PL PACKET 04152025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 18, 2025 Page 5 6. Additional necessary conditions related to the Comprehensive Plan or local 1 conditions. 2 3 The Side Setback Variance includes: 4 • Existing Lot width would result in inadequate width for any building, with 20 foot side 5 yards, common building width, and parking/driveway. 6 • Storm sewer line on north boundary prohibits location of building along the north side 7 of parcel. 8 • Parks access on north side of parcel less likely to interfere with other traffic from 9 townhouses (to north) than multi-family (to south). 10 11 The Parking Variance includes: 12 • Applicant notes that assisted living tenants will not have cars on site. 13 • Requirements for underground parking would require significant increase in parking 14 supply and cost but not improve site conditions. 15 • Future conversion to non-senior use would require revisiting the parking supply on the 16 site. 17 • Applicant should quantify employee and daily visit parking demand to confirm 18 proposed 11 space supply. 19 20 Mr. Grittman provided drawings of the building design and other elements. The Building 21 Design and Other Elements: 22 • Enhance south building wall and roofline to avoid flat wall design toward the shallow 23 setback. 24 • Maintain No-Parking along street access for emergency response. 25 • Limit additional impervious surface, including under-deck surfaces. 26 • Add landscape treatments to south building wall area. 27 • Discuss elements of sustainability – note that 25% of the site is planted in natural 28 landscape materials. 29 30 Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed project, including the Conditional Use 31 Permit, Variance for side setback, and Variance for parking. The land use is clearly within the 32 intent of the zoning ordinance and meets all aspects of the R-4 district with the exception of 33 the two variance requests. 34 35 For the setback variance, staff believes that the existing site dimensions dictate the need for 36 shifting the building toward one side property line or the other, and the north boundary is 37 encumbered by an existing storm sewer installation. It would not be reasonable to expect that 38 some other multi-family building could be built on this property as zoned, without a similar 39 setback variance. 40 41 The parking variance is a close question. However, given the nature of the use, staff supports 42 the variance as requested. Requiring expensive parking construction that would, in the large 43 majority of cases, go unused is not a reasonable approach to housing development regulation 44 and would unnecessarily increase costs with little or no return in project quality. 45 46