| south of the subject site was zoned R-4, One Family Residential and had |
|
| homes. The land to the west was zoned B-1 and to the north, there was a |
|
| retail and office complex zoned B-2. He noted the setback table and said |
|
| that the east and rear yard setbacks were existing, and those sides of the |
|
| building were not changing. The rear yard setback was 52 feet. The |
|
| building was located far back on the site, with a large front yard. That was |
|
| driving some of the site plan proposals. Regarding site plan review |
|
| considerations, the Engineering Department had reviewed the proposal, |
|
| as the applicant was were reducing a significant amount of impervious |
|
| space. There was currently a playground on the west side of the building. |
|
| Engineering was recommending approval, subject to a few detail items |
|
| that could be addressed at construction plan review. There was a double |
|
| loaded bay of parking in front of the site that would be converted to a |
|
| bio-swale detention pond, so the stormwater would run into that area, |
|
| which currently sheet-drained out to Auburn Rd., which would be an |
|
| improvement. The biggest issue from a site design perspective was the |
|
| fact that there was an overhead loading door on the front of the building of |
|
| the addition. It was being driven by the location of the existing building at |
|
| the rear yard setback line. The Zoning Ordinance required all loading |
|
| areas to be located in the side or rear yard, but Section 138-11.304 (e) |
|
| gave the Planning Commission the ability to modify loading area design. |
|
| Given some of the limitations on the site, as well as the fact that there was |
|
| existing residential to the east and south, locating the loading door on the |
|
| front of the building would help mitigate the impact of loading to a |
|
| residential neighborhood. The building design also helped mitigate part |
|
| of the loading bay, because the addition was designed to be consistent |
|
| with the existing building. He offered that the applicant could explain |
|
| more about the loading operations, scheduling and what type of trucks |
|
| would be coming in and out. He did not believe there would be an |
|
| intensive delivery operation. There were a few comments regarding |
|
| landscaping and tree removal. The applicant was proposing two hybrid |
|
| elm trees along the site’s frontage, on the east and west corners of the |
|
| site. It was quite narrow there, and the trees could survive there, but he |
|
| recommended in the Staff Report that they be moved to the middle of the |
|
| site. However, the applicant was concerned about site visibility, so Mr. |
|
| Breuckman would like to ask the City’s Forestry Department about the |
|
| survivability of the trees and the proposed locations at the corners of the |
|
| site. Staff was also recommending that the applicant plant three |
|
| additional trees in the grass area at the rear of the site to meet the Type B |
|
| buffer requirement between a B and an R district. The site had chain link |
|
| fencing with slats inserted for screening. That was not a standard the City |
|
| typically approved, but it was existing. The applicant was proposing some |
|
| new fencing, and Staff recommended that any new fencing be opaque, |
|
| preferably a vinyl fence. The building design was sympathetic with the |
|
