Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3510-A Staff Analysis-A November 29, 1994 FILE NO.: 2-3510-A NAME: VILLAGE AT FOXCROFT WOODS -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the west side of Foxcroft Rd., approximately 0.15 mile north of Cantrell Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• FOXCROFT VILLAGE PARTNERSHIP SAMUEL L. DAVIS WILLIAM R. LILE S. DAVIS CONSULTING, INC. #3 West Palisades 5301 West 8th. Street Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR 72204 664-4971 664-0324 AREA: 2.3 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 21 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: O-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 CENSUS TRACT: 22.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a "PRD in order to develop a 2'.3 acre site for 21 detached townhomes on "substandard" lots ranging in size from 33 feet"in width to 36 feet to one at 43 feet. Each of the townhomes is to be 2 -levels, containing a minimum of 1,750' square feet. Each townhome is to have a garage, patios and decks at the rear yard, and a fenced courtyard at the front. The access to the site is by way of an existing internal driveway which is to be shared with the Foxcroft Woods Condominiums. No variances are proposed. A. PROPOSALIREOUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the establishment of a PRD for the "Village at Foxcroft Woods" townhomes. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is on land which was formerly part of the Foxcroft Woods Condominiums, but the Resolution Trust Corp. has divided the property and sold off the portion being developed as the Village at Foxcroft Woods. There is a private internal driveway which separates the two developments, and the property line between the two is along FILE NO.: Z -3510-A (Continued) the centerline of the private drive. The site is level and cleared of timber and vegetation. The existing zoning of the tract is 0-2; the existing Foxcroft Woods Condominiums was approved as a Conditional Use in the 0-2 zoned site. The zoning to the south, then, is the 0-2 tract on which Foxcroft Woods Condominiums is situated. To the north is R-2 and R-4 land, with the Little Rock Racquet Club being located in the R-2 area. To the west is an MF -18 tract. Across Foxcroft Rd. is an R-5 area. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) the easements which are shown do not correspond to the easement locations shown on the previous plat; 2) the detention area is shown to be on the ARKLA gas easement, and this condition will not be permitted; 3) information on the total available access is to be shown on the plan, in lieu of only the one curb and one-half of the driveway which is shown; 4) the stormwater detention and the boundary survey requirements will be required; 5) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required before construction; and, 6) the existing topographic information is to be shown. Water Works comments that a water main extension will be required to serve the development. Wastewater comments that there is an existing sewer main on the site, and its location conflicts with the proposed layout. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 15 foot easement will be required along the north and west boundary of the site. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. comments that there is an existing 35 foot easement paralleling the north property line which is not shown on the plat. The easement was granted in 1965, and is centered on an existing gas main. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 10 foot easement along the north and west boundary of the site. The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment. Landscape review has no comment on this item. D. ISSUESILEGALITECHNICALI_bESIGN: The proposed development is on land which was included as part of a larger tract, and the parcel was divided from the larger tract in a foreclosure and subsequent sale by the 2 FILE NO_: Z -3510-A- (Continued) Resolution Trust Corp. The proposed development is on land which was included as part of a horizontal property regime, and is covered by a Bill of Assurance for that development. The private driveway shown along the south and east boundary of the site is one-half of the driveway which serves the condominiums. The property line which is shown is at the centerline of the driveway. To meet our ordinance requirements, the entire site needs to be included in a replat, so that the new tract is properly divided from the whole tract, and there needs to be a common driveway access agreement platted. The originally approved site development plan for the entire tract needs to be amended. There are legal issues involving the original horizontal property owners' regime, which are outside the scope of the City's regulations, but which must be addressed by the applicant and the condominium property owners. The legal description on the proposed final plat shows the location as being in T -1-N; it should be T -2-N. Standard residential lots, as defined in the Zoning Ordinance, are: a lot with a minimum frontage of 60 feet, a minimum depth of 100 feet, and an area of at least 7,000 square feet (in the R-2 zoning district); a lot with a minimum frontage of 50 feet, a minimum depth of 100 feet, and an area of at least 7,000 square feet (in the R-3 zoning district); or, a lot with a minimum frontage of 70 feet, a minimum depth of 100 feet, and an area of at least 7,000 square feet (in the R-4 zoning district). The proposal is for lots with frontages ranging in widths of 33 feet to 43 feet, with lot areas ranging from 4,125 square feet to 5,375 square feet. (The lot depth and area include the area along the front of the lots which is occupied by the private drive.) The PRD process is the means whereby townhome, garden home, and "zero lot line" developments can be accomplished on lots which are less than the required minimum size. No phasing plan has been proposed, so it is assumed that the entire development will be built at one time. If this is not the case, the applicant needs to specify a time frame during which the development will take place. The proposal to extend driveways to garages of each townhome from the head -in parking area along the private common driveway is not acceptable. There must be a division of the driveway areas from the head -in parking areas. The Planning staff reports that the request is in the West Little Rock Planning District, and the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Multi -Family" uses. There are, then, no land use issues, and the proposed use is in conformance with the Plan. 3 FILE NO.: Z -3510-A (Continue E. ANALYSIS: The proposed use is in conformance with the Land Use Plan, and the basic concept of the proposal is acceptable. There are, however, serious issues to be resolved. The issue of a proper replatting of the tract with the proper creation of two lots must be resolved. The presence of easements which are not shown on the plat, and which will cause the need for redesign, presents problems. The amending of the Foxcroft Woods Condominiums Bill of Assurance and the provision of an access easement with a provision for maintenance of the common access driveway needs to be addressed. If these issues can be dealt with, then the project can be approved. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PRD, subject to the applicant addressing the cited issues, and remedying the deficiencies. SUBDIVT ION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Mr. Bill Lile, the applicant, and Mr. Sam Davis, the project engineer, were present. Mr. Davis reviewed with staff and the Committee members the various comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Lile explained that he had acquired the property from the Resolution Trust Corp., and that the Foxcroft Woods Condominiums owners supported his proposal. Staff responded that there are legal issues to be resolved, which, if the Condominiums owners are agreeable, can be accomplished. Mr. Davis indicated that he would verify the location of the easements which the plat and site plan did not indicate, and would make the needed changes in the site design. The Committee forwarded the request to the fill Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff presented the request, and related that the property proposed for the PRD and owned by the applicant had been divided from the overall tract through a sale by the Resolution Trust Corporation. Staff stated that, although the federal government is not subject to the City's subdivision regulations, and the City cannot restrict the R.T.C. in the subdivision of the tract and its sale to a buyer, the City can, however, restrict the development of the land and enforce the subdivision regulations on the buyer. Staff reported that the applicant would have to incorporate the overall tract in a re -plat, and properly divide the tract into lots containing the previously developed portion and the current development. Staff also reported that there are remaining site plan issues to be resolved. 4 FILE NO.: Z -3510-A Continued Mr. Sam Davis, the project engineer, representing the developer, indicated that all deficiencies and staff concerns would be addressed and that the Foxcroft Woods Condominiums would be included in a re -plat and an amended Bill of Assurance. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles reported that the approval of the PRD would have to be made subject to the Board of Directors passing the ordinance remedying the PUD ordinance to_ comply with the November 14, 1994 Supreme Court decision which made the approval of single -use PUD's suspect. A motion was made and seconded to approve the PRD, subject to the Board of Directors approving an amendment to the PUD ordinance allowing single -use PUD's. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 5