CC PACKET 10272020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

October 27, 2020 Page 2 3) Parking Supply. A parking supply of less than 2 spaces per unit as imposed in the R-4 zoning district. A total of 46 parking spaces are proposed which results in a ratio of 1.2 spaces per unit. This number is equal to the total number of bedrooms proposed in the project. 4) Covered (Enclosed) Parking. The allowance of no covered (enclosed) parking stalls. The City’s R-4 District standard requires at least half of all parking stalls to be covered/enclosed. 5) Impervious Surface Coverage. The allowance of impervious surface coverage which exceeds 50 percent of the area of the site (as imposed in the R-4 zoning district). The proposed site plan calls for 76.7 percent of the site to be devoted to impervious surface. Planning Commission Action. The Planning Commission considered this item at its August 16th meeting as a part of a public hearing on the request. A motion to approve the item was seconded, but failed to prevail, with the vote split at 2 in favor, 2 opposed, and 3 members abstaining. The votes opposed raised as primary issues a concern over parking supply, the concern with converting potential commercial property to residential, and a concern over the lack of attention to racial justice. Abstention votes primarily cited the inability to ensure that the applicant’s primary project asset – affordability – was a guarantee, but instead only a goal of the project. The applicant noted that the proposal was essentially “market rate”, in that it is being designed to succeed financially by attracting tenants who are willing to accept lower levels of amenities in exchange for lower rents. The primary support for ensuring the lower rents was the applicant’s contention that unit size and the lack of amenities would not attract tenants at higher rent levels. The Planning Commission declined to take up a second motion, and forwards the application to the City Council without a final recommendation. Staff Recommendation. Since the Planning Commission’s review, the applicant has submitted updated exterior plans, reflecting additional detail in the window areas (showing the HVAC units), and altering the color scheme slightly, particularly lightening the wood material from a dark grey-brown to a medium brown color. Otherwise, the current submission is the same as that reviewed by the Planning Commission. It should be noted that exterior building colors were not raised as an issue by the Commission. 32