PC 082620 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner O'Connor expressed concern that the difference between the proposed lift and tandem spots was that tandem spots were usually assigned to residents of the same household and commercial use could be problematic. Commissioner Balch expressed his agreement with Commissioner O'Connor's concern, again stating he would like one lift with the spots assigned to the residents, thus creating two residential spots, and avoiding use by commercial. Vice Chair Brown concurred with Commissioner O'Connor. Commissioner O'Connor stated the bottom two spaces of the lift could be counted but he expressed concern with counting the upper spaces. He also stated a single lift freed up one more ground space to be standard size. Commissioner Allen expressed her support in counting the two lower spaces as they would be counted if the lift was not there. Vice Chair Brown asked for clarification on Staff's interpretation of the code requirement of unobstructed parking spaces. Commissioner Balch stated Staff's interpretation of unobstructed access was correct. He restated the parking challenge in the downtown area and suggested approval of a single lift based on tandem parking approval. Commissioner O'Connor stated tandem parking worked for residential, not commercial, and Commissioner Balch agreed. Ms. Clark stated she was not sure the circumstances under which projects with tandem parking had previously been approved but that staff would investigate prior approvals. Commissioner Allen remembered the discussion about tandem parking for a project at 273 Spring Street and the Commission's rejection of tandem spots due to concern that it would not be used by the residents. Commissioner Balch further clarified there was retail in front of that project and the Commission was concerned the residents would use the spots reserved for the retail space as opposed to their assigned tandem spots. Planning and Permit Center Manager Melinda Denis explained a lift could be considered as vertical tandem and it was a new solution being used by other jurisdictions where she previously worked. She stated it was effective for residential projects when they were assigned to one unit and for Class A Offices where there was valet parking or an attendant. Commissioner Balch voiced his observation that parking was a challenge and suggested parking spaces be assigned to the residents. Vice Chair Brown suggested a lift was more applicable for residential and that it would be possible to apply to a business for staff. He discussed issues with asking a customer to operate a lift. Commissioner Brown discussed the use of lifts, encouraging walking to lunch. Vice Chair Brown stated his agreement and discussed use of lifts where people remained in the space all day. He stated that an unattended lift would not be the same situation and he was not in favor. He explained he would not be able to approve a project with a lift, though it was a creative solution. Commissioner Allen expressed agreement with Vice Chair Brown. She stated whatever was decided would set a precedent and she did not want to see open-air lifts all around the historic downtown. She also expressed concern that it would exacerbate the parking situation as people might avoid using the lift if it was unattended and would just be used as surface parking Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 August 26, 2020 rements and whether they would change in size to include some compact parking spaces. Ms. Campbell responded there would be a slight reconfiguration of the spaces. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 August 26, 2020