My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 12082020
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020
>
CC PACKET 12082020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/3/2020 2:19:37 PM
Creation date
12/3/2020 2:12:00 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
189
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
December 8, 2020 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />2) Side Yard Setback. A side yard setback less than 30 feet. The City’s R-4 District <br />imposes a 30-foot building setback requirement along side yards, which are adjacent <br />to public rights-of-way. A 20-foot setback is proposed on the north side of the <br />apartment building (along 38th Avenue NE). <br /> <br />3) Parking Supply. A parking supply of less than 2 spaces per unit as imposed in the R-4 <br />zoning district. A total of 46 parking spaces are proposed which results in a ratio of 1.2 <br />spaces per unit. This number is equal to the total number of bedrooms proposed in <br />the project. <br /> <br />4) Covered (Enclosed) Parking. The allowance of no covered (enclosed) parking stalls. <br />The City’s R-4 District standard requires at least half of all parking stalls to be <br />covered/enclosed. <br /> <br />5) Impervious Surface Coverage. The allowance of impervious surface coverage, which <br />exceeds 50 percent of the area of the site (as imposed in the R-4 zoning district). The <br />proposed site plan calls for 76.7 percent of the site to be devoted to impervious <br />surface. <br /> <br />Preliminary Plan Action. <br />The Council will recall that the Planning Commission considered this item at its August 16th <br />meeting as a part of a public hearing on the request. A motion to approve the item was <br />seconded, but failed to prevail, with the vote split at 2 in favor, 2 opposed, and 3 members <br />abstaining. The Planning Commission declined to take up a second motion, and forwarded the <br />application to the City Council without a final recommendation. <br /> <br />The City Council voted to approve the Preliminary PUD, with the original staff recommended <br />conditions. Consideration of adding regulatory controls for affordability was discussed, but not <br />included in the Council’s final action. <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation. <br />Since the City Council’s Preliminary Plan approval, the applicant has submitted updated exterior <br />plans, reflecting consistency with the requirements of the Preliminary PUD approval. The <br />standard of review for Final Plan consideration is whether the proposed Final Plan submittals <br />comply with the terms of the Preliminary Plan approval. <br /> <br />Staff believes that those conditions have been met, pending final plan checks prior to <br />permitting. As such, staff recommends approval of the Final Plan PUD with the noted <br />conditions. <br /> <br />58
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.