04-26-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

File #04-2977 April 16.2004 Page 5 of 8 The Planning Commission should discuss how many stalls are required and if the information gathered from the parking studies is sufficient to grant a parking variance. The Planning Commission should also discuss whether a restaurant with liquor has the potential to create a greater parking demand, thus making it more difficult to justify a parking variance. Loading Areas The applicant has depicted areas for loading on the revised site plan, attached as Exhibit A. The loading area for tlte upper retail uses is shov.-n on the eastern side of the building. The applicant has stated tha^ senri-truck trailers do not frequent the site and the area depicted on the plan will support the size trucks that deliver to the upper retail uses. The loading area for the uses occupying the lower section of the building would be at the western end accessed from the lower parking lot. This area of the building is currently used as a storage facility rind will support the deliveries that are anticipated for the restaurant. The applicant has also «?tcted tliat semi-trucks will not be delivering to uses occupying the lower part of tlie building and that there is adequate maneuveiing room. Finally, the applicant has stated tliat deliveries will be conducted during off-peak times so as not to create parking problems. The applicant would also agree to specific delivery times in an effort to not disturb the residential properties to the south. Planning Department staff would recommend that, in conjunction with a site plan approval and conditional use permit for approval for the restaurant, delivery times be limited beyond what the noise ordinance states (weekdays 7am-10pm, weekends 8am- 8pm). The Planning Commission should discuss the loading plan and determine what is reasonable. Signage The applicant has proposed to keep all the existing signage which consists of wall signs for the retail uses and the sign located at the Kelly Avenue entrance. The applicant is proposing two new signs, one at the comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue and one above the stairway access from the upper parking lot to the lower parking lot. An illustration showing the proposed signs is in the attached Staff Report from the Januar> meeting. The signs proposed meet all requirements established ’.inder Section 78-1468 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applic‘>nt will be required to obtain a sign permit for the new sign proposed at the corner of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue. The sign must be located 10’ from all property boundaries and not within the sight triangle. The applicant is also proposing to keep the existing sign located at the Kelly Avenue entrance. This sign is located approximately 2' outside the property boundary. Planning Department staff would recommend that this sign be moved out of the right-of-way and re-located 10’ from the property boundary to comply with Section 78-1468. However,