2000_1023_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

_ _ � ` , � .EM �`$;. �° CASE NUMBER: 1415-83 a � ?\PPLIG'1NT: �.'illmus Properties Inc. Page 2 �s parking arrangement, and landscaping must b? constructed in accordsn;e with �; the plans approved. 5. 'iite total nar}:ing accommodation for the two uses (tl�e office h�ildiny and the sliopping center) is 23 parking spaces short of the requirements. The provisions foi this are made in a section of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with the joint use ofparking which specifies thatup to 50 percent of the parking requiremcr.ts can be accommodated by combining principally daytime uses with nighttime uses. Strictly speaking, neither the office building nor the shopping c^ntcr is a nighttime use. For purposes of accommodating 23 cars, however, wc suggest that tha joint use of spaces utilized Fy the office building, Hiiere such users may shop in the center will be such that the spirit of this policy will be carried out. Another factor is the fact that all of the parking spaces are designed for standard cars at nine foot width p°r car. Roseville Ordinance allows foY 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 � parking inadequacy in the future, such reorganization of parking widtli could be readily accommodated on this site. Thus, it would appear not to be a significant problem for the future. Tlie 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�: �t addition is constructed, it will be appropriate to reduce some of the park. :g bays to the allowable compact wid�hs. The current parking arrangement 1"oposed with the nine foot �*_alls 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 redevelopment proposal is consistent wiCh the Cit}•'s pollcy of improving the aesthetic quality of the business areas, while providing 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 `ri• addition. Should the Planning Commission and Cot;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 1903, and as per Landscape Plan dated 3 3a,�uary 1983. �i;E b. Approval o� Lot Division as per Sheet 2 of drawings dated 5 January 1983.