Loading...
11. Parking in Public Right of WayAgenda -January 27, 1997 AGENDA ITEM 11 - PARKING IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATION: This item is a request from staff for clarification/direction from the Council. We have a specific request that has brought a reoccurring question to the staff's attention. We have received a call from a business that is considering tearing down an existing Quonset building and will replace it with a new two-story addition to an existing building. The concern is that if they proceed with this project, the City will require that they remove the parking spaces on the east end of the building because the current spaces are on the City's public right-of-way. Although the parking spaces have been there for years, the City staff has tried to correct these types of uses whenever possible. In this particular case, the owners are able to provide the required parking for the new addition as the zoning ordinance requires, but if we require them to remove the existing parking spaces (from our property) and replace them elsewhere on the lot, they will not be able to provide the new required spaces. The existing main building is considered non -conforming because it is in the setback. It will be necessary for the owners to apply for a variance and gain approval prior to construction of the proposed addition. The question that we need your direction on is, when a situation similar to this comes up, do we require the property owner to Agenda -January 27, 1997 correct their parking situation prior to allowing the desirable construction or other alteration of the property? RECOMMENDATION: The basic intent of the zoning ordinance is to correct non -conforming uses and to discourage the extension of the life of these non -conforming uses. The City should also discourage (and correct) parking on our right-of-ways due to risk management considerations and the undesirable precedent that this practice sets that could lead to further use of our right-of-ways for "official" parking areas. On the other hand the practical result, in this particular case, could continue a usage that is much less desirable then the proposed improvements to the property without increasing our exposures. My recommendation to you and the staff may not give the staff clear direction but would allow the staff to have flexibility. My recommendation is to allow the staff to review and continue to obtain the goals of the zoning ordinance on a case by case basis. The staff should continue to "mitigate" the shortcomings with the zoning intent as their guideline. However, on the occasions that we cannot correlate practical results with the intent of the zoning, we (staff) should refer these cases to the Council for your decision. After all, the Council is the "final" decision -maker and all City property is in your ultimate control. ACTION REQUIRED: Direction, by MOTION, would be desirable. That motion could be: Agenda -January 27, 1997 1. Strictly enforce the intent of the zoning ordinance in all cases; 2. Consider the intent of the zoning ordinance and mitigate existing parking problems as best as we can; or 3. Failing the above, refer these cases that we cannot mitigate to the Council for final determination. 01/13/97 15:34 STATION (123)455-7890 P. 002 interoff"! c e M E M O R A N D U M to: Clarence Krepps from: Diana Harrison subject: Parking in the Public Right of Way date: January 13, 1997 Last Wednesday I received a call from a gentleman that is working with the owner's of True Value Hardware on West. Center Street. The owners of this business are considering tearing down an existing quonset building, and replacing it with a new two (2) story addition to the existing building. Ids concern is that if they proceed with this project, the City will require that they remove the parking spaces on the east end of the building because they are in the public right of way. These parking spaces have been there for years, but the City tries to remedy these situations when there is an opportunity. The owners are able to provide the required parking for the new addition as the zoning ordinance requires, but if they are asked to remove the existing parking spaces and replace theist elsewhere on the lot, they would be unable to do this. The main building is considered nonconforming because it is in the setbacks, so it would be necessary for the owners to apply for and obtain a variance prior to construction of the addition. The Site Review Committee discussed this particular project at last Thursday's meeting, It was felt by all members of the Committee that we needed direction from the City Council before making any final decisions. Because this is not the first time this type of situation has shown up, staff is asking for clarification from the City Council so that we are consistent in our answers to property owners and builders. When a situation such as this comes up, do we require that the property owner "fix" his or her parking situation because they are building an addition or doing some other work on their property?