Laserfiche WebLink
be provided when they did not know what the parking requirements would be. Lehman <br />stated that the first proposal before Council contained in excess of two parking spaces per <br />1,000 sf. <br /> <br />Mayer replied that he remembers it differently. He felt that Council might have been <br />intrigued with the proposal but they did not state that this was the specific plan that they <br />would be willing to approve. Mayer felt that this only underscores his feelings that there <br />is a lack of communication between the Planning Commission and City Council. He <br />stated that parking still needs to be addressed and asked how Council should do that. <br /> <br />Lehman replied he did not know. He stated that Council has placed the same language <br />regarding participation in some future parking arrangement on every PUD approved since <br />the approval of the project at 728 Main Street. He requested that Council approve his <br />project with the same language. Lehman stated that he has only been following the <br />directions he was given. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that this is exactly why he suggested a moratorium last fall. Applicants are <br />telling Council that they are simply following directions and Mayer questioned whose <br />directions they are following, as there have not been any clear directions given. He stated <br />that if Council decides on a ratio of two spaces per 1,000 sf, this project would require <br />fifty parking spaces. He questioned exactly where those spaces would be provided, as <br />Lehman's statement is only that he owns some properties he could use. Mayer felt that <br />Council would need to know exactly how the parking would be provided before they <br />could approve the project. <br /> <br />Hartronft stated that what he felt is pertinent is that an Ordinance was continued until <br />March 16, 1999. In two weeks, Council will be discussing a parking plan for downtown <br />that, in its current draft, includes impact fees for applicants who don't provide parking <br />on-site. He believes an applicant could anticipate that they might be subject to impact <br />fees if they did not provide on-site parking. While that may change between now and <br />March 16, he questioned what they are supposed to do. He stated that if impact fees were <br />not included, then parking would need to be provided for this project. <br /> <br />Mayer agreed with Hartronft that the final ordinance might be different that the current <br />proposal, as a majority of the Council agrees that they do not want an impact fee. <br /> <br />Lehman asked to clarify that he did not intend to indicate that he relied sorely on staff <br />direction, but rather on the whole process. He stated that he also relied on Council's <br />actions for other projects, such as the Melting Pot Restaurant and the bed & breakfast. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that part of what has happened in the interim is that Council asked for <br />parking and traffic studies to be done prior to finalizing a plan. Council used the <br />information provided to arrive at the current number of spaces required. Mayer described <br />this as a 'planning shadow exercise' where no one is certain what the other one wants. <br /> <br />Hartronft and Lehman agreed with Mayer. <br /> <br />17 <br /> <br /> <br />