CONTINUATION OF APPEAL OF PROJECT NO. 2005-86 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is for the City Council to continue considering an appeal of the Planning Board�s decision to deny Project No. 2005-86 Development Review, a request by David Meissner to construct an 11 unit, two story, multi-family residential project at 401 Delaware Road.  The Council considered this matter at a public hearing on January 23, 2007 and requested that the applicant make changes to the proposal.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

Council Public Hearing:

At a public hearing on January 23, 2007, David Meissner presented his request to Council to construct an 11 unit, two story, multi-family residential project with semi-subterranean parking.  The proposal was originally approved by the Community Development Director, appealed by an adjacent neighbor, and denied by the Planning Board.  The applicant appealed this decision to the City Council.  The building is two stories with a semi-subterranean level of parking with 24 spaces.  The property is a triangular shaped lot which fronts streets on all sides.  Delaware Road is considered the front yard and East Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard are considered street facing side yards.  The property is surrounded by R-4 and R-1 developments.

After public testimony, Council Members began deliberations and stated whether they could support the proposal or if they were unable to make some of the required findings for approval.  Ultimately, Council voted 4-0 to continue the item to another meeting to allow the applicant the opportunity to make changes to the proposal.  Specifically, the applicant was asked to reduce the size of the project, reduce the massing, meet with the neighbors to gather more input, increase the number of non-handicapped guest parking spaces, move the driveway toward the center of the property along East Avenue, and preserve trees.  Council also asked staff to consider not widening Delaware Road to maintain the existing mature trees along this street.

Revised Plans:

The applicant held a meeting on February 13, attended by seven residents, to discuss what changes the neighbors wanted (Exhibit A).  Most residents indicated that they prefer a project with eight or nine units as well as the driveway to be placed along Glenoaks and not along East.

The applicant submitted revised plans showing a compromise of 10 units (Exhibit B).  The applicant also was able to maintain 24 parking spaces which are two more than required by code.

The applicant was not able to shift the driveway away from Glenoaks.  It is currently proposed at approximately 70 feet (and up to 90 feet depending on where it is measured to) from the intersection of East and Glenoaks.  The applicant�s architect states that if he shifts the driveway further to the east, one of two changes needs to occur.  Either the parking garage needs to be raised to accommodate the slope for the driveway, or the driveway within the garage needs to be extended to maintain an adequate slope.  With the former alternative, the applicant will no longer comply with code for a semi-subterranean garage.  With the latter, the applicant will lose several parking spaces.  The neighbors have expressed their preference for a driveway to and from Glenoaks.  The Traffic Engineer considers this option inferior and less safe than the currently proposed location because of the volume and speed of traffic on Glenoaks (Exhibit C).  Traffic Engineering staff further state that the currently proposed location should not cause a safety issue, especially if parking is prohibited between the driveway and Glenoaks.

The applicant increased the setback of the second floor on the corner unit at Glenoaks and Delaware.  This setback faces Delaware but the applicant was unable to continue this change around the corner toward Glenoaks as it will interfere with the elevator placement.  Additionally, the elevation along East was changed with the reduction of the unit which decreases the massing in this area.

Traffic Engineering staff has reviewed the request for a three foot street widening which would make the street 33 feet wide (Exhibit C).  While it is preferred to have a 36 foot wide street, it is not a necessity.  If Council prefers to preserve the trees, the existing street width may remain.  However, the existing parking lane adjacent to the subject site may need to be removed to allow the increased travel lane width should this become necessary based on expected travel demands.

CONCLUSION:

The applicant has made substantial changes to the project since it was originally submitted in 2005 based on input from staff, neighbors, the Planning Board, and Council.  The applicant has again attempted to respond to requests from Council with the latest changes made.  Staff continues to believe that the findings for approval of the Development Review can be made.  The project as proposed, and as conditioned, is compatible and consistent with existing residential properties and structures in the surrounding neighborhood given the various zoning designations.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the appeal and reverse the Planning Board�s decision thereby conditionally approving Project No. 2005-86 Development Review.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit  A        Sign-in for Applicant-held Neighborhood Meeting on February 13, 2007

Exhibit B          Revised plans dated March 2007 (Larger sets attached separately)

Exhibit C          Memo from Traffic Engineering dated March 6, 2007

go to the top