10-10-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8 MMtll i«»r iXMts Pa«»3«r4 into the huildUig lubiequtfiUy vidiiccd dit mimber of leau proposed within the interior by I. Bated on the puMic apace itducUon of 152 s.f. the lequired off-street parking is reduced by 2 spaces 0 52 i.r. / to s.£ - 1.9 or 2 stall). Traill Cedaaert Tha applicants continue to show a trash enclosuic at the north end of the building. The previous report rocntiooi the screening of this stnicnire, which the applicant has anemptad to do in the revised plans. Staff would recommend the trash enclosure be feneed on the west half in addition to what is shown on the plan and a gate can be added Ibr access. This not only hilly scrseiis the stnictiire but contains any trash outside the receptacle. flaattr Basts The praviout peiipective illusirations showed the plant material proposed at the north end of the outdoor tailing In the rear to be contained within planter boxes. These planter boxes caused the need for a rear yard variance and they arc not permitted encroachments. It is unclear, as revised perspective drawings were not submitted, whether an altcfnate method fbr the propoaed plant matarials is proposed. Removal of bituminous so that the plant material can be placed into ihs grormd would eliminale the need fbr a rear yard Off-SCract Favldng The mlttinsa horn the June PC meeting make clear that a parking study Biould be conducted for the City lot and the husinemes uaing it Prior to any recommendations to the City Coundt on exterior or interior expansions, a parking study must be compiciad by a consultant hired by tha appliemt Bel^ is a summary of required off-street parking baaed on the revised plans: PARKING PrifMMMd luttrlur S.P. Prop tied Outdoor S.P.TOTAL Squon Fooiagt 2,174 s.f.ZOOOS.P Front -650 s.f. Rear-1,292 s.f.6372* 1 nail/80 s.f.27 slalU 25 suits Front - 8 sulls Rear -16 suits 76 Total Suits The revised plans only reduce the required parking by 4 spaces, based on the reduction of the outdoor sealing in tha rear and kitchen addition incorporated into the interior 3f the building. Although much of the discussion to dale has cemered on the outdoor sroiing. if should be noted the interior expansion alone is nearly doubling the requifcd parking. Planning Cammlaalaa’s Jnna Racommcndatlan At the iunc 20,2005 meeting the Ptaiming Commiiaion fabled the application to allow the applicam to reviae their plans and attempt to address I) a number of concerns raised within the staff rcpocl aitachad to this memo at Exhibit G: 2) coaceros raised at the public hearing; and 3) eoneetna voiced by Planning Commitsionefi. After a review of the June PC minutea. the fbtlowing concerns were raised: • Parking availabilily within the municipal lot. for the Narrows and also the other businesses and fuuiie buaineaatt •OS.3I2I Jaly I3.2S05 fagt4«r4 Requirement of a parking study baaed on a revised, reduced level of use expansion Examining wheth» the parking lot can be reconfigured Reduction of both areas of outdoor seating Noise generiled from the outdoor searing as well is from within the building Incorporation of the vestibule and kitchen into tlie interior space Consider closing the outdoor seating at an earlier time Imposing differenl hours for the outdoor seating on the weekends vs. %veekdays Outdoor seating allowed on a trial basis Safety concerns of the outdoor seating along Shoreline Drive Reducing the outdoor seating in front to informal. t\vo*person ubles against the building to minimize encroochment on the sidewalk easement Restriction of alcohol within the outdoor seating in front Belter self-policing of noise problems Public Comments Exhibits C, E - O are additional comments received from concerned residents following the June Planning Commission public hearing. Staff would like to note that the letter received from Chuck Nadler, Exhibit F, incorrectly quotes information contained in a response letter to Brad Hoyt regarding the municipal parking lot. Please note this and refer to item 3 of the lener attached as Exhibit D for clarificalion. Staff Rccammendatlon Overall, based on the discussion that occurred at the June PC meeting, staff feels that the applicam needs to further reduce the outdoor seating areas, and possibly the public floor area of the Ulterior expansion in an effort to reduce the number of required off-street parking stalls. The Planning Commission should review the concerns listed above as well as the additional public comments received. Staff would recommend that the application be Ud>Ied until the applicant is able lo hire a parking consultant and a parking study is completed.