City Council Minutes 1999 04 06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayer agreed with Davidson. However, he stated that the Ordinance requires 2.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sf and, in general, four spaces per 1,000 sf are needed. He expressed concern that this means that the City is promising to somehow come up with the additional parking that is going to be required of that development. He stated that he shares the Planning Commission's concerns and the concerns expressed tonight regarding City leadership. He stated that in most areas, a downtown business district forms to handle the parking. To a great extent, it is the downtown business owners who have not been able to come together and agree on a general plan of how to pay for and administer parking. He felt that the Ordinance, while not perfect, is better than before, which was essentially that the City picks up all the parking. He described the Ordinance as a work in progress from which to move forward. Howard expressed concern that four parking spaces per 1,000 sf will, in actuality, be needed and Council is only requiring 2.5. He described that as a declaration of subsidy and stated that he thought the City was trying to get out of the subsidy business. He felt that it has taken a long time to come to a simple conclusion that: if you are going to be making the money and you are going to be expanding your business, then you ought to provide your parking. The taxpayers and other businesses that do not otherwise benefit should not be paying to provide it. He agreed with Mayer that the City would be dealing with some kind of a subsidy down the line and felt that it is time for development to pay its own way. Lathrop stated that he feels fairly comfortable with a requirement of 2.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sf, as he has always heard that an overall average is two spaces per 1,000 sf. He agreed with Hartronft and Lehman that the Ordinance is going to create exactly what happened in Boulder. That is that each developer goes out and finds something to put cars on, resulting in a hodge-podge of lots, demolitions, and so on. He felt that the issue is, in order to make some semblance of order, somebody has to be the parking lot broker. It's logical that the City would be that broker. He did not feel that would be inconsistent as a municipal service, provided that the monies are sufficient to build the parking lots. He stated that if there is cash in lieu of actual parking places, what is that number and is it sufficient to build parking. This would allow a developer who does not have access to on- sight parking to pay a fee to build parking that can be used by many developments. He stated that now is the right time for the City to become the broker, as there isn't a parking problem yet. This would allow the City to begin collecting fees for the seed money to provide future parking lots. He expressed disapproval of the Ordinance as drafted. Sisk stated that he believes the City has the obligation to provide a strong leadership role in developing downtown parking. He expressed concern that a number of properties and homes will be torn down for parking, removing the connection with Louisville's historical significance. He stated that he was in favor of the previously discussed $5,000 per-space fee. However, he reminded the business community that they did not agree with that amount, because they felt they could do a better job. He stated that the City had, in fact, tried to take a leadership role and they were rebuffed. He suggested that the moratorium be continued for one to two more months in an effort to allow the City and the private 13