Member Nowicki summarized his request that the handicap parking spaces be in front |
|
of the entrance of the proposed bank building, and in the center of the proposed office |
|
center. The regulations specify the maneuvering space, access space, curb cuts, and |
|
so forth. Member Nowicki was not going to determine those for the applicant. |
|
Member Nowicki confirmed that generally the wheelchair involved would most likely |
|
be on the passenger side rather than the driver's side. Member Rosen confirmed |
|
Member Nowicki's statement and added that generally vans are used for handicapped |
|
persons, and most of the ramps are on the right hand side of the vehicle. There is a |
|
movement toward equipping passenger cars with the apparatus to bring the wheelchair |
|
up to the driver's side. Having the access ramp on the right side of the handicap space |
|
probably makes sense for the short term. Member Rosen suggested considering an |
|
additional handicap space on the opposite side of the access ramp so that the access |
|
space is accessible from either side of the vehicle. |
|
Member Corneliussen turned the discussion to the 22 foot wide requested cross |
|
access aisleway. The proposed number of parking spaces is three over the required |
|
minimum for the subject site. It appeared to Member Corneliussen that a cross |
|
access easement would take up at least two of those excess parking spaces, and the |
|
recommended location for the cross access is in the proposed location of the |
|
dumpster along the north property line. Member Corneliussen asked the applicant |
|
where else the dumpster could be located and what the impact would be on the |
|
parking count. Mr. Dorchen explained that they had gone through two reviews with |
|
the Planning Department before they were aware of the request for a cross access |
|
easement, and it is not part of the legal description of the subject site. The adjacent |
|
Regal Office Colony property owners want the cross access. Mr. Dorchen has not |
|
been able to find any way to bring a cross access easement across the subject site |
|
without causing a great deal of hardship in terms of liability, the grade change, and |
|
maintenance. The adjacent site is approximately 4.5 to 5 feet higher in elevation than |
|
the subject site and would require a ten percent slope for a road onto the subject site. |
|
It would increase the amount of traffic entering the subject site because they have not |
|
planned for it. Even if they had known about it in the very beginning, they could not |
|
have planned for it because of the steep grade. They feel compassionate to the |
|
neighbors, who have expressed interest and pleasure in the fact that an office facility |
|
will be built on the subject site. But there was no easement requiring that access and |
|
Mr. Dorchen did not think it would be safe. There may be other places, even on the |
|
Regal Office Colony site, to provide that easement without going through the |
|
applicant's property. Mr. Dorchen did not feel they can satisfy that request because of |
|