HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0992-J Staff AnalysisJune 22, 2000
ITEM NO.: 2
FILE NO.: S-992-J
NAME: Pinnacle Valley Subdivision - Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: East side of Rummel Road, at Mooser Lane
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Kelton Brown, Jr. McGetrick and McGetrick
#6 Eagle Glenn Cove 319 E. Markham Street, Suite 202
Little Rock, AR 72223 Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 48 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 38 FT. NEW STREET: 0
(total) (Phase I)
ZONING: R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 20
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
BACKGROUND:
None requested.
The Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for this
property on November 16, 1993. The approved plat included 48
single family lots between Isom Creek and Rummel Road. The two
areas east of the creek as shown on the attached plat were
approved at later dates.
Due to the floodway/floodplain along the property's east
boundary, the applicant was only able to final plat 36 lots. An
updated preliminary plat reflecting the revision to 36 lots was
approved by staff on August 31, 1998, as part of the final
platting process.
June 22, 2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-992-J
The applicant has since been working with the Corps of Engineers
and Public Works on revising the floodway/floodplain boundary.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
updated preliminary plat by adding two (2) single family
lots at the end of Eagle Glenn Cove (Lots 37 and 38 as
shown on the attached plat). This will bring the total
number of lots to 38. As noted previously, the original
approved preliminary plat for this area had 48 lots. The
addition of the two (2) lots is the only proposed revision
in the preliminary plat.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property where the two (2) new lots are proposed is
partially wooded. There are several single family
residences within this subdivision, with others currently
under construction. There is floodway immediately east of
the subdivision with undeveloped property further east.
There is also undeveloped property to the north and south.
There are single family residences on large lots to the
west across Rummel Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The River Valley Neighborhood Association was notified of
the public hearing. As of this writing, staff has received
no comment from the neighborhood.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Pinnacle Valley Road is
2.
3
4.
5.
as a minor arterial. A
feet from centerline is
Provide design of street
Street Plan). Construct
these streets including
development.
listed on the Master Street Plan
dedication of right-of-way 45
required.
conforming to "MSP" (Master
one-half street improvements to
5-foot sidewalks with planned
Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
Pinnacle Valley Road has a 1998 average daily traffic
count of 1,600.
2
June 22, 2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM
NO.: 2
(Cont.)
FILE NO.: S-992-J
E.
UTILITIES
AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY
PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve property.
AP&L: No Comments received.
Arkla: No Comment.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments.
Water: No objection. An acreage charge of $300 per acre
applies in addition to normal charges.
Fire Department: Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 regarding
placement of fire hydrants.
County Planning: No Comments received.
CATA: No effect; Site is not located on a dedicated bus
route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division:
No Comment.
Landscape Issues:
No Comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JUNE 1, 2000)
Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application.
Staff briefly described the proposed revised preliminary
plat, noting that the only change was the addition of two
(2) lots. Staff noted that several items needed to be
shown on the revised preliminary plat drawing.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed. It
was noted that Pinnacle Valley Road was previously approved
to be constructed to suburban standards when the lots along
this street are final platted.
After the brief discussion, the Committee forwarded the
revised preliminary plat to the full Commission for final
action.
3
June 22, 2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.
H. ANALYSIS:
FILE NO.: S-992-J
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff
on June 71 2000. The revised plat addresses most of the
issues as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.
The following items were left off of the revised plat
submitted:
1. Source of title
2. Names of owners of all unplatted tracts which abut the
plat area.
3.Correct zoning of property and abutting property.
The applicant will need to submit a revised plat drawing to
staff to include these items.
As noted previously, the applicant has worked with the
Corps of Engineers and Public Works in revising the
floodway/floodplain boundary along the property's east
boundary. Public Works has noted that a Letter of Map
Revision was approved by FEMA and the Corps of Engineers
and submitted to the Public Works Department in September,
1999. The floodway/floodplain lines as shown on this
revised preliminary plat are as approved with the Letter of
Map Revision.
Otherwise, there should -be no outstanding issues associated
with the revised preliminary plat. The two (2) additional
lots proposed conform to ordinance standards and should
have no adverse effect on the general area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised preliminary plat
subject to the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.
2. A revised preliminary plat (with the additional items as
noted in paragraph H.) must be submitted to staff prior
to a final plat of Lots 37 and 38.
4
June 22, 2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
FILE NO.: S-992-J
(JUNE 22, 2000)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application, as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended
by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed
by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
5