Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />some level of gray for this instance. He indicated this was not uncommon for this portion of City <br />Code. <br />Chair Biedenfeld stated he believed the loop driveway requirements were somewhat <br />unnecessary. Mr. Davis commented on when these type of driveway requirements would be <br />applicable. He understood there would be some concerns with the amount of paved surface. <br />Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola discussed how the proposed <br />code language would assist with reducing the amount of hard surface from what was allowed in <br />the previous code language. <br />Chair Biedenfeld suggested looped driveways only be allowed on County roads. Mr. Davis <br />discussed how there may be safety concerns with allowing looped driveways on County roads <br />due to the increased number of access points. <br />Commissioner Nelsen asked if enclosed parking would be required or not for residential homes. <br />Mr. Davis indicated he may have misunderstood the previous conversations. <br />Chair Biedenfeld stated he believed it was important for single family homes to have enclosed <br />garages for parking vehicles. <br />Councilmember Allen commented on how the Council was discussing accessory dwelling units <br />(ADU’s) and how these may have different parking requirements. <br />Further discussion ensued regarding the parking requirements for multi-family and senior <br />housing developments. <br />Chair Biedenfeld asked if the 1.75 parking ratio for multi-family was adequate. He was of the <br />opinion a parking ratio of 2 would be better given the fact the City did not have a lot of transit <br />options. Mr. Davis reviewed the parking ratios from recent developments and expert data. He <br />explained peer communities have parking ratios from 1.5 to 1.7. However, he noted the City <br />could look at a parking ratio closer to 2. <br />Commissioner McQuillan stated he would be interested in knowing what the parking ratio was <br />for Garden View Apartments. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola <br />stated he could look into this. <br />Commissioner Frischman reported a lot of the garages at Garden View were being used for <br />storage and not for parking. She explained there was a need for more storage in the <br />community. <br />Chair Biedenfeld stated the parking ratios could be amended in the future, if the City receives <br />more mass transit options. <br />Councilmember Allen commented on the parking requirements for the most recent multi- <br />family developments. Mr. Davis reviewed the parking ratios for the Brighton Oaks – Senior <br />Housing(1.44), Brighton Oaks – Multi-Family Housing (1.8), Midtown Village (1.87), and Main <br />Street Village (1.91).