Laserfiche WebLink
Davidson asked to clarify that the proposal is to construct a three-story building with <br />23,213 sf and provide an overall total of fifty-eight parking spaces. <br /> <br />Lehman replied, no, that is not his proposal; however, he stated that he would accept <br />whatever requirements Council gives. He explained that he is requesting that his project <br />be approved in the same manner as the project at 728 Main Street. Specifically, that if no <br />parking decisions were made by the time a permit was issued, he would be required to <br />provide two parking spaces per 1,000 sf. He stated that this is the same language that was <br />passed on both projects that were passed by Council since the parking discussions began. <br /> <br />Davidson replied that the requirement of two parking spaces per 1,000 sf does not exist <br />anywhere. <br /> <br />Lehman replied that, by the same definition, 2.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sf does not <br />exist either, as both are just suggestions. He stated that the City Attorney explained, two <br />weeks ago, that there is a good bit of body of law that says that an applicant coming <br />forward should consider that any ordinances that are being worked on and look like they <br />will be approved, should be applicable. He explained that this is what he is going by. <br /> <br />Davidson questioned whether Council could specify a parking requirement of 2.5 per <br />1,000 sf or the number to be identified upon adoption of the parking ordinance as a <br />condition of approval for this project. <br /> <br />Lehman replied that he would accept either number, as he is willing to provide parking <br />for this project. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that during his presentation, Lehman inadvertently gave the impression <br />that Council withheld information that there would be a new parking requirement for new <br />development from those trying to develop. He reminded Lehman that when he developed <br />the property at 908 Main Street, there was discussion of it and Council has been <br />discussing it at public meetings for quite some time. He questioned how anyone could be <br />surprised by a parking requirement after all this discussion. Davidson agreed with Keany <br />and Levihn on the visual appeal of the three-story building and suggested that Council <br />approve the project with language requiring the number of parking spaces per 1,000 sf as <br />determined in the Ordinance being adopted in two weeks. <br /> <br />Keany asked if this condition was to be met prior to issuing a building permit. <br /> <br />Davidson replied, yes. <br /> <br />Mayer reminded Council that for any new development that occurs, not only will <br />applicants need to find more parking, but the City will also need to locate temporary <br />parking. He suggested reserving areas for the City to achieve its goal of providing the <br />transitory two-hour parking. He agreed that South Street would be an excellent choice for <br />diagonal parking. He suggested adding a condition of approval that this applicant shall <br />not receive any additional space if a Transferable Development Rights (TDR) program is <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br /> <br />