Laserfiche WebLink
<br />RosevHie Prvperties, Case No. Z0L;6 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br />[t1gineering Cor~sijeratior.s <br />-- <br /> <br />a,1 SjG~y."aJk i~ ;,eeded along both sij~s of this c~lner let ;~added to <br />re',,':sed ~ia:1s).. <br /> <br />:;' ,J.n additiar.aJ 9.5 feet of right-af -waj' is r'Eeded for Count: Road <br />B-2 Ca!rf:::acy shown on revised plans). <br /> <br />c) In the existir.g CO>1diticn, thE parking Jot :;etback on botn the east <br />and west side of the lot does nct mee.t Code (the proposed plans <br />resolve the set~3r.k on the east sioe). <br /> <br />Fi!c M~rshal C0=13iderations <br /> <br />Fire Code re"uirE>~ automatic sprinkler protectio'1 for r-etai! sales <br />businesses in excess of 12,000 square feet. <br /> <br />4. CONCLUSION <br /> <br />The propcsed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Pian and <br />shau!d be supported. P',e co~ver$ion of this building from Light <br />Industria! to retai! USE: does raise the question of sufficient parking. <br />We recommend imposing a condition of approval Qn this develop;Tlent <br />that wouid authorize the City ta require the cnnstruction of the "Proof <br />d Parking Plan" if a future parking prohIem oc;::u;'S. This condit,,-; <br />should be at the City's discretioD. although thete shou'd ~ :.n <br />understanding as to what would constitute a "parking preblen-:" <br /> <br /> <br />We feel that the proposed landscaping is light and that additior!Sl street <br />trees sho!;ld be added. The re.:;uested sign varis:-Ice raises mere nf a <br />qt<estiofl of policy than a rr...tter of hardship. If you feel that the <br />reql!p.st is reasonabi~, then we would advise cha;:g1rig the standard rather <br />than trying to id~ntif)' a hardship. <br /> <br />- <br />