pages: PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-07-10 | 6 | 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-A. ZA06-000X Zoning Text Amendment - Citywide (CE). Zoning Text Amendment to amend Subsection 30-4.9Ag.8. Off-street Parking and Loading Space of the C-C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to add a process for parking exceptions. Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report, and recommended adoption of this amendment. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Michael Krueger, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, Apt. E, spoke in support of this item. He believed that many of the City's parking requirements were developed in suburban areas with no public transit, developed to handle a worst-case scenario. He believed that other cities copied those standards, and suggested that they be changed to reflect the use and location of a retail establishment. He noted that Portland, Oregon, had exceptions for sites well-served by public transit (within 500 feet of the site). He noted that both Park and Webster Streets met those criteria. He added that the parking structure would also merit reexamination of the off-street parking requirements. Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, noted that one bus pullout has been lost on Park Street, leading to auto and delivery truck congestion. He noted that uses may change and that auto- dependence related to that business may change. Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, agreed with Mr. Krueger's comments. He noted that he shopped on Park Street by bike frequently. He strongly supported using alternative methods of transportation, and was very concerned about the environmental effects of driving cars. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Vice President Cook believed the parking requirements should be applied intelligently, taking the retail use into account. In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara on whether the parking exemptions would be defined by the applicant or the traffic study, Ms. Eliason replied that detailed guidelines from Public Works and Development Services would be sought by staff. She noted that a mixed-use office (office/residential), assisted care and hotel facilities would be likely candidates for this policy. Member Lynch noted that parking in lieu fees are a way for communities to generate fees to develop a nexus for that project. He added that government is also reticent to relinquish a revenue source, and noted that a balance between a revenue stream and such a parking policy must be struck. He was reluctant to require each applicant to produce a costly parking demand study, especially in a C-C district that was already described in a City map. Member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the timing of this issue, and noted that she had attended the EDC meeting where the parking and traffic study was introduced. She was reluctant to Planning Board Minutes Page 6 July 10, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf |