Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4786 Staff AnalysisNAME: T.OrATTON DEVELOPER: Holiday Management 471 High, S.E. Salem, Oregon 97308 Phone: 399-1090 Little Rock Retirement Residence "PRD" Lying on the south of Cantrell Road along the east side of Andover Drive ENGINEF,R: Clifford Curry, Architect 471 High, S.E. Salem, Oregon 97308 Phone: 399-1080 REQUEST: To develop 110 apartment suites in a single Buil g on one lot. AREA: 2.64 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "MF -18" and "PRD" A. Existing Conditions The lot has some moderate to steep grade which presents an access problem for the driveway. The site is covered with natural foliage. B. Development Proposal To construct 110 suites with a mix of 90 percent one -bedroom and 10,percent two-bedroom. The building will vary in height but will be one-story on the entry face and three plus stories on the street side. The residents are in an age range from the upper 70's to the 80's with 80 percent of the rooms being one occupant. It is expected that fewer than 25 percent of the residents will own cars. Transportation will be on-call on the site through utilization of vans. Parking for 48 cars will be provided on site. Z-4786/741- Continued There will be 15 to 18 staff persons with six or seven on the site at any one time, including the resident manager. There will be no on-site permanent medical care or facility. Although a visiting nurse may on occasion visit the site. In addition, there will be a common dining room and kitchen facility. The individual rooms will not have this convenience. Ancillary activities are beauty shop, lounge, exercise room, TV room, and crafts roo1ne - C. Engineering Comments (1) More dimensions are needed on the drives and access. (2) Need grade reflected on the access drive. (3) Question absence of service entrance and dumpster site. D. Analysis The staff view is that the design issues are simple to deal with and the issue of concern will be the perceived high density (41.6 per acre). The Watergate Apartment complex to the east is approximately 24 units per acre and the Andover Square Condominium project somewhat beneath 12 per acre. We feel that the type of use in this proposal offsets that density concern because of the small unit size and limited number of occupants. The reduction in ground coverage by off-street parking also is a plus. The only concern we feel that is valid is the conversion possibility if the development fails after construction is complete. The City could be presented with a truly higher density use proposal with parking and other factors being deficient. Z-4786/741- Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "PRD" as filed subject to resolving or furnishing the following: (1) location of the trash pickup, (2) provision of a clear statement of employee and/or occupant parking numbers, (3) design information on the entrance, (4) elevations more clearly depicting the east facade of the building facing Watergate Apartments, (5) comply with Landscaping Ordinance, (6) comply with Sign Code requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (12-29-86) The applicant was present and responded to staff and committee comments. He stated that he could address the design issues and respond by January 13. He was questioned about possibly holding a neighborhood meeting especially with the occupants of Andover Square. He indicated that he would pursue such a meeting and attempt to avert organized objection by providing good information. The Engineering staff requested more information on detention and grades on the drives. A question was raised concerning the service entrance and access to the building and lot for deliveries. Water: Provide plan for means of on-site fire protection through use of mains, hydrants, and/or sprinkler system. Sewer: A sewer main extension is required. Also, a capacity contribution analysis is required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff recommended approval, subject to the applicant producing evidence that indicates sufficient parking for the proposed density and employees. The applicant, Mr. Clifford Curry, represented the proposal. He stated that they managed elderly rental developments. He stated that it would be unlike an apartment because all services, including a van for transport are provided. He stated that the Z-4786/741- Continued average tenant is about 80 years old and is usually one that has problems getting around. He pointed out that the service or delivery would be adjacent to the main entry and that there would be no complete kitchens in the units. The Commission had a problem with the lack of parking spaces. There was discussion on the revision of more parking spaces. It was pointed out that the PUD allowed flexibility; however, one Commissioner felt that other elderly projects were required to provide the required amount of parking, so this one should also. The applicant felt that the required amount of parking was not needed due to the age of the tenants, which was around 80, and the van that would be used for transport. Mr. Billy Herd, consulting engineer for the proposal, felt that seven more spaces could be provided, but significant work on the plan was still required to change the entrance and provide the parking. A motion for deferral until February 24 was made and passed, so that the applicant could pursue adding more land to the project, providing seven more parking spaces, and revising the entrance drive. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent, and 1 abstention (Jones abstained). SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He submitted a revised plan that addressed the concerns of the Commission. Specific revisions included: (1) Lengthening of driveway and grade reduced to 9.5 percent; (2) Parking increased to 56 spaces with 4-15 joint handicapped spaces; (3) Parking lot grade reduced to 4-5 percent; (4) Landscaping; (5) Showing ponds for stormwater detention. Z-4786/741-_ Continued_---- __y__._ ,____ Utility_Comments - On-site fire protection may be required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made and passed for approval of the revised plan, subject to location of the dumpsters. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent,and 1 abstention (Jones) . "�' 1. Name: Little Rock Retirement Residence Short -Form 770 -Ir (Z-4786) 2. Location: Lying on the south of Cantrell Road, along the east side of Andover Drive 3. Ap 1p icant/Developer: Burrow/Furreigh Realty/Holiday Management - Salem, Oregon 4. Architect: Clifford Curry 5. Existing Zoning: "MF-18"/PUD 6. Proposed Zoning: "PRD" 7. �Request: To develop 110 apartment suites in a single wilding on one lot of 2.64 acres. 8. Planning Commission Action: The item went through Commission review twice. It was deferred the first time due to inadequate parking spaces. Staff had originally supported the applicant's argument that the 48 spaces were adequate due to the older than average age of the residents, a van to be used for transport, and the applicant's experience with other similar development where the reduced amount of parking spaces was more than enough. Staff later concurred with the Committee's request for the required 56 spaces. The applicant revised the plan to address some design issues noted by the staff. A motion for approval of the revised plan was made and passed subject to location of the dumpsters. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 1 abstention (Jones).