4/8/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

N 0 8 199 BOOK 86 f'A't 05 researched the county's child care facility and paved parking requirements in relation to requirements of other local governments (see attachment #3). The PSAC discussed and considered existing county child care and paved parking requirements at three separate meetings (November, 1991, December, 1991, and January, 1992). As a result of the meetings, the PSAC is now recommending that the board change an existing section of the county's off- street parking ordinance (Chapter 954). Currently, section 954.10(3) allows the county engineer to approve parking surfaces (other than pavement or concrete) based upon the suitability of the surface type for the proposed project use based upon "generally accepted standards". Other than for infrequent use projects, such as churches or vehicle storage lots, the county engineer has not approved non -rigid surfaces for regularly used parking. The PSAC recommends a change to section 954.10(3) to specify criteria that the county engineer would use to review requests for unpaved parking surfaces for regularly used parking lots, such as lots used by child care facilities and other businesses. County staff do not recommend approval of unpaved surfaces for regularly used parking lots. Paved surfaces provide better on-site and off-site traffic maneuvering and safety, provide for better drainage, and function better in terms of wear and maintenance (see attachment #3). In staff's opinion, the benefits to the property owner ( as well as to the users of the site and the general public) of paving outweigh paving's upfront costs. In staff's opinion, the county should not now relax a paved parking standard which has been in effect in the county for over ten years and which now has become an expected "community standard". However, if the Board of County Commissioners wishes to allow unpaved parking for regularly used parking lots serving new developments, then strict criteria should be adopted that provide reasonable assurances that the function and impact of such parking lots will be addressed. Such criteria are embodied in the proposed ordinance. As proposed, "Section 1" contains criteria which address the allowable location of unpaved parking lots, the allowable traffic intensity of projects which may construct an unpaved parking lot, and various engineering criteria related to surface function and integrity, drainage, traffic circulation, maintenance, and effect upon adjacent roadways. The PSAC, Planning and Zoning Commission, and county staff paving waiver criteria recommendations differ in regards to proposed criteria 1 and 8 (see attachment #2, pages 1 - 2). Both county staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend via criterion #1 that any paving waiver option for regularly used parking lots be limited to new development that is located outside of the urban service area (such as the Graves Brothers, Inc. proposed child care site). Differentiating between rural and urban areas is rational. Applying a more urban, "paved lot" standard in urban areas and allowing a more rural, unpaved construction in the rural areas would recognize the different characteristics of urban and rural areas. The PSAC recommends deletion of criterion 1, altogether. As part of the fist paragraph of criterion #8, staff recommends including a requirement of a base material on top of a stabilized subgrade. In staff's opinion, this requirement is not costly and would ensure a better functioning of the parking surface. Neither the PSAC nor the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that a base layer be required; both groups recommend deleting the last clause in the first paragraph of criterion 8. In staff's opinion, deleting the base requirement would entirely defeat_ the purpose of any meaningful surface type standard (see 4 M M M