03/18/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

anF". h eaisting building and suggested, if the variance request was for just the overhang or 1'to 4'feet it would be easier to accept, but they are asking for 30'feet that is too much. Mr. Suhayda asked if they nnoved the building 10'feet further to the West, would the board members feel more comfortable with the " sideyard variance. Mr. Yager suggested it would help and more would be even better. Mr. Yager indicated he was unwilling to except a 10'feet sideyard, when the code requires almost 40'feet. As far as the West Side setback, he would like to see it at zero, with the building put right on the lots line. He also suggested removing four of the suites to accommodate the required setbacks. Mr. Yager suggested moving the building would allow a green buffer between tlie building and the property line. As far as the parking, they have more than what they are required to have, a,nd the Planning Commission suggested eliminating the 7 parking spaces to allow more landscaping. Mr. Suhayda suggested the building is required to have 44 paxking spaces and the plans show 5 1, so 7 parking spaces could be eliminated. Mr. Yager inquired as to where the deliveries would be made at the site. Mr. Suhayda indicated the deliveries would come to the back of the building, so the driveway would be added to handle the deliveries. Mr. Yager indicated the landscaping would not benefit the residents of the building if the driveway reinained. The 1.2-% variance requested for the physical size of the building is required, because the building itself will take-up more than 20% of the property. The 1.2-%, needed is because, the two jog-outs at the end of the L shape portion of the building. NIr. Liggett suggested he would like to see the building moved over to eliminate the west sideyard variance, that is presently needed. He fiirther suggested the architect look at reconstructing the building; by pulling in the west wing to come iip with a semi-tee builduig design. They would not lose any of the suites and it would eliminate the biggest portion of the west sideyard variance needed. Mr. Liggett would rather see the parking in the front eliminated to accommodate the semi-tee shape building than removing the rear parking. Mr. Conway suggested the proposal was designed several years ago when the setback requirements were different. 1VIr. Conway suggested the City had been concerned with how close buildings were to one another, which is why the code was up-dated. Now the setback is the higlier the roof is the fiirther the setback. Mr. Yager suggested he liked the L shape of the building as it gives it a more residential appearance, but it is too close to the property line. Mr. Yager suggested tlie Arclutectural Review Board should make a recommendation on the dimensions to the Board of Zoning Appeals board. Mr. Liggett aslced what the West Side setback presently was. Mr. Suhayda suggested it is presently 11'feet. Mr. Liggett indicated if the building was moved 10'feet, there would be 24'feet of green space. NLr. Liggett reviewed that if the building were moved to the East, three parking spaces in the front would be lost. The developer would not be able to remove the 7 parking spaces the Planning Commission requested. Mr. Yager suggested the reason the Planning Commission suggested removing parkuig spaces was because, not many people who live in an assisted living facility drive. Mr. Suhayda suggested that instead of removing 7 parking spaces from the back, they could remove 4. That would allow them to remove 3 from the front to accoinmodate the building being moved. Mr. Yager questioned how many one-room efficiencies would be in the building. He was under the impression that efficiency's were hard to sell in an assisted living facilities. Mr. Siahayda indicated there would be 21 one bedrooms, 18 efficiency's, and 1 two bedrooms. Mrs. Schulz suggested that would mean 40% of the rooms are efficiencies. Mr. Yager suggested efficiencies are used when the building design suggests there is not enough room for larger rooms. He suggested the building seem to be designed around the efficiencies, which are causing the setback problems. Mr. Yagers' impression of assisted living facilities is that efficiencies are hard to sell and single bedrooms are better. Mr. Suhayda suggested there is a 125 square foot difference between a one bedroom and efficiency. Mr. Yager indicated since Mr. Suhayda as an arclutect builds quite a few assisted living facilities and the owners are not present to ask them which rooms sell well. He would like to know Mr. Suhayda's opinion regarding efficiencies being hard to sell. Mr. Suhayda suggested Mr. Yager was correct. With independent living facility they try to make them all two bedrooms, but an assisted living facility will have more efficiencies. Mr. Yager suggested that if two suites were removed from the first floor as well as the second floor it would meet the setback requirements, and still be an effective plan. Mr. Suhayda suggested he attended a meeting with the owners' accotmtants and they wanted 4' ) suites in the building. Mr. Yager suggested the site is letting you know that the size of the building is burdening the lot. He strongly suggested moving the setback over by removing 4 efficiency units, which are hard to sell anyway and the esthetics of the building would stay in tact. Mr. Suhayda asked Mr. Conway if the setback of 44'feet was based on the high point of the gable, and if it was would the Board of Zonuig