pf_01483 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i ® i CASE NUMBER: 1483-84 APPLICANT: The Housing Alliance Page 3 shall be one-half of the height of the building. In this case, the sir yard required would thus be 37 feet whereas 30 feet is e yard requirement would be 51 feet whereas 44 feet is Proposed. The hbuildin location is large controlled by the soil condition thou Commission and Council may g y question the architects �regarding htheir nability to shift the building as related to the east and south line -of the site. 9. Attached is a copy of the report from the Engineering Department Outlining certain requirements. It would appear that all of these concerns canbe handled and a condition attached to an engineering review and a y a PProval considered requiring the public sidewalk couldbemoved Tfurther he lsouth onto their nproperty. cants have ir whether r not We have indicated that this could be done with Cityreview andaproval if a public easement is granted on that portion of the land occuied b the sidewalk. Normally, -the sidewalk, of course, is placed in the public right-of-way. In this case, the P c advisable to move the sidewalk further south rand tnot sneces necemight ssarily u in a straight line to improve its quality and ultimate use., y run it 10. This proposal is not a planned unit development inasmuch as a sine principal structure occupies the site, and the site, of course, has frontage on a public street. Inasmuch as a special use permit is however, the Planning Commission and Council would have the right to requested, attach conditions to the approval, one of which should be that the develo - ment be constructed in conformance with the plans submitted as revised, P or as adjusted as of the date of the Council's action. 11. It would appear that there is no question that the substantially contribute to a housing need in the City.Proposal would to be one largely of planning the site so as to make it compatible withs neighborhood concerns. We have suggested to the applicants, a revised development concept, which would place the higher structure parallel to and nearer to County Road B. This plan would work except that a substantial portion of the building would be placed on Possibly making it uneconomical to construct. poor soil conditions preliminary sketch indicating how this solutionTwouldcwork. Aitectshcave oop drawn a drawing is in the planning file but was not submitted as their y sof a that because of the potential for extreme costs. PPol 12. The application then is for a rezoning from R-1 to R-3, Special Use P for a larger building and heights, and a variance to the front and side it yard setback, a variance to parking requirements, and also a variance to the size of the living unit. A one bedroom is required to be 700 square feet. The average unit size in this proposal is 800 square feet. We are not aware of the exact size of the one bedroom unit proposed. The architects should be questions as to this specific number.