line as shown B. Existing Conditions This property is located in an area that is developing as single family. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design 1. Vicinity map is inaccurate. 2. Tract A - Note right-of-way dedication, setbacks, use of tract, and centerline on Kanis. 3. Give notice to abutting property owners. 4. Submit sketch grading plan. D. Engineering Comments None at this time. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to resolutions of comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was asked to show right-of-way dedication and a 35' building setback on Kanis. Since the status of Kanis Road requirements would be changing in the near future, the Committee decided that the applicant could request that Tract A be Phase 2 and that right-of-way and improvements be deferred until that time. May 31, 1988 Item No. 4 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) The applicant was present. Staff reported that the Applicant had submitted a revised plan that corrected the deficiencies identified by the Subdivision Committee, and that there was a property -owner to the south that is concerned about access. This item spurred more discussion from the Agenda meeting regarding amending the By -Laws to reflect that Applicants submit all items to be revised the Tuesday before the Public Hearing. If the Applicant can't make the deadline, then he should request more time. A motion was made to waive action on this issue taken on July 12, 1988 and staff was instructed to compose a definite amendment. The motion was seconded. A motion was made to withdraw the latter part of this motion regarding the amendment and discuss it at the end of the meeting. The motion was seconded. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. Mr. Joe White then continued his discussion. He requested termination of Summit Ridge as a cul-de-sac. Mr. Emile Reichstadt represented his mother, Mrs. Macie Reichstadt, of 219 N. Palm. He stated no opposition to the proposal, but was concerned that drainage be handled equitably and that access be provided to the back portion of their property even though his land had frontage on Kanis Road. He felt that this was necessary since their plans were to develop the property from back to front. It can't be accessed from Kanis due to the topography. Mr. Ron Tyne, the Developer, stated that they are only one abutting property -owner and that access is available on Kanis and on his property through the south and east. He noted that the terrain on this property is rather steep and that there is currently no means for sewer service. It was decided that the item should be deferred until more information was received from the City Attorney regarding the granting of variances. Mr. Tyne was asked to work with the abutting property -owner regarding the provision of a stub -out to the south, instead of a cul-de-sac. It was explained that absent an interpretation from the City Attorney, the stub -out issued would not have been considered by the Commission since access was available to the Reichstadt property. The City Attorney was requested to submit an opinion at the July 12th meeting on whether or not a waiver of the 750 foot cul-de-sac rule can be waived. If it can't, does that constitute land -locking the back half of this property. Also, the opinion should determine if the Commission is required to grant access to this property. A motion for a thirty -day deferral was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. July 12, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. F Summit Ridge Revised Preliminary LOCATION: South of Parkway Place east of Ranis Road fl7X7VT_rMVD. V"r'TMVVn. Winrock Development Co. White-Daters and Associates, Inc. 2101 Brookwood Drive 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 663-5340 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 15.4519 acres NO. OF LOTS: 53 FT. NEW ST.: 2,000 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Residential A. Proposal/Request 1. To revise an approved preliminary of 15.4619 acres, 53 lots, and 2,000 feet of new street. 2. Revisions are as follows: Original A122roval Modification Area 25.63 acres 15.4619 acres No. of Lots 86 53 New Street 3,500- 2,000- Variances 15' building None line as shown B. Existing Conditions This property is located in an area that is developing as single family. C7 July 12, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS I tem_N,o. F (Continued). C. I.ssuegjDiscussion LegaU Technical/Design 1. Vicinity map is inaccurate. 2. Tract A - Note right-of-way dedication, setbacks, use of tract, and center line on Kanis. 3. Give notice to abutting property owners. 4. Submit sketch grading plan. D. Engineering Comments None at this time. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to resolutio'ns-of comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Applicant was asked to show right-of-way dedication and a 35' building setback on Kanis. Since the status of Kanis Road requirements would be changing in the near future, the Committee decided that the applicant could request that Tract A be Phase 2 and that right-of-way and improvements be deferred until that time. NNING COMMISSION ACs"ION: (May 31, 1988) The Applicant was pre:-:cStaff reported that the Applicant had submitted a revised plan that corrected the deficiencies identified by the Subdivision Committee, and that there was a prooerty-owner to the south that is concerned about access_ This item spurred moo..- the discussion from the Agenda meeting, regarding the By -Laws to reflect that Applicants submit al; i :is to be revised the Tuesday before the Public Hearing. It the Applicant can't make the deadline, then he shju i�1 request more time. July 12, 1988 4y SUBDIVISIONS Item No. F (Continued)_ A motion was made to waive action on this issue taken on July 12, 1988 and staff was instructed to compose a definite amendment. The motion was seconded. A motion was made to withdraw the latter part of this motion regarding the amendment and discuss it at the end of the meeting. The motion was seconded. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. Mr. Joe White then continued his discussion. He requested termination of Summit Ridge as a cul-de-sac. Mr. Emile Reichstadt represented his mother, Mrs. Macie Reichstadt, of 219 N. Palm. He stated no opposition to the proposal, but was concerned that drainage be handled equitably and that access be provided to the'back portion of their property even though his land had frontage on Kanis Road. He felt that this was necessary since their plans were to develop the property from back to front. It can't be accessed from Kanis due to the topography. Mr. Ron Tyne, the Developer, stated 'that they are only one abutting property -owner and that access is available on Kanis and on his property through the south and east. He noted that the terrain on this property is rather steep and that there is currently no means for sewer service. It was decided that the item should be deferred until more information was received from the City Attorney regarding the granting of variances. Mr. Tyne was asked to work with the abutting property -owner regarding the provision of a stub -out to the south, instead of a cul-de-sac. It was explained that absent an interpretation from the City Attorney, the stub -out issued would not have been considered by the Commission since access was available to the Reichstadt property. The City Attorney was requested to submit an opinion at the July 12th meeting on whe2h er or not a waiver of the 750 foot cul-de-sac rule can be e,,a. i gyred . If it can't, he was asked to determine whether that constituted land -locking the back half of this property. i,lso, the opinion should determine if the Commission is regeji:Fed to grant access to this property. A motion for a shirty -day deferral was made and passed by a vote of: 9 0 noes, and 2 absent. ..._._.