The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutS-1067 Staff AnalysisMay 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: 5-1067 NAME: PEBBLE BEACH ESTATES -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: West of Hinson Rd., south of Pebble Beach Dr., beyond the present end of Montvale Dr. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• HANOVER PROPERTIES Pat McGetrick c/o Jeff Fuller MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 900 S. Shackleford Rd. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 722111 224-5700 1 223-9900 AREA: 39.87 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 116 FT. NEW STREET: 6300 ZONING: PRD PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND• Single -Family Residential The proposed subdivision is a 39.87 acre tract out of the 117 acre PRD site approved in 1985 for the First Baptist Church --- Long-Form PRD. The PRD was a multi -use project involving construction of a church sanctuary and ancillary actives facilities to include athletic facilities and an amphitheater; water features; retirement housing facilities; a retreat center; etc. One of the requirements of that PRD development was that access to the abutting residential neighborhoods was to be restricted; roadways extending to the property lines of the residential neighborhoods were not to be extended into the PRD site. Buffering of the PRD site from the residential neighborhoods was to be provided. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the subdivision into 116 single-family lots of a 39.87 acre tract. New streets totaling 7,300 feet in length are to be constructed. Access to the site is proposed to be provided, initially, by an extension of the existing Montvale Dr. from the Hickory Ridge, Phase I Subdivision. Eventually, two streets are proposed to be extended to the east boundary of the tract, and will be extended eastward into the future development area to the east. A section of Beckenham Rd. will run from the south boundary of the tract across the southwest corner of the May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 Cont.) FILE NO.: $=1067 tract, and exit on the west boundary of the tract. No variances are proposed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval of a preliminary plat by the Planning Commission is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and is heavily wooded. The existing zoning of the tract is PRD. The remainder of the PRD site lies to the east of the tract. The land to the north, south, and west is zoned R-2, with single-family residential development abutting the tract to the north. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY CgMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) the preliminary plat has some technical deficiencies which must be addressed; 2) street plans must be submitted for review; 3) a stormwater detention analysis must be provided; 4) a collector street must be provided to the east; 5) before any construction begins, provide erosion control plan and get City and State permits; 6) revise the intersection nearest Beckenham to be 900; 7) curves #1 and #2 should have minimum 150, radii (This street is longer than 15001, thus it is not a minor residential street.); and, 8) provide a phasing plan. Water Works comments that water main extensions will be required. A portion of the project will have an acreage charge. Contact water works for information on the area affected. Wastewater comments that sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. did not furnish comments. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. 2 May 16, 1995 IIHDIVT I ITEM n FILE NO.: S-1067 D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL DEIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments that: 1) Sec. 31-86 requires that the name and address of the owner of record, including the source of title, be provided. This has not been done. 2) Sec. 31-86 requires that the average and minimum lot sizes be indicated. The minimum lot size(s) is/are not provided. 3) Sec. 31-86 requires that any existing and the proposed covenants and restrictions be reported. This has not been done. 4) sec. 31-89 requires that the preliminary plat show the proposed design of the streets, including the location of sidewalks. Denote the widths of proposed streets and indicate the location of sidewalks. 5) Sec. 31-89 requires that "natural features" (drainage channels, bodies of water, wooded areas, etc.) and "cultural features" (existing and plated streets, bridges, culverts, utility lines, pipelines, power transmission lines, easements, park areas, structures, section lines, etc.) within and immediately surrounding the proposed subdivision be shown. This section also requires that on all watercourses entering the tract, the drainage area above the point of entry shall be noted. These requirements have not met. 6) Sec. 31-89 requiems a preliminary storm drainage plan to be furnished. This has not been done. 7) Sec. 31-89 requires that the names of all recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed subdivision, with book and page number or instrument number, be shown, and, on unplatted land, the names of all owners be shown. This information is incomplete. 8) Sec. 31-89 requires that the zoning classifications within the plat and of abutting lands be shown. This information is not shown. 9) Sec. 31-89 requires that the survey be filed with the State Surveyor. This certification has not been executed. q May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISI ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1067 10) Sec. 31-89 requires that the proposed phasing of the development be indicated. Is the entire development to be developed as one phase? 11) Sec. 31-89 requires that proposed PAGIS monuments be indicted. These have not been shown. 12) There are lots shown which are remnants of the original platted subdivision. These cannot be platted as part of the new subdivision. New streets cannot be dedicated and constructed which include these lots. E. ANALYSIS• The preliminary plat which has been submitted has some critical issues which must be resolved. Not only are there omissions in the submittal information, which can be provided by the project engineer, but there are issues regarding the design of the subdivision to accommodate the remnant lots from the past. There are also design issues regarding the alignment of street intersections. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends deferral of this item, pending resolution of the issues cited. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the proposed project, and Mr. McGetrick indicated to the Committee that he had reviewed the comments contained in the discussion outline. The Public Works staff discussed with Mr. McGetrick its comments, indicating that, preferably, the southern -most street along the east property line should be a collector street, and be planned to extend to Hinson Rd. Public Works also discussed its comments regarding the needed changes in the alignment of streets and intersections. Staff discussed the indicated remnant lots from a previously platted subdivision which are within the boundary of the new subdivision, and which are shown within proposed rights -of -way or included in lot areas. Staff pointed out that these lots cannot be left within the street rights -of -way, and Mr. McGetrick indicated that, either the lots would be acquired, or the design would be changed to move the streets to not conflict with these lots' locations. Staff suggested that the design be modified to locate unobtainable lots exclusively within the bounds of lot lines in the new subdivision, and that then these new lots be excluded 4 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM N(Cont.)FILE NO.: S-1 67 from any final plat until title can be obtained of these lots from the previous subdivision. Following this discussion, the Committee forwarded the preliminary plat to the full Commission for the public hearing. , PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff reported that all issues had been resolved; that the applicant had furnished a revised preliminary plat which addressed all concerns cited. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat, and the item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval. The preliminary plat was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 5