City Council Minutes 1999 03 02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Keany asked Tom Phare, Public Works Director, if there was a staff referral on the head- in parking proposal. Phare replied he believes there was, in addition to some spontaneous discussion by the Planning Commission. Wood stated that there were three scenarios presented to the Planning Commission. He stated that staff's recommendation to Planning Commission was that charging ahead to evaluate reconfiguration of right-of-ways would set a precedent that staff did not feel they had Council or administrative authority to do. He stated that while they felt that the reconfiguration of Front Street might have some merit, there was concern over the lack of authority to reconfigure right-of-ways. Keany asked Hartront how many parking spaces were included in the head-in parking plan, and what the net loss would be from the parallel parking spaces currently available. Hartronft replied that the net number was eighteen additional spaces, plus ten at the back of the building, for a total of twenty-eight spaces. Keany stated that the proposed building is 23,000 sf, which, at a ratio of two parking spaces per 1,000 sf, would require forty-six parking spaces. Hartronft replied that at the time parking was being discussed the ordinance excluded retail or restaurant uses, and discussions also identified part of the basement for storage only. This translated to a parking requirement of twenty-two spaces. Keany stated that he did not believe Council could request replacing the lost parking spaces currently in use by the tenants of 908 Main Street, as there was no parking space requirement for 908 Main Street. He stated that his concern is how this building addresses parking and whether or not Council wants to allow a height variance. He asked Hartronft how the two-story proposal affects the solar exposure on the north side of the building. Hartronft replied that it doesn't affect it at all. Keany questioned approving a PUD that includes language whereby the applicant agrees to participate in a future parking plan, as he did not believe there would be a plan. He stated that he felt that there would be a requirement of 2.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sf. He suggested removing the language agreeing to participate in a parking plan and replacing it with a requirement to provide 2.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sf that are approved before building permits are issued. This requirement would answer the question of where the parking for this building would be located. Keany expressed support for the three-story proposal, as it has more visual appeal than the two-story proposal. Davidson asked to clarify that the only PUD before Council was a proposal for a three- story building. Therefore, Council could accept or reject the three-story building, or send 18