HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0051-T Staff Analysis!� I
Je
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 �-
NAME: Pleasant View Subdivision
LOCATION: West End of Forrest Drive
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Woodland, Inc. Edward G. Smith and Associates
P.O. Box 2060 401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock,
ck , AR 1666 72201
Phone: 372-7700 Phone:
AREA: 74.75 acres NO. OF LOTS: 169 FT. NEW ST.: 9,930
ZONING: "R-211
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Existing Conditions
The land involved is located in an area developed for
single family.
B. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 74.75 acres into 169 lots
and 9,930 feet of new street. Variances requested
include a 15 foot building setback line as shown on the
plat.
C. Analysis
The preliminary plat involved was previously engineered
by another firm, and we are having some coorindation
problems but expect to work out these issues by the
hearing date on July 8.
Staff would appreciate an explanation of the areas
indicated as exceptions including those now
participating in the plat. Engineering reports that a
hammerhead is needed on Silica Court and detention
areas are to be constructed in the green space by Sugar
Maple Lane, and Magnetite Drive should be changed to
Circle.
July 8, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
D. Staff Recommendation
Deferral until further information is received.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the plat subject to clearing
minor plat submittal detals.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
A general discussion was held and centered on the out parcel
and means of termination of the street. It was determined
that a hammerhead device at the end of the street within
this developer's property would be an appropriate solution.
Mr. White agreed and suggested that it would be better for
his client to have this turnaround within their plat. The
Wastewater utility noted a need for easements along all of
the existing lines serving this area within the preliminary
plat. Also, Water Works indicated a water main extension is
required and several additional easements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted
on a motion to approve the application as revised. The
motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1
open position.