Laserfiche WebLink
MEMORANDUM <br /> • DATE : April 16 , 1982 <br /> TO: Planning Commission Members <br /> FROM: Ron Berg, Administrative Assistant <br /> SUBJECT: Proposed Senior Building <br /> --------------------------------------------------------------------- <br /> You are - all somewhat familiar with this proposal and it is again <br /> outlined in the attached documents . We are technically looking at <br /> three variances : <br /> Allowed Proposed Variance <br /> Building height 35 feet 372 feet 22 feet <br /> Unit density/lot area 30 units 60 units 30 units <br /> Unit floor area <br /> Efficiency . 500 sq. ft. 415 sq . ft. 85 sq . ft. <br /> One bedroom 650 sq. ft. 540 sq . ft. 110 sq. ft. <br /> As shown in the attached Planning Commission minutes of January , 1980 , <br /> • building height and unit density. variances were approved. Technically , <br /> though, we must hear them again as this is a "new" proposal . I believe <br /> it is clear the City looks favorably on the project and therefore the <br /> variances are recommended, perhaps using the same reasons/rationale <br /> as January , 19 80 . <br /> Some concern as to unit sizes was expressed by Planning. Commission <br /> members last month. The reason for these sizes is the Federation is <br /> trying to adhere to HUD guidelines on this , i .e. , they recommend a <br /> certain percentage of efficiency units and with that square footage . <br /> The Senior Federation agrees the units should be larger and they have <br /> been in contact with HUD officials , but for now the best proposal <br /> to HUD would include those unit sizes . As the plan shows , if they <br /> are allowed to build larger units , this can easily be accomplished by <br /> building out the jog in the proposed building_. I recommend approval <br /> of the variance request with comments on the City 's preference and <br /> the desirability of larger units . <br /> As for other matters of consideration , 80% opacity for screening via <br /> landscaping is required and they have so proposed; the question of the <br /> desirability of having a service entrance in the rear (access through <br /> a residential area) ; the problem of providing pedestrian access across <br /> to the shopping center. As for the latter, I have been in contact <br /> with Sam Sivanich and he has his staff working on it. This is the <br /> only way semaphores will be erected there , i .e . , by direction of <br /> • the County Commission. <br />