pf_03224 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DRAFT APRIL 11 ROSELA WN VILLAGE A MIXED USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR THE INTERSECTION OF LEXINGTON AND ROSELA WN AVENUES Amendments for Final Plan Approval At their March 4, meeting the City Council confirmed the appropriateness and compatibility of the proposed land use of the site by approving the rezoning of the site for the proposed land uses, and the general division of the site, office use on the west half, specialized multifamily residential on the east half, and approved the concept plan for these uses, with the request that prior to final plan approval alternatives plans to provide additional setback for Roselawn including bringing the "pond forward" on the residential side, and providing additional setback from Roselawn and Lexington for the office building be developed and tested. These possible alternatives were illustrated by the three "Birds Eye Perspectives" prepared by the City staff dated March 6, 2002, and by alternatives to the original setbacks presented and discussed by the developers at the meeting. A. Apartment Building Alternatives The alternative locations for the apartment building are illustrated by the seven sheets identified as "Roselawn Village, 3/13/02, Distyle Design, P.C. 01.10.13. Plan A. (Current Site Plan) provides a 15 ft. setback from Roselawn. Plan B. (Compromise Plan) shows a 30 ft setback from Roselawn. Plan C. (Opposite Plan) places the pond forward and respects the required 30 ft setback along the rear property line. Plan D (Retaining Wall Plan) provides a 27 ft. setback from Roselawn. As we tested the alternatives we found that we could not maintain the required capacity of the pond by simply increasing the pond's depth to offset reduction in surface area by increasing the pond's depth as the critical pond depth constraints are set and fixed by the depth of the pipes in the City's storm sewer system they must connect with. This meant that as the pond changed shape it relocated and displaced our parking area. The number of parking spaces provided in each alternative are: A. 18 spaces provided, 4 additional proven B. 18 spaces provided C. 13 spaces provided D. 18 spaces provided The parking in Plans Band C also assumed the building would be permitted to slightly encroach into the City's sewer easement on the east side of the building. As we investigated this we found the sanitary sewer line protected by the easement was deeper than expected, and therefore even a slight encroachment would be practical or responsible. Absent the ability to shift the building 4 feet, the geometry of the site reduces the possible parking in Plan B to 12 spaces and Plan C to 5