06/22/1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

For Concept Plan review purposes the Planning Commission and City Council must only evaluate if a drive through use is feasible in the proposed location. Circulation and stacking problems have been identified for each of the drive through locations based upon the proposed site layout. As such, the recommended redesign of the site layout must take into consideration the need to provide sufficient stacking space behind the service window so as not to interfere with general circulation. Additionally, each drive through must include a by -pass lane. Parking. Based upon the uses proposed on the site, an estimate of required parking has been prepared. This is only an estimate in that a number of the parking requirement calculations are based upon building design. As this information is not available at Concept Plan review, no specific number of stalls can be determined, but the ability to provide parking approximate to the estimate can be evaluated. Use Requirement Area Required Stalls Retail stall / 200 net sq. ft. 92,000 sq. ft. 414 Grocery 8 Stalls + 1 stall / 200 net sq. ft. of sales area 45,000 sq. ft. 211 Bank 4 stalls / 1000 net sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 24 Restaurant (fast food) 15 stalls / 1000 gross sq. ft. 5,500 sq. ft. 83 Restaurant (sit down) 10 / 1000 net sq. ft. of dining area 7,000 sq. ft. (4,158 est. area for dining) 42 Total Required Stalls (est.) 774 The submitted site plan provides for 980 parking stalls, which is 206 stall in excess of the estimated number of stalls required. The significant over- parking of the site is attributable in part to the design of the development with individual parking lots associated with each structure. A much more efficient utilization of the site would occur with a redesign of the site with shared parking areas. Shared parking lots could possibly provide an opportunity to further reduce the number of required parking spaces constructed based upon the idea of business interchange outlined in the information attached as Exhibit E. Beyond reducing the number of required parking stalls, shared parking Tots also offer the possible opportunity to use alternative construction methods or proof -of- parking (stalls are indicated on the site plan but not constructed until there is a demonstrated need). Using alternative approaches may provide opportunities for reducing the amount of impervious surface on the subject site, as recommended by the Environmental Board. 5