PL PACKET 04152025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

April 15, 2025 Page 9 tenants. This results in a much lower demand for parking spaces, and a very low traffic generation compared to other multi-family projects. For variances, the City’s review criteria are focused on a showing by the applicant that there are unique conditions on the site that create practical difficulties in putting the property to what would otherwise be a reasonable use. For the side setback, staff believes the existing site conditions, including a restricted lot width and existing storm sewer line along the north property boundary create these conditions – it is not reasonable to shift a building 10 feet north, as it would eliminate some necessary feature of the project – reasonable driveway width, sidewalk, and/or landscape area. For the parking design, the variance criteria are less clear. While the applicant can argue that the addition of an under-building parking tier would meet the technical language of the code, it is very expensive, and would serve neither the needs of the site (since the site would generate very little parking demand whether the supply were built or not), nor would it likely reduce the surface parking, since most employees and all visitors would typically rely on available surface parking. In this way, the variance can be seen as one driven by the unique nature of the use, rather than solely as an economic issue. With the increase in parking space count from 11 to 16, it is staff’s position that the parking supply will be more than sufficient in the large majority of circumstances. Finally, with regard to the impervious surface request, the City Engineer, subject to specific modifications to the civil and landscape plans, believes that the increase to 54.3% impervious will not create problems for the site or the neighborhood. The property configuration and its constraints, coupled with the final civil design, separate this project from others. Staff Recommendation Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed project, including the Conditional Use Permit, Variance for side setback, Variance for parking (as revised), and Variance impervious surface. The land use is clearly within the intent of the zoning ordinance, and meets all aspects of the R-4 district with the exception of the variance requests. For the setback variance, as discussed above, staff believes that the existing site dimensions dictate the need for shifting the building toward one side property line or the other, and the north boundary is encumbered by an existing storm sewer installation. It would not be reasonable to expect that some other multi-family building could be built on this property as zoned, without a similar setback variance. The parking variance is a close question. However, given the nature of the use, staff supports the variance as requested. The addition of 5 stalls for a total of 16 spaces should be adequate for nearly all circumstances for an assisted living use. Requiring expensive parking construction that would, in the large majority of cases, go unused is not a reasonable approach to housing development regulation and would unnecessarily increase costs with little or no return in project quality. These recommendations come with a set of recommended conditions, which apply both to the CUP and Variance applications. They are as follows: