pages: PlanningBoard/2009-02-09.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2009-02-09 | 8 | Board member Autorino agreed emphatically that more employee parking spaces should be opened up at the in the parking lot utilizing the empty spaces. Staff stated that regarding policy, the Board would like the City to plan for strategically located parking lots or structures in North Park Street and perhaps North Webster Street. Staff asked for Board direction regarding the ordinance and findings. Board member Cunningham stated that the Board is in agreement that five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet is too much and should be reduced, requiring a traffic study for a small parcel is counterproductive to encouraging business opportunities. A discussion ensued regarding the approach to different requirements for businesses in different areas of the City. Parking waivers, in lieu fees, pricing, higher fees in higher traffic areas, employee parking, off street parking, delivery trucks, form based codes, existing businesses versus new businesses versus new square feet were all discussed. President Kohlstrand stated that if the project involves existing square feet parking is not required. Staff responded that the ability to negotiate employee transit or parking passes would be forfeited with that approach. The minimum parking requirements are a hindrance to infill development and in lieu fees allow for flexibility. Staff is proposing a sliding scale to accommodate smaller businesses. Board member Cunningham stated that parking demand studies should not be required, there should be a set rate per square footage for new additions and it should be less than five per 1,000 square feet. He suggested 2 spaces per 1,000 and stated there is not much Board support for in lieu fees but he would consider a development fee that includes concessions. Board member Autorino stated that the Board does not want to encourage the creation of on site parking in the South Park Street District. Staff stated there appeared to be Board consensus to remove in lieu fees and asked for confirmation from the Board. Board member Cook asked if there was a differentiation between infill and expansion and new development. Staff stated that the proposal handles these different situations with the provision of findings. Board member Cook stated that there should be less requirements for existing buildings along with encouraging employees to park in lots or garages. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she prefers offering a menu of amenities allowing businesses to choose which option they prefer. She asked if staff could explain the distinction made in the proposal between buildings that are over twenty years old. Page 8 of 10 | PlanningBoard/2009-02-09.pdf |