Loading...
1988-08-25 PC Memo to PC & CC ~ . DATE: TO: FROM: RE: August 25. 1988 Members of the Planning Commission and City Council Maureen Andrews. City Administrator THE VARIANCE OF GARAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR JOHN-GEORGE. INC. FOR THE WESTWIND APARTMENTS. At the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council on August 11th the developers and their builders were present to discuss the possibility of reducing the number of garages required for the 30 unit apartment building which is being proposed. The request for the reduction would allow one garage stall for every two units instead of one garage for every apartment unit. The City Planner David Licht, the City Attorney and the City Engineer were present at the meeting and had an opportunity to discuss the merits of this request with the members of the two boards. David pointed out that in most cities. the ordinance is written so that the provision of garages is obtained through an incentive program which would allow a reduction in square foot requirements if garages are provided. David also pointed out that the one for one requirement has been perceived as being an excessive requirement by the federal government. because it does not effect the health safety and welfare of the general public. 4It Through the course of discussion it was pointed out that it is more important to assure adequate parking spaces so that there is not a problem with not enough parking resulting in cars parking on the street. In reviewing the plans presented at the meeting it appeared to meet the two parking spaces for each unit that 10 of the garage spaces would have to be used as fee free spaces. that is 10 garages would have to be rented with 10 apartments without any additional fees. There was also some discussion regarding the builder designing the layout of the parking so that in the event that additional garages would be requested by the renters that they could be provided without interfering with the site layout. It was pointed out that there would be space for additional garages in the rear of the property. Additionally it was suggested that some type of barrier be installed at the end of the parking on the street side be designed so that overflow of vehicles would not spread out onto the street. It was also suggested that the design of the curb be change so that it would not be surmountable curb further defining the parking area. The builders pointed out that if the variance was granted that they would provide outdoor electrical so that people wishing to plug a vehicle in could do so. There was some discussion of whether or not the outlets should be on the building or out on post next to the parking area. It was pointed out that outlets on posts have a tendency to get run into and broken off during the winter months making them inoperable and that past experience has proven that the outlets on the building cause less problem. There was some discussion regarding the variance and whether or not it should be a blanket variance for all four sites. The developer pointed out that they would like some consistency in appearance between the four buildings and would like the variance to be all .nclusive. The City Attorney pointed out that the variance could be ranted with a review option so that in the event that the one garage unit for two apartment units would prove to be inadequate that the . . . w PAGE 2 City would have the option of requiring additional garages. It was also pointed out that by the time the matter would come up for review that the new City Zoning Ordinances would be in place and that this discussion might be a mute point. After the builders and the developers left the Planning Com~issionfmembers l~nd thehCounci1 h~d an opportunity to look at the pictures 0 a bui oing w ich wou10 be sl.m lar to the one being proposed for Albertville. The comment heard most often is that the entrance did not appeal to those present because that it looked like a secondary entrance. It appeared that it was the general conscience of the group that the builders would need to upgrade the appearance of the front entrance as a condition of the variance. Based on the discussion presented on August 11th the following recommendations are made for consideration: That the reduction in parking be allowed provided that the following stipulations are met: 1. That the builder provides 2 parking spaces for each apartment unit. And that the 10 garage units needed to meet the 2 for 1 requirement would be provided ..fee free to 10 apartment units and that the City of Albertville be provided proof of this on an annual basis to assure compliance with the requirement. 2. That outdoor electrical outlets be provided so that those parties not having a garage would be able to plug in a head bolt heater if they so wished. 3. That the builder be required to define the perimeter or the parking lot by creating some type of barrier on the street side of the lot (suggestion made at the work meeting was a raised curb area around on the edge of the lot) . 4. That as a part of the variance that the builder and developer leave some additional space which would accommodate additional garages in the event the demand would require them. 5. That the builder upgrade the entrance of the building to make it more appealing to the general public and that these plans be presented to the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. That the City grant this variance on the parking requirement for the first two apartments and the variance in principal for the 3rd and 4th unit, but at the same time reserving the rights to make final judgement at the time a variance would be requested for the other two units. Based on these findings the Planning Commission should base their recommendation to grant the variance and forward the same to the Council.