Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 01 14

Home Browse Search

McMillan stated it is not included. Sheets asked how it would be included in a deed. McMillan stated it could be included and then it becomes part of the recorded deed document. Hartman questioned the remote parking concept. She asked how many would really use it and how do we protect downtown. McMillan stated remote parking has to be in same zone district and could not be used in the Old Town Area. Hartman stated people are going to park where they are going to park and we need to establish some regulations to protect them. McMillan stated there could be neighborhood per Loo asked if a credit for continuous parking at 2500 would be • •ed up. McMillan stated the wording not to exce plies it would be ro•nded down. Lipton asked if the item at 5.c. in the staff reduction applied to both shared and on -stre McMillan confirmed it is a total f Lipton asked how changing a use wo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes DECEMBER 10, 2009 Page 3 of 6 rt regarding the parking credit Sheets stated "total cumulative o .n• c above)" should be added to provide clarity. McMillan stated .tio woul• Rontinue to be 1/500 SF. Lipton asked wh . e bull• ®' a condo. McMillan stated the . .' • as • •6 ®d so the parking would not change. Sheets stated the Cit C• it is given a considerable amount of flexibility, but the proposed langua is . ' ed. How do we handle reduction of discretion? McMillan stated the ne equir -,® ents are less subjective. Loo asked how other m cipalities are addressing the parking issues. McMillan stated he k • - Boulder is but he does not know about other communities. Sheets asked if all issues would be complaint driven. McMillan stated that is why we will require an agreement between parties. Sheets asked if both parties would need to complete a parking study. McMillan stated only the party that is developing a site. Sheets asked if deed restrictions are recorded documents. McMillan stated they are recorded.