Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates parking requirements, fee-in-lieu and cost per stall estimate
Summary
The commission reviewed proposed updates to off‑street parking, considered whether to apply a fee-in-lieu for required stalls, and asked staff to obtain construction cost estimates per stall and to align the parking matrix with district use charts and ITE guidance.
Leavenworth Planning Commission members spent substantial time Aug. 6 discussing how to modernize the city’s off-street parking requirements, whether to allow a fee in lieu of providing stalls, and how to set a per-stall fee if the city pursues a payment option.
Staff proposed cleaning up the parking chapter to apply a single table across zones and to require off-street parking when a change of use or new construction increases parking demand. Commissioners asked staff to clarify whether the threshold should be a 50% increase in square footage or a change in the number of required stalls, and whether small occupancy changes should trigger a fee. The commission directed staff to solicit cost-per-stall estimates from the city engineer to inform any fee-in-lieu number.
Context: Staff noted the city cannot adopt arbitrary development impact fees; any fee-in-lieu tied to replacing required stalls should be justified by cost estimates and consistent with case law. Commissioners discussed two broad policy choices: a one‑time per-stall fee developers pay at the time of building (preferred by some commissioners as easier to administer and to price into project costs), or a recurring/amortized charge (seen as administratively heavy and politically difficult to apply to long‑standing property owners).
Key technical points discussed: - Parking-generation benchmarks: Staff and an engineering participant recommended using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking generation manual (and the trip generation manual) as data sources. Commissioners noted earlier editions of ITE relied heavily on suburban shopping center data and newer versions incorporate more walkable, mixed-use contexts. - Thresholds for review: Commissioners discussed basing applicability on change in number of required stalls rather than a raw 50% increase in area, and adding a minimum threshold (for example, 2 stalls) to avoid penalizing very small tenant improvements. - Central Commercial District: Staff suggested keeping a consistent table but retaining specific rules for downtown commercial districts where redevelopment and occupancy changes are frequent. - Snow storage: Staff raised recurring problems showing adequate on-site snow storage for parking lots and requested a code calculation or reference (staff cited Minneapolis examples) to make reviews consistent and enforceable; commissioners asked staff to provide workable standards or hauling alternatives for commercial lots.
Direction to staff: Obtain ballpark cost estimates for constructing a parking stall (staff said they would consult Selby, the city engineer), align the parking requirement chart with the city’s district-use chart and ITE guidance, and return with draft code language clarifying triggers (change of use, change in required stalls, thresholds) and exemptions.
Outcome: No ordinance or fee adopted. The commission asked for engineer cost estimates, a proposed table aligned to district uses and occupancy benchmarks, and clarifications about how to treat change-of-occupancy and redevelopment in the downtown core.
Next steps: Staff will request cost-per-stall estimates, refine the parking table to align with district-use categories and ITE guidance, and return with draft language and examples of thresholds and exemptions for commission review.
