HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0285-J Staff AnalysisJuly 30, 1991
ITEM NO.. � FILE NO.: S-285--H
NAME: The Ranch - Replat of Tract "M"
LOCATION: NE Corner - Ranch Blvd. and Ranch Drive
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
RANCH PROPERTIES, INC. WHITE-DATERS
900 South Shackleford 401 Victory
Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201
Little Rock, AR 72211 374-1666
224-9600
AREA: 13.74 Ac. NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: None
ZONING: MF-18 PROPOSED USES:
PLANNING DISTRICT: 20
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. PROPOSALLREOUEST:
Day Care, and Apartments
This owner proposes to replat Tract "M" to accommodate the
day care center operation which is also the subject of a
Conditional Use Permit on this agenda (Item #9).
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The existing terrain is intact with the natural foliage.
There are street construction projects adjacent to the
replat.
C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
The 50 foot strip between lots 1 and 2 appears to be
intended as a future street. Provide 25 feet radius on
adjacent lot corners in anticipation. Proposed child care
center on Lot 1 should take access off future side street.
Address status of improvements to Ranch Blvd. frontage.
Provide proposed street names for unnamed streets in
adjacent development.
1
July 30, 1991
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-285=H
D. ISSUESILEGALITECHNICALI_DESIGN:
These issues will be more fully developed in the C.U.P.
element of this development proposal which is item No. 9 on
this agenda. The replat is basically in good form with
resolution of the following items required.
Corner radius should be indicated.
Building lines are required on all street frontages.
Name all streets on approved preliminary plat.
E. ANALYSIS•
The Planning Staff finds no serious fault with this replat
subject, however, to resolving items pointed out in item D
above and approval of the C.U.P. application.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval subject to the comments above and
approval of the C.U.P.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (JULY 18, 1991)
Mr. J. White and Mr. Ed Willis were present. Mr. Willis stated
that a 50 foot space between the day care and tract "H" was never
intended to be used for the road. He indicated that it may be
used as a buffer between the day care and any other use.
Mr. Wood from the Planning Staff stated that the staff's concerns
were about too many driveways along Ranch Boulevard that would
create traffic congestion, and that it is now time to prevent
this. There being no further items for discussion, the matter
was forwarded to the full Commission for resolution.
2
July 30, 1991-
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 Continued FILE NO.: 5-285-H
D. ISSUESILEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
These issues will be more fully developed in the C.U.P.
element of this development proposal which is item No. 7 on
this agenda. The replat is basically in good form with
resolution of the following items required.
Corner radius should be indicated.
Building lines are required on all street frontages.
Name all streets on approved preliminary plat.
E. ANALYSIS•
The Planning Staff finds no serious fault with this replat
subject, however, to resolving items pointed out in item D
above and approval of the C.U.P. application.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval subject to the comments above and
approval of the C.U.P.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (JULY 18, 1991)
Mr. J. White and Mr. Ed Willis were present. Mr. Willis stated
that a 50 foot space between the day care and tract "H" was never
intended to be used for the road. He indicated that it may be
used as a buffer between the day care and any other use.
Mr. Wood from the Planning Staff stated that the staff's concerns
were about too many driveways along Ranch Boulevard that would
create traffic congestion, and that it is now time to prevent
this. There being no further items for discussion, the matter
was forwarded to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 30, 1991)
The applicant, Mr. Willis, was in attendance with his engineer,
Mr. J. White from White-Daters, Inc. The Planning Staff reported
that this item should be placed on the Consent Agenda for
approval because there were no remaining issues to be resolved.
After a brief discussion, the Commission determined it
appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for
approval. A motion was made to that effect and passed by a
vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 4 absent.
2