My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-22-21-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2021
>
11-22-21-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/18/2021 3:55:13 PM
Creation date
11/18/2021 3:50:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
135
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
<br /> <br /> <br />Page 3 of 13 <br />ft. of floor area, whichever is greater. The Applicant had shown a floor area of 212,500 square <br />feet and that would require 212 parking stalls. In October 2020, the approved plans depicted 363 <br />parking spaces and the proposed uses required 362 stalls. As part of the October review, the <br />Applicant had noted the possibility of constructing the expanded parking area which would add <br />198 stalls. In total, the site would have 561 parking stalls. <br /> <br />For Site Plan Review, the Applicant was asked to provide updated parking calculations based on <br />their leased tenant and prospective tenant floor area breakdown of uses within the building. The <br />PUD approval had calculated the required parking spaces based on a spec building of 85% <br />warehouse area and 15% office space. However, that ratio of parking spaces necessary under the <br />code may have changed as a result of their prospective tenant occupancy. Staff has requested <br />this information on several occasions and has not yet received any additional data to update the <br />City Council. It was indicated that the new tenant’s use would be considered lab-use, and the <br />parking space calculation for warehouse area or lab space would fall under the same category as <br />“Other Business and Industry” uses. Based on the Applicants general explanation at the <br />Planning Commission meeting on tenant uses staff believes the following two off-street parking <br />categories would still be applicable and the parking calculation does not change for either <br />warehouse or lab: <br />• Business and Industry – 1 for each employee on major shift plus 1 for each vehicle used <br />in conducting the business or 1 for each 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area, whichever is greater <br /> Note: Staff requested updated parking detail to include both floor area and <br />employee count by tenant in order to verify which equation is greater. <br />• Business and Professional Office – 1 for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area <br /> <br />B. Parking Setbacks – Flexibility Shown <br />The GB district requires a 50 foot setback for parking areas from public streets and ROW. As <br />part of the platting process when the property was developed, the Applicant was required to <br />dedicate ROW along Gateway Boulevard. The 2020 original request was for a 30 foot parking <br />lot setback and due to ROW dedication this was modified to requesting a 20 foot setback to the <br />parking area on the north side of the subject parcel. Under the PUD, flexibility was approved for <br />a 20 foot setback from Gateway Boulevard for the main parking area reviewed along with the <br />building design. <br /> <br />The Applicant has shown a 49.4 foot setback from the west property line facing 35W and an 18.2 <br />foot setback from the north property line facing Gateway Boulevard ROW (Note: updated site <br />plan identifies a setback of 28.2 feet, but this includes 10 feet of ROW). The proposed parking <br />lot expansion aligns with the placement of the previously approved parking areas along Gateway <br />Boulevard. It was noted during the PUD review that the proposed parking areas are located <br />approximately 50 feet from the back of curb of Gateway Boulevard. Additionally, that several <br />properties along Round Lake Road and Gateway Boulevard have similar or greater reduction in <br />parking lot setbacks. <br /> <br />The Applicant was under the belief that the PUD approval for the parking lot setback flexibility <br />was granted for the full width/length of the property abutting Gateway Boulevard (i.e. including <br />the “future” parking lot expansion). They are seeking City Council clarification as to whether or <br />not the 20 foot parking setback flexibility was granted inclusive of the “future parking area”. For <br />this application, Site Plan Review is limited in approval of plans prepared in accordance with
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.