HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIVING OAKS - PDP - PDP170009 - REPORTS - CITY STAFFLiving Oaks
Clay Frickey
Project Overview
• 4 condo units
• 9,200 sq. ft. building
• 3 stories
• Net zero building
• 7 modification
requests
2
Modification #1 - Parking
Land Use Code 3.2.2(K)(1)(a):
Attached Dwellings: For each two-family and multi-family dwelling there
shall be parking spaces provided as indicated in the following table:
3
Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces per Dwelling Unit
One or less 1.5
Two 1.75
Three 2
Four and above 3
221 E Oak St
Walking distance to
Downtown Hotel Garage
Distance = 1,105.47 feet
(3-minute walk)
221 E Oak St
Walking distance to
Mountain MAX Station
Distance = 1,766.77 feet
(8-minute walk)
221 E Oak St
Walking distance to
Old Town Garage
Distance = 736 feet
(1-minute walk)
221 E Oak St
Walking distance
to Safeway
Distance = 1,795 feet
(7-minute walk)
The Summit
Walking distance to
Prospect MAX Station
Distance = 1,684.97 feet
(8-minute walk)
The Summit
Walking distance to
Whole Foods
Distance = 2,824 feet
(9-minute walk)
College 830
Walking Distance to
Laurel MAX Station
Total Distance = 1,672.51 feet
(7-minute walk)
College 830
Walking distance
to Safeway
Distance = 2,735.63 feet
(10-minute walk)
Staff Findings – Modification #1
• Site near transit and amenities
• Ample parking provided
• Garage spaces
• Car share on-site
• Staff finds proposal is equal to or better than a compliant
plan
4
Modification #2 - Density
Land Use Code 4.9(D)(1):
Density. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total
floor area of the building(s), but not less than five
thousand (5,000) square feet.
5
Staff Findings – Modification #2
Building Lot Size Floor Area Floor Area Ratio
Townhomes at Library
Park
12,600 30,188 2.4
Parkview Apartments 12,320 18,555 1.51
215 Mathews 7,000 11,901 1.7
207 Mathews 14,000 11,776 .84
Living Oaks 4,600 9,200 2
6
Staff finds proposal is equal to or better than a compliant plan
Modification #3 – Rear Half FAR
Land Use Code 4.9(D)(5):
Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable
floor area on the rear half of a lot shall not exceed thirty-
three (33) percent of the area of the rear fifty (50) percent of
the lot.
7
Staff Findings – Modification #3
8
207 Mathews 215 Mathews +
Parkview Apartments
Staff Findings – Modification #3
• Proposal matches context
• Staff finds proposed plan is equal to or better than a
compliant plan
9
Modification #s 4-6 - Setbacks
Land Use Code 4.9(D)(6)(b):
Minimum front yard setback shall be fifteen (15) feet.
Land Use Code 4.9(D)(6)(c):
Minimum rear yard setback shall be five (5) feet from existing alley and fifteen (15)
feet in all other conditions.
Land Use Code 4.9(D)(6)(d):
Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever
any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of
the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one
(1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of
wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height. Minimum side yard
width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot.
10
Staff Findings – Modification #s 4-6
11
Front setbacks along Mathews
Staff Findings – Modification #s 4-6
12
Rear setbacks along alley
Staff Findings – Modification #s 4-6
13
Side yard setbacks along alley
Staff Findings – Modification #s 4-6
• Urban setbacks appropriate
• Right-of-way 5’ behind sidewalk
• Landscaping area
• Fits context
• Staff finds proposal is equal to or better than a compliant
plan
14
Modification #7 – Roof Pitch
Land Use Code 4.9(E)(1)(g):
The minimum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 2:12 and the
maximum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 12:12, except
that new, detached accessory buildings and additions to existing
dwelling units may be constructed with a pitch that matches any roof
pitch of the existing dwelling unit. Additionally, the roof pitch of a dormer,
turret or similar architectural feature may not exceed 24:12 and the roof
pitch of a covered porch may be flat whenever the roof of such a porch
is also considered to be the floor of a second-story deck.
15
Staff Findings – Modification #7
16
Mansard style roofs – would not meet today’s code
Staff Findings – Modification #7
17
Flat roofs on north side of Oak St.
Staff Findings – Modification #7
• No distinct roof pattern in area
• Photovoltaic panels add pitched element
• Staff finds proposal is equal to or better than a compliant
plan
18
Findings of Fact
• The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures
for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.
• The Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the
applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good
and the proposal submitted is equal to or better than a proposal that would meet the code.
• The Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(D)(1) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable
requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the
proposal submitted is equal to or better than a proposal that would meet the code.
• The Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(D)(5) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable
requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the
proposal submitted is equal to or better than a proposal that would meet the code.
• The Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(D)(6)(b) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable
requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the
proposal submitted is equal to or better than a proposal that would meet the code.
• The Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(D)(6)(c) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable
requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the
proposal submitted is equal to or better than a proposal that would meet the code.
• The Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable
requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the
proposal submitted is equal to or better than a proposal that would meet the code.
• The Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(E)(1)(g) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable
requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the
proposal submitted is equal to or better than a proposal that would meet the code.
• The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 – General Development Standards, provided the
modification to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) is approved.
• The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.8 Neighborhood Conservation, Medium
Density (NCM) of Article 4 – Districts, provided the modification to Sections 4.9(D)(1), 4.9(D)(5), 4.9(D)(6)(b), 4.9(D)(6)(c),
4.9(D)(6)(d), and 4.9(E)(1)(g) are approved.
19
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Living Oaks, PDP170009
20