06-28-1989 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

T1_IH -22 -8 E T HU v and exit would be needed to provide smooth traffic flow into the angled stalls. Proper signage, curbing and striping would also be necessary for a one -way arrangement. Parking /West Side: This area will require a 15 foot turning radius for proper entrance and exit. This may result in the elimination of a parking stall, although it would appear this area could accommodate the six stalls depicted. Parking /South of Loading Bays: There are three stalls illustrated in this area. It appears there isn't sufficient aisle depth to allow for three 90 degree parking stalls. Possibly only two angled stalls could be accommodated in this area. Parkin • North of Loadin• Be - Warehouse: All parking stalls directly north of the warehouse cannot be used because of insufficient drive aisle width. In addition, all stalls illustrated abutting the north lot line would have to be setback from the lot line a minimum of five feet (further reducing aisle width). The area north of the loading bays cannot accommodate two rows of 90 degree parking stalls with the setback limitations. Parking north of the loading bays could accommodate approximately 11-12 parking stalls in one row from the easement to the west corner of the warehouse.' CONCLUSIONS It is estimated the site could accommodate +33 parking stalls depending upon stall angle and aisle design. The proposal requires a minimum of forty-six (46) stalls needed with the utilization of warehouse space (43 without immediate warehouse utilization). It would appear that the site would be deficient 13 stalls, however, the applicant stated that the track business commanding the most parking would be operating after the business hours of the other uses. The building and site are existing, limiting the design alternatives available to the applicant. A joint facilities conditional use permit for parking would provide a viable solution to meet the off- street parking requirements of all uses. The Mac's Models proposal could meet all of the conditions required for a joint use of parking, however, Mr. Nelson must demonstrate to the Commission and Council that there would be no substantial conflict in the operating hours of the two uses. Joint use of the parking lot would require a properly drawn and recorded legal instrument executed by all parties concerned. A redesign of the parking areas will be required to determine an exact stall count for review prior to Commission/ Council consideration of a joint parking use CUP. Page 51