Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0117-A ApplicationVay 29, 1980 r G . 11 . De n h am 2 12 Victory Street - Little 'Rock, A-.rkansas P e N7ew York I-lood. Addition Dear Mr. Denhan: S. see pla ns f or the, cons trilic t ion 0. f a 2 11 f r-mt naved alley inside the 211 foot within FIloqks I and'.. 9® 'New Yo-�.-k Von-d 710dition, have been reviewed and approved by this ic the o, f p suhiect -.rovlsion that the rrushed ,;+-one base course shall be a -im.inimum cr!r' seven inches th-ick. Verl, 7 truly yours, Carroll F. Ball, P.E. `hipf of Research andPesion CFB-aw2 cc, hill Davies Don McChesney File (2) CITY OF LITTLE ROCK NO 4,111-01,007 RECEIVED Account cf Explanation DICK JONES City Collector CHECK NUMBER NHS: F "`^" 2'E7(;) V�Zf or Need oon$4" to Cw" -- Cie IR©aRIR *# "Jti W•, '94i MARKHAM AND STATE STREETS • P.O. BOX 666 • LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203 PHONE 501 372-7700 December 28, 1979 Mr. John Erickson Office of Comprehensive Planning City Hall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: New Yorkwood Subdivision Dear John: On December 26, 1979, I met with Mr. Lester McKinley of the City Attorney's Office and Mr. Richard Wood of the Office of Comprehensive Planning with regard to the current status of the application for replat of the above - captioned property. After reviewing the minutes of the October 23, 1979 meeting of the Planning Commission and discussing the current status of the application with Mr. Wood and me, Mr. McKinley determined that, in view of all the attendant circumstances, consideration of this application could be properly presented to the Planning Commission at their January 1980 meeting, if we requested such action in writing by December 31, 1979. Therefore, pursuant to the guidance furnished to me by Mr. McKinley, we hereby request that the application for replat of the above -captioned property be formally scheduled for deliberation and action by the Planning Commission at their meeting on January 29, 1980. Our request includes the scheduling of this issue for consideration at the Subdivision Subcommittee meeting on January 10, 1980. Please notify me of the approximate time and location of the aforementioned meeting. Your assistance in this matter is appreciated. Respectfully, BLOCK MORTGAGE CO., INC. amen R. Carroll President JRC/dsh cc: Mr. Lester McKinley Mr. Richard Wood OCT 0 3 1979 City of Little Rock Office of Comprehensive Planning City Hall Markham at Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 371-4790 Ark. Power and Light Co. Ark. Louisiana Gas Co. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. L. R. Municipal Water Works L. R. Wastewater Utility System Little Rock, Arkansas ej Gentlemen: On En��) 19�, the Little Rock Planning Commission will consider the above referenced plat for preliminary approval. A copy of the plat is enclosed for your consideration, and your comments and/or recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Office of Comprehensive Planning File No. _ (Please respond below and return this letter for our records). 10-5-79 Approved as submitted. Easements required (see attached plat or description below). Comments: -Southwestern Hell policy._ is, to. bury all new telephone facilities if feasible. Telephone plant is not compatible with drainage usage aboye r' a ment clear o_ drainage is required by the Telephone Company. Easement are satisfactory for Southwestern JE/se Enclosure cc: Engineering Division By _ Signed, Mgr. - OSP Engr. SUBDIVISION DATE J "ram . 1 ITEM # ti W LOCATION �1scLis1� DEVELOPER NAME: STREET ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP/� •'� �ZC TELEPHONE # 3 -/� AREA FILE # n)6"W ENGINEER A _'3 3 FEET NEW STREET ZONING 4f' 'ems PROPOSED USES - f PLANNING DISTRICT r J CENSUS TRACT / VARIANCES REQUESTED: NUMBER OF LOTS Re: Tract "A", PHASE I, YORKWOOD SUBDIVISION, in the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, and Tract "B", Phase III, YORKWOOD SUBDIVISION, in the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Since the subject property was already platted, we closed on• our purchase without anticipating any problems. This property was platted by the former owner about 5 years ago with the idea of using it either for commercial or apart- ments. It is my understanding that we could still use each tract .for apartments as platted without any problems. It does not seem equitable that we should be penalized