Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2023 07 13

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2023 Page 4 of 6 Zuccaro replied that they could consider 3 spaces. Walking and biking was always preferred. He noted that there could be up to 4 people playing per court and another group coming if you had the court booked back-to-back. You could have up to 8 people coming and going for a single court. He did not think that staff would have concerns if the Commission wanted to go down to 3. Brauneis asked how ADA spaces would work for this plan. Zuccaro replied that the number of ADA spaces would be dictated by the Building Code, not zoning. Krantz stated that she wanted to discuss moving it down to 3, and noted that the number would be a minimum. She asked if there was going to be a change in the LMC or the design guidelines. Zuccaro stated that the situation was unique. It was not an LMC amendment, since the Code stated that a parking standard could be established through this process if the standard did not exist for a particular use. This resolution would not result in an ordinance because it was not a code change. Krantz asked if there were a residential development only for their residents, would they only need to meet the parking requirements for their residents and not for the pickleball court in addition. Zuccaro replied that staff had not provided a court facility definition, though it would include something like a public or private court facility and not a court for a residential use. Brauneis liked 3 as a minimum and asked if anyone else had thoughts on the number. Choi appreciated the nod to reducing vehicular traffic, but he was not convinced that reducing spots would reduce traffic. If people did not have places to park they would find places to park, which could cause more problems. He cited the tennis courts at the Recreation Center that often had multiple people waiting for courts to open. He added that if there were a minimum of 3 with an ADA space that would create conflict with the total number. He did not think that an additional parking space would have an impact on impermeable space when taken in addition to the impermeable spaces of courts themselves. Krantz asked for more information on why 4 was the number proposed. Zuccaro replied that 4 was in the middle of the different jurisdictions that staff reviewed, and that if you had 2 sets of doubles coming and going, and assuming that they were sharing rides, 4 was a middle ground. The worst case was 8