pf_03251 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~'.i-:t- , CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: 1415-83 - Willmus Properties Inc. Page 2 e parking arrangement, and landscaping must b~ constructed in accordan~a with the pla ns approved. 5. The toti,l par):ing ilcco:nmodation for the two lIses (the office IJ.lilding and the shopping center) is 23 parking spaces short of the requirements. The provisions for this are made in a section of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with the joint use of parking which specifies that up to 50 percent of the parking requirem0nts can be acco~~odated by combining ~rincipally daytime uses with nighttime uses. Strictly speaking, neither the office buildin~ nor the shopping c~nter is a nighttime use. For purposes of accommodating 23 cars, however, we suggest that the joint use of spaces utilized ~y the office buildin'J, 'nl1cre such users may shop in the center './ill be such that the spirit of this r~licy will be carried ou~. Another factor is the fact tha~ all of the parking spaces are designed for standard cars at nine foot width per car. Roseville Ordinance allows for up to 50 percent of the required parking spaces to be reduced for compact cars, if properly organized and marked with a parking width of. eight feet. As more and more compact, or sUb-compact cars are put into use, if there is a parking inadequacy in the future, such reorganization ~f parking wid~\ could be readily accommodated on thi.s site. Thus, it would appear not to be a significant problem for the future, The parking capacity We have been discussing includes the future accommodation vf a 10,000 square foot addition to the shopping center near the south- westerly ~orner. Until that addition is ccns~ructed, the parking capacity is far more than adequate. Perhaps by the time t:Jt addition is constructed, it will be apOl"opria te to reduce aome of the park.1g bays to the allo\~able compact wid~hs. The current parking arrangement J ::oposed with the nine foot ~~alls is the same as that utilized at Rosedale, except that some of the stalls in Rcsedale are slightly under nine feet. I; . 6. In summary, it would appear that the redevelopm~nt proposal is consistent with the City's policy of improving the aesth8tic quality of the business areas, while providi~g for a more efficient use of the land, and providing for substantially improved tax base through the process of redevelopment. The Planning Commission and Council could disapprove the plan based on the parking capacity, whirh would likely result in the reduction of square footage in either the office building or the future shopping center addition. Should the Planning Commission and Cocncil choose to approve the development the followino.j action may be appropriate: a. Approval of the Special Use Permit for site plan review as per Sheets 1, 2, and 5, dated 5 January 1983, and as per Landscape Plan dated 3 Ja:\Uary 1983. b. Approval ot Lot Division as per Sheet 2 of drawings dated 5 January 1983.