Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff recommends approval of zoning text amendment to reduce retail parking; planning board recommended unanimous approval
Summary
City staff presented and recommended a text amendment to change the parking standard from one space per 300 square feet to one space per 400 square feet for retail/business uses, and the planning board had recommended unanimous approval; the public hearing was closed and the ordinance was read into the record.
City staff presented a text amendment to the city's development ordinance that would change the retail/business parking standard and strike a separate employee-parking requirement. Staff described the change as moving from 300 square feet per parking space to 400 square feet and recommended approval, saying it would reduce impervious surface and stormwater runoff.
"It's just a quick change to anything that's business or retail related, and it's, changed from 300 square feet to 400 square feet, and then also strikes out any employee parking," the staff member said during the public presentation. The staff presentation noted the planning board held a public hearing and recommended unanimous approval of the text amendment.
The applicant's attorney, Jessica Bowers, asked the council to find the amendment consistent with the land-use plan and asked that the amendment reflect "1 space for each 400 feet of gross floor area" as stated in the application. Bowers identified representatives present with her and said the change should be applied to the cited section of the ordinance as written in the application.
During council questions, members sought clarity about how the change would affect a proposed building. The transcript records the applicant's representative responding that "At least 36 spaces would be required, and it would be 23 as passed," reflecting the estimated parking count under current rules versus the proposed standard.
Staff cautioned that the text amendment is a broad, non-site-specific change; separate site-plan review and zoning-board-of-adjustment processes would still apply for particular developments. The city read the land-use plan consistency statement into the record and closed the public hearing on the ordinance (transcript reference: "ordinance 2 0 2 5 0 100 planning and zoning number 25 0 8 0 1, text amendment request"). The transcript excerpt does not record a final council vote on the measure.
