6.5. SR 05-15-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case File: CU 06-10 Page 3 1. Will not endanger, ilyure or detrimentallY qffect the use and e,!jqyment of other proper(} in the immediate vicinity or the public health, sqftty, morals, comfort, convenience or general we!fare of the neighborhood or the city. 2. Will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. Will not impede the normal and orderlY development and improvement of surrounding vacant proper(}. 4. Will be seroed adequatelY ~ and will not adverselY qffect essential public facilities and smices including streets, police and fire protection, drainage, refuse disposal, water and sewer !)1st ems, parks and schools; and will not, in particular, create trqffic congestion or inteiference with trqffic on acfjacent and neighboring public thoroughfares. 5. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to a'!)l persons or proper(} because of excessive trqffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, dust or vibrations. 6. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of mqjor importance. 7. Will fullY complY with all other requirements of this Code, including a'!)l applicable requirements and standards for the issuance of a license or permit to establish and operate the proposed use in the city. If denial of such a permit should occur, it shall accompany recommendations or determinations by findings or a report stating how the proposed use does not comply with the standards set forth in Section 30-654. Planning Commission Actions The applicant requested that the eight ends of the buildings not have brick as staff recommended. They requested that they only be required to have the brick wrap around 2- feet, instead of the entire length of the ends. They felt that this treatment provide the same amount of architectural merit as providing brick on the entire wall. Staff would disagree with this comment as it would appear to be a minimal amount of applied brick and not representing the mass and form of the building. It would appear that brick was left off to save money. The Planning Commission did not agree with their revised request and stated that only one quarter of the end units are being recommended to remain the same. With three quarters of the brick being reduced, this would significandy reduce the construction costs. There was discussion regarding the elevations facing the park and it was agreed that they had just as much public presence as any of the street elevations. Staff concurred with this statement. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request with the conditions staff had originally oudined. S:\pLANNING\Case Files\2006\CUP\CU 06-10 Jackson St Villas\CU 06-10_CC.doc