HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA SITE PLAN REVIEW 02-16-82OATE:
February 16, 1982
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
NO. 8
2- 16-82
Inter-Corn
TO:
FROM:
$ UBJ ECT:
Honorable Chairman And Redevelopment
Community Development Department
Site Plan Review
175 C" Street
Agency Members
Recomended Action
Pleasure of the Agency.
Background and Discussion
Staff has received a prelimina~ site plan for a proposed 4,333 sq. ft. office
building to be located at 175 "C" Street. Pursuant to Ordinance 510, the site
plan is submitted for Agency review along with the following comments.
As proposed, the new office building would replace an existing single-family
dwelling and be situated on a lot fronting "C" Street between First and Second.
The area surrounding the project consists of the office building currently
under construction immediately to the north and older residential units to the
east and south. The subject parcel is zoned C-2 and is also within the
boundaries of Specific Plan Number 1.
While the proposed project meets all zoning requirements, there is some varia-
tion to the adopted development standards. For example, the setback area be-
tween the property line and the first parking space is 2'6" instead of the
normally required 10 feet. Staff feels that with minor changes in the land-
scape plan, the setback could be increased by 4 or 5 feet. There is also a
deviation from the standards in that 36% of the parking area conists of compact
spaces. It should be noted that other projects in the downtown area have been
permitted in excess of 20% compact spaces as long as the total number of spaces
meet code requirements. This project requires 14 spaces and 14 spaces are
provided.
Aside from the variations already mentioned, staff is concerned with the
utilization of the alley behind the project. In the past, favorable considera-
tion has been given to the idea that it would be beneficial for the City to
abandon the alley and to promote consolidation of parcels. This would create
an avenue by which a more desirable pattern of development could be
accomplished. In this manner, random lot-by-lot development would be kept to a
minimum, and the goals of the area as outlined in Specific Plan Number 1 would
be more easily achieved. If the subject project is approved as submitted, the
alley will have to be maintained and the consolidation of the remaining parcels
will be increasingly difficult to facilitate.
Chairman & Redevelopment Agency
175 "C" Street
Page 2
Another point to consider is the architectural style of the building as
submitted. Specific Plan Number 1 states that architectural style shall be
authorized upon a finding that proposed developments are "compatible with and
complimentary to the village motif." The use of Victorian, Western and Spanish
styles is also encouraged. As shown, the elevation does not demonstrate any of
the styles listed in the specific plan and is not compatible with the
surrounding area. The main concern staff has in terms of architectural style
is based in part on the fact that the Redevelopment Agency is planning on
improving the downtown area, at considerable expense, to promote an old town
atmosphere.
Should the Agency act favorably on this project, the Director of Public Works
has recommended that dedication of 3 feet on the alley be required to
utlimately provide an overall minimum alley width of 26 feet. This dedication
would not impair the development of this project as proposed.
Conclusions
1. The project is 16% over the maximum allotment of compact parking spaces.
2. The architectural style is not compatible with the downtown area
(including downtown improvements).
3. Approval of the project will require that the alley be maintained and
thereby the consolidation made more difficult.
A 3 foot dedication on the alley will be required by the Director of
Public Works should the project be approved.
JSD:jh
2-9-82
Development Review Summary
Project:
Location/District:
Building:
Front Setback
Side Setback
Rear Setback
Gross Sq. Ft.
Her Floor Sq. Pt.
Height
Number of Stories
Materials/Colors
Lot Size
Lot Coverage
Parking:
District Requirement
Proposed
(~$'
0
IS"'
mS-"i.
,u.,er o, Spaces lq I~
Ratio (space/sq. ft.) I p~l 300 I ?,r gOO
% Co,pact Spaces ~,~0~ ~K~I -- 3~
No: of P~bli¢ Notifications:'~/~
(Owners)
* no standard
7