My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 01 14
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2010 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 01 14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:49:45 AM
Creation date
4/5/2010 1:27:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2010 01 14
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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
• Idea: create a common parking review <br />the revitalization area <br />Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />DECEMBER 10, 2009 <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />Staff Report of Facts and Issues: <br />McMillan provided the following recap of the November meeting: <br />• Motion of approval to increase the square footage cap to 475,000 SF <br />• Motion of approval to reduce the parking ratio to 1/500 SF <br />• Decision to not make a recommendation to City Council on the fee -in -lieu <br />of parking <br />• Tabled the discussion of parking credits, reductions and remote parking <br />McMillan continued with a discussion of the parking credits, reductions and <br />remote parking. The discussion included the following poin • <br />• Proposal <br />o Parking reduction (25 %) where share p. - • is used <br />o Parking credit (25 %) for on- street spaces <br />o Allowance for remote parking up t6(0 feet <br />dard between downtown and <br />• Commissioners expressed concerns with the pr•posal at th t meeting <br />• Staff Report included responses to the follow • oncerns: <br />o How would shared agreements fun <br />o Residential parking should be acco odated on -site <br />o Use of public property f private ga <br />McMillan concluded with a recap of Resolut o. 1 ries 2009 as follows: <br />• Includes recom - •.tions from the m- eting: <br />o Increa <br />o Re • • •arkin• io <br />• Includes the credit, reduction and ote parking recommendations. <br />Members of the Public: <br />Michael g - 1827 Chokecherry Dr., Louisville discussed the following: <br />mis • Loo's questions from the November meeting regarding the <br />edits for o treet parking and public resources vs. private benefit <br />nsider public resources for public benefit <br />• - • t for on- street is a good idea and is only permitted for 25% of the <br />req • parking <br />• Does ®• .gree with a shared parking agreement because users and <br />property s change <br />• Remote pa g might result in stand alone parking lots <br />Loo and Menaker discussed the fee in lieu option. <br />Commission Questions: <br />Hartman stated if the shared parking agreement travels with the property then <br />what is the recourse of businesses that do not get along when a change in <br />ownerships occurs. <br />McMillan stated a PUD could be amended to include shared parking. <br />Sheets asked if shared parking language is established for title or deeds. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.