4/28/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r APS 2 8 1�, BOOK 8'6 FN.vE �j 7 Victory Park, which is not too far away, is zoned RM -10 and is built out at 9.1 dwelling units per acre density. Chairman Eggert asked about buffering requirements, and Director Keating responded that both a planned development and this project would require 25 -foot buffers, and even though there is the 25 -foot setback from the right-of-way in the RM -8 district, there are some infrastructure improvements allowed in the setback that cannot be put in the buffer. This property happens to be bordered on three sides by roadway, so the setback would be comparable to a planned development. Commissioner Bowman asked for clarification of impervious area and retention pond requirements. Director Keating explained that there are a number of ways to accommodate drainage. It can be incorporated with underground drainage or with swales. An important factor is that it must be held on site, but those are site plan factors which are not under consideration at this time. Director Keating stated that staff's recommendation is RM -8. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if .:anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Christopher Moench, president of Community Housing and Development Corporation, came before the Board and explained that Community Housing and Development Corporation is the managing general partner of Gifford Elderly Housing, Ltd. Gifford Elderly Housing, Ltd., will be the owner of the proposed apartment complex. Mr. Moench, individually, is also a general partner in Gifford Elderly Housing, Ltd., and he currently has the property under contract and represents the land owner, Mr. Carter. Mr. Moench requested a rezoning of the 4.8 acre parcel from RS -6 to RM -10 to build a 42 -unit elderly apartment complex. The apartment complex would be financed by Farmers Home Administration through their Section 515 program but the rezoning must be obtained first. Currently, the plan is to build 6 -unit buildings and Mr. Moench explained that a zoning of RM -8 would limit the number of apartments to 36. He explained that fewer units would have an impact on the rental cost per unit because it would spread the costs of the construction of the common areas and the overall land costs over fewer units, so the elderly who are on a fixed income will pay more rent with the lower density. He pointed out that the RM -8 zoning just misses his need of 8.5 units per acre. With an average of 1.5 persons per household in the apartment complex there would be approximately 63 people living there whereas if it were a single family development with an average of 3.5 persons per 34 s