PL PACKET 04152025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

April 15, 2025 Page 6 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. 5. 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 revised site plan showing 16 spaces, increased over the original 11 spaces proposed. The applicant contends that this supply will account for employee parking demand of 5 spaces, and at least 10 or more visitor spaces during most days. The applicant has provided additional information on parking supply at comparative projects to support the proposed parking design. 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 16 surface spaces in part because impervious surface standards on this small parcel limit further pavement for parking or other purposes, even with a variance of about 10% over the standard. 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 garage would go largely unused – an economic burden that provides no specific benefit to the land use. Staff believes that there may be reasonable grounds for variance consideration in this case, given that the purpose of the underground (or under-building) parking is to limit surface parking and the impervious surface that comes with it. In this case, there would still be a need for some surface parking for visitors and transient employees, even if there were underground spaces available. In this way, the underground requirement can be viewed as an unreasonable burden on the otherwise reasonable use of the property.