My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2009 12 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2009 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2009 12 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:19 AM
Creation date
3/15/2010 11:36:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2009 12 10
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />DECEMBER 10, 2009 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />Tengler discussed Item #1 on page 4. It appears that City Council is given a lot of <br />flexibility, so does this process still include Planning Commission. <br />McMillan stated it does. <br />Tengler asked if shared parking would carry a maximum distance from site <br />clause. <br />McMillan stated the proposed location would be required as part of the parking <br />study. He also asked the Commissioners to keep in mind that shared and remote <br />parking already exists in Louisville. <br />Public Hearing Closed Commission Comments <br />Hartman stated her support for the parking credits and expressed her concern for <br />remote and shared parking for downtown. <br />Loo stated her reluctance in all but especially in shared parking. <br />Lipton stated he is not sold on the idea of an on-street parking credit. He would <br />support giving relief for parking on case by case bases instead of across the <br />board. He also likes the shared parking but not the remote parking. <br />Pritchard stated he would like to look at the shared parking a little more. <br />Tengler expressed his concern with all three parking topics. He is especially <br />concerned with shared parking and what happens when a property use changes. <br />Sheets stated her concerns with the parking credits and reductions. She also <br />stated she does not believe there is a surplus of parking in downtown. <br />Roll Call Vote: <br />Lipton moved and Loo seconded a motion to not move forward with on-street <br />parking credit, the remote parking topic and to continue the shared parking topic <br />to allow staff additional time to refine the language. <br />Name Vote <br />Jeff Lipton Yes <br />Chris Pritchard Yes <br />Susan S. Loo Yes <br />Gail Hartman Yes <br />Monica Sheets Yes <br />Cary Tengler Yes <br />Scott Russell absent <br />Motion passed: 6 to 0 <br /> <br />Planning Commission provided the following direction to staff in order to bring <br />back an enhanced proposal to the January 14, 2010 meeting: <br /> <br /> Look at what other municipalities are doing <br /> <br /> What is required in a parking study as well as a definition. <br /> <br /> Regarding the shared parking agreement topic, look at encumbrances and <br />enforcement. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.