04-15-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L i Planning Commission Report Bridges Technology Park Phase II Planning Case 514-98 March 27, 1998 Page 2 Discussion: Previously: This request was discussed at the Planning commission's last meeting on April 1, 1998. According to the site plan dated 3/6/98, all of the dimensional requirements for this development would be met with the exception of the parking requirements, which will be discussed further below. One of the primary issues that was raised at the last meeting concerned how close the paved area was to the delineated wetland. It was requested that the distance between the wetland and pavement be increased to a minimum of ten feet. The revised plan(date-stamped 4/8/98) submitted by the applicant shows a setback of ten feet while maintaining a minimum 26-foot drive-aisle behind the building, as recommended by the Fire Marshal. Drainage. Wetland Considerations and Wetland Alteration Permit: As discussed at the last meeting, because work is being done within 100 feet of the wetland, the applicant will need to have a wetland buffer permit approved by the City. From the revised site plans, the new parking area and drive-aisles will be a minimum of ten feet from the delineated edge of the wetland. The revised site plan shows the 100-foot wetland buffer, the edge of the easement area, and statistics regarding the area of the buffer and the percent of which is covered • in pervious and impervious surface. Parking: The applicant has provided a master site plan for both lots 2 and 3 showing the parking for the existing and proposed buildings. Altogether, a total of 200 spaces would be required for both buildings, with a total of only 162 stalls being provided. The remaining 38 stalls are indicated as "proof of parking" on the master site plan. The proof of parking can be allowed one of two ways. For the ncighboring ZEP manufacturing, the pro: - .•. - _ • • •. - • • • • - • - Sig and warehouse parking ratios on the condition that the spaces be constructed if needed in the future. The Code, in Section 1121.14, requires that a conditional use permit be obtained for any reduction in parking space requirements. Obviously, a variance to the parking ratios would be the more expedient solution, if that choice is still an option considering the what the Code requires. If a variance to the parking requirements were considered, the following amended ratios would closely match with the number of stalls being provided: Office: 3 spaces plus 1 per 200 square feet of floor area=3 + 84 = 87 Warehouse: 8 spaces plus 1 per 750 square feet of floor area= 8 + 65 = .160 • The difference between the number of stalls provided (162) and the number required (200)would need to be shown as future parking(38).