Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0337-C Staff AnalysisApril 18, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: S-337-8 NAME: Foxboro Preliminary Plat, Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19 ................ LOCATION: At the north end of Foxcroft Road. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Robert J. Richardson Robert J. Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Park Road 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72202 664-0003 664-0003 AREA: 2.7 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: N/A ZONING: "R-2" Single Family PROPOSED USES: Single Family Residence PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 CENSUS TRACT: 22.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. None A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: A preliminary plat is proposed including four lots which will be a continuation of the existing Foxboro Preliminary Plat lying to the south and west. These four lots are out parcels from the original developments of Foxcroft Addition and some adjacent acreage. The preliminary plat as submitted requires no variance from ordinance standards. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The land on which these four lots are located is very steep terrain rising toward the hill mass on which is located Overlook Park Subdivision. The buildable area of the lots lies on the southwesterly side of a drainage area and a utility easement. The building sites are constricted by these easements and the requirement for a building line. The building line reflected on this plat will be at 15 feet which is permitted by the ordinance due to the existing natural grade. April 18, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. F (Continued) C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: The Public Works Department has concerns about the extension of the private roadway off the northwesterly end of Foxcroft Road. The offset in the roadway, as now proposed, could present some movement problems for a two-way drive on the narrow private roadway. It is suggested that perhaps the right-of-way could be extended across Lot 19 in a transition form to provide a smoother transition from the residential street standard on Foxcroft onto the private roadway. Public Works reports that the street plans have been approved and construction is under way on the extension of Foxcroft Road into this area. The drainage improve- ments required for that construction are also under way and have been approved. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: There are no legal issues, technical or design problems with the plat at this review. E. ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff review of this preliminary plat reveals that the plat is a proper design, given the terrain and circumstances of the property. Our only concern is that which was expressed by the Public Works Department and that has to do with the transition from Foxcroft into the private roadway, plus a suggestion that this preliminary plat not be titled Phase II of Foxboro in the fashion that it is presented because it does offer some confusion. There is continuity of lot numbering; however, this property was not included within the preliminary plat for Foxboro as previously authorized. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the preliminary plat subject to the various comments offered above. April 18, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. F (Continued) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 23, 1989) Mr. Bob Richardson, the owner and engineer on this project, was present and offered comments on the Staff analysis. He indicated that he would be willing to work with the Public Works Department toward developing several possible schemes to address their concerns as to the transition of the Foxcroft Road right-of-way into the private drive. Planning Staff offered its comment concerning the title on the plat for discussion. Mr. Richardson decided, after a brief discussion, that he would simply re -title the plats so that they would not be identified by phase numbers but that all of the development would be called Foxboro Subdivison by lot numbers. There were no other issues for discussion attendant to this preliminary plat. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 4, 1989) The Planning Staff reported to the Commission that Mr. Bob Richardson, the applicant, had failed to mail the notices to the adjacent owners as required, by the Bylaws within the scheduled time. Mr. Richardson, by letter, has requested that this item be rescheduled for April 18, 1989 in order to permit -the appropriate notice to be delivered. The Staff recommended that this action be taken. The Commission determined that this,matter should be placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent. PLANNING STAFF COMMENT AND UPDATE: The Planning Staff and City Engineer's office have reviewed a revised preliminary plat for the four lots in question. The engineer, Mr. Richardson, has submitted the revised plan including Lots 16, 17 and 18, and deleting the northernmost Lot 19. Mr. Richardson's proposal is viewed by the Public Works Department as retaining a problem with respect to redesign of the intersection of the two streets and provision for access to the area to the north. The Staff recommendation on this matter would be that the Planning Commission accept a two -lot preliminary plat including Lots 16 and 17 at this time, and defer both Lots 18 and 19 until the Planning Commission meeting on May 16, 1989. The deferral would permit sufficient time for the applicant to resolve the design of the intersection or street turning movement with the City Engineer's office. April 18, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. F (Continued) Mr. Richardson, the engineer on the project as well as the developer, offered concerns about the Staff recommendation. He stated that it was his intent to gain approval of at least three lots that he might pursue for development purposes at this time. He identified the plat which will be discussed by the Commission on May 16 as one which will deal with several issues. These issues he feels may complicate the situation to the extent that he might withdraw it entirely. He pressed for Commission consideration of the three lot approval. The Planning Commission discussed the matter briefly. It was determined that the three -lot format would be accepted and that it was appropriate for this item to be placed upon the consent agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent.