Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 12 10

Home Browse Search

Downtown Parking Structure Design Comments Submitted by John Leary, 1116 Lafarge Ave So we need to clear the way for the LRC to solicit public input on the design of a parking garage that has not been approved for construction. To put it another way, we are going to pretend we want, and need, a massive parking structure in the downtown area and take public input on its design. To put it another way, we need to clear the way for the LRC to proceed with a major land use decision in downtown Louisville for which it has no authority to carry out. This is craziness. Setting the craziness aside, let's look at some facts and issues. 1. The staff memo suggests we are looking at this issue because: "Downtown parking demand has increased significantly since 2008 due to the greater economic activity of retail, restaurant, and commercial uses."1 2. The RFP for the parking garage design project implies the garage is needed to facilitate 160,000 square feet of redevelopment in the downtown area.2 3. The Chair of the LRC told me the majority of the LRC believes Downtown Louisville needed to be redeveloped. 4. The citizens of Louisville are taxing themselves for the purposes of preserving the historical character of Downtown Louisville. A parking structure built to facilitate the redevelopment of the area is at odds with the intent of this tax. 5. Much of the 2014-parking plan has been implemented including the lot at the corner of Elm & Front, which was added to the plan by the City Council.3 6. The new City parking lot in the DELO area is under utilized. 7. The "SCHEME" tables in the architect's presentation should have a "cost per space gained" line. Doing this adds around $10,000 dollars to the cost per space in each scheme. 8. The Council has been remiss in its duty to the taxpayers by its failure to consider urban renewal revenues in its capital improvement plan. Many projects in the plan, and projects left out of the plan, are eligible for UR funding.4 1 It is not clear why 2008 and not 2014 was used. Implementation of the 2014 plan was to result in adequate parking. 2 It needs to be noted the RFP based the need on downtown parking standards and not actual demand. None of the design options would cover the real demand produced by 160,000 square feet of redevelopment. 3 Staff argued the 28 spaces were not needed to meet projected demand. 4 Per the Cooperation Agreement and Resolution No. 52, Series 2007, the Council has the final say on how UR funds are spent. This responsibility must be exercised in the context of overall city priorities. UR funds should not be viewed a "slush" fund to be used for low priority, "favorite," projects.