CCMIN061080 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Harris advised that staff objected to Mr. Avakian's proposal because they felt it could be designed without requiring a Variance. Mr. Avakian stated he had tried all alternatives and felt this was the best plan he could come up with. Mr. Terry Hunt, 2116 Hawaii Court South, stated that another advantage to the project having two separate buildings instead of one two-story is that it will conserve energy and tend to lend a more residential atmosphere to the area and also be more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Art Dunkley, 844 Division Street, stated he was in favor of the appeal and felt it is a good proposal for the downtown area. He stated he is a property owner in that area and he felt a two-story structure would be abusive in this location, that two single-story structures would retain the residential atmosphere and be less abusive to surrounding property owners. He also stated that one-story units would be more convenient for senior citizens who tend to rent in the downtown area. Mr. Dunkley quoted from the 1979 Study of the Central Business District, and stated he felt there were enough special circumstances necessary to establish the findings to grant a Variance on this proposal. He stated that traffic volume would be low and not interfere with free-flow traffic. He added that this proposed project would not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the City, and urged Council to approve the appeal. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to this item. Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Mohr stated she had some concerns regarding parkingr Mayor Mercer asked if easy access was available for emergency equipment. Staff advised that it was. Councilmember Kephart asked the Director of Planning why staff was opposed to a two-story unit vs. two one-story units. Mr. Harris advised.' that his staff felt a two-story unit was a more efficient use of the land. After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Butler, and seconded by Councilmember Kephart, that Resolution No. 80-158, by which the Council adopts the following findings as to the Variance for setbacks, that: (1) the long-, narrow shape of the subject parcel deprives the developer of the right to develop the subject property in an attractive single-story manner available to others on more standard-shaped lots in the same zoning district; (2) that because of the particular shape of the property, the developer is not receiving a grant of special privilege; and (3) that in the low single-story profile permitted by this proposal, no injury to public health, safety, or welfare will result; and as to the parking Variance, that: (1) because of the long, narrow shape of the subject parcel, the developer is deprived of the right to develop the subject property in a single-story manner, with the necessary six parking spaces; (2) due to shape of the property, no grant of special privilege is being made; (3) because these units are not likely to attract families with a large number of vehicles, no injury to public health, safety, and welfare will result; and (4) the uses of these residences will not generate sufficient traffic or parking volumes to require strict interpretation of the Code, will not result in over- loading street parking or create safety problems, and approves the appeal of 7. 6/10/80