Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0727-B Staff Analysis1. Meeting Date: August 12, 1986 2. Case No.: (Z-4750) 3. Name: Fletcher Meadows "Long -Form PRD" 4. Location: 6th and Fletcher 5. Developer/Engineer: City of Little Rock/Edward G. Smith and Associates 6. Existing Status: Vacant 7. Proposed Use: Single Family 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to the provision of sidewalks and minor revisions to curb on 6th Street. 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, subject to sidewalks on 5th and 6th Street and development of interior street according to Ordinance requirements for minor residential street standards. There was discussion among the Commissioners on sidewalk and street width requirements. No one objected. 10. Recommendation Forwarded With: 8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent. NAME: LOCATION DEVELOPER: City of Little Rock City Hall, Room 101 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 371-4785 Fletcher Meadows "Long -Form PRD" 6th and Fletcher ENGINEER: Edward G. Smith and Associates 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 9.69 acres NO. OF LOTS: 59 FT. NEW ST.: 1,250' ZONING: "I-311/11R-4" PROPOSED USES: Detached Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. Development Objective (1) To stimulate extensive construction of quality low-cost homes for what is believed to be a neglected and potentially profitable moderate income market in older neighborhoods of Little Rock. (2) To demonstrate existence of such a market and economic feasibility of serving it and provide an attractive addition to the neighborhood. (3) To stimulate use of large, but undervalued vacant lots in all the City's older neighborhoods. (4) To provide basic homes of quality construction, varied appearance, moderate costs, energy efficient, little maintenance and that will accommodate a variety of family sizes and needs. The units may be 1 or 2 stories. "Long -Form PRD" - Continued (5) To help check the enormous hidden cost to Little Rock of this investment in its mature residential areas. B. Proposal (1) The construction of 59 homes on 9.69 acres. (2) Variances from sidewalk requirements, lot size, street width and structure placement as shown. C. Engineering Comments Contact the Traffic Engineer for possible redesign of curb on 6th Street. This may require right-of-way dedication and minor reconstruction of 6th Street. D. Analysis This is an attempt by the City to develop affordable housing, which will be constructed by private builders under contract to the City. David Hathcock recommends that the name Parkside Drive be changed (371-4808). Sixth (6th) Street may need to be straightened out due to the reverse curves. Staff feels that sidewalks and normal residential streets should be built. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant explained that sidewalks would cut down on the amount of pavement on the smaller lots, since concrete pads for parking would also be provided on each lot. There was some discussion on constructing streets to 27 foot with 45 feet right-of-way. "Long -Form PCD" - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff reported that a waiver of sidewalks and reduced street standards were requested as a part of this application. Staff's recommendation was approval, subject to the applicant providing sidewalks and providing streets with 25 foot - 45 feet. Mr. Nathaniel Hill, Director of Human and General Services, and Mr. Joe White of Edward G. Smith and Associates represented the application. There were some interested persons present in the audience but no one objected. Mr. Hill explained that sidewalks would be provided on 5th and 6th Streets and a 25 foot street would be provided; and that there was not really a waiver request, since the interior street could qualify as a minor residential street as stated in the Ordinance. The minor residential street classification does not require sidewalks. He also explained that one of the lots on the east side of the property was to be used as a walkway to the East Little Rock Complex. Commissioner Jones questioned whether or not safety had not been a consideration when it was decided to use narrower streets. Mr. Hill explained that parking pads would be provided on each lot and the purpose was to provide housing which could be afforded by low and moderate income persons, and to address a situation which is not currently being addressed elsewhere in the City. He stated that the object was to lower the costs as much as possible, and still have a house that is affordable. The projected cost was stated as around $35,000. Commissioner Jones asked Mr. Hill what type of assurances could he provide that would indicate that the types of homes proposed would actually be those that are built. Mr. Hill explained that the City, not private developers, would design the housing and would construct a model. A developer would come in and build a particular house, but would not be at liberty to build what they wanted to. He stated that he was currently working with HUD and the State Housing Finance Agency on financing. The City expected to build the homes and get their money back. "Long -Form PRD" - Continued Commissioner Jones stated that he wanted to go on record as saying that he didn't feel the City should be involved in any type of development that didn't provide a fairly wide street for safety reasons, as well as sidewalks, even if its not required by Ordinance, regardless of whether its in the western or eastern part of town. He did not like to see the City getting into what could be substandard development. He felt that the City was trying to do something much cheaper than what the private marketplace would do; and to be able to do that a narrow road, which does not promote safety, is being placed in a development. Commissioner Jones made a motion to require sidewalks on all streets. Commissioner Schlereth asked for a rationale for requesting the City to do more than the private developer. Commissioner Jones explained that public policy was involved, therefore, the City should be doing more than just -for -profit developers, and that the City should be encouraging safety and growth and development. He felt that this was not being done and if the City was going to get into the business of developing property, that they ought to be providing an example for the rest of the private community in their own development. Commissioner Schlereth disagreed. He felt that the City was obviously the developer of last resort and would have loved to see some private developer go down on the East End and develop the project, but in reality it just wouldn't happen. He explaiend that the primary purposes for affordable housing and if costs are added, the purpose of the project is defeated. After a question by Commissioner Massie, staff stated agreement with the minor street classification. It was clarified that no waivers were being requested. Commissioner Jones then stated that it should be realized then that this was a "shoddy development." Commissioner Nicholson pointed out that the City was meeting Ordinance requirements. Commissioner Schlereth stated that he agreed that the City should have to do what every developer does, but he disagreed on requiring the City to do more, especially since they are the only developer interested in developing the property. There was no second on the motion requiring sidewalks throughout the development, so it died. A motion for approval was then made and passed to approve the application. "Long -Form PRD" - Continued The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 NAME: Fletcher Meadows - Phasing Plan and Final PUD Approval APPLICANT: City of Little Rock Department of Human and General Resources ENGINEERS: White, Daters, and Associates 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 STAFF REPORT: This is a request to approve a phasing plan for this development and to receive Commission review for the final plan/plat of an approved long -form "PRD." STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.