02-19-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ZEP I�anufactwing Planning Commission Report Develop�ent Review and Parldng Variance Planning Case AIo. 475-97 February 19, i 997 Page 4 Thus, for 19,325 sq. ii. of wa.rehouse space, � spaces glus 39 {47 tofial) would be required. For the 5,950 sq. fi, of office space, 3 spaces plus 34 (3i spaces total) would be required. �together, 87 spaces are required for this building Typical parlcing ratios for warehouse space = 1 space per 1000 square �eet; and for office space = 1 space per 250 or 200 square feet. Using these ratias, this development would require 20 spaces �or ihe warehouse area and 24-30 spaces for the office area, or 44-50 spac�s. The site plan, date-stamped January 30, I997, shows parl{ing for 41 passenger vehicles and an outline for the rernait�ing 43 parking spaces to be built if needed. This "Proof of Parking" concept allows far the designation of parking area to be set asid� fbr future developmeni and maintained as greenspace irl the meantune. This straiegy was used recenily by 1�lidwest I.�I. a.nd the Seruor Housing Project. A variance would need to be approved by the Planning Commission to allow for such a reduction in parking sgaces. Vaxiance Criteria: The criteria for granting variances are stated in Section 1125.02, Subd.2 and noted below along with staff comments: a. Exceptional or exiraoYdinary circumstances apply to the proper°ty whrch do not apply - generally to other properties in ihe same zone or vicinity and result frorrr lot sfze or shape, ' topography or other circumstances over which the awners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. c. That the specraX conditiorrs or circumstances do not res7alt fi•om the acirons of the appliccan� This site is heavily wooded, a portion of which lies in wetland. While there is a.�ple room #o provide the full amount of parking required by our Code, the applicant would prefer to retain much of the tree cover and keep the site as natural as possible. Research has shown that our parking requirements are high in comparison to neighboring communities and communities across the country. The applicant is not responsible for our high parking requirements, � 0 The Ziteral interpretation of the provisions of this Tztle tivould deprive the applrcant of rights commonly enjoyed by othe�° pr�opertres rn the same district under° ihe terms of this title. That granting the variance t°equested will not confer on the applicant arry specrrzl privilege that is denied by this title to rnvners of other lands, stYUCtures or buildittgs in th� same �istrict. The develaprt�e�t to the south, ihe Bridges Technology Center, was gran#ed a similar parking variance in 1995, �� :� � � � �� �f G �Ui, `� �� t� �� � � ��. �� -� �> t�� �W `� y� , � �L�%� � u��