HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0057-H Staff AnalysisFebruary 9, 1982
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME:
LOCATION:
nV17VT_nl)L D ,
Riverdale Addition, Tract L-1
Intersection of Riverfront Drive
and Riverdale Road
ENGINEER:
Eagle Realty, Inc. Garver and Garver
2500 Blk. of P.O. Box C-50
Riverfront Drive Little Rock, AR 72203
Little Rock, AR
AREA: 4.10 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 8 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: 110-3"
PROPOSED USES: Offices
A. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The land involved can mainly be described as flat and
vacant, with a few scattered trees and shrubs. The
site is bounded on the west by an office -warehouse use,
and on the north by a tract of land, which is also a
��- part of the applicant's ownership. The current zoning
is "0-3." The only utility requirement thus far, is a
request by Southwestern Bell for 10' easements.
B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
This plan involves the platting of a tract of 4.1 acres
into eight lots for office use. A common drive
easement is proposed through the lots to provide
internal circulation and minimize curb cuts. No
variances have been requested.
C. CONFORMANCE TO THE ORDINANCE
The plan basically conforms to Ordinance requirements.
D. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
None, except for the usual submission of a preliminary
Bill of Assurance and evidence of notification to
adjacent property owners.
E. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
(1) Existing streets are complete.
(2) Require 4' sidewalk along property line:
Riverfront Drive, Riverdale Road and Brookwood
Drive.
February 9, 1982
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
F. ANALYSIS:
Staff is basically in support of the plan as presented.
The applicants, however, should present a proposed site
plan of the adjacent tract, which is also under the
same ownership, that indicates continuity of the
development. Staff does not wish to approve this
portion of the property without getting an idea of what
is planned for this tract. Staff would like to suggest
that the applicants provide for preservation and
maintenance of the few existing mature trees.
G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to staff's recommendation.
SUBDDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION:
Both Mr. Larry Jacimore and Mr. Ronnie Hall spoke in support
of the application. Because of an internal -oriented
development concept, they requested that an internal
pedestrian system be permitted, in -lieu of the requirement
for sidewalks listed under Engineering Considerations.
Staff also commented that the applicant needed to indicate
staging plans on the plat if the buildings on the lots are
to be sold in phases. A motion to approve, subject to
comments made was passed and approved by a vote of: 4 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.* (*Betty Turner).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff
reported that the applicant had submitted a phasing plan for
the selling of the buildings, as requested at the
Subdivision Committee meeting. A motion for approval of the
application as amended (includes internal pedestrian system)
was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent
(Arnett, Sipes and Nicholson).