HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-06-18; City Council; 8216; Approval On Appeal Roosevelt 42CIT’“‘3F CARLSBAD - AGENDE-YLL
c
AB# fahi REQUEST FOR A 40 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT TITLE:ON THE WEST SIDE OF ROOSEVELT STREET
MTG. 6/ 18/85 NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF ROOSEVELT PLN DEPT. STREET AND MAGNOLIA STREET. (APPEAL) PCD-82 - ROOSEVELT 42
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council UPHOLD their decision to APPROVE PCD-82.
ITEM EXPLANATION
This item is an appeal by a Council member of a Planning Commission decision to approve a project which may be subject to the City Council's Interim Planning Policy No. 7872. The applicant is requesting approval of a 40 unit apartment project
on Roosevelt Street near the intersection of Roosevelt Street and
Magnolia Street. The General Plan designation for the site is
Medium High Density (RMH lo-20 du/acre) and the zoning is RDM.
The proposed density is 18.7 du/acre which is above the mean density of 15 du/acre established for the RMH density range by City Council Policy No. 7872.
Section 4a of Council Policy No. 7872 states that no residential projects shall be approved above the mean density of the general
plan range if there are traffic impacts which cannot be mitigated. The City Engineer has determined that traffic
generated by the proposed project will contribute to existing and
future traffic congestion on the portions of Tamarack and Elm Avenues between Carlsbad Boulevard and Interstate 5. Existing development along both streets and the recent downgrading of
Tamarack Avenue make it extremely difficult to mitigate these problems.
Staff detailed these concerns in the May 8th Planning Commission report and recommended denial of the project based on City Council Policy No. 7872. The May 8th staff report did point out that it appeared to be an excellent project that justified the requested density and staff could have recommended approval except for Council Policy No. 7872. The Planning Commission
believed that the design and amenities of the project justified
the density and based on a traffic study provided by the
applicant believed that the traffic generated by the proposed
project would not significantly impact circulation on Elm or
Tamarack Avenues. Staff was directed to return to the May 22nd
Planning Commission meeting with conditions of approval.
For further information, please see the attached staff reports to the Planning Commission and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2438.
I
-
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. &%/6
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and, therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration, dated May 9, 1985,
which was approved by the Planning Commission on May 22, 1985.
A copy of the environmental documents is on file in the Land Use Planning Office.
FISCAL IMPACT
The increased need for city capital facilities resulting from this development will be offset by the payment of the public facilities fee. Any capital facilities related directly to this development will be constructed and paid for by the developer.
Increased operating expenses related to this development will be
offset to some extent from increased tax or fee revenue generated by the development. No detailed economic impact analysis of this development has been conducted at this time so predictions of the portion of operating expenses covered by additional operating revenue created as a result of this project cannot be made.
EXHIBITS
1. Location Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2438 3. Staff Reports dated May 8 and May 22, 1985 with attachments
LOCATION MAP
c t / I i
/ t, / : j
I I
/I
j i
’ j Ti i
f&s- zoh3E
( )--D\h5&
CHESTYUT 1 I
I
-- I
“-
&&
2
---- :%- 5.:. :.:. . . . . . . . . . . . ..A f..........‘.......‘...’ 633-M - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -22. V.......‘.V. . . . . . . . . . ..A f..................‘...‘.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5........5....‘.....5’ 2-W . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . ..A 5. A.... . ..A~.-f
. . . . . . l . . . . ..A a.. . . . . . . . fv.v.*.‘.’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v.. ..A 5...A-.‘.*.*.
< srrE -.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,~J===\% &A
ROOSEVELT 42 I ~~~ PCD-82
I 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2438
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A 40 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ROOSEVELT STREET NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF ROOSEVELT STREET AND MAGNOLIA STREET. APPLICANT: ROOSEVELT 42 CASE NO.: PCD-82
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to
,wit:
Portion of Lots 1 and 2 in Section 7, Township 125, Range
4 W, San Bernardino Meridian and a fraction of Block "A" according to Map 775 filed February 14, 1894,
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and -
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 22nd day of
May, 1985, consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be
heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the
Planning Commission Determination; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, th Commission APPROVES PCD-82, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinqs:
1) The proposed project complies with all requirements of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance as discussed in the staff report.
4
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2)
3)
4)
5)
5)
The design of the proposed project justifies the density requested as discussed in the staff report.
