pf_01483 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE NUMBER: 1483-84 APPLICANT: The Housing Alliance Page 3 shall be one-half of the height of the building. In this case, the side yard required would thus be 37 feet whereas 30 feet is proposod. The rear yard requirement would bo 51 feet whereas 44 foot is proposed. The building location is largo controlled by the soil condition, though the Planning Commission and Council may question the architects regarding their ability to shift the building as related to the cast and south line of the site. g. Attached is a copy of the report from the Engineering Department out.lini,ng certain roquiromants. It would appear that all of those concerns can bj handled and a condition ,attached to any approval eonaidered requiring engineering review and approval. The applicants have asked whether or not the public sidewalk could bo mov@d further south onto their own property. We hbvc indicated that this could be door@ with City roviow and approval if a public @49VzOnt 10 granted on that portion of the land occupied by the aidewa.lk. IfOrmally, the sidewalk, of courae, is placed in the public right-of-way. In this c490, the grad@ considerations might maka it advivabl@ to movo the aid@vaik further south aid not necessarily run it in a straight lino to iraprov@ its quality and ultimate u ,. 10. This propoeal I# r#at a plaottaed weir dwWeloTn� "Much as a s1ngl@ principal structur@ occupiag the cite, aid the a1t@, of ors@. hag frotrtag@ on A public street. Itw much as A op@cial uee pe it is r@qu@et@d, h v@r, the Planning C04=10§10n 4nd Council would have Ow right to attach conditions too the apprOv.1l, Otte of which should b@ that the d @lop- *ent be c*"tructcd In co€tfOr74#w@ with the plaote gubbitt@d as r@vis�, or do )ust� ao of fir@ date of the Cods ll's act€Qtt. ll. It would app"r that tkt@r@ is no quotation that th@ pr sal old substatrtlally contribute to A houoing tit" in the City. Th@ lsswt@ s +s to b@ Ott@ 1d.rg@ly of planting t6to sit@ go a.s to k@ it cot tibl@ with nglglebOrhO i voncerors. W.@ ttd'V@ s @sted WO th@ a licattt.4, a r#V4# vd d@v@lo nt c'otrc@pt, which would placr the 6tagh@ s'ttuctu.r@ gall@l to and noaror to C@unty � h. This plan uld +cork @Xcopt that a substantial portictr Of Clio building would �54 fflaced on Ivor coil Conditions' i t}:ailrly rmkinq it ure@cot icdl to co""Xuct, The architOct,e have, drawn a proliminary e.k+ttch ittdacatitrg i w this eOlutiOn a old stork, A copy of ghat dr4wing 1.s in the plattttifg fait Taut was not sub�ltt.�d as t1t@ir prrrp@sal boc4um@ of tit@ t@ tontial for oxtrocasts. 12. TMr@ ai'lalrcation then i.s for a roxO€tltrg "C'm R-1 to R-3, Sp4@641 Us@ Pormit for a larger 131u1 lding and hoaghts, and a rF4�o iatrce tO tt front And @id@ yard ettl ck, a vdri4')c� to parking roquirt o�jjta, and oleo a varia�tc@ to tit@ gN cif :: a w,iYri �s�it. Ors i ro p i� r@gAtirtd to to 700 uqu4ra foot. Tit@ average unit size in thin paopo@al is 800 aquare f@@t. Ito are not dwiro of the oxjet eito of the Oft b0dfOQm Unit proposed. Tho architects should bo quouttofs cis tO this Vp€-cific number.