Minutes 06/13/1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 June 12, 1978 (h) PROPOSAL TO AMEND LIST OF USES PERMITTED IN LIMITED BUSINESS HISTORIC SUB- DISTRICTS. Section 40-t02~1(i) Motion of Mr. Early and seconded by Mr. Barnes, to concur in the recommendation of Planning Commission, to be approved on first re~ding, and was adopted by unanimous vote. (i) PROPOSAL TO AMEND AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION OF ARCHITECTURKL REVIEW TO GRANT APPROVAL OF CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AS A SECONDARY'USE ~N STRUCTURES WHERE A PRINCIPAL USE IS COMMERCI'~L OR OFF1CE-SEMI-COMMERCI~_L IN HISTORIC LIMITED BUSINESS SUBDISTRICTS. the Section 4C-102.1(i) Motion of Mr. Barnes and seconded by Mr. Holtey,.to Planning Commission. Substitute motion of Mr. Barnes public hearing meeting of August 7, (j) PROPOSAL TO AMEND AUTHORITY SPECIAL concur in the recommendmtion of the and seconded by Mr. Oast, the matter be deferred to the 1978, and was adopted by unanimous vote. OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO GRANT 'CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS IN RESIDENTIAL R-60 AND R-60-A ZONING DISTRICTS. Section 40-210.(g) Motion of Mr. Early and seconded by Mr. Barnes, to concur in the recommendation of the Planning Commission, to be approved on first reading, and was adopted by unanimous vote. 78-181 The following letter was submitted from the Planning Commission: "At it s regular monthIy meeting on 6 June 1978, the City Planning Commission addressed GHP-78-1 as the proposed 'Section 7' of Peachtree Planned Unit Development. Because this PUD is now moving through development stages, my feeling is you may want to be certain City Counci is aware of how its approval of six years ago is being translated by the staff and City Plannin' Commission. PEACHTREE, SECTION 7: Under consideration is the 14.1 acre area bounded by Twin Pines Roa (about to be improved by the developer), Gateway Drive, Peachtree Lane (as extended northward past the PUD swimming pool recreation area) and Hofflers Creek Parkway (arteriaI proposed to extend from Cedar Lane along the Western Freeway, through the Southampton Employment Center, between the Peachtree and Long Point Planned Unit Developments and eventually across the muni- cipal boundary to connect with the City of Suffolk street network). In 1972, 'PUD-72-1' identi fied this area as the future site of 256 garden apartments in a ccntext of 632 dwelling units to be located on 95 acres. Today, the City Planning Commission is dealing with 'PUD-72-1' as a future community of 518 dwelling units on 96.7 acres and Section 7 as 232 garden apartment units. The projected density has dropped from 6.6 to 5.4 dwelling units per gross acre for the Peachtree PUD. The Planning Commission resolved to recommend approval of GHP-~8-1 as Section 7 of the Peachtree Planned Unit Development (PUD-72-1), subject to its inclusion within the Peachtree Community Association; and barring that commitment, that the site pln would be vised to reflect the maximum density authorized by Residential R-75. Obviously, the Planning Commission is concerned over possibilities outlined by owners and prospective developers that this fourteen acre tract and its more than 200 families will not be incorporated in the overall framework of a community bound together by an Association. This represents a departure from what City Council approved in 1972 and must be noted with concern at this point. Sec. 40-55. Group Housing Project Review (1) A group housing project may be exempted from the dimensional requirements for re- sidential dwellings as stated in Article VI, if the project as a whole conforms to the require~ ments set forth as to the minimum allowable area for the number of dwellings units, the maximun allowable floor area devoted to residential purposes, the maximum allowable plot coverage and side and rear yard requirements for buildings adjacent to other plots; and a site plan is sub- mitted containing thereon statistical data as to the above requirements and the number of dwell lng units by bedroom number for review based on the following criteria: (a) The project's compatibility with its environment, and with other land uses and buildings existing in the surrounding area, (b) The quantity, quality, utility, size and type of the projectTs open space and landscaping improvements, (c) The ability of the project's traffic circulation system to provide for the convenient and safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians, and (d) The quantity, quality, utility and type of project's community facilities. (2) Prior to approval by the city council, the developer shall enter into an agreement guarant'eeing that off-site drainage improvements shall be provided. (3) The Planning Commission shall, after a thorough review of said proposal and site plan, transmit its recommendation along with specific findings as to each of the above-stated criteria to the City Council for its approval or disapproval.