Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0150-A Staff Analysis?V i3-a -A 9 September 29, 1981 Item No. 13 - Windsor Court - Phase II (Site Plan Review) LOCATION: Immediately north of Hillsborough, on southwest portion of Hinson Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER (ARCHITECT: Norman Holcomb Co. John A. Castin and Associates P.O. Box 7244 Suite 120 - Plaza West Office Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72217 Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 227-7534 Phone: 6f-t- l-'�- -7 5<- AREA: 12.57 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 57 FT. OF NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "MF-6" PROPOSED USES: Condominiums CENSUS TRACT: VARIANCES REQUESTED: REQUEST: A request for site plan approval for Phases II through IV of a 40 luxury condominium project. PROPOSAL: 1. The construction of 57 residential units on 12.47 acres. 2. Staging according to the following: Phase Units II 13 - 20 III 21 - 32 IV 33 - 43 V 44 - 57 3. Development according to the following schedule of units: Unit Type No. of Units Gross Floor Area A 34 2,340 Sq. Ft. B 23 2,340 Sq. Ft. September 29, 1981 Item No. 13 - Continued 4. The -plan conforms to the bulk and area requirements of "MF-6" zoning districts as indicated: Required Provided Front Yard 25 Ft. 25' or Over Rear Yard 25 Ft. 25' Side Yard 25 Ft. See Staff Comment 5. The provision of a total building coverage of 126,200 square feet (2.89 acres). 6. The provision of open space as follows: Open Space Private - .86 Acres Common Area - 6.88 Acres SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. The minimum site area of "MF-6" Zoning Districts shall be 40 one acre. This plan complies. 2. Multifamily subdivisions abutting single family subdivisions are areas zoned for single family by use shall protect such areas from potential nuisance by providing a minimum 40' buffer strip and a 6' fence of opaque nature. The applicant has stated his intention to comply. 3. Detached buildings shall be separated by a distance of at least 101. This plan complies. 4. Proposals reviewed under "MF-6" guidelines shall have provisions for 1.6 parking spaces per unit. This plan complies. 5. Plans for landscaping and screening should be in compliance with the City's Landscaping Ordinance. The applicant has stated his intention to comply. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: (1) Construction plans for Catalina and Bonneville Drives has been approved previously; however, modified plans must be submitted to accommodate the new private drive arrangements. `4 V 0 September 29, 1981 Item No. 13 - Continued (2) New drainage plans must be submitted to include a method of handling runoff from private drives. Previously approved plans for an interceptor ditch on the west property must be incorporated in the new drainage plans. (3) The plat encroaches on the floodplain on the northeast portion of the property. The applicant's Engineer should locate the floodplain and ensure that structures are at or above the floodplain elevation. STAFF ANALYSIS: A. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS, HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY There are no major objections, nor any adverse effects anticipated, which are relative to the location or layout of the site. Staff, however, feels that the proposal would have been enhanced by the provision of more open space, greater distances between units and some variations from the linear type of design that is characteristic of the project. B. CONFORMANCE TO THE ORDINANCE The applicant has submitted a site plan that is basically in conformance with the requirements of the Ordinance, except for a few technical matters involving 'side yard setbacks on the north and the showing of building dimensions. One portion, Phase V, has been tentatively submitted at this time, due to the steep terrain. The applicant has requested that he be allowed to submit this part to the Commission in a more detailed form as the development is finalized. Staff has no opposition to this request; however, the entire site plan, including the part to be submitted in the future, should strictly adhere to the bulk and area requirements as listed on the "MF-6" Zoning Districts. Staff is also suggesting that more detail on the physical construction of the cul-de-sac on Catalina Drive be submitted, and that the entry points of the private drives be widened to 24' instead of the lesser widths shown, so that there will be adequate vehicle turning space. Because this project exceeds the three units per acre density limit, the owner has requested that six acres of the Hinson Road right-of-way, which he holds title to, be used to fulfill the required unit density. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, subject to staff's and engineering's comments. 0 lit 4.1 September 29, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (Sept. 15, 1981) Mr. Jack Castin represented the applicant. There were no objectors. Because of the insufficient guidance from the Board in relation to the density question raised by this proposal, the Commission decided to review this site plan in conjunction with its rezoning application. Thus, a motion to defer this item until the September 29th (zoning) Public Hearing was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (Sept. 29, 1981) Mr. Jack Castin represented the applicant. Where were no objectors. A motion to approve the site plan, subject to Staff's and Engineering's comments was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.