PC 120915 - Laserfiche WebLink

was absolutely opposed to any residential uses on the site but just that there should be a majority of commercial uses on the site in excess of the commercial uses that are currently being proposed. He noted that there is a PDA representative in the audience who can speak on the project. Commissioner O'Connor commented that the PDA also wanted the residential to be second -story. Mr. Weinstein replied that the PDA did not go into that in the letter but that it could be a logical conclusion. Chair Allen noted that the Commission will have a chance to hear from Laura Olson, who is here representing the PDA. Chair Allen then noted that the term "precedent" was used in the staff report and asked staff for guidance on this matter. She stated that her assumption is that the decisions the Commission makes tonight, for example, on tandem parking or potential guest parking, could potentially be cited in a future staff report as a "precedent," especially if the Commission makes comments that it does not consider as precedents. She inquired if her assumption is correct. Mr. Beaudin replied that it is possible that could happen, but what is unique about the PUD process is that it does allow site - specific alterations to the base zoning district, and that is what the Commission is really looking at tonight. He suggested using the word "example" rather than the word "precedent." He indicated that it is entirely possible that a decade from now, the Commission might be talking about a project that was approved at an earlier meeting as an example of a particular design decision that was made in the Downtown, but that does not mean it has to be replicated or followed as would be done if it was, in fact, a precedent. He added that because this is a PUD, it does provide some additional leeway in the eyes of history: the Commission is looking at site - specific conditions at a given time and making decisions based on today's policy and regulatory environment. Chair Allen stated that she just became familiar with the term "tandem parking" a month ago because she had never seen a project with tandem parking since she has been on the Commission. She requested staff to clearly describe what it is and why the City and most cities do not consider a single tandem parking as acceptable for two parking spots. Mr. Beaudin stated that tandem parking is when one car is parked in front of another car, whether on a covered or uncovered area; or one could be in the garage and the second in the driveway. He explained that what it basically means is that there are two cars in play, and one car has to be moved in order to move the second car; that when it is nose -to -tail with two cars, somebody is going to have to do some jockeying, and what is usually desirable is to have a little bit of extra room to play with so that if somebody is jockeying a car, that car does not have to be left in the street while the other car is being moved. He stated that there is just one person doing that exercise: he /she moves car "A" out of the way enough to get into car "B" and move it out of the way; he /she then moves car "A" back into the driveway, then gets into car "B" and drive it away. He continued that in this particular scenario, the drive aisle is wide enough to park a car and still maneuver; these are four to five units, and there is really no concern about congestion or causing any sort of delays or impacts or dangerous situations. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 9, 2015 Page 10 of 40