Laserfiche WebLink
Lathrop stated that he liked the building and its design. He felt the building was appropriate with <br />downtown; however, he had a concern with parking. He did not feel that condition #2 regarding <br />future public parking improvements was specific enough nor enforceable, especially with future <br />owners. He stated that Council needs to address downtown parking now. He feels adding a forty- <br />some space burden to a potential problem without a reasonable package of solutions to the problem <br />is putting a great burden on Council. He suggested that condition #2 be modified to be enforceable <br />and very specific to alert future property owners of their obligation. He also stated that he would not <br />be inclined to approve PUDs that do not have some reasonable assurance or reasonable timeline. He <br />agreed that the current timeline was too short, but 'indefinite' was too long. <br /> <br />Keany stated that he has heard Erik Hartronft state at Downtown Business Association (DBA) <br />meetings that he is having a difficult time attracting tenants to his downtown building because there <br />isn't adequate parking available. He then asked Hartronfi how Council could approve an 18,000 sf <br />building when there is clearly a lack of parking downtown. <br /> <br />Hartronft agreed that parking is an important issue, and stated that the DBA began talking to Council <br />about a parking plan approximately six years ago. The DBA is currently surveying the business <br />owners downtown about their willingness to participate in a parking plan, and the results are <br />encouraging. He stated that he hopes, with the City's participation, to have a parking plan for <br />downtown in place by the time this project comes to fruition. <br /> <br />Mayer agreed with Lathrop that the language in condition #2 is not clear, especially in determining <br />who benefits from the parking. He asked Light how legally enforceable this condition would be and <br />who is a beneficiary and who is not. <br /> <br />Light replied that there is a statutory process for the City to follow if an assessment is used to <br />determine the benefits received from parking availability. If an impact fee is used, the impact fee has <br />to accurately reflect the amount of the impact that you are offsetting. Those issues are not specified <br />in condition #2. <br /> <br />Mayer stated he is also concerned with the traffic capacity of Main Street. He is hesitant to approve <br />a project and set expectations of what the City will allow downtown before evaluating the <br />infrastructure impacts such as parking and traffic. <br /> <br />Hartronft agreed that downtown parking is a daily issue. He questioned whether the City could apply <br />the commercial design guidelines to this project when they have not been applied to previous <br />projects. Hartronft believes this project complies with the current draft of the downtown design <br />guidelines. He questioned delaying this project until the downtown design guidelines are finalized <br />and adopted. <br /> <br />Mayer replied that it is unreasonable to state that one project should be approved without parking <br />because a previous project was approved without parking. He feels the parking situation needs to be <br />addressed sooner rather than later. <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br /> <br />