CC 11-07-1974 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ., . ... 6. Open space was recognized as being critical and it had not been realized that the requirement had been exceeded and they were open to ony suggestion as to how the area could be increased. 7. Parking changes may be questionable. Computation of space needs according to the additional square footage and parking shown on the site plan would appear to require more spaces. A point of difference which may account for this average is . that the 2nd floor of the shopping center was computed as commercial space, requir- ing 19 parking spaces. If the same area. is to be used for office space, only 9 spaces are required which would then account for the shortage noted originally. To main- tain this ratio would require office use only of the 2nd floor space (if permitted to remain). . 8. General agreement as to the need for a readable site plan and a revised planting plan was expressed. METHODS OF COMPENSATION WERE DISCUSSED The representatives generally agreed that the compilation of errors amounted to a substan- tial change in the plan and the responsibility was theirs. Methods of bringing the project into conformance with the Zoning Code were discussed/so that no variances would be re- quired other than the Councils determination os to the necessity for amending the exist- ing permit or requiring a new permit and hearing. They were asked and agreed to submit the following data for council consideration: 1. A revised site plan in readable condition. 2. A revised landscape - planting plan. . 3. Resubmittal of drainage information to the City Engineer for approval. 4. Parking requirements would be recalculated and, because of the minimal city re- quirements for office parking needs, a rational for share parking requirements for shopping centers would be submitted. 5. They would agree to the treatment of the facia cif the building as shown in the origi- nal plans if the Council so desires. 6. That open space would be recalculated, ond the landscaped mall area would be in- cluded in open space and that they would have documentation from the County regard- ing their acquiring the excess R.O.W. at the corner of County Road E and lexington to the degree necessary to meet the 25% open space required. 7. That signing and lighting would be reviewed by Council as a part of the special use permi", and 8. That landscaping would be reviewed on the southern edge of the site to ~uffer the southern extension of the parking orea. The submittal of the above 8 points should bring the development within the requirements of the ordinance and in particular, the requirements fora Spec ial Use Permit. They do not totally compensate for the differences between the requirements of the ordinance and what was proposed at the granting of the present Special Use Permit. . .... -_.~