My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Business Retention and Development Committee Agenda and Packet 2009 06 01
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BUSINESS RETENTION & DEV COMMITTEE
>
2006-2019 Business Retention and Development Committee Agendas and Packets
>
2009 Business Retention and Development Committee Agendas and Packets
>
Business Retention and Development Committee Agenda and Packet 2009 06 01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:09:33 PM
Creation date
5/29/2009 10:58:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BRADPKT 2009 06 01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
<br />Policy Modifications: <br />1. Remove required parking minimums - except for non-residential uses in or near <br />low density residential neighbors (neighborhood commercial, schools, and <br />churches). <br />a. Question validity of minimum parking requirements. <br />b. Precludes or limits many types of developments on small parcels. <br />c. Spreads destinations apart, resulting in further walking distances. <br />d. Encourages single occupant vehicle trips. <br />e. Need to reach a consensus from surrounding residents regarding <br />spillover parking. Development in these areas may need to retain a <br />minimum. <br />f. Cumulative minimum parking requirement may discourage mixed-use <br />devel opm ents. <br /> <br />2. Adopt a parking maximum for downtown and TOD. <br />a. Emphasis on the management of auto trip generation. <br />b. Limitless supply of parking availability provides no means to control the <br />demand for parking, but rather incentivizes auto travel and continually <br />creates more parking demand. <br />c. Too much parking undermines the public investments in multi mode <br />transit, sidewalks, and bike facilities. <br />d. Too much parking fails to connect the user with the true costs of building <br />and maintaining parking. If user was required to pay the actual cost of <br />parking, less parking would be demanded. <br /> <br />3. Support strategies including: <br />a. Shared parking. Utilizes current supply more efficiently. <br />b. Car-share parking. Offer set number of spaces to facilitate. <br />c. In Lieu Fees - Allows developer to build fewer spaces for an in-lieu <br />payment. <br />d. Bike Parking. Establish a schedule of bike parking requirements. <br /> <br />Residential requirement less than 1:1 to ensure unbundling parking from the cost of <br />housing. Sell parking separate from the housing unit. <br /> <br />Encourage shared parking. <br /> <br />Car Share - one space for lots over 50 spaces. Add one additional for every 100 spaces <br />Landscape Requirements. 10% of surface area landscaped - with 30% canopy <br />coverage rqd. <br />Bike parking: Residential greater than 10 units. Commercial required on buildings <br />greater than 4,000. <br /> <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.