The applicant provided a traffic study dated February 19, 1985 stating that the proposed project will have an insignificant impact on the adjacent street system.
The project is consistent with all City public facility pol- icies and ordinances since:
a) The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project, insured that building permits may not be issued for the project unless the City Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning Commission is satisfiet that the requirements of the public facilities element of the general plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
b) The Carlsbad School District has written a letter, dated , May 14, 1985, stating that school facilities will be available to this project.
c) Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
d) All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval.
The proposed project is consistent with the City's Planned Development Ordinance and also complies with the Design Guidelines Manual.
This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration has been issued by the Land Use Planning Manager on May 9, 1985 and approved by the Planning Commission on May 22, 1985.
Conditions:
1) Approval is granted for PCD-82, as shown on Exhibits "A" - "D", dated April 3, 1985, incorporated by reference and on file in the Land Use Planning Office. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
2) This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the City Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy.
PC RESO NO. 2438 -2- 5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I.7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
3)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
This project is approved upon the express condition that the applicant shall pay a public facilities fee as required by City Council Policy No. 17, dated April 2, 1982, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, and according to the agreement executed by the applicant for payment of said fee, a copy of that agreement, dated January 11, 1985, is on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. If said fee is not paid as promised, this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project shall be void.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within one year from the date of project approval.
Water shall be provided to this project pursuant to the Water Service agreement between the City of Carlsbad and the Costa Real Water District, dated May 25, 1983.
The applicant shall prepare a reproducible mylar of the final site plan incorporating the conditions contained herein: Said site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Land Use Planning Manager prior to the issuance of building permits.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be submitted to and approved by the Land use Planning Manager prior to the issuance of building permits. At least 25 percent of the trees shown on this plan shall be 24 " - 48" box speciman sized trees.
All parking lot trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in size.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
Any signs proposed for this development shall be designed in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Land Use Planning Manager prior to installation of such signs.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Land Use Planning Manager.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, pursuant to Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Land Use Planning Manager and Building and Planning Director.
PC RBSO NO. 2438 -3- 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on al new and existing buildings so as to be plainly visible from thl street or access road; color of identification and/or addresse, shall contrast to their background color.
Prior to occupancy of any units, the applicant shall construct a directory sign at the entrance to the project. The design o this sign shall be approved by the Land use Planning Manager.
Detailed elevations of the proposed garages shall be submitted to azJ approved by the Land Use Planning Manager prior to issuance of Building Permits.
There shall be no modification of the proposed site plan or elevations without the approval of the Land Use Planning Manager.
Detailed plans for the proposed recreation room and laundry room shall be submitted and approved by the Land Use Planning Manager prior to issuance of any building permits.
A six foot high decorative block wall shall be constructed along the westerly, southerly and northerly property boundaries prior to occupancy of any units.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Building Dirctor shall review the architectural plans to ensure compliance with the State of California interior noise standards of 45 CNEL. At that time, any additional measures (thicker glazing, sound absorption material, or shielding of vents) to further attenuate the noise to an acceptable level shall be required.
Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall provide a color scheme for the proposed project subject to the approval of the Land use Planning Manager.
Private balconies and patios on units that face the railroad shall be provided with noise mitigation in the form of a patio balcony noise barrier. The noise barrier shall be any solid structure with no holes or cracks having a density of four pounds per square feet or greater. The barrier shall completely shield all line of sight with the noise source.
Engineering Conditions:
23) The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to the commencement of any clearing or grading of the site.
24) The grading for this project is defined as "controlled grading by Section 11.06.170(a) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Grading shall be performed under the observation of a civil engineer whose responsibility it shall be to coordinate site inspection and testing to insure compliance of the work with the approved grading plan, submit required reports to the City Engineer and verify compliance with Chapter 11.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
PC RESO NO. 2438 -4- 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
37
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IS)
:6)
17)
18)
19)
lo)
;l )
;2)
'///
No grading shall occur outside the limits of the project unless a letter of permission is obtained from the owners of the affected properties.
A separate gradinq plan shall be submitted and approved and a separate grading permit issued for the borrow or disposal site if located within the city limits.
