Agenda - Council Work Session - 07/24/2012

Home

improving aesthetics. Please note that this is not necessarily additional planting requirements, yet provides clarification of landscaping required per parking standards already found in code planted in and/or near the parking lot itself Since the work session meeting staff has revised this section to apply only to parking lots of ten vehicles or more. Also, staff is suggesting that the total amount of trees required in parking lots can be located within interior parking areas at 50% of the total with the remaining 50% in the parking lot setback areas. This change was made to address concern over placement and use of islands in parking lots. Perimeter parking area landscape requirements have been added (for parking lots of ten vehicles or more, which requires sites in business or employment district abutting a street or similar district to provide landscape screening at a minimum of 3 feet in height to screen headlights. Where a business or employment district abuts a residential district a landscape screen of 6 feet in height and 80% opaqueness is required. Another alternative to help meet this standard would be consideration of reduction to the parking lot setback. Finally a new Minimum Parking Requirement Alternative section has been added for review and input. This new section is intended to require new construction or expansion in Business, Employment and Mixed Use districts to use parking alternatives if proposing parking below or above minimum requirements. Some methods are included as requirements such as accommodating bicycle parking, while others may be as a choice with off -sets to the number of parking spaces required, such as car pool parking. Using these alternatives further supports the overall reduction in the amount of parking provided. Other Considerations: While preparing draft updates of the parking ordinance staff explored alternatives that may help the city achieve objectives to reduce excess impervious surface and outside storage (include excess parking). Below are some of these alternatives we would like to review with the Planning Commission. These alternatives could be added to the ordinance as a requirement or through an incentive in an effort to balance economic development objectives while also reducing overall costs for new development. Alternative 1: In an attempt to reduce "over parking" of larger sites such as for office buildings and big box retailers staff would like to discuss with the Commission the use of parking maximums for some larger parking lot users (big box retailers, office buildings, larger industrial users) to prevent excess parking. This option could be a requirement of the ordinance or if an applicant wants to add parking beyond the minimum, require mitigation features such as additional storm water management techniques within the parking and drive areas. This not only benefits sites for aesthetic reasons but also reduces the amount of storm water management required. Alternative 2: In another attempt to discourage over parking of sites staff would like to discuss with the Commission a requirement that any parking areas over the minimum be required to use a pervious paver system. That way, additional parking does not truly expand the amount of impervious surface and actually provides storm water benefits. Alternative 3: Staff would like to explore expanding upon current storm water management practices by requiring the use of best management practices for storm water 3