04-26-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r File 0O4-2977 January 20, 2004 Page 4 of 11 and entertainment oriented businesses (Isfavarre Lanes/Tlie Crib/Troposed Restaurant) at the rear of the building. The grade changes betv,’een the rear and front of the building are quite drastic and cause the need for retaining walls. Parking also needs to be accommodated at the front and rear further lessening potential areas for green space, all of which are hardships which have caused the existing 90% ’ -dcover percentage. The existing gravel parking area in the northeast comer of the site is the site of an old gas station and has been the subject of past actions by tlie Pollution Control Agency in order to clean tlie site. Tltose actions have since been ciosed and there are no current environmental issues associated with the gravel area. Tliis brings the potential for added green space. The applicant has proposed a parking plan for the lot, however, no islands liave been incorporated into the layout and it doesn’t meet the required setbacks. The Planning Conunission should discuss with the applicant his willingness to pave, stripe, increase the green space, and/or curb and gutter this proposed parking lot. The grassed area along tire southern border should remain grassed and the area between tlie two retaining walls could be better maintained and further vegetated witli shrubs. Staff doesn’t see any other opportunities for further hardcover removals witliout having severe parking impacts. Structural Coverage Section 78-1403 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that all properties in all zoning districts be subject to 15% maximum structural coverage. The only changes the applicant is proposing which affect the sites stmctural coverage is two entryways and an awning as shown in Exhibit G. The applicant has stated that these entryways are proposed to help control heating and cooling costs and to provide safer and more inviting entrances to the building. The intention of the awning is to provide for a covered walk. The eastern entryway is proposed at 600 square feet (50 ’ x 12 ’) and tlie western entryway is proposed at 36 square feet (6 ’ x 6 ’). The proposed awning will extend along the soutli elevation of tlie building to cover the current sidewalk. The stnictural coverage ordinance allows for overhangs to be includec in tlie building square footage when they are 2’ or less in widtli. The awnings proposed are 4 ’ in width and extend 97.5 feet, adding 292.5 square feet of structural coverage (2’ of awning x 97.5’). This is a total of 928.5 square feet (1% of total) of additional structural coverage, or 16% where the existing percentage is 15%. HARDSHIP It isn’t out of the ordinary for structural coverage variances to be granted for commercial properties. In fact, variances in the past have been granted to allow for up to 20% or 30% for commercial properties. For example, the Service 800 building on Highway 12 had a structural coverage variance to allow 26.1% The Zoning Ordinance doesn’t allow for any exceptions for commercial properties however, commercial properties are not seen as critical as residential properties with relation to the 15% maximum. The reasonableness of commercial properties having to meet this requirement, the impacts of the proposed entrances, and &e benefits and/or disadvantages of the entrances should be discussed in