Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0050-F Staff Analysis1- I W < October 12, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 NAME: Pleasant Ridge Street Improvement District APPLICANT: John S. Selig Mitchell, Williams and Selig 1000 Savers Federal Bldg. Capitol Avenue at Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 376-3151 LOCATION_: South of Arkansas Highway #10, encompassing part of Pleasant Ridge and Woodland Heights Subdivision REQUEST: For a street, water, drainage, and sewer improvement district. STAFF ANALYSIS: This is a proposal that requests a street, water, drainage and sewer improvement district. It includes the following: (1) Constructing new streets and improving existing streets including curbs, gutters, drainage and paving. (2) Improving, extending and repairing the existing water system. (3) Constructing, as needed, appropriate drainage facilities. (4) Constructing, improving and expanding a sanitary sewer system to be consolidated with the existing system. The staff is not opposed to this; however, the City Engineers need to study the intersection at Rodney Parham and Woodland Heights. There is also a question of whether or not the Commission would like to recommend placing a cul-de-sac at the end of Fairview Road and one at the corner of Woodland Heights Road where it angles to the left. ENGINEERINGCONSIDERATIONS 1. The intersection at Rodney Parham -Woodland Heights Road and Fairview Road to be designed after coordination with the City Engineer_. October 12, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 -- Continued 2. Overall plan is acceptable; however, specific roadway geometric and alignments are subject to review by the City Engineer. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The applicants were present. There was some discussion as to the suggestion of terminating Woodland Heights and Fairview Roads. The applicant reported that a survey of the residents had been conducted and indicated a majority in opposition. A motion was made for approval, subject to Engineering comments. It passed by a vote -of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The request was represented. There were no objectors present. The Commission discussed the matter briefly followed by a motion to recommend approval"as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes.,,3 absent. w