pages: PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-11-14 | 8 | answered that it may be an issue that is set forth in the code as opposed to policy and how it has been previously practiced and should be researched. She noted if the code does state that fees should be paid before building permits are issued then that is not something that can change. In response to a question by President Cunningham, Ms. Harryman replied there is precedence. President Cunningham stated he was concerned about precedence. He stated if the Board were to grant the Variance, future developments would then come back with projects requesting dispensation. He noted there has to be guidelines. Board member Lynch stated Government Code is very clear when it comes to fees and fee studies. Board member Piziali inquired if the City determines the fee or the state. Board member Lynch replied the fee comes from the California Government Code. Board member Piziali commented if the parking requirements were not so obscured, the fees would most likely be lower. Board member Kohlstrand noted the Board should not state the fee is not correct, but should look at why so many parking spaces are required downtown, when there is this synergy of activity that goes on. Board member Piziali echoed Board member Kohlstrand's comments. Vice-President Cook inquired about the fourth resolution condition, which states "pursuant to the code for any change of use, employees or seating capacity occurring within ten years from the date of the building completion additional on-site parking shall be provided." She noted she does not see how additional on-site parking can be provided as it appears to be "parked" out, so the resolution should say "on-site parking or in-lieu fees." However, it also led her to believe that it is referring to a restaurant, which has higher parking requirements than a retail store and if that is where the 22 spaces came from. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative. He noted that condition is specifically to address restaurant uses, which require additional parking or more parking than standard general retail uses. He explained retail uses require parking at the rate of one space per every 200 sq. ft., whereas restaurants are under a certain floor area required to have approximately 40 spaces. Board member McNamara inquired if a restaurant use can ever go in this space. Mr. Tai responded that the parking need was currently calculated based on floor area for general retail and office uses, which would require 22 spaces. A similar sized restaurant would require 40 spaces. Board member Piziali stated the Board's only option appeared to be granting the Variance; however, he could not make the first finding. Board member Piziali inquired if the City's requirement for 22 spaces would be increased to 40 spaces if the project became a restaurant. Ms. Eliason responded in the affirmative. She noted it would trigger the need for additional in-lieu fees, as there is no parking available. Planning Board Minutes Page 8 November 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf |