My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/4/1998
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1998
>
5/4/1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:10:57 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 10:57:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/04/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
One other issue is addressed in the attached amendments. For commercial freestanding signs <br />near I-95 interchanges, a footnote to Table 1 of the ordinance is proposed to be added to <br />clarify that such signs can be up to 50 feet tall , but only if the applicant demonstrates that <br />the taller sign is oriented so as to be seen by I-95 motorists approaching the interchange. <br />The purpose of the change is to ensure that the taller sign provision is properly used along <br />I-95, rather than for traffic along intersecting arterials such as SR 60 and CR 512. Such a <br />change is currently contained in the SR 60 corridor plan LDRs, and should be considered for <br />all existing and future interstate interchanges. <br />Staff Recommendation: Restrict all signs in rights-of-way so that the county's long- <br />standing prohibition of political signs in rights-of-way can be <br />retained. Also, place orientation and visibility conditions on <br />the current allowance for tall signs near interstate <br />interchanges. <br />PSAC Recommendation: Voted 5-1 for the same recommendation as staff. <br />PZC Recommendation: Voted 6-1 for the same recommendation as staff. <br />4. Mini -Storage Parking Requirements <br />Review of a few recent mini storage project applications has brought into question whether <br />or not the existing LDRs require significantly more parking for mini storage than what is <br />actually needed Attached are two pages from Planning Advisory Service (PAS) report #396, <br />a comparison of some rates from around the country, and a proposed LDR amendment for <br />mini storage parking rates. The county LDRs currently require one space per 3,000 square <br />feet of gross floor area However, the PAS report indicates that parking rates should be tied <br />to number of storage units, since the number of units is the true generator of parking demand. <br />The literature suggests rates between 1 space per every 100 storage units and 1 space per <br />every 200 storage units. The proposed LDR amendment would create a parking rate based <br />on number of storage units, on the conservative side of the PAS recommendation (1 space <br />per 100 storage units). <br />Also, the report suggests that the other important traffic circulation feature for mini storage <br />developments is aisle width. The county's current minimum aisle standard is 20' for one-way <br />traffic, which is based on a 12' wide travel lane and 8' parallel loading space. The proposed <br />LDR amendment establishes a 28' wide two-way driving aisle by requiring another 8' for <br />parking. The concept is, if two vehicles meet in an aisle where a vehicle is loading, one can <br />pull over to let the other pass. - <br />A recent application for Magi Mini Storage proposed 675 units (87,287 sq. ft.) with a <br />resident manager. Under the present LDRs, 29 spaces are required for the 87,287 square foot <br />mini storage facility. The proposed parking rate would require 7 spaces for the 675 units and <br />two for the manager residence for a total of 9 spaces. The applicant is proposing a two-way <br />aisle width of 30' which exceeds the 28' aisle proposed in the LDRs. <br />Staff Recommendation: Reduce and modify the current mini -storage parking <br />requirements to bring them in line with other jurisdictions and <br />planning publication recommendations. <br />PSAC Recommendation: Voted 6-0 for the same recommendation as staff. <br />PZC Recommendation: Voted 7-0 for the same recommendation as staff. <br />May 4,1998 <br />5 <br />601A <br />rB"7r3 <br />Fr�C'L •J i a� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.