1209 HEWITT AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

Side Setback - The proposed structure is 35 feet high plus the height of the stairwells on the roof. The code requires a five foot side setback plus an additional five feet for each ten feet that the structure exceeds 35 feet in � �ight. The applicant is proposing a zero foot west side setback since there is a commercially zoned lot on the west, which if developed for a commercial use could be built to the property line. The landscaping and open space for the proposed apartment will be provided on the roof of the building. i On-site Open Space - The code requires that 100 square feet of open space be provided for each dwellinq unit in an area not less than 500 square feet in size with the minimum dimension beinq ten feet. The applicant is proposing to provide the required l00 square feet of open space per dwelling unit in individual roof gardens ranging in size from 120 to 180 square feet that will provide individual private open space areas that will be desirable in this settinq. b. Conclusions: There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applying to this property. Criterion No � That the variar.ce will not be materially detrimental to the property in the area of the subject property or to the City as a whole. a. Findinas: C'�her uses in the area are commercial which typically are considered to create more neqative impacts on residential uses than visa versa. The propo:;ed town house will provide a visual departure from the commercial uses in the neiqhborhood, possible settinq a des gn trend for core area residential uses leadinq to a greater mix of commercial/residential uses in the downtown. The applicant had initially proposed four units on the site and had requested a parking variance in addition to the setback and open space location variances. However, the lot is not large enough to meet the 750 square feet per dwelling unit lot size for four units, and unless the applicant is able to acquire additional property the maximum number of apartment units that can be built would be three. The applicant would be able to provide the parking required for three units. If the applicant is able to acquire additional praperty and is still in need of a parkinq variance to be able to construct four units, he would have to reapply for a parking variance. An adjoining property owner, Cindy Stevens, spoke against the request for a parking variance. b. Conclusions• Granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the property in the area or to the City as a whole. In fact, a project of this type would enhance ��a this area of the city. C�riter�on No 3• T1� t the variance will only grant the subject property the same gF �eral rights enjoyed by other property in the same area and zone as the subject property. 2