Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3462 Staff AnalysisMay 27, 1980 Item No. 5 - Z-3462 - DEFERRED Name: Avance Square Location: West Side of Monroe Street at the Intersection of "B" Street Applicant: Michael Hall Owner: James D. Avance AREA: 1.19 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R-3" Single Family PROPOSED USES: Condominiums 12 Units STAFF REPORT A. Existing Conditions The site slopes to the north and west, dropping a total of about 25' to a creek, which crosses the northwest corner. It has quite a few fairly large trees and has been kept mostly clear of underbrush. The creek drains a large surrounding area and empties into Coleman Creek to the southwest. Adjacent surrounding property is fully developed with sixteen residences which front on Monroe, "C" Street, Jackson and Brickton Place. The stem -shaped portion of the property has been platted as an extension of "B" Street, but is currently occupied by a house which will be removed. All streets, utilities and public services are available at the site. B. Development Proposal 1. To reclassify the tract now zoned as "R-3" Single Family to "PRD" Planned Residential Development District. 2. To replat the tract into a single ownership (condominium). The tract is now platted as five lots. May 27, 1980 Item No. 5 - Continued C. D. 3. To vacate portions of the existing street platted by Avance Subdivision but unopened and unimproved. "B" Street is proposed to be extended as an easement for access to the interior along the southern boundary with head -in parking on the north side and a cul-de-sac at the west end of the property. 4. Twelve condominium units are proposed to be built in two two-story six -unit structures which parallel the drive. They will each cover about 2,700 square feet. A 25' setback is proposed adjacent to all four boundary lines. The requirement of ordinance would be 40' buffering on all four sides. 5. The design is of brick and wood siding, with a southerly orientation. 6. Site coverage by buildings is 20 percent, paved area is 29 percent and open space is 51 percent. 7. There are 18 parking spaces provided - 1.5 spaces per unit. This complies with the Ordinance. Conformance to Plan Submittal Requirements 1. The statement of intent was submitted; however, it is very brief. 2. Quantitative data is in proper form, but needs to be presented on the plat/plan (now scattered through several pages). 3. A section through the site, both north and south and east and west, is presented basic but not filled out. 4. The site plan is presented on several sheets for ease of reviewing various elements (will later require combining on a single sheet. Staff Analysis The plan as a package is generally complete except in format. The various elements will require reduction to two sheets prior to signing of the approved preliminary plat/plan. These sheets would be the preliminary plat prepared as specified by the Subdivision Ordinance with the basic physical elements to be constructed. They are May 27, 1980 Item No. 5 - Continued E. identified with dimensioned locations. The second sheet would be a complete detailed site plan with all remaining elements of the plan illustrated. Our view of the proposal is that it represents an acceptable development approach on a site with significant deterrent to conventional development. There are several problem areas of significance. These are: 1. The street access is limited to a 40' wide existing right-of-way, which will require construction to street standards. 2. The main body slopes to the north and terminates in a drainageway which renders a sizable area unbuildable. 3. The narrow north -to -south dimension precludes conventional lot planning. 4. Complete exposure to 16 adjacent rear yards of single family homes requires large well-designed landscape buffers around the entire site. Engineering Considerations The Engineering Division has suggested that, if there is a chance for "B" Street to be continued through the private drive, it must be to public standard and coincide to the "B" Street centerline. They also feel that the cul-de-sac should be redesigned to better accommodate large service and emergency vehicles. F. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions: 1. Consolidation of plan elements as previously identified: (1) Complete preliminary plat, and (2) Complete physical elements plan. 2. Detailed landscape plan, screening plan and signage plan, including treatment of common areas to be provided. These plans should be submitted to the Environmental Codes Division for approval prior to signing of the preliminary plat. May 27, 1980 No. 5 - Continued 3. 25' setbacks to be thoroughly landscaped for the 6' opaque screen on all property lines. 4. Detailed sections or elevations of the building and parking to be provided. 5. - Closure of "B" Street within the main body of the tract. 6. Construction of "B" Street, from Monroe Street west for 140' and provision for turnaround at entry point of development to City specifications. 7. Eliminate cul-de-sac at west end of parking, as the radius is too small to adequately handle most cars. Provide, instead, a hammerhead turnout. 8. In the event that signage is proposed at Monroe Street, a franchise will be required from the Board of Directors. 9. -The brick fence/wall along the entry will be required to be on private property or a franchise issued by the Board of Directors. 10. Drainage easement and channel improvements to be as required by the Engineering Division. G. Subdivision Committee Recommendation The Subdivision Committee unanimously voted to recommend approval with the conditions attached by the staff. COMMISSION ACTION: Phillip Kaplan, representing the developer, was present and made a brief presentation during which he stated that twelve units were the absolute minimum for economic feasibility of the project, pointing to fixed costs which do not fluctuate in response to density changes. He also reviewed the earlier comments that he had made, and also some of the earlier comments made by opponents at a previous meeting, and tried to answer those questions. John Brummett, speaking in opposition, cited the project's basic incompatibility with the neighborhood and cited specific statements withing the ordinance regarding development criteria, including the statement that normally the minimum size for a PUD project would be two acres. He May 27, 1980 No. 5 - Continued felt that this project did not meet the development criteria established by ordinance, and that the proposal for this higher density development did not fit with the low density single family development established in the neighborhood. Also speaking in opposition, George Wimberly talked about the drainage problems in the neighborhood and called upon others in opposition to stand and be counted. There were thirty neighbors present in opposition. Mr. Kaplan rebutted some of the comments made by the opponents and introduced Jim Harney, who is the developer of the proposal, who also stated certain facts and thoughts in rebuttal to some of the previous arguments. Following this rebuttal, the opposition also asked for an opportunity to rebut some of those statements, and after a lengthly discussion and arguments on both sides back and forth, the Commission moved to approve the application with the Staff recommendations and Subdivision Committee recommendations attached. The motion was passed: 6 ayes, 1 no, 3 absent and 1 abstention (Wittenberg abstained).