Laserfiche WebLink
Approved <br /> As the Commission may recall, staff's recommendation was to approve nearly all aspects <br /> of the proposal with the exception of the Special Use Permit for automotive sales. The <br /> basis for staffs recommendation weighed heavily on the previous 2003 approval. The <br /> recommendation for denial related to the automotive sales Special Use Permit and was <br /> due to the following: <br /> • It was not part of the original 2003 approval. <br /> • The site is too small and adequate parking is a concern, especially when two <br /> complimentary uses are proposed(repair and sales). <br /> • The sales component of the applicant's business is directly related to the repair <br /> component, staff is concerned with the amount of in-operable vehicles on the <br /> property and the length on time they would remain on the property. <br /> • Concerns about enforcement of any Special Use conditions — as a practical matter it <br /> will be very difficult to regulate both uses on such a small site. <br /> • The fire and safety hazards that may arise with in-operable, salvaged vehicles packed <br /> into a parking lot with drive-aisles not meeting minimum standards. <br /> In an effort to assist the applicant, staff provided two site plan alternatives. Almost more <br /> important than the number of stalls provided is whether the stalls are functional. All <br /> three revised plans show the parking at the rear of the site at 90 degrees where the <br /> original plan showed the parking stalls as parallel. The main difference in the <br /> functionality of these rear stalls is the room provided between the building and the stalls. <br /> The ordinance calls for 24' drive-aisles as this is two-way traffic and there is a need for <br /> backing up and turning around. The applicant's revised plan calls for approximately 15' <br /> between the stalls and the building. Staffs Plan A calls for 21.5' as the building was <br /> pushed west to the 40' setback to allow for additional room. Staffs Plan B calls for 24', <br /> which is the minimum required. Staff therefore finds that, the applicant's revised plan is <br /> the least functional, with Staff Plan A being somewhat more functional, and Staff Plan B <br /> being functional based on the requirements of the Code. <br /> Baker stated that the scale of the applicant's revised plan was very poor and <br /> unacceptable. O'Keefe inquired how long the parking spaces are behind the building. <br /> Gundlach replied that they are nine by eighteen feet stalls. Mann asked if there was room <br /> to parallel park in the spaces. Gundlach replied that those spaces are stacked stalls and <br /> you would not be able to parallel park, however, all of the front spaces are parallel. <br /> O'Keefe asked if an eighteen foot stall is long enough to parallel park a vehicle. O'Brien <br /> replied that they are typically twenty-two feet long. Gundlach replied that the code does <br /> not have a specific range for parallel parking. Baker recommended that the twenty-two <br /> feet be added to the code. Baker asked staff if the top of the page is north. Gundlach <br /> replied it was. He pointed out that the gate and fence would then be on the west side of <br /> the property. <br /> Aleksey Zaytsev, applicant, approached the Commission to answer questions. Zaytsev <br /> reported that he had contacted the State to see how many parking stalls are required for <br /> C:`,Documcnts and Settings'jaocp Local Tcmporal Internet I iI OI.K'R'06-20-'_006(;Ldo( Page 2 of 15 <br />