All slopes within this project shall be no steeper than 2:l.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any proposed construction site within this project the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent any off-site siltation. The developer shall provide erosion control measures and shall construct temporary desiltation/detention basins of type, size and location as approved by the City Engineer. The basins and erosion control measures shall be shown and specified on the grading plan and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the start of any other grading operations. Prior to the removal of any basins or facilities so constructed the area served shall be protected by additional drainage facilities, slope erosion control measures and other methods required or approved by the City Engineer. The developer shall maintain the temporary basins and erosion control measures for a period of time satisfactory to the City-Engineer and shall guarantee their maintenance and satisfactory performance through cash deposit and bonding in amounts and types suitable to the City Engineer.
Additional drainage easements and drainage structures shall be provided or installed as may be required by the County Department of Sanitation and Flood Control or the City Engi- neer.
The developer shall pay the current local drainage area fee prior to issuance of any grading or building permit for this project or shall construct drainage systems in conformance with the Master Drainage Plan and City of Carlsbad Standards as required by the City Engineer.
The owner of the subject property shall execute a hold harmless agreement regarding drainage across the adjacent property prior to approval of any grading or building permit for this project.
'C RI?,!30 NO. 2438 -5-
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
!3)
14)
35)
36 1
37)
38)
The drainage system shall be designed to ensure that runoff resulting from a lo-year frequency storm of 6 hours or 24 hours duration under developed conditions, is equal to or less than the runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration under existing developed conditions. Both 6 hour and 24 hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determine the detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results.
Improvements listed in this section shall be installed or agreed to be installed by secured agreement by the developer before the issuance of any building permit. The developer shall obtain approval of the plans from the City Engineer and pay all associated fees and performance guarantees prior to issuance of any building permit. The developer shall install said improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or occupancy of any portion of the project for any purpose. The improvements are:
1. Removal and construction of driveway approaches
2. Public facilities fronting the project that are damaged or otherwise unacceptable
The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project.
All private driveways shall be kept clear of parked vehicles at all times, and shall have posted “No Parking/Fire Lane Tow Away Zone" pursuant to Section 17.04.040, Carlsbad Municipal Code;
The Subdivider shall provide separate sewer, water, gas, and electric services with meters to each of the units.
All plans, specifications, and supporting documents for the improvements of this project shall be signed and sealed by the Engineer in responsible charge of the work. Each sheet shall be signed and sealed, except that bound documents may be signed and sealed on their first page. Additionally the first sheet
of each set of plans shall have the following certificate:
"DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE"
I hereby declare that I am the Engineer of Work for this project, that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the project as defined in Section 6703 of the Business and Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with current standards.
vu
‘///
?C RESO NO. 2438 -6- 9
1
2
z
4
4 Y
6
7
E
S
1c
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
39)
!O)
11)
12)
I understand that the check of project drawings and specifications by the City of Carlsbad is confined to a review only and does not relieve me, as Engineer of Work, of my responsibilities for project design. (Name, Address and Telephone of Engineering firm)
Firm:
Address:
City, St.:
Telephone:
BY Date: (Name of Engineer)
R.C.E. NO. #
Prior to recordation of approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner shall give written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the site plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1.
The developer shall construct the driveway approach per standard drawing No. G-17 except that the concrete apron shall be 7 l/2 inches thick. Dimension R shall be 15 feet, and throat width shall be 26 feet.
No speed bumps shall be allowed in driveways.
The driveway along the north property line shall be 26 feet wide.
?ire Department Conditions:
13) Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department.
!4) Additional public and/or on site fire hydrants shall be provided- if deemed necessary by the Fire Marshal.
15) The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of a site plan showing locations of existing and proposed fire hydrants and OI site roads and drives to the Fire Marshal for approval.
I///
////
I///
I///
?C RESO NO. 2438 -7- IQ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
39
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
$7)
$8)
$9)
50)
51)
An all weather access road shall be maintained throughout
construction.
All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurtenances shal be operational prior to combustible building materials being located on the project site.
All private driveways shall be kept clear of parked vehicles a all times, and shall have posted "No Parking/Fire Lane-Tow Awa
Zone" pursuant to Section 17.04.040, Carlsbad Municipal Code.
All fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, extinguishing systems, automatic sprinklers, and other systems pertinent to the
project shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval
prior to construction.
