03-25-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2107 March 14, 1996 Page 2 approval of 5.2% structural coverage variance (allowed = 15%, proposed = 20.2%). The final variance consisted of a 7' setback variance for the parking lot adjacent to the residential lot line to the north (church property). A 10’ setback is required; applicant proposes a 3’ setback. Residents of the Lafayette Ridge neighborhood attended the meeting to support the application. The residents felt that the extensive wetland area adjacent to applicant's east side lot line minimized any impact of the structural setback. Applicant also noted the presence of existing plantings along the west side of the outlot that would also minimize the visual impact ot the structure. It was also noted that this was the best location for the car wash as it was the furthest away from residential development. The structural coverage excess would be acceptable as long as internal traffic design could support the uses. The parking lot setback was to be addressed by requiring green areas and plantings along the north side lot line. The major concern for the four members in attendance at the February meeting was the plan for internal traffic and could a plan be developed that would support the multiple uses. Review of Amended Plan In order to address the cross tratfic dilemma at the most eastern access to the property, the car wash w'as moved approximately 10' to the north allowing for a 40 separation from the intersection of the exit lane of the car wash with the oncoming traffic lanes. Appropriate sinnage would also be required cautioning cars exiting car wash to first stop for cross traffic. At the north or west side of property where we have access lanes leading to the parking area, car wash and restaurant drive-thru window, lanes shall be defined with a roadway centerline, pavement arrows and directional cones. Signage shall also provide clear directional information. Members of the Planning Commission were most concerned with the issue of safety regarding the location of the entrance/exit door from restaurant and proximity to drive-tnru window and exit lane. Review' E.xhibit C. Mr. Johnson's memo notes that as long as the sidewalk is expanded, a protective railing installed and crosswalk hatched with appropriate signage, members concerns should be addressed. His report goes on to state that it is not unusual nor is it unsafe to have a restaurant entrance/exit located in the area in front ot the drive-thru pickup window. He notes this situation exists at many drive-thru type restaurants and no particular safety hazard has been noted. He goes on to advise that the sidewalk and protective railing leading to the painted crosswalk will offer a higher degree ot safety and is recommended.