City Council Minutes 1999 04 06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

sector to come forward with a cash in lieu of amount, which he believes should be in excess of $5,000 based upon true costs. The other alternative would be to develop a private/public partnership that would address the issues. Keany agreed with Lathrop and Sisk that the fee in lieu of option should be included in the Ordinance. That allows the City to collect the fees and use them responsibility to make improvements downtown that will benefit everyone. He stated that downtown is a mixed-use area and by allowing developers to build private lots for their buildings only will take away any mixed-use or cross-parking arrangements that might benefit downtown. He agreed with Sisk that the Ordinance should be continued, as the way it is written will cause more problems in the long-term than benefits. Davidson explained that extending the moratorium would require passing an ordinance. He stated that the TABOR amendment prevents the City from collecting a cash in lieu of fee, as the City would be over the TABOR amendment limit for fees. It would be necessary for the City to pass a 'de-Brucing' on fees, otherwise, if the money were collected, the City would be required to return it at the end of the year. He expressed disapproval for the suggestion to continue the Ordinance, as Council has been discussing it for over a year. In response to the concern that a private developer would tear down homes to build a parking lot, he stated that there are two choices: either the private developer tears down homes to build parking, or the City does. He stated that there isn't any difference, as the homes are torn down either way. The other option is to build a parking garage. He stated that the estimates to building a parking lot are $5-8,000 per space; however, the low estimate for a parking garage is $18,000 per space. He questioned whether the business community would be willing to pay an $18,000 in lieu of fee when they are not willing to pay a $5,000 in lieu of fee. He expressed support for a parking garage, as long as the taypayers aren't paying to build it. He stated that data showing the number of required parking spaces per 1,000 sf is hard to come by. He explained that Council is setting the lowest number possible in order to impose the lowest parking burden. He stated that Council does not have to allow parking to develop 'hodge- podge' as any development plan, which comes before Council, is required to contain a parking plan. He felt that the options are (1) for the City to continue subsidize downtown businesses by providing parking, or (2) require the developer to provide parking. Mayer stated that when Council was reviewing Nancy Love's downtown parking study, it was abundantly clear how few business owners were willing to pay any significant sum for additional parking. He expressed concern that, even if the City could collect a cash in lieu of fee, there is very little land available within the 700 foot distance contained in the Ordinance. He questioned where the parking could be built, short of building an underpass beneath the railroad tracks. He suggested that leadership should come from both the City and the business community. He expressed concern that the Council does not seriously impinge on traffic circulation by going ahead with this plan. He questioned what should be done, if this plan doesn't move forward, as there appears to be very little support from business owners to pay development costs. He stated that this should be viewed as a work in progress, and suggested that the City continue to work with the businesses to come up with something better. 14