08-19-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mermaid Entertainment Center Planning Case 523-98 May 11, 1998 Page 2 • Parking Lot Setbacks • Front (Highway 10): 30 feet 18 feet No • Front (County H): 30 feet 75 feet Yes • Side (Perkins): 10 feet 0 feet No • Side (Business Park): 10 feet 0 feet No Drainage: The impervious surface on this site takes up nearly 100 percent of the area. The proposed addition adds 7,226 square feet of building area to the site, yet replaces an equal amount of parking area. The net effect is that no additional run-off is expected as a result of this development. Even so, the Rice Creek Watershed District will need to review this development proposal and issue a watershed permit before construction can begin. Parking: With the additional eight bowling lanes, the parking ratios and counts as required in the City Code, Section 1121.13 for bowling alleys and the other on-sites uses would be as follows: Bowling Alleys: 5 spaces per alley 32 lanes = 160 spaces Dining and Lounge: 1 space per 40 s.f. 12,228 s.f. = 306 spaces Kitchen area: 1 space per 80 s.f. 516 s.f. = 7 spaces Office: 3 spaces plus 1 per 175 s.f 930 s.f. = 9 spaces Total required: _ 482 spaces Staff counted the stalls present on the site and came up with a total of 515 spaces, 18 of which are being used temporarily for the outdoor volleyball court. Thus, at present, the site is overp_arked according to the Code requirements. With the •ro•osed a •ansion there would be 505 s'aces • the site, a net reduction of ten spaces. This figure is still more than what would be required with the ei t additional lanes. The plan, however, shows the stalls at 9 foot by 18 foot dimensions, instead of the Code-required 9 by 20 foot dimension. The shorter, 9 by 18 parking stalls have been allowed only by the City for perimeter parking where an overhang of the car into greenspace may occur. The Planning Commission and Staff concurred that the sub-standard stalls (9 by 18 feet) would be acceptable so as to be consistent with those stall preexisting. The other issue with regard to the parking as shown on the site plan is the reduced setback from the north and west property lines. The parking areas are shown to be at the property line instead of set back by the required 10 feet. The existing parking lot setback along the western property line is five feet. If the parking were to be constructed according to the plans provided, as much as two feet of some vehicles would be extending into the neighboring property. • Staff would recommend that the site plan be redrawn to (1) show 45 degree angled parking around the proposed addition which would allow for the continuation of the five-foot parking lot