__ L� July 12, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS t em No . F (Con-t i Hued_) �T _- PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988) The Applicant was present. Staff requested City Attorney opinion regarding access to the abutting property. The City Attorney determined that the abutting property was not land- locked if this Developer did not provide access from his property. The abutting property has frontage on Kanis, even though it may require some physical improvements to develop on that portion of the site. Mr. Reichstadt represented his mother, owner of the abutting property. He again requested that her property not be turned into a drainage ditch. He was assured that the proposal for drainage would be reviewed by Engineering. A motion for approval was.made and passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent. i� 11 September 19, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 _NAME: Request for time extention of Summit Ridge Revised Preliminary LOCATION: South of Parkway Place east of Kanis Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Winrock Development Co. White-Daters & Associates, Inc. 2101 Brookwood Drive 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 663-5340 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 15.4519 acres NO. OF LOTS: 53 FT. NEW STREET: 2,000 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Residential A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: 1. To revise an approved preliminary of 15.4519 acres, 53 lots and 2,000 feet of new street. 2. Revisions are as follows: Original Approval Modification Area 25.63 acres 15.4619 acres No. of lots 86 53 New street 3,500 ft. 2,000 ft. Variances 15' building None line as shown B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This property is located in an area that is developing as single family. September 19, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 (Continued)___ C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design 1. Vicinity map is inaccurate. 2. Tract A - Note right-of-way dedication, setbacks, use of tract, and center line on Kanis. 3. Give notice to abutting property owners. 4. Submit sketch grading plan. D. Engineering Comments None at this time. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to resolution of comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Applicant was asked to show right-of-way dedication and a 35' building setback on Kanis. Since the status of Kanis Road requirements would be changing in the near future, the Committee decided that the applicant could request that Tract A be Phase 2 and that right-of-way and improvements be deferred until that time. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) The Applicant was present. Staff reported that the Applicant had submitted a revised plan that corrected the deficiencies identified by the Subdivision Committee, and that there was a property -owner to the south that is concerned about access. This item spurred more of the discussion from the Agenda meeting, regarding amending the By -Laws to reflect that Applicants submit all items to be revised the Tuesday before the Public Hearing. If the Applicant can't make the deadline, then he should request more time. 2 September 19, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 (Continued) __­­ A motion was made to waive action on this issue taken on July 12, 1988 and staff was instructed to compose a definite amendment. The motion was seconded. A motion was made to withdraw the latter part of this motion regarding the amendment and discuss it at the end of the meeting. The motion was seconded. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. Mr. Joe White then continued his discussion. He requested termination of Summit Ridge as. a cul-de-sac. Mr. Emile Reichstadt represented his mother, Mrs. Macie Reichstadt, of 219 N. Palm. He stated no opposition to the proposal, but was concerned that drainage be handled equitably and that access be provided to the back portion of their property even though his land had frontage on Kanis Road. He felt that this was necessary since their plans were to develop the property from back to front. It can't be accessed from Kanis due to the topography. Mr. Ron Tyne, the developer, stated that they are only one abutting property -owner and that access is available on Kanis and on his property through the south and east. He noted that the terrain on this property is rather steep and that there is currently no means for sewer service. It was decided that the item should be deferred until more information was received from the City Attorney regarding the granting of variances. Mr. Tyne was asked to work with the abutting property -owner regarding the provision of a stub -out to the south, instead of a cul-de-sac. It was explained that absent an interpretation from the City Attorney, the stub -out issued would not have been considered by the Commission since access was available to the Reichstadt property. The City Attorney was requested to submit an opinion at the July 12th meeting on whether or not a waiver of the 750 foot cul-de-sac rule can be waived. If it can't, he was asked to determine whether that constituted land -locking the back half of this property. Also, the opinion should determine if the Commission is required to grant access to this property. A motion for a thirty -day deferral was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. 3 i September 19, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (July 12, 1988) The Applicant was present. Staff requested City Attorney opinion regarding access to the abutting property. The City Attorney determined that the abutting property was not land- locked if this Developer did not provide access from his property. The abutting property has frontage on Kanis, even though it may require some physical improvements to develop on that portion of the site. Mr. Reichstadt represented his mother, owne,r of the abutting property. He again requested that her property not be turned into a drainage ditch. He was assured that the proposal for drainage would be reviewed by Engineering. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent. STAFF REPORT: This application was approved on December 16, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 19, 1989) The Planning Commission briefly discussed this item and placed it upon the consent agenda for approval of a one year time extension. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 4