Laserfiche WebLink
aroundthe County RoadCentrance,orgoing the wrongwayinthe drive aisle. This affects <br />42 <br />parkingspaces,oroverathirdoftheparking. <br />Inaddition,the drive aisle pasttheambulance dropoff does not allow enoughclearance for the <br />angledparking shown on the westsideofthesite;ofthehandicapped spaces blockthe <br />proposedtrash enclosure; andsixspaceson the eastsideofthe site preventcarsturning <br />around within the lot to accesstheotherspacesin the lot. <br />Theseother considerations areshownon the sketch.Theresultisthatwe could not <br />recommendapprovalofthe site planproposed,fordesignandsafety reasons. Taken together, <br />nothingelse on site were changed,therewouldbe only 59usablespaceson the plan <br />submittedforvariances. <br />The alternate plan youprepared showing parallel parking frontofthebuildingwouldnotmeet <br />thesetbackrequiredbytheCode.Wewouldrequireawidesection(a12footdriveaisle, <br />an8footspace,andasidewalkforpassengerside access) whereas you show a <br />19footwidesectionon the CountyRoadfrontage. <br />havetakenthelibertyofpreparing a suggestedsiteplan,also attached, whichsolvesmanyofthe <br />aboveconcerns.Thesuggestedplanprovidesparkingspaces,whilemaintaininggenerous <br />landscaped setbacks onCountyRoadCandFairview,andprovidinginternal landscaped areas as <br />well.TheentrancefromCountyRoadCisa24footwideaccessdrive,keptfreeofparking for <br />thesegmentsouthoftheambulance garages. Thelarger parking area inthenorthhalfthe site is <br />two <br />divided into 60foot bays, leavingfeetthemiddlefor a landscapedisland, satisfying <br />portionofCity’sdesign standards forlandscaping.Thenorthern entrance onhasbeen <br />to <br />eliminated,addmore parking on the eastside, while allowingmovementwithinthe lot. <br />Basedon the City’sparking standards ofsqthisplan translates to12,800squarefeetof <br />usable space that wouldbeallowedin the project.Ifa different parking standard couldbeagreed <br />on,ora different siteplan proposed, theallowablesquare footage couldbedifferent. Other <br />solutionsmightinvolve acquisition ofmore property forparking,orbuilding a parking deck <br />site. <br />is <br />ThisissueonethatwouldbehandledadministrativelybytheCityStaff, regardless ofthe <br />decisionsonnumberof spaces andsetbackofthosespaces.TheCityProtective Inspections <br />Department can down a building permitrequestfor the parkinglotiftheplandoes not satisfy <br />thebasicrequirementssafetyortheinspectorbelievesnumber of thespacessite are <br />unusableand,therefore,cannotbecounted in satisfyingtheparking requirement for the building. <br />Thesubmittedplan requests a variance for a fencedwoodtrashenclosure.Code requires a <br />completely enclosed structureofthesame materials theprinciplestructure on site.The <br />drawingssubmitted with theapplication illustrate twotrash enclosure alternatives:onethatmeets <br />theCodewellthe one proposed.Itis unclear whythetwoare in different locations on the <br />site,andwhytheambulancegaragesaredeletedin one alternative but shown in theother. <br />two <br />notedpreviously,theproposed trash enclosurebehindparking spaces, which would be <br />renderedunusablebythelocationtheenclosure.Thetrasharea is also shownadjacenttoan <br />employeesun deck, whichmightbeunpleasanthotmonthswithgarbagecloseby.Thisisone <br />reasonwhytheCityrequires trash handling within thebuilding. We could not recommend <br />approvalforthisvariance. <br />Thisissuealso is a separate request within thevarianceapplication,withreviewbyCity <br />recommendationbythePlanningCommissionanda decision bytheCity Council. <br />