Planning commission denies Riverside preliminary plat amid traffic, fire-access and capacity concerns

The Lancaster County Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny a preliminary plat for a proposed 133‑lot Riverside single‑family subdivision after staff cited outstanding technical review comments and commissioners and nearby residents raised safety and infrastructure concerns.

Planning staff member Matthew Blaser told the commission the applicant, Colston Development Group, had submitted a preliminary plat for 251.51 acres off Riverside Road but that “at this time, staff is recommending denial of this preliminary plat due to outstanding TRC comments.” Blaser listed technical issues including missing utility locations for fire hydrant-distance checks, five block segments that exceed the county’s 1,000‑foot maximum, and one lot smaller than the zoning district’s minimum; he also said the school district had expressed capacity concerns.

The applicant’s planner, Claire Folk of Seaman Whiteside, said the development team had sent a revised plat and “we have addressed their comments and resubmitted the plat to staff,” but that the revisions had not reached commissioners in time for the packet review.

Neighbor David Basri, who lives in Riverchase Estates, told commissioners he did not oppose development in principle but urged turning lanes for safety. “I strongly believe there need to be turning lanes both north and southbound,” he said, adding concerns that Riverside Road drivers regularly exceed posted speeds and that hills and sight lines create hazards. Basri also urged the county to time approvals so that the roundabout planned for the Riverside–Highway 5 intersection — which, he said, is expected to begin construction in 2026 — is in place before new certificates of occupancy are issued.

Other residents and public commenters raised similar points about emergency‑services capacity and visual screening after recent clear‑cutting of the site. Planning director Allison Harden told the commission that under the county’s new Unified Development Ordinance property that had been clear‑cut would not be eligible for subdivision until five years after clear‑cutting began.

Commissioners debated whether they could require turn lanes or other mitigation even though a traffic impact analysis provided by the applicant had not been approved by the county’s traffic consultant. Commissioner Juliana Tinklenberg said she was “not comfortable voting for something without having all of the information” and asked that the full, updated plan set be available before a decision.

A motion to approve the preliminary plat, moved by Commissioner Frances Liu and seconded by Commissioner Juliana Tinklenberg, failed on a roll‑call vote. Each commissioner present recorded a vote to deny; the clerk declared the motion not approved.

Clerks noted that subdivision plats do not carry a time limit for resubmittal; the applicant may revise the plan, resolve the remaining technical‑review comments and return to the planning commission for a future meeting.

Why it matters: The commission’s unanimous denial keeps the status quo while staff and the applicant work through unresolved technical and safety issues. Commissioners cited immediate concerns — fire‑hydrant distances, block length, turn‑lane needs and school capacity — that affect whether the development can continue without additional mitigation or design changes.