My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2016 08 16
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2016 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2016 08 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2022 3:13:39 PM
Creation date
9/7/2016 8:23:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
9C1
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2016 08 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />August 16, 2016 <br />Page 6 of 12 <br />Councilmember Stolzmann asked if the proposal is for a two-story building. Planner <br />Robinson said yes. Councilmember Stolzmann asked how leasing sidewalk space for <br />restaurant seating is different than leasing sidewalk space for loading and unloading of <br />an ADA parking space. Planner Robinson stated staffs concern that the loading space <br />takes up the entire sidewalk so no one can pass. This design also does not meet the <br />intent of the ADA requirements by forcing a handicapped user to use the sidewalk <br />rather than the regular parking lot. <br />Erik Hartronft, 950 Spruce Street, representative for the applicant, gave a presentation. <br />He noted this is a gateway property and is a transition space from the neighborhood to <br />downtown. The goal of the proposal is to provide a good pedestrian experience and <br />provide new office space and retail or restaurant space in downtown. He stated the <br />applicant felt keeping the house on the site was a better option than demolishing it for <br />additional parking. He stated the proposed building relates well in bulk and scale to the <br />rest of downtown. He added that while the parking requirement is not met, the applicant <br />feels this design maximizes parking as much as possible. He stated the design's use of <br />the sidewalk for the ADA space is a bit different, but it is a way to get one additional <br />accessible parking space in downtown. If it becomes a problem, the space can be <br />moved into the existing lot at the expense of one parking space. <br />Councilmember Maloney asked if the amended resolution presented this evening meets <br />the needs of the applicant. Attorney Light noted the language in the amended resolution <br />includes the condition from the staff report. Hartronft stated the applicant is fine with the <br />amendments. <br />Mayor Muckle asked for public comments. There were none. <br />Councilmember Stolzmann asked if the SRU applies to the upstairs patio. Planner <br />Robinson stated yes it includes both the ground level and the patio. He stated staff <br />would make a note on the SRU sheet to make it clear. She asked the City Attorney if <br />there are any issues with allowing the City's sidewalk to be used for the handicap <br />access to the parking space. <br />Attorney Light stated the City can give a license to a private owner to use the space on <br />the sidewalk. He stated it will require a licensing agreement with the City so it is clear <br />the City still owns the sidewalk and that there is no exclusive use for the property owner. <br />There is no legal reason to prohibit such use, but a licensing agreement will be needed <br />to memorialize the conditions of the use. <br />Councilmember Keany asked if music sound levels need to be addressed. <br />Councilmember Maloney stated his concern that this project adds to the parking <br />problem downtown although he supports the project. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.