1991-08-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ~ulcS - Plan Conunisaion, August 28, 1991 Chairperson Kreishman asked Mr. Goldman to report on the staff review. Mr. Goldman . explained that a carry-out restaurant requires a conditional use permit to operate in a "GC" - General Commercial District. The proposed conditional use does not comply with the eleven (11) parking space requirement of Zoning Code Section 34-50.4(c). The premises consist of 2,050 square feet retail space with only five (5) parking spaces. The parking arrangements require people to back out into heavy traffic. Mr. Goldman pointed out that by taking a scale to Applicant's Exhibit 1, it would appear that the five parking spaces in front of the premises are only 14', not the 19' required by the Zoning Code. It was Mr. Goldman's opinion that Applicant's Exhibit 1 does not represent a feasible alternative to backing into traffic. It would be too difficult to maneuver a car onto the sidewalk, in order to avoid backing into the street. People would therefore choose to back into Forsyth. Mr. Goldman stated that the hours of operation are not compatible with the apartment use in the same building. Mr. Goldman had further concerns that all of the parking for apartment tenants of the building would be consumed by the carry-out restaurant use. The use decreases community welfare because of the hours of operation. Mr. Goldman stated that this use would be more compatible on another site. Mr. . Goldman concluded by pointing out that the general area has an overall lack of parking. The Chairperson asked the members of the Commission if they had questions for Mr. Goldman or for the applicant. Mr. Foxworth asked Mr. Goldman if there have been any recent traffic studies done for that area of the city. Mr. Goldman stated that there were no new studies to his knowledge. Mr. Marsh asked Mr. Goldman if it was possible to have a parking lease as one of the conditions of the use permit. Mr. Goldman responded in the affirmative. Mr. Marsh asked Mr. Hennemeyer what stage he was at in obtaining the additional parking. Mr. Hennemeyer explained that they were in the negotiating stage and that they would finish the contract soon. Mr. Anderson explained that they had tried to obtain parking spaces from Amoco next door but that Amoco's own lease would not allow that. Chairperson Kreishman asked Mr. Anderson how the customers would be directed to use the additional parking. Mr. Anderson replied that the additional parking would be used for the employees. Mr. Safe asked Mr. Hennemeyer what his opinion was of the backing out onto Forsyth problem. Mr. Hennemeyer replied that it was easy enough to back into the sidewalk to turn around. He further stated that it was not a problem for the printing company that was previously there. Mr. Marsh asked Mr. Hennemeyer if he knew the dimensions of the parking spaces since they were not listed on Applicant's Exhibit 1. Mr. Hennemeyer replied that he would have to measure because he did not know. Mr. Safe stated that he had never had any problems with parking at that location when the parking was perpendicular to the building in the past. Mr. Anderson stated that it would be acceptable to the applicant if signage was required to direct people to back onto the sidewalk when leaving the parking space. Mr. Safe asked whether there would be delivery vehicles. Mr. Hennemeyer replied that there would be an average of three (3) and up to five (5) delivery vehicles which would be forced to park in the spaces obtained off-premises. Mr.