when we are crest=ng less of a traffic problem, etc., in replatting for single family homes. I might mention that there are about 20 houses now fronting Mabelvale Cutoff. Warren Drive divides this addition and the addition to the east -- same setback for curb and gutters and sidewalks for both additions. We are only talking about lz' on this side of street -- it would cause an undue hardship for small amount added and would also put streets out of allignment with addi- tion to east. We would be agreeable to giving 10' additional right of way, maintain a 35' setback, and provide for a turn- around in the Bill of Assurance so that cars would not have to back into Mabelvale Cutoff. We ask for your.cooperation in allowing us to proceed with our development as submitted with the provision that we give 10' additional right-of-way and provide for turn arounds in the Bill of Assurance for those lots fronting Mabelvale Cutoff. City of Little Rock Office of City Hall Comprehensive Markham at Broadway Planning Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 371-4790 Ark. Power and Light Co. Ark. Louisiana Gas Co. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. L. R. Municipal Water Works L. R. Wastewater Utility System Little Rock, Arkansas Re: Gentlemen: _ L �_ 19 the Little Rock Planning Commission will consider the above referenced plat for preliminary approval. A copy of the plat is enclosed for your consideration, and your comments and/or recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Office of Comprehensive Planning File No.J (PleaseArespond belo_w and return this letter for our records). Approved as submitted. Easements required (see attached plat or description below). Comments: JE/se Enclosure cc: Engineering Division �,22. SUBDIVISION DATE 0 ITEM # }} FILE # N LOCATION DEV� LE OPER �j ENGINEER NAME: A-L J) C J-�i . i Z )A c-, STREET ADDRESS rglvlatCLL CITY/STATE/ZIP ' /` • Z-, 1�270 z- / 1A 1. 6 J TELEPHONE # 3 9:�� 17 - op?, AREA !Ln- 15 NUMBER OF LOTS 3 -3 FEET NEW STREET ZONING II! ■"• yr PROPOSED USES _... PLANNING DISTRICT CENSUS TRACT ' VARIANCES REQUESTED: ity of Little Rock Office of City Hall Comprehensive Markham at Broadway Planning Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 371-4790 Ark. Power and Light Co. Ark. Louisiana Gas Co. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. L. R. Municipal Water Works L. R. Wastewater Utility System Little Rock, Arkansas Re:�? G L� �j ��4 i Tien t 1 emen : On _ L � � oar; "1 _ _ 19�7, the Little Rock Planning Commission will consider the above referenced plat for preliminary approval. A copy of the plat is enclosed for your consideration, and your comments and/or recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, a Office of Comprehensive Planning File No. (Please re and below and return this letter for our records). Approved as submitted. Easements required (see attached plat or description below). Comments: 2/ JE/se U (I Enclosure cc: Engineering Division G. A. DENHAM MEMBER NSPE a ASCE CIVIL ENGINEER PHONE 375-7222 212 SOUTH VICTORY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 September 24, 1979 Mr. John Erickson Subdivision Administrator, Planning Division Department of Community Development City Hall Little Rock, Arkansas Re: Preliminary Plat of "New" Yorkwood Addition. Dear Mr. Erickson: It is requested that a Certificate of Preliminary Plat Approval be issued for New Yorkwood Addition, Being a Replat of Tracts "A" and "B", Yorkwood Subdivision, Pulaski County, Arkansas. The 6.73 Acre Tracts to be Replatted into 33 single-family residential Lots with no new street dedication. Attached is a check in the amount of $133.00 for review fee. Respectfully submitted, r GHQ C � G. A. Denham, CE GAD/mw cc: Mr. A. S. Rosen R CITY OF LITTLE ROCK MEMORANDUM November 8, 1979 TO: John Erickson FROM: Carroll Ball SUBJECT: New Yorkwood Addition FOLLOW UP: We share your concern for the proposed development along Mabelvale Cutoff. It appears that the original proposal of residential lots with individual drives opening onto the arterial street is not desirable. The second alternative, a common drive with restricted access except at common curb cuts, is more desirable with respect to arterial traffic; however, the lots would seem to be damaged by the paving, which would cover more than half of the front yards. We believe the first alternative with three culs-de-sac to be the preferred design. CB:nh3