Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plans Parking Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant pares 4‑family proposal to three units, agrees to conditions on site parking and easement
Summary
An applicant reduced a proposed multi‑family project to three units and agreed to provide three on‑site parking spaces, correct a lot‑coverage error, and record an easement for a shared driveway as a condition for next month’s approval.
The Zoning Board of Appeals heard an updated plan for a multi‑family conversion identified in the meeting as 105 Walgreens Street and during the hearing accepted that the proposal had been reduced from four units to three units, which reduced the city’s off‑street parking requirement. The applicant presented a revised plan showing three on‑site parking spaces and said the lot is too narrow to meet a 10‑foot setback for off‑street parking.
Board members asked the applicant to have an engineer confirm the correct lot‑coverage calculation before the ZBA drafts a resolution for a vote next month. Staff and board members noted the application packet listed lot coverage at 37 percent, while a staff calculation showed about 45 percent; the maximum referenced during discussion was 70 percent. The board requested the applicant resubmit corrected materials in time for the resolution.
The board and applicant agreed on several conditions the applicant must meet for staff to prepare a resolution for the next meeting: add a three‑foot landscaping buffer between parking and the south property line or provide alternative screening; record a shared‑driveway easement or right of way on the neighboring 107 property and submit the deed or easement instrument for legal review; and correct the lot‑coverage figures. The applicant said the office of corporation counsel would review the easement form if the board placed it as a condition of approval.
A staff member explained that a narrow lot (reported at about 30–35 feet wide in discussion) cannot accommodate the 10‑foot setback and still provide usable parking behind the building, but that pushing the three parking spaces slightly north could allow a three‑foot planting buffer. Board members suggested the applicant or engineer explore adjusting the driveway apron so the three‑foot buffer could be provided while still meeting backup clearance (22 feet was cited as the standard backup requirement).
The public hearing was closed and the board asked staff to draft a resolution for a vote next month, contingent on the applicant submitting corrected lot‑coverage calculations and documentation of the required easement. The board also asked the applicant to supply the corrected drawings within the two‑week deadline for materials ahead of the next meeting.
Why it matters: The conditions require legal documentation (easement) and corrected engineering data before a resolution is prepared, tying final approval to satisfying technical and title requirements that affect neighbors and site layout.
The board closed the public hearing and is expected to vote on a resolution after staff prepares the draft and confirms the resubmission.
