Thursday, February 7, 2013

A not-so-startling revelation at the joint Planning and Zoning, Historic Resource Preservation Board meeting (2/6)

As part of the continued review of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), both the Planning and Zoning Board and the Historic Resource Preservation Board met last night to review the draft permitted use table and the proposed Article 4: Development Standards.  As we delved through the various aspects of the code, we landed on the following provision which requires commercial projects to provide space for off-street loading.  Staff introduced this as being carried over from the code as it currently exists.  This means that this requirement is in full force and effect, as represented below:
Section 23.4-9. Off-street loading regulations.
a) Minimum loading space requirements. Minimum loading space requirements shall be as follows:
1. Every hospital, institution, hotel, commercial and industrial building or similar use, having a floor area in excess of ten thousand (10,000) square feet requiring the receipt or distribution by vehicle of materials and merchandise, shall have at least one (1) permanently maintained off-street loading space for each ten thousand (10,000) square feet of gross floor area or fraction thereof.
2. Retail operations, wholesale operations and industrial operations, with gross floor area of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, shall provide sufficient space (not necessarily a full berth) so as not to hinder the free movements of vehicles and pedestrians over a sidewalk, street or alley.
b) Access. Each space shall have direct access to a paved alley or street.
c) Size. Each space shall have a minimum length of twenty-five (25) feet, minimum width of twelve (12) feet, and a minimum clearance height of fourteen (14) feet.
I inquired, since the city enforces this requirement on others, whether the city complied with this requirement as it relates to the beach redevelopment project?  Upon review of the wording above, staff responded with a simple "no."

Let the record show...