Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves proof-of-parking plan allowing reduced initial parking for Premier Stone
Summary
The Planning Commission approved a proof-of-parking plan allowing Premier Stone to construct an initial 13 parking stalls with the ability to build to the 55-space requirement later; staff and the applicant said the building will be appointment-based and that future engineering/stormwater review must support eventual expansion.
The Planning Commission approved a staff-recommended proof-of-parking plan for Premier Stone’s proposed development, allowing the applicant to build fewer stalls initially with the ability to construct the full required parking later. Staff said code requires a minimum of 55 parking spaces based on the site's proposed uses (about 15,000 square feet of manufacturing at 3 stalls per 1,000 sq ft and just over 3,000 square feet of office at 1 stall per 300 sq ft). The applicant proposed constructing 13 stalls in the initial build and presented a plan showing where additional stalls could be built in the future.
Matt Knudson, of Rice Companies representing Premier Stone, told the commission the building will be "appointment and visitation only" and that current staffing is about 12 with anticipated growth to roughly 20 employees; the applicant said their proof-of-parking plan demonstrates the site can be expanded to meet the code minimum later. Staff noted engineering and stormwater review remain incomplete and that final engineering calculations must confirm whether the site can route runoff to the regional stormwater pond without encroaching on required parking.
Commissioners asked about potential encroachment on ponding areas, the proximity of the parking layout to utilities and easements, and ownership of adjacent vacant lots. After discussion a motion was made and seconded to approve the proof-of-parking plan; the commission approved the motion by voice vote with all present saying "Aye."
The transcript contains an inconsistency on the arithmetic for the parking reduction: staff cited a minimum requirement of 55 spaces and the applicant proposed 13 stalls "at the initial build," and staff also referred to "a reduction of 25 parking spaces" in the presentation. That reduction figure does not arithmetically match 55 vs. 13; the record notes the differing figures but does not provide a corrected calculation in the meeting transcript. Final site engineering and parking requirements will be confirmed during the site-plan review process.
