06-20-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved As the Commission may recall, staff’s recommendation was to approve nearly all aspects of the proposal with the exception of the Special Use Permit for automotive sales. The basis for staff’s recommendation weighed heavily on the previous 2003 approval. The recommendation for denial related to the automotive sales Special Use Permit and was due to the following: ? It was not part of the original 2003 approval. ? The site is too small and adequate parking is a concern, especially when two complimentary uses are proposed (repair and sales). ? The sales component of the applicant’s business is directly related to the repair component, staff is concerned with the amount of in-operable vehicles on the property and the length on time they would remain on the property. ? Concerns about enforcement of any Special Use conditions – as a practical matter it will be very difficult to regulate both uses on such a small site. ? The fire and safety hazards that may arise with in-operable, salvaged vehicles packed into a parking lot with drive-aisles not meeting minimum standards. In an effort to assist the applicant, staff provided two site plan alternatives. Almost more important than the number of stalls provided is whether the stalls are functional. All three revised plans show the parking at the rear of the site at 90 degrees where the original plan showed the parking stalls as parallel. The main difference in the functionality of these rear stalls is the room provided between the building and the stalls. The ordinance calls for 24’ drive-aisles as this is two-way traffic and there is a need for backing up and turning around. The applicant’s revised plan calls for approximately 15’ between the stalls and the building. Staff’s Plan A calls for 21.5’ as the building was pushed west to the 40’ setback to allow for additional room. Staff’s Plan B calls for 24’, which is the minimum required. Staff therefore finds that, the applicant’s revised plan is the least functional, with Staff Plan A being somewhat more functional, and Staff Plan B being functional based on the requirements of the Code. Baker stated that the scale of the applicant’s revised plan was very poor and unacceptable. O’Keefe inquired how long the parking spaces are behind the building. Gundlach replied that they are nine by eighteen feet stalls. Mann asked if there was room to parallel park in the spaces. Gundlach replied that those spaces are stacked stalls and you would not be able to parallel park, however, all of the front spaces are parallel. O’Keefe asked if an eighteen foot stall is long enough to parallel park a vehicle. O’Brien replied that they are typically twenty-two feet long. Gundlach replied that the code does not have a specific range for parallel parking. Baker recommended that the twenty-two feet be added to the code. Baker asked staff if the top of the page is north. Gundlach replied it was. He pointed out that the gate and fence would then be on the west side of the property. Aleksey Zaytsev, applicant, approached the Commission to answer questions. Zaytsev reported that he had contacted the State to see how many parking stalls are required for I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2006\06-20-2006.docPage 2 of 15