Laserfiche WebLink
6. Parking spaces were revised using City ordinance which requires 2 spaces for each <br />employee for Contractor’s Offices and 1 space for each 500 sf of gross floor area for <br />Light Manufacturing. <br />a. Per the applicant’s narrative, a variety of industrial uses are proposed on site <br />other than just warehousing. <br />b. Parking space requirements shall be re-evaluated have been revised. <br />i. 8 stalls x 3 = 24 <br />ii. 3 stalls x 2 = 6 <br />iii. 10 stalls for internal storage <br />iv. 40 stalls total required <br />v. 27 stalls provided <br />vi. 19 proof of parking to the west <br />c. The revised site plan shows 19 proof of parking stalls to the west of the building; <br />however, these stalls are not very accessible to the 11 bay tenants/customers or <br />users of the indoor storage facility. <br />d. If customers are proposed on site, ADA needs to be addressed. The 2 ADA stalls <br />on the east side of the lot are not compliant because they cross over the <br />driveway and conflict with the indoor self-storage staging area. <br />7. Wetlands exist along the west lot line and appear to be impacted by the proposed <br />expanded stormwater pond. <br />a. The revised site plan proposes a separate stormwater pond to the west of the <br />building and does not impact the wetland. <br />8. More information is needed on the intended use and build out of the indoor storage. <br />a. Per the applicant, “Vehicles/trucks park outside the building in the self-storage <br />staging area and use carts to move items to leased storage space. The usual <br />storage spaces are typically sized: 5’x10’, 10’x10’, 10’x20’ (most common). See <br />attached photos.” <br />b. The indoor self-storage staging area blocks the vehicle, pedestrian and ADA <br />access to the 3 bays <br />9. The site plan shall accurately depict the actual construction of the mini self-storage <br />facility. <br />10. To avoid future confusion, if the project moves forward, the project name should be <br />changed from Tech Center since this isn’t a technology center proposal. <br />a. Per the applicant’s response letter, “Due to the multiple small technical <br />businesses leasing the spaces, “Tech Center” seems to be an appropriate <br />generalization of the trades. The owner has named several of his other <br />properties with similar tenants as “Tech Center” and would like to keep this as <br />the project/ building name.” <br />11. Where will trash enclosures be located and how will they be accessed by users and trash <br />haulers? <br /> <br />Architectural Plans and Exterior Building Materials <br /> <br />100