My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Business Retention and Development Committee Agenda and Packet 2009 07 06
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 07 06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:09:33 PM
Creation date
8/4/2009 11:08:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BRADPKT 2009 07 06
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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 />Study Session Summary <br />June 1, 2009 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />PARKING STUDY <br />Gavin McMillan presented an overview of the Fee-In-Lieu parking study, and <br />materials were provided to the Committee. The study was three Fold: Parking <br />Requirement, Fee-in-Lieu, and Future Parking Locations. McMillan indicated that <br />when comparing ratios – two per thousand is a general utilization of parking <br />spaces. Council posed the question, would building out stress our level of <br />service? Council, Staff and Committee members discussed options of maximum <br />parking, shared parking, or traffic management of parking. Different uses may be <br />a factor in parking usage, and is an important question to pose to move forward <br />with parking planning. Important policy questions to ask are: <br />1. If businesses cannot or unable to build parking, what will the city collect for <br /> fee-in-lieu? <br />2. Does the City want to subsidize parking? <br />3. If fee is raised, where does the money go? <br />4. Is a business guaranteed parking space? <br />5. Will development depend on the criteria and change of use? <br />6. What is the right amount of fee that is an incentive that business will not build <br /> their own spaces? <br />Further discussion focused on funding being devoted towards beneficial uses, <br />and the increase in the quality of life by offering centralized structured parking <br />rather than divided surface parking that is disjointed. Another possible option is <br />a tiered, cash-in-lieu system to assist those who cannot afford under-ground <br />parking. Considering affordability, do we eliminate minimum parking <br />requirements? Is it allowable to use Historic Preservation tax to offer relief for <br />the cost of providing parking. Council suggested that pros and cons and possible <br />consequences to the varied policy proposals be prepared for the next meeting. <br />Public comments and Questions: <br />How will the cost of parking be equitable among residents? <br />UPDATE/PATIO <br />Chris Pritchard provided on update on the patios. Weather has affected the use <br />of patios. VIC’s indicated a negative impact on customers was not noted. The <br />utilization of the patios is a work in progress; the patios will be expanded in size. <br />Waterloo is awaiting patio tables for placement. Information is being provided to <br />the public that the change in parking is seasonal. Positive comments about the <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.