City Council Minutes 1998 08 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Lathrop stated that he expected a project to come before Council and force the downtown parking issue and this project appears to be the one. He feels there must be a way for the applicant to build this building and make a commitment to the parking requirements. Davidson stated that the only option that he sees is to impose a parking fee. He suggested that the applicant provide a letter of credit to be used for the City to purchase a parking lot if a parking district is not formed. If the parking district is formed, the applicant would be released from the commitment, although he did not feel this was the preferable way to proceed. Keany suggested that the property owner commit to provide an amount of parking in an area adjacent to downtown, either leased or owned by the property owner, prior to the certificate of occupancy being issued. This property would provide additional downtown parking to offset the amount of parking required by this building. Davidson replied that providing a parking area through a lease might create problems when the lease expires. Mayer agreed that parking and traffic are important issues that need to be resolved. He could not justify approving another project until these issues have been addressed. Howard suggested that Council suspend this application and make a commitment to begin working on the parking issue. This would allow staffto arrange meetings with business owners to determine if there is any interest in forming a special parking district. Davidson offered a friendly modification that Council approve the resolution with the existing condition #1; add a second condition, written by the City Attorney, to state that the applicant would not be issued a building permit or a certificate of occupancy until the 47 parking spaces are provided either by the applicant or by some other means; and place a reasonable deadline on condition #3. Lathrop questioned whether condition #1 should be included. He stated that as long as the signs comply with requirements set forth in the CDDSG and the Downtown Guidelines, then he felt they should be approved. Bill Simmons, City Administrator, commented that there appears to be a contradiction within the sign package. The context indicates that cabinet-type signs could be allowed on this building and he was uncertain that back-lit, luminous signs fit the historic context of downtown. He suggested that cabinet-type signs be removed from the sign package. Hartronft replied that the applicant does not intend to use cabinet-type signs; therefore, they could be excluded. Davidson suggested tabling this item to allow the applicant time to review the proposed conditions and clarify the sign package, or, if the applicant would prefer, Council could vote tonight. 16