pf_01567 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• • CASE NUMBER: 1567-84 APPLICANT: Kenneth Schwalbach page 2 as a condition to the issuance of the variances proposed. The dedication of additional right-of-way would also appear to require the movement of the sign so as to place the sign in the 15 foot setback. In this case, it would appear reasonable to allow the sign to be contiguous to the new right-of-way line, rather than being set back the normally required 30 feet from a right-of-way. 4. You will note that a new curb is proposed in the plan so encompass this area of grass between the parking area and the street right-of-way. The remainder of the lot has existing curbs, including a curb along the south side which is approximately 10 feet from the south property line. Thus, no variance is required on this side of the property for the parking setback. 5. The existing 71500 square foot by ordinance should require 38 parking spaces. The plan as drawn, you will note, indicates a total of 23 spaces. The problem is that the placing of the new addition as proposed will have a very disruptive influence on the placing of additional parking on the property. There remains inadequate space south of the new addition to park cars in this area. In any case, the six parking spaces shown on the west side of the property, we feel, could be appropriately turned so as to provide more convenient parking facing the existing building, rather than toward the west as indicated. The best solution, however, is if Mr. Schwalbach is able to purchase the property to the south, that parking be placed along the new south property line. This creates space for approximately 20 additional parking spaces. Thus, the total parking would be increased to 43 spaces. Figuring the entire structure, with the addition) as retail space requiring five spaces per 1,000 square feet, the required parking is equal to 43 spaces. Thus, the key to the solution for a good workable parking arrangement is the acquisition of the additional land to the south. 6. Hopefully, as of the time of the Planning Commission and Council hearings, Mr. Schwalbach will be able to inform us that the acquisition has taken place. You will note too that the site plan indicates establishing the southerly -most driveway as a one way egress. The engineering staff has suggested, and we concur, that on this site that this may not be necessary. The driveways are of ample width, and there is ample circulation space in the parking lot on the east side of the building. Perhaps it would be simpler to just leave both driveways as access and egress, avoiding the confusion that sometimes occurs if they are established as one way access and egress. It would also appear that the parking shown in the center of the lot could be moved easterly to the new curb line. 7. There would appear to be a bona fide hardship with respect to the location of the existing structure and thus approval of the variances