My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Business Retention and Development Committee Agenda and Packet 2009 08 03
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BUSINESS RETENTION & DEV COMMITTEE
>
2006-2019 Business Retention and Development Committee Agendas and Packets
>
2009 Business Retention and Development Committee Agendas and Packets
>
Business Retention and Development Committee Agenda and Packet 2009 08 03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:09:34 PM
Creation date
9/15/2009 11:20:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BRADPKT 2009 08 03
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Study Session Summary <br />July 6, 2009 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />Parking Management and Design <br />Currently fee-in-lieu does not cover the cost of parking. The following policy <br />recommendations were discussed. <br />Remove Cap – Reassess 1998 Traffic Study <br />Reduce ratio, so less of a stringent requirement <br />Increase Fee-in-Lieu <br />Tiers for redevelopment <br />Reduction for Eco-Pass – 5% <br />Parking Lot Design Standards <br />Parking management strategy <br />Committee members discussed concern for smaller businesses expanding <br />without providing parking and the need for residential parking permits. Members <br />encouraged staff to develop more precise terms, definitions, and issues relating <br />to parking requirements. Existing businesses that do not add to their structure do <br />not need additional parking. Rob Lathrop indicated that the information provided <br />to Council is thorough and that enough data is available for Council to review and <br />adjust cap number, or consider removing the cap. Additional ideas included <br />addressing a pedestrian orientation by screening parking from Main Street. It <br />was recommended to wait until the FasTracks impacts were known before <br />conducting a traffic study. A committee member expressed that an arbitrary cap <br />was not a wise policy decision. Members discussed the challenges with the <br />numbers associated with the development cap. Staff recommended using <br />existing parking mixed-use design parking standards and core area design <br />transitions. The following points were discussed by BRaD members : <br /> Formulate the changes generated by designs and different parking needs <br /> Visual Depictions and sketches of different parking designs and build out <br />scenarios would help <br /> Let the Zoning rule what can be built instead of a development cap <br /> Go away from a specified square footage cap. <br /> Encourage structured parking with incentives <br /> Reduce surface parking lots <br /> Design parking to be screened from street <br /> Designs that are business and pedestrian friendly <br />Public comments and Questions: None <br />UPDATE OUTSIDE PATIOS/BEEF O’BRADYS <br />Members discussed the special review use permit required of Beef O’Bradys and <br />the inconsistencies with other businesses building patio structures. <br />Fencing/seating for Beef O’Bradys was approved, although a rebate of fee <br />should be considered. The City should assess fees consistently. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.