My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
60A - DENSITY BONUS AFFORD HOUSING
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2019
>
05/07/2019
>
60A - DENSITY BONUS AFFORD HOUSING
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/28/2022 10:56:47 AM
Creation date
5/2/2019 6:04:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Community Development
Item #
60A
Date
5/7/2019
Destruction Year
2024
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
102
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
EXHIBIT 2 <br />SPR No. 2017-09/DBA No. 2017-02 <br />May 21, 2018 <br />Page 5 <br />Standard <br />Analysis <br />Publicly Accessible <br />The MEMU regulating plan requires that publicly -accessible open space be provided <br />Open Space <br />along main street -facing fagades. Because the project has frontage on only one street, <br />(Incentive/Concession) <br />meeting this requirement would result in the building being pushed back significantly <br />from First Street and would render almost the first 1/4 of the site's depth unusable for <br />building area, resulting in the developer having to construct a parking structure or <br />subterranean parking, significantly increasing building costs. Moreover, in order to <br />maintain the current proposed unit count, the developer would be required to construct <br />additional levels, resulting in a different type of construction (steel-frame/Type I versus <br />woodfrype III), further increasing development costs. If the publically accessible open <br />space standard were applied as written, the result would be a significant loss of units <br />and parking area. Pushing the building back would also reduce the contribution to <br />creating a more urban, walkable environment. The applicant intends to compensate <br />for this reduction by providing a greater average square footage of private/common <br />open sace per unit on the project site. <br />Building Setbacks <br />For a project of this size and construction type, OCFA requires 360-degree circulation <br />(Incentive/Concession) <br />on the project site with minimum 20-foot fire lanes. The addition of landscaping and <br />walkways around the project perimeter results in the project not being able to meet the <br />maximum 10-foot side yard requirement. Further, for a project of this height, the <br />MEMU requires a 100-foot rear yard setback. In order to maintain the current <br />proposed unit count, the developer would be required to construct additional levels, <br />resulting in a different type of construction (steel -frame versus wood), further <br />increasing development costs. Implementing this standard as written would result in <br />the building being set back an additional 55 feet from the rear lot line, resulting in a <br />significant loss of units and parking area. <br />Onsite parking <br />Constructing 2.0 parking spaces per residential unit on the project site would require <br />(Incentive/Concession) <br />the developer to construct an additional level of parking either above- or below -grade, <br />resulting in increased construction costs and/or a loss of an entire level of residential <br />units. <br />Driveway width (Waiver) <br />If the project were designed with narrower driveways, the driveways would not <br />conform to minimum standards established for fire ingress/egress by OCFA and for <br />trash truck ingress/egress established by the Public Works Agency and Waste <br />Management, the current waste collector contracted by the City. As a result, a waiver <br />from the maximum driveway width is required. <br />When analyzed cumulatively, the three requested concessions could be avoided if the project were <br />constructed using a different site plan and building type. If the project were designed with a multi- <br />level parking and/or subterranean parking structure, or If the applicant used different building <br />materials (non-combustible, Type 1) to construct a taller project, additional area on site would <br />become available to provide open space and parking, and to meet the required rear yard setback. <br />However, these changes would increase development costs, resulting in the affordable housing <br />project becoming financially infeasible due to the significantly -increased financial implications of <br />using Type I construction. <br />Additional Issues <br />The City thoroughly reviewed the applicant's request to construct the proposed project and <br />identified several additional items for consideration. These items are listed below and analyzed in <br />the following paragraphs. <br />1. Large Family Housing and Unit Bedroom Mix <br />60A-51 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.