Laserfiche WebLink
Filf M4-2977 <br />January 20,2004 <br />Page S of 11 <br />determining whether a variance should be considered for this proposal. <br />Parking <br />A. Location. Section 78-1511 "Setbacks for Parking” and Section 78-646 "Area, heiglit, <br />lot width, setback requirements and design requirements” limit locations for parking. <br />The following table outlines required, existing and proposed parking on the site: <br />Yard <br />Front (Shoreline Drive) <br />Side (Kelly Avenue) <br />Side (B-l Property) <br />Rear (Residential <br />Property)_______ <br />Required <br />Parking <br />Setback <br />20 ’ <br />10’ <br />0’ <br />10’ <br />Proposed <br />Gravel Lot <br />0’ <br />5’ <br />190’ <br />Existing <br />Lower Lot <br />150’ <br />85’ <br />3’ <br />Existing <br />Front Lot <br />0’ <br />123’ <br />0 ’ (shared) <br />80’10’167’ <br />The applicant’s property has street frontages on the north and east sides, abuts another B- <br />1 zoned property to the west, and abuts a residential neighoorhood to the south. The table <br />above shows tliat some of the required setbacks arc not met. either with existing parking <br />or proposed parking. The front parking lot provides parking for the retail businesses <br />which occupy the front of the bulling. Currently, a shared parking arrangement with tlie <br />businesses to the west is happening in this front lot. It should be noted that this proposal <br />will not place any cars closer to the residentiaily zoned properties. <br />The Plarming Commission should consider requiring the gravel parking area to meet tlie <br />required setbacks of 20 ’ to Shoreline Drive and 10’ to Kelly Avenue. The 20 ’ required <br />front yard along Shoreline Drive is perhaps the most critical in terms of visual impacts <br />for NavaiTC. The number of parking spaces will be affected, should greater setbacks be <br />required than the minimal setbacks the applicant has proposed or than what currently <br />exists. The advantages of a greater yard (green space) should be weighed against the <br />disadvantages of losing parking spaces, which is discussed below. <br />B. Required Number of Par king Stalls <br />Restaurant Use:1,890 s.f. @ 1 space/80 s.f = 24 spaces <br />Bowling Alley Use:10 lanes @ 6 spaces/lane » 60 spaces <br />Lounge (w/in bowling alley);535 s.f. @ 1 space/80 s.f. «7 spaces <br />Total Required Parking = 91 spaces <br />Total Proposed Spaces = 84 spaces (includes 8 parallel spaces and 76,9’ x 20 ’ spaces) <br />As proposed, the applicant is 7 parking spaces under the parking required by Section 78- <br />1516: Off Street Parking Requirements. Staff feels that vdth the existing need for <br />parking and the proposed restaurant use, these 84 spaces will be adequate if not <br />excessive. <br />1