pf_03753 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUIV� TO: DON MUNSON, PERMIT COORDINATQR & TOM TROOIEN, C& I INSPECTOR - � - ' FROM: THOMAS PASCHKE, CITY PLANNER � '��° �=�'- SUBJECT: O REILLY AUTO PARTS DATE: JUNE 7, 2006 I have reviewed the plans provided by W D Partnexs on behalf of O'Reilly Auto PaYts iegarding development of 1887 Rice Street and concluded that following: Section 1010.02 D(Exterioi Finish) genexally suppoYts the allowance of pre-ftnished metal. However, 1010.02F specifically requires "factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construcrion if panel materials are any of those noted above or similar as determined by the City Council". In discussions �vith the Cin� Attorney it has been concluded that d�e use of the e�terior finish material �vill require City Council appYO�ral. The Development Review Coininittee letter indicated that xefuse and recyclables must be located witivn the structuYe or within an attached and roofed enclosuYe. The plans subinitted indicate a detached structure that is not roofed - thus prolubited b�� Section 1010.11 (Trash Handling Equipment). �ldditionally the pioposed trash structure does not meet the required 20 foot setback. No supporting documentation has been provided that �vould clearly indicate whether d�e iooftop mechanical units meet the requirements of Section 1010.07 (Rooftop Equipment) or are 100% screened form a property line. The plan does indicate a ground level air conditioning area that is screened - which location and design is supported by the City Code. The elevation drawings indicate facade lighting, but I am unable to conclude what type. Section 1010.12 xequires these lights to be a cut-off downcast design. rldditional, information on this item and �vhether they are proposing parking light lighting is required. The site plan appears to meet the dimensional requirements of Section 1005 - ho�vever, I�vould requixe a site survey to verify/validate achieveinent of iequired setbacks. Specifically, it is unclear where the front property line lies and whether the parking lot is set back the required 15 feet - I would conclude that this proposal does not meet the setback requirement. We should also receive a copy of the easement agreement with the propeity to the north to understand joint access/use and any shared parking allo�vance.