|
CONCLUSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
<br />The applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional use permit for a senior housing project in the R-4 zone
<br />(assisted living), and three variances, one for setback to the south property line, another for parking
<br />design and supply (surface parking only), and a third for an increase in impervious surface. Conditional
<br />Use Permit considerations relate to the general consistency of the use with other neighboring parcels,
<br />consistency with the intent of the zoning district and other site considerations. Although the project
<br />proposal includes 34 units, at the top of the density range, the units are designed for assisted living care,
<br />which tends to have a much lower residential density, and, usually, no personal vehicle ownership by
<br />tenants. This results in a much lower demand for parking spaces, and a very low traffic generation
<br />compared to other multi-family projects.
<br />For variances, the City’s review criteria are focused on a showing by the applicant that there are unique
<br />conditions on the site that create practical difficulties in putting the property to what would otherwise
<br />be a reasonable use.
<br />For the side setback, staff believes the existing site conditions, including a restricted lot width and
<br />existing storm sewer line along the north property boundary create these conditions – it is not
<br />reasonable to shift a building 10 feet north, as it would eliminate some necessary feature of the project
<br />– reasonable driveway width, sidewalk, and/or landscape area.
<br />For the parking design, the variance criteria are less clear. While the applicant can argue that the
<br />addition of an under-building parking tier would meet the technical language of the code, it is very
<br />expensive, and would serve neither the needs of the site (since the site would generate very little
<br />parking demand whether the supply were built or not), nor would it likely reduce the surface parking,
<br />since most employees and all visitors would typically rely on available surface parking. In this way, the
<br />variance can be seen as one driven by the unique nature of the use, rather than solely as an economic
<br />issue. With the increase in parking space count from 11 to 16, staff believes that the parking supply will
<br />be more than sufficient in the large majority of circumstances.
<br />Finally, with regard to the impervious surface request, the City Engineer, subject to specific modifications
<br />to the civil and landscape plans, believes that the increase to 54.3% impervious will not create problems
<br />for the site or the neighborhood. The property configuration and its constraints, coupled with the final
<br />civil design, separate this project from others.
<br />Staff and Planning Commission Recommendation
<br />Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the proposed project, including the Conditional
<br />Use Permit, Variance for side setback, Variance for parking (as revised), and Variance to the impervious
<br />surface maximum, based on the findings below and as stipulated in the City Council Resolution, No. 037.
<br />The land use is clearly within the intent of the zoning ordinance, and meets all aspects of the R-4 district
<br />with the exception of the variance requests. For the setback variance, as discussed above, staff believes
<br />that the existing site dimensions dictate the need for shifting the building toward one side property line
<br />or the other, and the north boundary is encumbered by an existing storm sewer installation. It would
<br />not be reasonable to expect that some other multi-family building could be built on this property as
<br />zoned, without a similar setback variance.
<br />The parking variance is a close question. However, given the nature of the use, staff supports the
<br />variance as requested. The addition of 5 stalls for a total of 16 spaces should be adequate for nearly all
<br />circumstances for an assisted living use. Requiring expensive parking construction that would, in the
<br />large majority of cases, go unused is not a reasonable approach to housing development regulation and
<br />would unnecessarily increase costs with little or no return in project quality.
<br />Finally, with regard to the impervious surface variance, staff supports the variance given the ability to
<br />manage stormwater on this particular site with the City Engineer’s direction, and the substantial
<br />28
|