Buildings exceeding 10,000 sq.ft. aggregate floor area shall b
sprinklered or have four-hour fire walls with no openings therein which shall split the building into 10,000 sq.ft. (or
less) areas.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
?lanning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held- on th
22nd day of May, 1985, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners: L'Heureux, Marcus, McFadden, Smith and Rombotis.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Farrow and Schlehuber.
ABSTAIN: None.
JERRY ROMBOTIS, ACTING CHAIRMAN
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
4TTEST:
vlICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER LtAND USE PLANNING MANAGER
PC RESO NO. 2438 -8-
APPLICA 3N SUBMITTAL DATE: JANUARY 11, 1985 ti
STAFF PFPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
I.
MAY 8, 1985
PLANNING COMMISSION
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE
PCD-82 - ROOSEVELT 42 - Request for a Planning Commission Determination for a 40 unit apartment project on the west side of Roosevelt Street near the intersection of Roosevelt Street and Magnolia Street in the RDM zone.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution NO. 2438 DENYING PCD-82 based on the findings contained therein.
I- II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION -.
The applicant is requesting approval of a Planning Commission Determination to increase the allowable density from 10 dwellinq units per acre to 18.7 du/ac. This would permit the construction of a 40 unit apartment project on a 2.13 acre parcel located as described above.
The proposed density of 18.7 du/ac is near the top end of the General Plan Designation of RMH lo-20 du/ac for this site. It also exceeds the mean density of 15 du/ac established for the RMH General Plan designation by City Council Policy 7872.
The properties to the east are occupied by sinqle family residences and the AT&SF Railroad is to the west. The properties to the north and south are occupied by apartments.
The proposed project will consist of six buildings clustered around a common recreation area and courtyard. The living units will consist of two bedroom stacked flats with a floor area of approximately 900 square feet. None of the buildings will exceed 35 feet in height.
III. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1) Does the project comply with the development standards of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance?
2) Does the design of the project justify the density requested?
3) Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of City Council Policy 7872? . I 12.
Discussion
As proposed this project complies with the development standards of the RD-M zone. None of the proposed buildings will exceed 35
feet in height, all setbacks are met and all of the required parking is provided on-site.
The proposed project provides a number of amenities above those required for a minimum density apartment project in this range. As shown by Exhibit "B" there will be a central recreation area with a lap pool, spa and barbeque facilities. A tot lot will be located in an isolated corner of the project. This will provide an onsite play area for children that is conveniently located yet far enough away from the units so the noise of children playing should not disturb residents of the units. This area would be separated from the railroad right-of-way by a six foot block wall. A shuffleboard court will be located between buildings "1" and "6". A laundry facility will be located adjacent to the main recreation area. An 800 square foot recreation room will be located adjacent to the laundry room. This recreation room will have extra insulation to sound buffer adjacent units from noise __ generated by people using this facility. All of the upstairs units will have balconies. All of the downstairs units will have: patios. Some will have fairly large semi-private patios while others will have very minimal patios lacking in privacy.
Stamped concrete will be installed to breakup the appearance of the driveway. Feandering paths have been used to connect the units to the common recreation areas and parking areas. Although apartment projects are not required to provide covered parking the applicant is proposing to provide a one car garage for each unit. These garage areas will have a minimum interior space of
10' x 20' and be separated from other parking spaces in the same garage building by a wall.
The applicant has added relief and interest to the buildinqs with a number of architectural features. Some of the longer buildings have been jogged slightly to provide visual relief. The applicant is proposing to use a different color stucco on each of these jogged areas to further emphnsize these variations. Special architectural treatment has been used over the stairways leading to the second floor units to provide additional relief. Each of the buildings will have a tiled roof rather than a ordinary shingle roof.
The proposed project will be heavily landscaped. At least 25% of the trees proposed in the landscape plan will be 36" - 48" box specimens. Most of the common open space area will he turfed rather then planted with grass seed. The area in the frontyard setback will be mounded up against the garages and heavily landscaped to screen these structures.
As proposed, this project does not comply with City Council Policy.7872. This policy states that no project shall be approved above the mean density of the General Plan range if
-2- 13
there are traffic or circulation impacts that cannot be mitigated. The mean density for this site is 15 du/ac, which would permit 31 units. Much of the traffic generated by this project would effect Elm Avenue and Tamarack Avenue.
