Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment 3 Crowns topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors say 3 Crowns’ Colfax lot would replace trees with asphalt; petitioners cite surplus on-site parking
Summary
Multiple residents and neighborhood groups told the committee the proposed 23-space Colfax surface lot is unnecessary, pointing to the applicant's own parking inventory and independent reviews that found street capacity for projected demand.
Residents who spoke during the public-comment period urged the Planning & Development Committee to reject the Colfax parking proposal for 3 Crowns Park, calling the lot unnecessary and harmful to neighborhood character.
Speakers repeatedly invoked the Land Use Commission’s recommendation to advance the project but deny the surface lot. Leslie McMillan, speaking for Lori Keenan, said a five-foot setback in the revised plan did not address broader concerns: "It does not resolve the broader issues that led the commission to reject the parking lot in the 1st place," she told the committee. Julian Hahnowitz, representing People Over Parking, summarized numbers that undergirded opposition: "3 Crowns already has a 147 off street park parking spaces. The city requires 70," and he said independent traffic consultants (KLOA) agreed that on-street capacity can absorb expected demand at peak times.
Opponents urged alternatives including returning to valet operations, using existing underground parking more effectively, restriping or placing any additional staff parking on McDaniel Avenue rather than adjacent green space. Emily Nash asked the committee to approve project elements but remove the northwest Colfax lot and asked that any ordinance (Draft Ordinance 54-O-26 as presented) be revised to reflect the Land Use Commission’s recommendation before a council vote.
Applicant representatives countered that many garage spaces are assigned to residents and therefore not available to staff and visitors; Lisa Dye said the applicant has identified operational staff and caregiver parking needs and that shifting staff parking to neighborhood streets would create daily burdens for caregivers and visitors. The committee weighed these competing claims in debate and ultimately adopted a conditional approach — allowing the project to advance but blocking construction of the Colfax lot unless adjacent resident-only parking is enacted.
The public-comment record included petitions and opposing signatures cited by speakers; residents asked the committee to defer or reject the lot to preserve mature trees, protect drainage and reduce lighting and traffic impacts.
