Laserfiche WebLink
Jay Berger, 1016 Main Street, Louisville, Colorado, explained that there are some items <br />included in the Ordinance that he approves of, and others that he does not. He did not <br />believe that allowing some of the commercial parking spaces off-site was a good idea. He <br />suggested a provision that requires a certain percentage of the parking spaces to be on- <br />site. He expressed concern that a large development could take up most of the remaining <br />property downtown and impact parking for those businesses that currently have limited <br />parking nearby. He stated that requiring a certain percentage of the parking spaces to be <br />on-site would also eliminate 'slash and burn' parking throughout downtown Louisville. <br /> <br />Davidson closed the public hearing and called for Council comments and questions. <br /> <br />Lathrop stated that his understanding of the Ordinance was that existing parking spaces <br />could be eliminated if other parking spaces were provided in an alternate form or <br />location. <br /> <br />Wood replied that the Ordinance stated that existing parking couldn't be eliminated, <br />unless it exceeds the 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sf requirement. He stated that there is no <br />requirement that a certain percentage of the parking must be on-site. <br /> <br />Lathrop agreed with Hartronft. He questioned whether Council would have the flexibility <br />to authorize the relocation of existing on-site parking to accommodate a better structure <br />or plan. <br /> <br />Wood replied that the Ordinance provides the flexibility to allocate parking to any <br />location approved by Council. <br /> <br />Lathrop stated that he felt that a substantial change was made to the Ordinance by adding <br />Subsection D to 17.20.025, which allowed for alternative parking schemes. He stated that <br />this change allowed some flexibility for various proposals that would have been <br />previously eliminated. <br /> <br />Sam Light, City Attorney, explained that under the current PUD Ordinance, the Council <br />has the authority to waive or modify parking requirements if warranted by the design and <br />amenities incorporated into the PUD. The new addition to the Ordinance does make a <br />substantial change. It gives Council another basis to change a parking requirement. It <br />would now say that Council could modify or waive a parking requirement if the applicant <br />demonstrates that adequate parking space is and will be made available under some <br />alternative method. That criterion is not in the current PUD Ordinance. <br /> <br />Sisk explained that he voted against this Ordinance due to his concern that it would <br />hamstring landowners and the City. He felt that the addition of Subsection D allows <br />flexibility and gives the City of Louisville a leadership capacity. He disagreed with the <br />statement that the City is not taking a leadership role. He stated that the Ordinance, while <br />not perfect, is a good compromise as it seeks to address many of the issues. He suggested <br />that Council consider amending the Ordinance as issues arise. <br /> <br />Mayer suggested that consideration be given to what would happen if the Ordinance were <br />not in place. He stated that, currently, the Commercial Development Design Standards & <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />