Planning Commission Minutes 2009 12 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes DECEMBER 10, 2009 Page 2 of 6 Staff Report of Facts and Issues: McMillan provided the following recap of the November meeting:  Motion of approval to increase the square footage cap to 475,000 SF  Motion of approval to reduce the parking ratio to 1/500 SF  Decision to not make a recommendation to City Council on the fee-in-lieu of parking  Tabled the discussion of parking credits, reductions and remote parking McMillan continued with a discussion of the parking credits, reductions and remote parking. The discussion included the following points:  Proposal Parking reduction (25%) where share parking is used o Parking credit (25%) for on-street spaces o Allowance for remote parking up to 600 feet o  Idea: create a common parking review standard between downtown and the revitalization area  Commissioners expressed concerns with the proposal at the last meeting  Staff Report included responses to the following concerns: How would shared agreements function o Residential parking should be accommodated on-site o Use of public property for private gain o McMillan concluded with a recap of Resolution No. 11, Series 2009 as follows:  Includes recommendations from the November meeting: Increase cap o Reduce parking ratio o  Includes the credit, reduction and remote parking recommendations. Members of the Public: Michael Menaker, 1827 Chokecherry Dr., Louisville discussed the following:  Commissioner Loo’s questions from the November meeting regarding the credits for on-street parking and public resources vs. private benefit  Consider public resources for public benefit  Credit for on-street is a good idea and is only permitted for 25% of the required parking  Does not agree with a shared parking agreement because users and property owners change  Remote parking might result in stand alone parking lots Loo and Menaker discussed the fee in lieu option. Commission Questions: Hartman stated if the shared parking agreement travels with the property then what is the recourse of businesses that do not get along when a change in ownerships occurs. McMillan stated a PUD could be amended to include shared parking. Sheets asked if shared parking language is established for title or deeds.