CCP 06-29-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, July 1, 1987 Page 3 CASE #87-21 (Cont'd) Chairman Curtis questioned if this will alleviate the . parking problem or if the situation will come up again. Davidson advised that the tenant is currently operating with one shift; his opinion is that the tenant would begin a second shift rather than request further expansion of the parking area. Curtis asked if the applicant had discussed the ~roposed.expansio~ with the Opus development adjacent to this property; Davidson adv1sed he d1d not. The Planner noted that the current parking lot setback exceeds the minimum required for side yard; a hearing is not required and the applicant need not advise or discuss the requested variance with Opus. Meury questioned if the expansion of the parking lot and increased site coverage would create drainage problems. Miller stated that the building is directly adjacent to a holding pond which has proven to be adequate for drainage purposes; his ~pinion is that 4.5 percent should not have significant impact on the dra1nage. Commission discussed how many parking spaces the 4.5 perc~nt c~verage inc:ease would provide the applicant; Miller noted that in recheck1ng h1s cal:ulat10ns the applicant is slightly over 73 percent coverage currently. He ~dv1sed.that the problem is functional; in order to get driveways and usable c1rculat10n a 2 percent variance may not be functional. . Member Malone stated he recalls concern expressed by Planning Commission and Council when this matter was before them a few years ago relative to the amount of parking in front of the building; there was an attempt to require the applicant to provide more green space. Malone questioned if the applicant had attempted to purchase any of the available land to the rear of the building for parking expansion; he noted that the area proposed this evening for expansion would be clearly visible from the front of the building. Davidson explained that consideration was given to purchasing land in the rear of the building; however, the tenant requested they not explore that aspect beyond consideration. There was discussion relative to an additional shift of employees causing parking problems; had the applicant considered busing employees from the Deluxe facility in Shoreview; had the applicant considered expanding to the 75 percent coverage and rearranging the current parking area. Davidson explained that the second shift of employees would not cause parking problems; the company has addressed that issue in several of it's facilities. He noted that all the Deluxe facilities use their parking to capacity. Davidson stated that there was consideration given to rearrangement of the parking lot; however, he was not able to come up with a design that would work to alleviate the problem. Miller commented that to stay within the 75 percent coverage the 31 spaces . would be reduced by one-third.