The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZ-4305-A Staff AnalysisFebruary 24, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 NAME: Edgewater Center Site Plan Review (Z -4305-A) LOCATION: The east side of Cottondale Lane just northwest of Jesse Road (2300 Cottondale Lane) OWNER/APPLICANT: Pleasant Valley, Inc./ Allison, Moses, Reddin Real Estate, Jim Nosari PROPOSAL: To construct a three story (36 feet) 15,000 square feet office building and 39 parking spaces on 3.8 acres of land that is zoned "0-2." ANALYSTS The proposed site meets ordinance requirements with regard to parking (35 spaces required). The applicant does, however, need to submit a revised site plan that clearly delineates the 25' landscape area for the full length of the Cottondale Lane boundary. In addition, dimensions should be added for the other buildings on-site as well as for the drive and the parking area. The dimension between the metal building and the proposed office should also be -shown (20' is required by ordinance). Finally, the applicant needs to final plat this property. CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS The applicant needs to get the proposed parking layout approved by the City traffic engineer. February 24, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan that includes the information as requested above; (2) file a final plat for the property; and (3) get the City traffic engineer's approval of the proposed parking area. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The staff stated that Southwestern Bell had requested an easement. The Water Works stated that on-site fire protection would be required and the Wastewater Utility stated that a main extension would also be required. The applicant agreed to comply with staff and utility recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The staff stated that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan and had filed a final plat. The staff recommended approval of the revised submittal. The Commission then voted 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff.