Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0120 Staff Analysisy lJ I April 29, 1980 Item No. 9 - Z-3462 Name: Avance Square Location- West Side of Monroe Street at the Intersection of "B" Street Applicant: Michael Hall James D. Avance Owner: AREA: 1.19 Acres N0. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW STREET: 0 ZONING• "R-3" Single Family PROPOSED USES: 12nUnitsiums STAFF REPORT A. Existing Conditions The site slopes to the north and west, dropping a total of about 25' to acreek, fewwhich fairlycrosses largethe treesthweandshas corner. It has quite a 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 thplanned Residentaaltract now zonesDevelopmentle Family to "PRD" District. 2. To replat the tract into a single ownership five (condominium). The tract is now platted lots. April 29, 1980 J�Item No. 9 - Continued 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. 4W C. 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. D. 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 14V I April 29, 1980 Item No. 9 - Continued 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. E. 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. I April 29, 1980 No. 9 - Continued 3. 25' setbacks to be thoroughly landscaped for the 6' opaque screen on all property lines. 4. Detaile� 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 1140 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° The applicant, represented by Philip Kaplan, was present and eighteen objectors were present. Mr. Kaplan presented a slide presentation depicting the neighborhood and the proposed type of construction. He discussed the controls that were available under the planned unit development concept. He discussed the compatibility of this plan with the neighborhood, and tried to address concerns that the neighborhood residents had presented in earlier discussions. The opponents, led by George Wimberly, presented petitions containing 64 signatures of area residents in opposition to the proposed planned unit development. The petitioner, �/ Mr. Wimberly, and several other neighbors who did speak April 29, 1980 r Item No. 9 - Continued addressed concerns about the drainage ditch to the rear of the property, the nature of the traffic problems that exist in the area and their having taken offense at the slide presentation which, in their view, had tended to run down the quality of the neighborhood. They also stated that there were a number of other objectors who were elderly residents of the neighborhood, who simply could not make it to the meeting and wanted the Planning Commission to recognize the fact that the people who were present were only the "tip of the iceburg" relative to the neighborhood opposition. Mr. Kaplan offered a rebuttal to the statements made by the opponents, and essentially restated what was proposed, the controls that were available and told a little bit about the history of how this development had come about and the fact that they had worked with staff in the City departments in arriving at this proposal, which included at one point - the reduction of the number of units requested from 24 to 12. A lengthy discussion of many of the issues ensued. After the discussion, the motion was made to approve the application with the ten conditions listed in the Staff Recommendation and the Subdivision Committee Recommendation, and the motion failed on a vote of 5 ayes, 4 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention. George Wittenberg abstained, citing conflict of interest. The matter was deferred to the May Planning Commission meeting.