PL PACKET 03182025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 18, 2025 Page 4 requirement of 20 feet. The north side setback is approximately 60 feet. The lot width is 124.7 feet total. Variance requests are reviewed as to whether there are unique conditions present on the property, not created by the applicant/owner, which create practical difficulties in putting the property to reasonable use without the variance. In this case, the lot width is the controlling factor that generates the issue with setback. The parking and driveway widths to the north are as narrow as can be reasonably functional, and the storm sewer line limits the ability to extend improvements farther north than shown. Under the R-4 zoning, reasonable use would include a multi-family building. The units themselves are already below the baseline threshold, as discussed above. It is not practical to shrink the internal units any more than the proposed design. Other external improvements include the sidewalk along the north side of the facility, which provides access to outdoor spaces on and around the site. The design leaves a small area for landscape planting between the building and the sidewalk. Eliminating any of these elements would negatively impact the livability of the site, and as noted, are a function of the reasonable land use (multi-family residential) and existing lot width. In summary, staff believes that the factors for variance are present in this regard, as no other reasonable building and parking design would accommodate full setbacks on both sides of the building. 4. Parking Variance. The second variance request relates to the requirement for parking for the facility, and the further requirement that the larger part of the parking is placed below grade. Parking Supply. There are two issues at play with regard to supply. Under the regular senior multi-family standard, a total of 38 parking spaces would be required, at the 1.1 space per unit minimum. As noted, the applicant has provided a site plan showing just 11 spaces, accounting for employee parking demand and a few limited visitor spaces during most days. Staff would be concerned that this supply would be inadequate during events or other holiday visiting times. Because Foss Road is often used for on-street parking, this supply issue could be an occasional nuisance during peak usage. Underground Parking. The code requires, subject to any variance waiver, that most of the on- site parking is provided underground. The applicant is limited to just 11 surface spaces in part because impervious surface standards on this small parcel limit further pavement for parking or other purposes. If the building were elevated to provide an under-building parking story, both parking supply and impervious coverage would be less of an issue. Factors for variance in this case are essentially an appeal to the smaller number of parking spaces necessary for assisted living housing compared to other multi-family and senior housing generally. The applicant is reluctant to accommodate the underground parking due primarily to cost, and absorbing that cost for what is most likely to be an effective over-supply of parking on the site. This factor is a balance between economics and reasonable use for the site – while economics are not to be used as the sole rationale for a variance, they can play a role. The applicant’s variance appeal here is based largely on the factor that the parking supply provided in an under-building parking