Item 3: PH on Resolution Concerning Measure 37 Claim (Brown)

Home Browse Search

characterized by very large street trees, and some of the nicest single family housing stock in the west downtown area. We expressed our hesitation to foist such a building on this streetscape. To the degree that we could legally build right to the property line on all four sides, this could be construed to be a self-imposed hardship. However, we think the real hardship is visited upon the neighborhood which would be affected by this building, driven as it is by the ZO requirements. We are well aware of the reasons for the FAR requirements, and as a general matter support the effort to densify the downtown, and to allow it to reach a critical mass of development which will allow public transportation to be viable. However in the present case, we believe a legitimate argument can be made for the reduction of the FAR to the prior requirement. In our experience, which is considerable in the area of infilling new buildings into existing neighborhoods, the degree of difficulty in meeting all the disparate (and often contradictory) requirements of the ZO increases almost exponentially as the site in question becomes smaller and smaller. If we honor near minimum residential setback requirements (which allow there to be windows on these exterior walls, by the way), almost 1/3 of the lot area is taken up by setbacks, leaving 2/3 of the lot area to carry all the FAR-driven building area. If you were to double the width of this lot, and look at the same percentage figure, it drops to 22% of the lot area in these setbacks. It gets easier to meet the FAR as the site gets larger. We have been advocating for some time to the Planning Department (and anyone else who will listen to us) that some recognition of the particular problems of applying all the ZO requirements to the common small lot sizes in the urban core should be taken. It is noteworthy that the illustrations contained in the rear of the ZO frequently depict development sites much larger than most of the 4000 to 10,000 sq. ft. lots that are the norm in the area surrounding downtown. These restrictions have one kind of affect when applied to a two acre site; it is quite different when they are applied to a 7000 sq. ft. site. We understand that it is likely the relief requested by Rich Duncan will be granted. I wanted to go on record as saying that contrary to this being some sort of loss for the City, it is exactly the opposite. A building much more appropriate to the immediate neighborhood will result, while still representing a significant increase in office space and living units than is currently the case. (The site is currently a surface parking lot, all asphalt, with no trees. The resulting development will preserve the large trees in the parkstrip, add significant new landscaping and additional trees, as well as providing further opportunities to live and work in the urban core area, which is the whole point of the TD overlay area. Thanks for taking note of our opinion on this. Please call if you have any questions. Regards, Gordon Anslow Anslow & DeGeneault, Inc