HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0297 Staff AnalysisDecember 18, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME:
LOCATION:
nV..VF.T.CIUF.R
Parkway Properties
Limited Partnership
Suite 400
212 Center Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
374-2231
West Markham Parkway Addition
Between West Markham and Rock
Creek Parkway - Immediately
West of Parkway divided lane
RWnTWRRR
Mehlburger, Tanner & Associates
201 South Izard Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
375-5331
AREA: 4.41 acres NO. OF LOTS: 5
ZONING: 110-3"
PROPOSED USES: Office Lots
PLANNING DISTRICT: I-430
CENSUS TRACT: 42.03
A. Site History
None.
FT. NEW STREET: 480
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area of the City that is
rapidly being developed with a mixture of uses. The
land is presently vacant and slopes toward the west.
C. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 4.41 acres into five lots
for an office subdivision which will include a new
street consisting of 480' total. The average lot size
is .82 acre and the minimum is .62 acre. Old Town Road
is proposed as a 27' street.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Dedicate right-of-way and improve West Markham
Street to collector standards.
December 18, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
2. Improve Old Town Road to commercial collector
standards.
3. Request drainage plan for ditch at eastern edge of
the property.
4. Request no access from Lots 1 and 2 onto the
Parkway.
E. Analysis
Staff's major concern with this proposal is the
applicant's failure to provide a commercial street of
601/36' as required by Ordinance. The street indicated
does not comply to the minor commercial street
(501/271) since it is not a cul-de-sac of less than
300' in length. The proposal is in compliance with the
Suburban Development Plan which proposes an office
park.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments -made.
G. Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant was present. He requested a variance for
the street width to be 26' instead of the required 361.
Justification offered was based on the fact that the
plat would only be four lots and be one way. The
Planning staff felt that this cross -over would serve
quite a bit of traffic for a 27' street; however, the
City Engineers felt that a 27' street would suffice if
it had wider turning lanes on both ends. The applicant
was asked to work with Engineering on this matter.
°PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A motion for approval of the
revised plan was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes,
0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open.