Laserfiche WebLink
VN-217, LP-110 <br />Page #2 <br /> <br />VARIANCE REQUEST <br />See attachments provided by the applicant which <br />reason for variance form the required number of <br />BUILDING PERMIT REQUEST <br />address the applicant's <br />parking spaces. <br />The applicant has submitted the required site plan, floor plan-and <br />elevations and will be bringing the required landscape plan to the <br />meeting. In addition, the applicant will have to obtain approval <br />of the grading and drainage plans from the Rice Creek Watershed <br />District. <br />STAFF COMMENTS IN REGARD TO THE VARIANCE PERMIT <br />1. It should be noted that there is a separate parcel on the site <br />which is not included in the parking calculations. This parcel <br />on the site plan depicts a restaurant site with 47 parking <br />spaces. This area is not to be considered iji this variance <br />request. The applicant has this area striping for approximately <br />60 parking spaces and these existing spaces when added to the <br />other spaces result in the existing visual impact of a vast <br />unused parking area. The Board should exclude this area and <br />consider that when the parcel is developed those parking spaces <br />will be used for that development. <br />2. In examining the, existing usage of the parking spaces it would <br />appear that there is an excessive number of spaces. Some <br />reasons for that "appearance of excess parking" could include: <br />A. That the uses considered in the original calculation were <br /> not realized. For example, the cellar area has some empty <br /> spaces and tha t presently there is only one of those spaces <br /> being used as retail space. The area is primarily office <br /> in.nature and because of the location of the spaces the <br /> area will prob ably in the future continue to be used for <br /> office rather than retail. The parking calculation was <br /> based on this area being retail uses. <br />B. Parcel for the restrauant is striped for parking and <br /> therefore the appearance of the parking situation is <br /> misleading. <br />C. There, are vaca nt spaces in the Center and the center is not <br /> fully occupied at this time. <br />3. The Board of Planning has proposed in the revised zoning code <br />changes in the number of parking spaces required. If this <br />parking required for this development was calculated according <br />to the new requirements in regard to number required, the <br />applicant would only be short 9 parking spaces. The Board <br />of Planning has also recommended reducing the size of the <br />spaces so that if the parking area was redesigned the required <br />number could be obtained without requiring a variance. The <br />applicant is aware of the proposed changes and has been <br />discussing these changes during the last year. The applicant <br />has stated that because of financing he cannot wait any longer <br />for the adoption of those new standards.