HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4594-A Staff AnalysisFebruary 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME:
Landmark Mobile Home Park
Phase I Site Plan Review
(Z -4594-A)
LOCATION: The West side of Chicot Road
North of Claybrook Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Continental Development and
Investment Company/Delbert
Vanlandingham
PROPOSAL:
To receive approval of a site plan that creates 75 new
mobile home sites on 9.71 acres of land that is zoned "R-2.
1. Analysis
The site plan generally conforms to the "R-7" site plan
requirements. The storage area (13,000 square feet
provided, 12,950 square feet required) and the open
space (237,583 square feet provided, 77,000 square feet
required) both exceed ordinance requirements. The
primary concern of the staff is the relationship of the
mobile homes to the single family subdivision located
to the south. The staff would like to see Lots 1-12
revised so as to reduce the number of lots to six while
allowing an angular placement which would provide a
minimum 50 feet setback from the south property line.
The staff also feels that the plan should be revised to
show termination of the southwestern most stub -street.
Finally, the ordinance requires both a 6 foot opaque
screening fence and a dense evergreen planting:
February 11, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
2. City Engineering Comments
(1) Stormwater detention shall be required on site. It
is suggested that the area for stormwater detention be
located in the vicinity of Lot 1 on the southeast
corner of the proposal and (2) The utility easement
shown at various lot corners on the plat should be
rounded instead of squared.
3. Staff Recommendation
Approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a revised site plan that includes the twelve lots on
the south property line reduced to six, provides for an
angular placement of mobile homes, allows a 50 foot
rear setback, and provides for both a 6 foot opaque
screening fence and a dense evergreen planting; (2)
termination of the southwestern most stub -street; and
(3) comply with Enginering Comments number 1 and 2.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The staff stated that the
applicant had indicated a desire to withdraw the item.
There was no further discussion.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. The Commission voted 8 ayes,
0 noes, 3 absent to withdraw the item.