Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0807 Staff AnalysisMarch 8, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 NAME: LOCATION: APPLICANT: STAFF REPORT: St. John's Place Final Plan Approval North end of Polk, west of North Taylor White-Daters & Associates 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 The applicant is requesting approval of the final development plan for St. John's Place. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed by the Committee. No changes from the final approved plan were found. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff recommended approval subject to: (1) filing tree survey, (2) staff approval of the construction access point to minimize tree disturbance, (3) location of the wall to minimize tree disturbance, (4) filing petition to close Polk Street, (5) installing sidewalk on Taylor Street, (6) filing a tri-party agreement to guarantee completion of improvements prior to building permit in the last phase. The applicant was represented by Mr. Joe White of White-Daters Associates, and the developer, Mr. Dickson Flake. The developer asked to phase the construction of March 8, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 NAME: St. John's Place Final Plan Approval LOCATION: North end of Polk, west of North Taylor APPLICANT: White-Daters & Associates 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 STAFF REPORT: The applicant is requesting approval of the final development plan for St. John's Place. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed by the Committee. No changes from the final approved plan were found. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff recommended approval subject to: (1) filing tree survey, (2) staff approval of the construction access point to minimize tree disturbance, (3) location of the wall to minimize tree disturbance, (4) filing petition to close Polk Street, (5) installing sidewalk on Taylor Street, (6) filing a tri-party agreement to guarantee completion of improvements prior to building permit in the last phase. The applicant was represented by Mr. Joe White of White-Daters Associates, and the developer, Mr. Dickson Flake. The developer asked to phase the construction of March 8, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued a street within the development. He explained that he wanted to delay paving the interior roadway surface in Phase II in order to avoid damaging the street with construction vehicles. All the grading, utilities, and drainage on the entire site would be done. Ms. Lindsey Huckaby of 2500 N. Taylor represented the property owners of the area, but mainly those on Taylor Street. They were opposed to the phasing. They felt that the busy activity on Taylor Street was not ad-equately reflected by the traffic study, since it was done during a time during a time when one-half of the area was out of town. The construction entrance should be off Tyler and Polk, not Taylor. She also felt that the years of disruption caused by construction would be bad for the neighborhood. She was against any change in the phasing. There was discussion as to whether the request was to be considered as an amendment to -the plan. Mr. Flake argued that this was not a change in the plan. They had previously asked to do all the site work on the front end and they still would do it. The only thing requested was phasing the paving from the interior roadway based upon where construction would take place. A motion to include an amendment in the final plan for phasing of construction of the interior roadway was made, but failed to pass. The vote was 5 ayes, 4 noes, and 2 absent. A motion to approve the final plan was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, and 2 absent. March 8, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued a street within the development. He explained that he wanted to delay paving the interior roadway surface in Phase II in order to avoid damaging the street with construction vehicles. All the grading, utilities, and drainage on the entire site would be done. Ms. Lindsey Huckaby of 2500 N. Taylor represented the property owners of the area, but mainly those on Taylor Street. They were opposed to the phasing. They felt that the busy activity on Taylor Street was not adequately reflected by the traffic study, since it was done during a time during a time when one-half of the area was out of town. The construction entrance should be off Tyler and Polk, not Taylor. She also felt that the years of disruption caused by construction would be bad for the neighborhood. She was against any change in the phasing. There was discussion as to whether the request was to be considered as an amendment to the plan. Mr. Flake argued that this was not a change in the plan. They had previously asked to do all the site work on the front end and they still would do it. The only thing requested was phasing the paving from the interior roadway based upon where construction would take place. A motion to include an amendment in the final plan for phasing of construction of the interior roadway was made, but failed to pass. The vote was 5 ayes, 4 noes, and 2 absent. A motion to approve the final plan was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, and 2 absent.