Agenda - Council - 10/23/2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

condition of the Permit could be to require the installation of the Proof of Parking Area upon sufficient analysis that the on -street parking adjacent to the use is not adequate to serve the needs of the use. With the latest amendment to The COR Design Framework, on -street parking spaces cannot be used to calculate the required minimum number of parking spaces. This was not the case in the original Zoning Code for the Ramsey Town Center. The methodology for the change was in response to a loophole that compromised the City's ability to encourage and require parking ramps in the densest portion of the development, The COR-1 Sub -District. Previously, users could use on -street parking to calculate parking needs. There was not previously a minimum number of parking stalls required, only a maximum. The literal interpretation of the code was that any required parking could be satisfied using on -street parking. That compromised the ability to reasonably expect construction of parking ramps. However, as this area is not subject to the Parking Use and Maintenance Agreement (PUMA) and the Development Plan does not indicate any planned parking ramps to serve this use, the City must rely on on -street parking if it continues to desire to encourage reduced off-street parking and high floor area ratios. In addition, the COR-3 Sub -District requires a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.25 and a build -to line encompassing 60% of the property line adjacent to rights -of -way. These two (2) provisions make it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the minimum number of parking spaces without using on -street parking as part of the calculation. Based on the facts available this evening, the City Council should focus on the proposal as Phase I and review as if there are no shared parking arrangements with adjacent users, since said agreements are not planned to be recorded. What that means for this request is that the City Council needs to make a determination on whether proof of parking is adequate, or the immediate construction of the proof -of - parking area is necessary for the viability of the user. The Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council allow the use of proof of parking to satisfy parking needs. The Planning Commission felt that the City would have adequate legal channels to require the installation of the proof of parking area if the demonstrated need exceeded the available parking. The agreement could be further strengthened by including the same language in the required Development Agreement, which is also required as part of the Plat request. 2