2016-04-06_VB_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

P Ѝ ROPOSAL United Properties owns the recently platted property addressed as 934 Woodhill Drive and will Ў be constructing the Applewood Pointe of Roseville at Central Park on the property. The Џ property, located in Planning District 4, has a Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation of High А Density Residential (HR) and a Zoning Map classification of High Density Residential-1 (HDR- Б 1) District. В United Properties is seeking a variance from multi-family design standard §1004.06.H, Surface ЊЉ Parking, which requires the following: ЊЊ Surface Parking: H.Surface parking shall not be located between a principal building ЊЋ front and the abutting primary street except for drive/circulation lanes and/or ЊЌ handicapped parking spaces. Surface parking adjacent to the primary street shall occupy a ЊЍ maximum of 40% of the primary street frontage and shall be landscaped according to ЊЎ Chapter 1019, Parking and Loading Areas. ЊЏ To paraphrase this code section, only ADA-compliant parking stalls and/or drive lanes may be ЊА constructed between the front of a multi-family building and the abutting primary street (primary ЊБ street is defined as the street where the highest level of pedestrian activity is anticipated); all ЊВ other parking stalls must be behind or beside the building. Any parking stalls located in front of ЋЉ the building along the street frontage shall occupy no more than 40% of the width of the parcel ЋЊ along the street front. ЋЋ United Properties proposes to construct a mix of standard and ADA-compliant parking stalls in ЋЌ the front yard, which lies adjacent to Woodhill Drive. The proposed parking in this area would ЋЍ occupy more that 40% of the lot width and would include resident and visitor parking, as well as ЋЎ the required ADA parking. The site plan and narrative of the proposal and the need for this ЋЏ variance is included with this staff report as Attachment C. ЋА PDC ЋБ LANNING IVISION OMMENTS The Planning staff has discussed the proposed parking design and the form-based Zoning Code ЋВ requirement of §1004.06.H and has concluded that senior housing will have difficulty with a ЌЉ number of Code requirements, not just those related to Surface Parking. Due to the unique ЌЊ design of both site and building, Planning staff also believes that support for greater flexibility ЌЋ from the standards of §1004.06.H is appropriate and justified. ЌЌ VA ЌЍ ARIANCE NALYSIS Section 1009.04C of the City Code establishes a mandate that the Variance Board make five ЌЎ specific findings about a variance request as a prerequisite for approving the variance. Planning ЌЏ Division staff has reviewed the application and offers the following draft findings. ЌА a. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Although some of the ЌБ Comprehensive Plan’s goals related to creating residential neighborhoods with high-quality ЌВ design and pedestrian friendly streets have led to the creation of the zoning provision at issue ЍЉ in this request, Planning Division staff finds that the proposed development is generally ЍЊ consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use and Residential Goals and ЍЋ Policies) in that it represents high-quality design, maintains orderly transitions between high ЍЌ density to the north and west and low density to the east, includes pedestrian connectivity and ЍЍ walkability, promotes reinvestment in vacant property, provides increased housing options, ЍЎ PF16-009_RVBA_040616 Page 2 of 4