Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1982/02/02 Item 5, 5aCOUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 5 , 5a Meeting Date 2/2/82 ITEM SUBMI A.I BACKGROUND -E~ Public hearing - Consideration of conditional use permit application PCC-82-4 for construction of 48 unit senior citizen project at the northwest corner of Fifth Avenue and Park Way - Bordi, Sutherland and Palumbo Resolution /07~p ~ Approving PCC-82-4 for 48 unit senior citizen project at Fifth Avenue and Park Way BY: Director of Planning (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) ,1. The applicant is seeking permission to construct a 48 unit senior ho sing project on 0.8 acres (34,894 sq. ft.) located at the northwest corner of Fifth Avenue and Park Way in the R-3 zone. _ 2. This item which was filed with the Planning Department in September 19 1 was previously considered by the Planning Commission on October 14, 19 1. The Commission voted 3-3, with one member absent, on a motion to ap rove the project. Rather than continue the item until such time as a full Co fission was present, it was the consensus of the Commission that the matter be forwarded to the City Council. The vote of the Commission constituted a de ial of the request, thereby requiring a 4/5 vote by the Council to approve th application. 3. On November 24, 1981 the City Council, with only four members sitting to the recent election, took no action and, at the request of the icant, referred the item back to the Planning Commission for nsideration. 4. On October 14, 1981 the Planning Commission adopted the Negative De laration issued on IS-82-1, which is herewith forwarded for Council ad ption. B. RECOMMENDATION Concur with Planning Commission recommendation. C. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On January 13, 1982 the Commission by a vote of 4 to 3 recommended that th application be approved in accordance with Resolution PCC-82-4. D. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use: - /~' 7~/ Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79) Page 2, Item 5, 5a Meeting Date 2/2/82 North R-3 Single family dwellings and three unit condominium project South R-3 Single family dwellings East R-3 Single family dwellings, apartments and church West R-3 Apartments (128 units on 2.41 acres) 2. Existing site characteristics. a. The subject property is comprised of five relatively level pa cels, four of which are vacant, each measuring approximately 61' X 121'. Th fifth parcel located at the northwest corner of Fifth and Park Way, me sures 57' X 95' and is developed with a single family dwelling. There are for large trees located within the parkway along Fifth Avenue, which will re ain. b. There is an existing concrete lined channel located along the we terly boundary line of the project. The channel, which flows from the no theast to the south toward Park Way, has a flap gate system which allows a po tion of the site to the west to drain. Since the westerly site's elevation is slightly lower than the elevation of a 100 year storm, the gate is closed du ing high water flows, causing water to pond behind the gates until the wa er in the channel drops and the gates open, releasing the ponded water. 3. Proposed development. a. The proposed project involves the development of a three story, 48 unit rental or condominium complex for senior citizens. To make room for th project, the existing single family dwelling at the corner will be removed an the majority of the open concrete lined channel will be covered with co Crete panels (only the most northerly 25' will not be covered). The bu lding will be 16 feet from the property line along Fifth Avenue, with some pr jections to within 10 feet, and 15 feet from Park Way. The first floor wi 1 have 10 units located on the east side of the building nearest Fifth Av nue, and a recreation room, restrooms, kitchen, laundry, utility room and 14 carports on the west side of the building. The other two stories will each ha e 19 units. Each unit will have one bedroom and a floor area of 530 square fe t, composed of a living room, kitchen, one bathroom, plus a 60 sq. ft. pa io or balcony, as well a private storage space off the patio or balcony. b. Access to the units will be from the interior corridors on all fl ors running through the center of the building. There will be an elevator an an interior stairway in the middle of the building and exterior stairways on the north and south ends. Entries are also provided on both sides of the bu lding in the middle and at each end. ofl c. Besides the 14 carports there will be 26 open parking spaces sated on the west side of the project over the covered channel for a total 40 onsite parking spaces. Access to the parking will be provided by a one }/676/ Page 3, Item Meeting Date 2 82 system with cars entering from Fifth Avenue and exiting onto Park Way. rity gates and fencing will be provided around the parking and the rior stairways. The security gates will be card actuated. d. The building will be of contemporary design with a shake roof, be ge stucco and simulated brick veneer exteriors with dark brown trim and ba conies. The patios on the ground floor will be enclosed by a wall, faced wi h simulated brick veneer. 4. Exceptions to the code. The project as designed will require the granting of various exceptions to requirements of the Municipal Code. The exceptions are as follows: a. Reduction in the required setback along Fifth Avenue from 25 feet to 10 feet; b. Reduction in required offstreet parking from 48 spaces to 40 spaces (a ratio of one space per 1.2 units); and c. Increase in density from 32 units per acre to 60 units per acre. 5. Previous variance. The four vacant parcels which make up the bulk of the subject property co tain a total of .67 acres and were previously part of the 128 unit ap rtment complex to the west. The apartment project, when first developed in 19 5, contained 3.1 acres and would have been permitted a maximum of 134 units (4 units per acre). However, the 128 units were constructed on the westerly 2. acres (a density of 53 units per acre) and the easterly 0.67 acre was left va ant and the natural drainage channel unimproved. In January, 1980 the P1 nning Commission approved a variance (PCV-80-6) to allow the 0.67 acre to be separated from the apartment complex and divided into four lots with the co dition that only single family dwellings could be built on the lots. The fi al map on the subdivision (Parkway Place) has since been filed and recorded as have the CC&R's restricting the use of the four lots to single family 6. Design Review Committee. On September 17, 1981 the Design Review Committee approved the proposed pl ns subject to a number of conditions. D. ANALYSIS 