1981_0914_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I. C � 3 June 1981 PIANNING REPORT CASE NCi"ER ; APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACT I oN -9E UESTEU : i PIANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1309-91 Sam cave Ndr th of Brooks Avenue , East of Fairview Avenue Rezofting from R -1 to R -6 Preliminary Plat Approval special, Use' PemPermit t for Planned Unit Development 1. Attached is a copy of last month's report commenting on the proposed development, detail-s of which will not he repeated in this report. You will recall, that previous to the- last regular meeting of the Planning Commission, Mr. Cage indicated his intent .to apply for a rezoning for a portion-of the land fro nt ing - o n Fairview Avenue to Limited Business for the purpose of constructing an office }wilding. since that time, Mr. cave has withdrawn that proposal and now proposes' to rezone that-parcel of land to R -6 (as originally published) and to develop two, thre'e unit structures as a Planned Unit Development. 2. We have strongly urged Mr. cave to have a qualif led architect prepare a detailed plan of the proposed development so that the Planning Commission, Council, and neighbrs will have a clear understanding of the quality of design and the detail of such design presented for their consideration. 3. To date, we have not received for staff review, any such PUD design proposal, In the opinion of the staff , it' is extremely important that if the architect's proposal- and PUD development is to f�e considered seriously, a specific design is essential and is in fact required under the PUD Ordinance. The reasons for considering it at all is the fact that such a development would have a single access drive to Fairview Avenue, thereby reducing impact an the traffic, compared to the single family residential driveways that would occur if it were developed for single family purposes. Another reason Is the fact that the land across the street from Fairview Avenue (a major north -south thoroughfare) is developed for non -- residential uses. 4. Another element of the decision is, of course, that of whether the remaining undeveloped lard in this neighborhood should be developed for single family purposes or whether continued attempts should be made to redevelop the land for commercial. it would appear from the results of the last hearing that at least many of the neighbors feel that attempts to redevelop the land for commercial should be abandoned and that the residential units already there