Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0521-F Staff AnalysisSUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: Oxford Valley "Short -Form" "PRD" (Z-4965) LOCATION: South end of. Oxford Valley Drive M V17VT P1DDD . T'i 7,7n TA7r. PD . General Properties, Inc. Thomas Engineering Company c/o Thomas Engineering 3810 Lookout Road North Little Rock, AR Phone: 753-4463 AREA: 5 acres ZONING: "R-2" 101bn1nr%0Wn rreve. NO. OF LOTS: 23 FT. NEW STREET: 0 Single Family A. Proposal/Request: 1. To plat five acres in the 23 lots for single family development according to the "affordable housing" concept. 2. Lots will be 50 to 60 feet wide. Structures will be 800 sq. ft. to 1,200 sq. ft. 3. Each unit will have a single -car driveway and garage or a two -car parking pad. 4. Construction will begin immediately after final plat approval and will be sold out within a year. B. Existing Conditions: This area is located at the eastern edge of a single family subdivision with lots consisting of 65 feet to 75 feet. A mobile home subdivision abuts on the north. SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued C. Issues/Discussions/Legal/Technical/Design: 1. Transition area should be provided between smallest proposed lots and existing platted lots. Remove Lots 6-8 and Lots 28-32 from the plat boundary. Lots 4, 5 and 33-36 should have homes consisting of larger structures, so that the smaller lots would not be directly across the street from existing larger ones and negatively impact their value. 2. Provide. D. Engineering Comments: None. E. Staff Recommendation: Reserve, until comments addressed. Staff has received many calls and some letters of opposition regarding the small home nature of this proposal in an area of homes with 1,200 sq. ft. or more. F. Subdivision Committee Review: The Committee felt very strongly that the Applicant should show plans for the remainder of the property, since the intention is to continue this type of development throughout the remainder of the unplatted land. He was asked to provide a revised plan for the entire ownership, showing sidewalks throughout the whole Subdivision. SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The application was represented Mr. Larry Shelton of. Premiere Homes. Approximately 14 persons were present in opposition. A petition with 200 names in opposition was submitted. Staff_ recommended the item be approved, provided the applicant presented some plan for the remainder of the ownership, and identifies the recreation area, and plans for the transition area between the existing and proposed development. Mr. Shelton felt that affordable housing is needed in Little Rock and that southwest Little Rock is the best choice due to the value of the property. He felt that affordable home developers/builders were "locked in" as to where they could go to do such development since land was difficult to find in the Little Rock area for such development. His goal was to build a few units at this time to test the market. There was discussion of providing a plan for all of the ownership and whether or not the smaller lot subdivision was compatible with the existing developments in the area. It was decided that a precedent for considering compatibility had been established with the denial of a single family subdivision on Highway 10 that met all the technical requirements. The Commission asked that the applicant consider committing to a minimum square footage. There was concern over the proposal of 800 square foot houses in an area where many homes were composed of 1,200 square feet. He would not commit to a minimum house size because he felt that a larger house did not mean a better physical design. He did agree to consider the request. The specific concerns of the staff_ and Commission that the applicant was asked to resolve included: (1) considering a minimum house size that is over 800 square feet; (2) open space allocation of entire ownership; (3) submit overall development plan on entire ownership; (4) defined "affordable housing" by specifying lot yield; (5) deal with compatibility question through transition zone; and (6) work with the neighborhood. A motion for deferral until March 8 was made and passed, subject to the concerns stated above. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes., and 1 absent. SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Due to a request by the applicant, the item was deferred to the May 31st agenda. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. C May 31, 1988 Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION_ ACTION: (May 31, 1988) A motion for withdrawal, as requested by the applicant, was made and passed by 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.