Laserfiche WebLink
Generally supportive of using separate ratios for residential parking <br />requirements. The attendees wanted to know more about the specifics of the <br />proposal. <br /> ECO pass reduction is not a good idea because it would be very difficult to <br />enforce. The passes are provided for individual tenants, and the tenants may <br />change many times over a building’s life, so the ECO pass is not a reliable offset <br />for required parking. <br /> More common public parking should take place downtown. <br /> Council currently has the ability to use discretion in parking requirements if the <br />situation requires relief. <br />FEE-IN-LIEU <br /> The proposed fee of $7,500 for remodels and renovations and $15,000 for <br />redevelopment is far too high. With the current economic situation, this is not the <br />time to discuss raising fees. <br /> When the fee was $10,000/space in years past all potential development projects <br />were killed downtown. <br /> If the Parking Fee-in-Lieu is raised too high, it might be more cost effective to <br />scrape an adjacent building and build a parking lot. The bank was identified as <br />an example of this. <br /> The $3,600 currently charged for downtown parking is probably low but maybe it <br />is a good subsidy to offer to downtown businesses. $6,000 per space may be a <br />more acceptable fee. <br /> A recommendation was made to set a date in the future (maybe 3 years) when <br />the fee might increase, but now is not the time to do it. <br /> The parking space cost estimates gathered by staff are too high. <br /> Offering a half price fee-in-lieu for remodels may be good for the character of <br />downtown, but logically it doesn’t make any sense in terms of getting the parking <br />requirements correct. <br />NEXT STEPS <br />Staff will present a recommendation of proposed policy changes to the Planning <br />Commission on November 12, 2009. <br />