Elm Avenue in particular suffers from congestion and a very high accident rate, The intersection of Elm Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard will operate well below design standards at PM peak hour at build-out conditions. Existing development and intersections along Elm Avenue will make it difficult to mitigate these problems, as detailed in the attached Memo from the Engineering Department.
Traffic generated by the proposed project will also incrementally add to existing and future traffic problems on Tamarack Avenue. A substantial portion of the traffic generated by this project will access on to Tamarack Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard and Interstate 5. This portion of Tamarack Avenue was recently downgraded from a secondary arterial to a collector street. Tamarack Avenue in this area is projected to carry 8,000 to 10,000 trips per day. This is an approximate amount of traffic for a secondary arterial. This section of Tamarack, as a "-
collector, is designed to handle no more than 5,000 trips per -. day. As a result congestion will probably occur on this portion of Tamarack and staff would recommend against any project being approved above the mean density that would contribute to this problem. The only way to alleviate this situation would be to construct this portion of Tamarack Avenue to secondary arterial standards. The City Council has recently indicated that it is unwilling to accept this option as it would eliminate or significantly reduce the side and front yards of several existing residences to provide adequate right-or-way for a secondary arterial.
Therefore, although the proposed density can be justified by the design of the project and the amenities provided staff cannot recommend approval of this project because it does not comply with City Council Policy 7872.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this project may have a significant environmental impacts and, therefore, cannot issue a Negative Declaration.
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2438 Location Map
3) Background Data Sheet
4) Disclosure Form
5) Memo, dated April 24, 1985
6) Reduced Exhibits
7) Exhibits "A" - "D", dated April 3, 1985
MH:bn
4/25/85
-3-
April 24, 1985
TO: MIKE HOWES, LAND USE PLANNING
FROM : Dan Clark, Engineering Department
REASONS FOR DENIAL, PCD 82, PL 85.22, Roosevelt 42
The intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Elm Avenue will operate well
below design standards at PM peak hour at build-out conditions, Further
study of off-peak hour traffic levels of service are presently being
performed. Nine accidents reported at this intersection in 1983 involved
7 incidents with property damage and 2 incidents with personal injury.
Incidents in 1983 represented a 300% tncrease over 7982 and 1981.
The intersection of Elm and Harding has had a 58% increase in incidents
since 1882 with 12 incidents in 1984 involving 8 incidents with property
damage and 4 incidents with personal injury,
Mitigation measures will require construction of protected left turn
areas, installation of left turn signals, construction of centerline
medians, widening of right-of-way, and reduction of access points
fronting Elm.
Aquisition of right-of-way and the reduction of access points has limited
scope considering the quantity of traffic and general plan designation
intersections (including major driveways).
Construction of PCD 82 at high density will significantly increase problems
along Elm and should not be ailowed until proper mitigation measures are
taken.
‘Development Coordinator
DC:rlh
c: Walter Brown
Brad Therrien
. ,
-
y--.1:; _- -- +q i I Q1 A T. 4 ~l_.c.rrr q uy ip.
C’ ‘J”
~~YC.’ e-cff- 4L .c- ,aw -r I “- -- -LW.ZLW e&%$-a&~~., -----l-==-=-!i@zsz% ZU-i- ( l’- - - U.8 ZCZCS: (I”, ‘1. II ,c LZZWl 0, L.L I rr> r.rrl Z#Z*..
I WV *G.-m I I I -. ----L - ---- -. ’ -__- --. --__-- .I w
. . f .44-e mamlu RR.
4.a. 4. A&, f.b. ) f.6' ,H ru
sv
M!!It;
a4
1 ,
I C' .M
! --! ).+i,:. I I i I!-'
I
i T n Ih I I.
.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
MAY 22, 1985
PLANNING COMMISSION
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE
PCD-82 - ROOSEVELT 42 - Request for a Planning Commission Determination for a 40-unit apartment project on the west side of Roosevelt Street near the intersection of Roosevelt Street and Magnolia Street in the RDM zone.
This item was presented at the May 8, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. At that time, staff was recommending denial of this project because the proposed density of 18.7 du/ac exceeded the mean density of 15 du/ac as established for the RMH general plan designation by City Council Policy 7872. The Commission believed the proposed project would not significantly effect circulation on Tamarack or Elm Avenue and felt that the design of-- the project and proposed amenities justified the requested density. Staff was directed to return with a resolution of approval.
MH:ad 5/9/85
.
. ,