pf_03251 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE NUMBER: .~PLICANT: 1415-83 e Willmus Properties Inc. e Page 2 parking arrangeme~t, and landscaping must b~ constructed in accordan~a with the plans approved. 5. The tothl parJ:ing i'lccommodation for the two uses (the office !:.uilding and the shopping center) is 23 parking spaces short of the requirements. The provisions fo~ 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 requirem~nts can be accow~odated by combining ~rincipally daytime uses with nighttime uses. Strictly speaking, neither the office buildin~ nor the shopping c-;nter is a nighttime usc. For purposes of accommodating 23 cars, however, we suggcst that tha joint use of spaces utilized ty the o:fice buildir.g, ...nere such users may shop in the center '.lill be such that the spirit of this r~licy will be carried out. Another factor is the fact tha~ dll of the parking spaces are designed fOI standard cars at nine foot width p2r 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 width could be readily accommodated on this site. Thus, it would appear not to be a significant problem for the future. Thc 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 corner. Until that addition is ccns~ructed, the parking capacity is far more than adequate. Perhaps by the time t:lt addition is constructed, it will be appropria te to reduce 50me of the park. "9 bays to the allo\-Iable compact wid~hs. The current parking arrangement j ~oposed with the nine foot ~talls is the same as that utilized at Rosedale, except that some of the stalls in Rosedale are slightly under nine feet. ..; .' 6. In summary, it would appear that the redevelopm~nt proposal is consistent with the City's polley of improving the aesthetic quality of the business areas, while providi:lg 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, which would likely result in the reduction of square footage in either the office building or the future shopping center additi0n. Should the Planning Commission and Co\:.ncil choose to approve the development the followin~ 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:1Uary 1983. b. Approval ot Lot Division as per Sheet 2 of drawings dated 5 January 1983.