1. Municipal Code. This application was filed under Section 19.58.390 of the zoning or finance, which requires City Council as well as Planning Commission approval an authorizes those bodies to approve projects which do not conform to the /C~GI Page 4, Item 5, 5a Meeting Date 2/2/82 no mal regulations of the zoning ordinance pertaining to setbacks, minimum un t size, offstreet parking, density, etc. These exceptions are authorized in recognition that the needs of the senior citizens may be different from th se of other groups and in order to encourage development of housing for se iors. 2. Appropriateness of the location. From the standpoint of location, the site, while not ideal, is acceptable fo a senior citizen housing project. It is located directly adjacent to a bu route (Route 705) and within relatively easy access to major shopping to ated at Fifth and "H" Street. There are no major supermarkets within close pr ximity but the bus route should prove adequate to meet the needs of this t e of shopping for the residents. 3. Exceptions to the Code. The areas of most concern are the requested exceptions to the requirements of the code regarding front yard setback, parking and density. These are di cussed below: a. Front yard setback. r A 20 ad As noted earlier, the Building Line Map establishes a 25 ft, setback ng Fifth Avenue and the applicant is asking for a reduction to 10 feet. ually, most portions of the building are 15 feet back from the Fifth Avenue ht-of-way line, but some portions are only 10 feet back. The primary poses of front setback requirements are to provide an attractive landscaped a, to provide separation between buildings and the travel way of the street safety and noise reasons, and to allow for possible future widening of the eet without having to purchase structures. In the case of the subject perty, the front property line is 20 feet back from the face of the curb. 2 1/2 ft. wide parkway containing four mature trees is located within this ft. area. In my judgment, the presence of this parkway area, together with 10' - 15' building setback, fulfills the primary purposes of the front d setback. If the building were moved further back to comply with the back regulation, it would have to be either located over the channel or acent to it. The former would result in increased construction costs and latter results in open areas that are of such size and shape as to make ign of the parking area difficult. b. Parking. e ci 1) While it may be unit, the experience of other t in the subject of senior ate that such a requirement s are built with one space for preferable to have one parking space for cities and of responsible persons who are citizens housing developments seems to is unnecessary. Many projects in other each two or three units. Congregational _~~1~~ Page 5, Item _ Meeting Date 2 82 rs has one space for each 4.4 units but comparisons between projects must into account other factors, such as, proximity to transit, shopping, and th care facilities, rental projects vs. ownership projects, subsidized vs. bsidized projects, etc. 2) Considerable testimony was given at the October 14, 1981 P1 nning Commission hearing regarding existing and potential parking problems in the general vicinity. Part of the alleged problem apparently stems from ov rflow parking generated by the Grace Babtist Church during services. The ch rch is located across the street and north of the proposed project. An ther factor said to contribute to the problem is the number of apartment pr jects built in the area which do not comply with present city offstreet pa king standards. While no specific parking study has been conducted, in ormal observations by myself and other staff members indicate that the st eet parking area in front of the subject property is not used to any large ex ent for most of the week. All things considered, and despite some re aining doubts, I am willing to recommend the proposed ratio of one space fo each 1.2 units. c. Density. Under standard R-3 zoning the subject property could accommodate 25 dw lling units. With the variance which was granted and the deed restrictions ap licable to the four lots, only 6 units can be accommodated. Thus, an in rease to 48 units is a large increase. However, Council recognized that de artures from "normal" density standards may be appropriate in senior ci izens projects as the units typically are smaller, fewer trips are ge erated per unit, and such space-taking uses as swimming pools and play ar as are not as necessary for such projects as for other projects. While the in rease to 48 units is large, the development plan accommodates the building an circulation area well and the off-site impacts should not be significant. Ac ordingly, the proposed density is acceptable. 4. Drainage. The Engineering Department has reviewed the drainage (see attached memo of Se tember 22, 1981) and has indicated that the existing drainage facilities ha a been designed to accommodate a 50 year storm and that covering the ch nnel will not affect that capability. 5. Traffic. Fifth Avenue presently has a traffic volume of 7,070 average daily trips ( ) and is rated at a "C" level of service, which translates into free fl wing traffic. There is no empirical evidence available to support the to timony previously presented to the Planning Commission regarding severe tr ffic congestion on Fifth Avenue. D~~~o~~i Page 6, Item Meeting Date 2 2 2 on ~ There have been no traffic counts taken on Park Way, however, predicated the traffic volume on "G" Street. The 36 foot curb to curb width of Park allows for parking on both sides of the street and two 10 foot travel ies in accordance with adopted city standards for a residential street. 6. Proposed Senior Housing Development Policy. s as DL On January 12, 1982 the City Council reviewed the proposed Senior Housing elopment Policy submitted by Department of Community Development which will ern developments such as the one proposed; Council asked that the policy be ised to eliminate condominium developments and referred the matter back to ff. (The revised policy is scheduled for Council consideration in early ruary.) The developers of the project intend to file a tentative division map to allow the sale of units. Since this application was filed a condominium project in September of 1981, prior to any consideration by Council of limiting this regulation to rental projects and in view of the t that council has not adopted a policy as of this date which would clude a condominium project from qualifying under this Senior Zoning text ndment, it would be appropriate to consider the project on the merits of s existing ordinance. 0026P off, ~' ~- '. G ~--~ ._,.,_....~_M. _. ,, __.. _~v~6~