HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0356-A Staff AnalysisMarch 12, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - File No. 356-A
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER/ARCHITECT:
Ray Robinson, Jr.
Little Rock, AR
Ray Robinson Preliminary
Subdivision
Pinnacle Valley West of
Little Rock Yacht Club
ENGINEER:
Robert Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
664-0003
AREA: 6.56 acres NO. OF LOTS: 12
ZONING: Outside City
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Site History
FT. NEW STREET:
Last month, the applicant submitted a "PRD" application
for single family attached units. After meeting with
neighbors and considering their opposing views, the
applicant decided to withdraw the request and resubmit
as a single family (detached) plat.
B. Existing Conditions
The land involved is located outside of the City near
the yacht club in an area that is generally developed
as single family. There is property consisting of
elevations ranging from 270' to 3301.
C. Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing to develop 6.56 acres into
12 new lots with one existing lot that currently has a
single family use and a common area. No variances have
been requested. Sewer will be by packaged plant upon
approval of the State Health Department.
D. Engineering Requirements
(1) Dedicate right-of-way and improve Pinnacle Valley
Road to minor arterial standards.
trch 12, 1985
[BDIVISIONS
em No. 1 - Continued
(2) How will access be provided to common area?
(3) Submit internal drainage plan to include
detention.
E. Analysis
Staff suggests that the applicant provide a pedestrian
foot traffic access to common area. Please include the
applicant's lot as a part of this plat and label it as
Lot 13. The Bill of Assurance should provide for
maintenance of the common area. The applicant is asked
to provide staff with certification from the County
Sanitarian or State Health Departments that the package
plant is acceptable.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
A revised single family plat of 11 lots and a common area
was submitted. The average lot size was 16,000 square feet
as required by the State Health Department for septic tanks.
It was decided that the applicant's lot should be labeled
No. 11 instead of 13 and that a minimum of 15 feet should be
dedicated as an easement between Lots 8 and 9.
There was some discussion in regard to requiring in -lieu
contribution vs. street improvement on Pinnacle Valley Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Bob Richardson, Engineer, and Mr. Ray Robinson, Jr. were
in attendance. Quite a few persons from the neighborhood
were present. They were represented by Attorney M. Jones.
He specifically described the groups he represented as The
Community Association for Maumelle, St. Paul Church Maumelle
Church and surrounding property owners. Other spokespersons
from the group were Ms. Barbara Nelson, a neighbor to
Mr. Richardson, Mr. Johnny Romes of the neighborhood and
Ms. Linda Robinson with the Soil Conversation Service. The
major issue involves sewer service and the fear that this
project would enhance an existing bad situation. Ms. Nelson
spoke of instances where waste comes into her yard, and
March 121 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
continued
inson attested to the fact thatthe
Mr. Rob other concerns expressedand
difficult to pert. due to lot size point
density, adverse impact on homes ro ertyr
roteGtion. Mr. lanes clarif1edhe p P
inadequate fire protect to development of
that t were not obj safe manner.
that they it to be developed in a
but wanted
the commission �nbspiteeOfr the
ssiThere was discutheon ampercotests were done,
plan until Health Department saying
the P from the county system proposed to
letter received the Septic tank Y
that they would review to their regulations•
ensure its conformity for 30
The first motion was to defer The
were made. ercolation tests.
Two motions �icant Can do p noes and 0 absent*
days so that the aPP of a 5 ayes •
a vote
motion failed by ro ect as
a royal of the project
7 back
motion was for PPhe final ,at coming
The second the residents.
submitted, conditioned uponotification oft noes and
before the CommiS5ion and of! 9 aye
The motion passed by a vote
0 absent.
!I