Planning Commission Minutes 2004 07 13

Home Browse Search

Conflict of Interest and Disclosure: Lipton asked for Commissioners conflict of interest and disclosures. None heard. Staff Report of Facts and Issues: Lipton called for staff report of facts and issues from Johnstone. Johnstone stated that he would present only the new information that had been requested by the Planning Commission at the June 8, 2004 meeting. The following will be discussed: 1)Identify and apply same parking criteria to this project as from the Coal Creek Collision Center project located south along Highway 42 from this site; 2)Identify other muffler / auto repair shops in local area and review parking calculations/ parking situations via site visits to the businesses; 3)Identify how the City can stipulate future parking requirements for a project that would be located on this site; 4)Prior to a Final PUD review of this development proposal, ensure that the applicant secures a shared parking agreement between Lots 1 and 2. 5)Contact Ordinance Enforcement Department and review any historic complaints (noise, traffic, etc.,) for this site. Johnstone provided the following points for each requested item: 1)The Coal Creek Collision Center, which is a single use site, has a parking demand of 47 spaces; 51 spaces have been provided of which 12 are screened spaces for inoperable vehicles. This is a parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per 300 SF of building area or 5 spaces / 1000 SF. The Fordyce Center, which is a mixed-use site and would have a parking demand of 46 spaces with a parking ration of 5 spaces / 1000 SF. 2)Staff visited 5 auto-related shops in Louisville and Lafayette to review parking situations and compare to this application. Staff’s conclusion on the comparison is: a.The Meineke Muffler Shop is a single-use shop that shares parking spaces with a used sporting goods store and a future restaurant. b.Four of the five uses visited are “single-use” auto service centers. c.Parking and traffic demands on a site that includes three uses such as this application creates more on-site parking and traffic concerns than would a “single-use” site. d.The average parking ratio observed in the five sites is 4 / 1000 SF. 3)The Planning Commission may make recommendations as to how future uses may align with the applicable land use criteria. It is the position of Staff that if the PUD amendment is approved as requested, the automotive service gets “locked-in”. Without the granting of substantial relief to it’s required off-street parking requirements, a general retail user would not be able to locate on the property. 4)Regarding the shared parking agreement for Lots 1 and 2 the applicant has agreed to secure a shared parking agreement prior to a Final PUD. However, Staff recommends that the applicant combine the two lots into one legal lot through a Covenant Agreement, which would eliminate the need for a separate agreement. 9