1976_0614_CC_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

e Case Numbsr: 977-76 June.2, 1976 Page Th�ee square feet. The tota7 would equal 290,300 square fee-�, �the total site area is 99,320 square fee�. 1"he differe�ce is 9D,980 square feet. Express as the number of square fee� per unit (div-iding 199,320 square feet by 149) e�ua7s 1,337 square feet per unit. pne thousand s�uare �Feet per unit is a common density requ�rement for tiousing for t�e e7der7y. e. Building Neights and PJ�mber of Units. It specifies i� Sectian 7_4f0 t at aprartment structures over 3Q fee� in heigh� and con�aining mare than 24 units shal� require a specia7 use nermit. It �vas not the in�er�t of the ordinance to outla4v bui7dingsmore �han thre� stories high or ti�r�th more than 24 units, but it �vas fe�It by the Co+�nci 1, a� that tim� � 7,959) , that some con�rol over �r�ere thes� buiidings ti�rere going io be built would be appropriate. In this case �he units are to be constructed behind �he shopp�ng cen-�er wi�h the bulk of the buildi�g on the west�rly sicfe of the lot (immediate1y behind the shogping center itseif}. One wing of ihe bu�lding.ext�nds easterly ihe 7b foot setback from the eas �erly pr�p?r �y �f �i ne . I� the bu i l d��g u�ere �nre� s �o�-i es n� gh t.he regulations ti,rould a11ow the building to b� piaced within 15 �eet o-� the easterly property line. You wi71 notice too, tha� one w� ng o-� t}�e bui 1 d-i ng i s 8�J fee� from the northeriy ri ght-of-way. �f Dionr�e Street. You i�i�i notice too, �n the si�e plan tha� a iarge berm is proposed io be constructed between the building arrd I�ianne Street and that no vehlc!�lar traf�Fic -�o �his residen�ial area will be prov�d�c� from the site. In tf�e case a� the pr�posal las�. fa�7, �he propased s7x s�ory struct�re raised an objection fro�n the owner of the contiguous prapzrty ta the east l�rnich is occupied by tY�e Leben's Greenhouse facili�y. I� is hop�d tha� in this case �hat th� reduced height of the buiIding to four floors subs�ant�ally m�tiga�es the ef�ec� ofi �uilding on th� greennause op�ration. In this respec-�, the applican� ha; prepared a det�iied study with large scale drati��i�gs i ndi cati ng tf;e proposed sf�a�o;� � i n2s at vari ed paints -i n the 7ate af�ie-rnoon during the late rall an� early spring crTt-ical peri o� . T:�e analys i s �l� 11 be rev� ewed a� -�he Pl anni ng Comrr�i ssi on heari ng . Our revi e�r of thi s. da�a tvoul d i ndi cate tYrat impac-� wi 1� be roznimal ivitn the iow�r structure and the substar�tia7 satback �o t#�? bu7k o-; tRe building. 3. Su,r-;�nar _. The substant�ve dzfference betw�en the pr�vivus proposal and the curren� pro j ect i s tl�e reducti on af the bu�i 1 di �g from s i x s�tori es ta faur staries and t}�e �ncreas+e in the individua� unit size of ihe a�artmen4s. Tt wauld app�ar that the site has the desired criteria - far �evelo�r�ent as a prime hausing for th� e�dzrly location. Vehicular aceess conf�n2d to Larpentuer Aven�e and �he avaiiabitity of mass transit, it v�o�ld appear t€�� impact on th� surrounding area t�e posi�ive. 7he essence of a ti�reTl-design2d,all-bricic struc-�ur�, the carefuliy prepared la�ic�scape plan should substantially ir�prove �he aesihetic qual i iy o� the prope;^ty or� th� bacl:s i de o � th� exi s �i ng shoppi ng cen�er.