Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3965 Staff Analysis$ March 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - File No. 315 NAME_: Lehigh "PRD" LOCATION: NW Corner of Lehigh Court and � Lehigh Drive nest of Barrow Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Gaylon Ware Edward G. Smith and Associates 10A Lehigh Court 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72204 Little Rock, AR Phone: 7.24-8083 Phone: ,374-1666 AREA: .877.9 acres NO. OF LOTS: 8 FT. OF,NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-4" (Existing) "PRD" (Proposed) PROPOSED USES: Single Family REQUEST: To reclassify an area from "R-4" to "PRD." I. DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND PHILOSOPHY (A) Provision of detached affordable housing on smaller than usual lots to accommodate moderate income households. (B) Provision of smaller units for the first time homeowner and single home families. II. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS (A) Parcel Size - -- - _ - _ _ .8779 acres (B) Existing Zoning - - - -- " R- 4 11 (C) Development Scheme Unit Type No. of Units Size A 5 980 sq. ft. Amenities - One Car Garage B 3 1000 sq. ft. Two Car Garage March 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item_ No. 5 - Continued (D) Building Coverage - - - _ Not Provided (E) Open Space - - - - - - - - - - Not Provided (F) Parking - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 spaces (G) Other: (1) Private ownership, free and clear of any common areas. III. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS None. IV. ANALYSIS This recently constructedwhich site is in an area in consists duplexes. All street of of fairly improvements are in place. The owner has indicated �hethis fact thatest outfor of thestwepve proposal is prompters by living units currently on Lehigh Court, five are occupied by single households. He would like to provide detached units on smaller duplex --like lots. The only way to accomplish this was through the PUD process, where both the zoning and the subdivision aspects could be comprehensively viewed; and he would be allowed the flexibility necessary for platting these smaller lots. The development statement also includes the intent to amend the Bill of Assurance in order to allow the smaller lots and square footage. Staff has no problems with the concept submitted since it should provide some much needed affordable housing. We would only like to suggest that the plan be revised so as to provide "paired" driveways, to allow more space for parking on-site and to lessen the amount of curb cuts along the Lehigh Court frontage. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, subject to comments made. March 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued VI. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE _RECOMMENDATION: The Committee voted to approve the item, subject to the submission of a revised plan limiting the amount of curb cuts and a provision in the Bill of Assurance for the zero lot -line units on Lots 1 and 2. The motion passed by a vote of: 2 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made and passed in conformance with the Subdivision Committee's recommendation of approval, subject to the submission of a revised plan limiting the amount of curb cuts and a provision in the Bill of Assurance for the zero lot .line units on Lots 1 and 2. The motion passed by a vote 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2. absent.