CC MINUTES 05132025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 13, 2025 Page 4 1 Mr. Grittman provided comments on each of these conditions. The Site Plan and Setback 2 Variance were reviewed in detail. 3 4 The second variance request relates to the requirement for parking for the facility, and the further 5 requirement that the larger part of the parking is placed below grade. 6 7 1. Parking Supply — There are two issues at play with regard to supply. Under the 8 regular senior multi -family standard, a total of 38 parking spaces would be required, 9 at the 1.1 space per unit minimum. The applicant has provided a revised site plan 10 showing 16 spaces, increased over the original 11 spaces proposed. The applicant 11 contends that this supply will account for employee parking demand of 5 spaces, and 12 at least 10 or more visitor spaces during most days. The applicant has provided 13 additional information on parking supply at comparable projective to support the 14 proposed parking design. 15 16 2. Underground Parking — The code requires, subject to any variance waiver, that most 17 of the on -site parking is provided underground. The applicant is limited to just 16 18 surface spaces in part because impervious surface standards on this small parcel limit 19 further pavement for parking or other purposes, even with a variance of about 10% 20 over the standard/ If the building were elevated to provide an under -building parking 21 story, both parking supply and impervious coverage would be less of an issue. 22 23 Staff believes there may be reasonable grounds for variance consideration in this case, given that 24 the purpose of the underground (or under -building) parking is to limit surface parking and the 25 impervious surface that comes with it. In this case, there would still be a need for some surface 26 parking for visitors and transient employees, even if there were underground spaces available. In 27 this way, the underground requirement can be viewed as an unreasonable burden on the 28 otherwise reasonable use of the property. Staff believes that the 16-space parking supply would 29 be sufficient for nearly all conditions, with an occasional exception for a few high -demand 30 events such as Mother's Day. 31 32 Mr. Grittman reviewed the Building Design and Materials, noting the R4 District requirement: 33 34 The applicant for any multi -family structure in the R-4 District shall provide a proposed 35 materials palette, including a plan that shows brick, stone, glass, and architectural metal 36 on no less than 50% of all building walls. Architecture shall include significant 37 articulation in both wall facades and building roofline. 38 39 The building materials for this structure are primarily lapped metal siding and a wainscot of 40 simulated stone, as well as other stone elements around the main entry facing the parking area 41 and toward the street. The west (street), north, and east exposures show some changes in building 42 wall and roofline. The south wall, adjoining the apartment property and subject to the requested 43 setback variance, shows little articulation. Staff would recommend that this exposure is 44 addressed to add visual interest on this side of the building. This recommendation is strengthened 45 by the fact that this exposure is limited in potential landscape planting due to underground 46 utilities and the narrowed side yard. Enhancing the visual impact of this exposure would help 47 offset the lack of landscape and the setback reduction. The applicant has added cross gables to