Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0761-A Staff AnalysisDecember 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. NAME• Ridge Haven Valley LOCATION: West of Ridge Haven Road, —� North of St. Charles Blvd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Darbe Development Corp. Manes, Castin, Massie & Hinson Road McGetrick Little Rock, AR 2501 North Willow Telephone: 221-0937 North Little Rock, AR Telephone: 758-1360 AREA: 59 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 120 FT. NEW STREET: 6,700 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family A. Proposal/Request: To plat 59 acres into 120 lots and 6,700 feet of new street in three phases. B. Existing Conditions: Wooded; elevations from 475 feet to 550 feet, single family area. C. Issue/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design: (1) Show building line - 25' on residential and 30' on all collectors. (2) If average depths of Lot 115 is more than 210', request waiver and submit justifications. (3) Show sidewalks. (4) Indicate purpose of tracts adjacent to Lot 76. (5) Give notice to abutting tracts in excess of 2.5 acres or greater. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued (6) Specify ownership and maintenance of parks, open space, reserve tracts and unidentified lots with landscaping. Please assign tract numbers and address in the Bill of Assurance. (7) Haven Glen needs a suffix and Ridge Haven Drive should be changed to Ridge Haven Road, since it is connecting to the existing Ridge Haven Road (see David Hathcock, 371-4808). (8) Show City limits line if it goes through this property. (9) Show Ridge Haven extending to the property line. (10) Give name of current owner of land. (11) Redesign pipe stem around Lots 102 and 103. D. Engineering Comments: (1) Develop Haven Brook and Ridge Haven as collectors (36' - 60' right-of-way). (2) Give name to southernmost cul-de-sac (clear with David Hathcock, 371-4808). E. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to addressing the issues stated. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant agreed to revise the plat according to staff°s comments. Most of the discussion concerned Ridge Haven Road and potential problems created by the access of 120 lots through a street that is constructed to 27' and that has no right-of-way dedication. The applicant objected to making it a collector street. Engineering felt that Ridge Haven would act like a collector until collectors to the west were built. Some committee members felt that even temporary use of Ridge Haven as a collector would be disastrous. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued_�� Water - Water main extension on -site fire protection requirement. An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies. Sewer - Sewer main extension required. Additional easement required around new main. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Dr. Wepfer, an abutting property owner, requested deferral because she felt that inadequate notice was received. Staff and the City Attorney determined that notice had been given according to Ordinance requirements. Approximately 15 persons from the neighborhood were present. Staff recommended approval of the plan, subject to the development of Ridge Haven as a collector street, and the development of four lots only in Phase I, until further access is provided to the west. Mr. Jack Castin represented the Developer. He objected to the construction of Ridge Haven as a collector street. He stated that his client wouldn't prove Ridge Haven Road (off -site) if the City could obtain the right-of-way. He realized that some of the existing property owners along Ridge Haven wanted it improved and some didn't. Dr. Robert Walls expressed some concerns of the residents. They were: (1) the development of Ridge Haven as a collector, due to increased traffic; (2) safety of the intersection with Napa Valley, due to limited view from the north and south by two ridges; (3) development of street would compromise value of existing neighborhood. He also asked that they be given time to seek professional advice about the proposed development. Mr. Dick Toll requested time for the residents to meet with the developers. He requested a 30-day deferral for this Purpose. Mr. Gordon Taylor felt that Ridge Haven was not suitable for increased traffic. Mr. Alan Gold explained that his lot was adjacent to the boulevard entrance planned by the Developer; December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued and if Ridge Haven was widened it would come very close to his front door due to rock out -cropping. He felt that approval of the plat should be delayed since he was not made aware of the Project in what he considered to be an adequate amount of time. Even though the Applicant was not required to give him legal notice since he was not an abutting property owner, he felt that he would be affected by the widening of Ridge Haven. A motion for a 30-day deferral was made and passed so that staff could research the collector issue, and get input from the City Manager on their position on possible condemnation of right-of-way for improvements. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 abstention (Jones). SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Staff reported that a meeting -was held to discuss this proposal. It was decided that the City Administration was agreeable to using the Power of Condemnation to widen the street to 27 feet. The developer was willing to pay for construction of the street, however, the City would pay for additional right-of-way. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-16-86) Mr. Jack Castin represented the developer. Approximately 16 persons from the neighborhood were present in opposition. Mr. Jim Summerlin, engineer, represented the neighborhood also. Attorney Clayton Blackstone also represented some residents in the neighborhood. Staff recommended approval Of alternate B or the original submittal of the subdivision subject to: (1) upgrading Ridge Haven to 27 feet - 40 foot right-of-way; (2) the City would acquire additional right-of-way; and (3) the first phase of final be limited to 40 lots until a second access road from the subdivision is constructed. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Concerns expressed by the neighborhood's representatives included fears that Ridge Haven would function as a collector, which would be dangerous since there is currently a limited sight distance at its intersection with Napa Valley. It was felt that alternate B would not solve the problem. The residents were interested in the elimination of the street connection to the north. Ms. Eleanor Walls of 13611 Ridge Haven explained that they had recently made a decision to double their investment and moved into a new home on Ridge Haven based on past commission actions. She felt that they had a legal right to their property as it was purchased based on existing conditions and the Planning Commission had the responsibility for the protection of their property values. She felt that this type of access would make the developer's project more marketable at a cost to the homeowners; thus, it may be legal but not moral. She charged that the homeowners were being asked to subsidize a business interest. Mr. Plastiras of the Greek Orthodox Church at 1100 Napa Valley Road talked about the dangerous intersection and parking problems if the traffic through the area was increased. Mr. Castin felt that a minor percentage of the total traffic would use Ridge Haven. He spoke of making Ridge Haven a cul-de-sac to the west, but asked that plat approval not be held up because of this. Mr. Moore, the developer, felt that Ridge Haven needed to be left open, and explained that he had not looked at providing a cul-de-sac as of yet, but *was willing to do so if it resolved the problems. Attorney Blackstone complained that reasonable alternatives to the plat had not been considered and a precedent was being set by condemnation of right-of-way for the developer. It was explained that the City would be the one to condemn the property. Mr. Gold of the neighborhood asked that any proposal on this property be consistent with 3/4 acre lots in the area, have a minimum of 60-foot at the building line, withhold an extension of Ridge Haven and discuss alternate plans with the neighborhood. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Commissioner Jones pushed for a 30-day deferral. Initially, the neighborhood explained that if a deferral was granted, that they would not come back and argue their position before the Commission; then afterwards they stated no opposition to a deferral. The developer was not favorable to a deferral call, but asked to amend the plat by eliminating Lot 76 to 79 and the street in between them. motion was made to approve the amended plat, subject to &XIall lots being a minimum of 60 feet wide¢3?- ity Board approval of the condemnation proceedingsO3 original submittal) with lots the same as alternate E a alb including holding the extension of Ridge Haven, a5f T Aping the plan at Haven Glen until such time as the traffic impact can be predicted. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, -0 noes, 0 absent and 2 abstentions (Massie, Jones). f �/eto��- �^",y 5 T� �t r. i�:� 'crM.�.�- f � i � i� .�- s�►� �mwp�r� r r7 T�t.�y� j. l a AA4 A resident of the neighborhood requested that the record reflect that all their speakers did not get to talk and they P-4k, felt that they were not allowed a fair hearing.