CCMIN040202 - Laserfiche WebLink

communities are being user friendly and more aggressive with inviting development into the downtown area. Robert Byrd, Third Street, saw documents approximately six months ago that showed the cost for parking space at approximately $13,000 per space. He is pleased the Planning Commission has established criteria for new construction and remodeling. He knows of no City consideration or concessions for remodeling old historical structures, only parking concessions for tearing them down. There being no further speakers, the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Campbell said the City has encouraged shared parking and has then added additional conditions to entice the owners to make it public/private, but these owners have decided they do not want to do it. He felt the City should allow them to pay the in lieu fee and the owners would keep their three spaces. Councilmember Michelotti felt the area that is being considered for consolidation is too small for mandated reciprocal parking on this particular street. To mandate that, if an adjacent property owner comes to you and wants a reciprocal agreement, the second owner has to, by mandate provide reciprocation. It becomes too tight because the people need to have at least what they absolutely need for parking. She stated her concern about turning residential areas into commercial areas and not having the mandated parking to go along with it. It would be better to keep the flavor of the historic buildings downtown and not require that one be demolished so that the other could have adequate parking for their needs. Using the two Spring Street addresses as an example, she felt this was what the City needs to encourage. She does not want to see the buildings demolished. The Council is trying to encourage people to keep the original flavor of the neighborhood. She said she was in favor of Option #2. Mr. Swift stated that in the Winters' agreement, if Council decides it should not include the shared private parking provision, the Council can simply take it out. The Wevills were in front of the Planning Commission in order to get approval for tearing down an existing building and rebuilding an expanded structure that looks very close to the original building. The Wevills were seeking design approval with approximately one-half the code required parking. The balance would be made up with in lieu fees. The Planning Commission decided that in this instance it was not worthwhile to try to save the existing building and approved demolition. They allowed it to be rebuilt with a larger square footage if parking could be provided. That required an in lieu parking agreement. Staff believes that a reciprocal agreement is in order with respect to both properties. Councilmember Dennis questioned the owners' ability to monitor a parking agreement. She asked if only a certain number had to be reciprocal and then could the others be designated as private? Mr. Swift said conditions of parking could be worked out with an agreement. Pleasanton City Council 13 04/02/02 Minutes