PC 082620 - Laserfiche WebLink

not be considered as meeting the spirit of the policy. Commissioner Balch stated the applicant's choices were limited if he was trying to preserve parking. Commissioner O'Connor stated his belief that four spots could be put under the residential building with a parking lift, two for residential and two for the rest of the lot. Commissioner Pace stated he was not in support of in-lieu fees. He expressed interest in putting the parking under the raised building as it solved the visibility issue. He stated dual parking could be considered by assigning the spots to either residential or employees. 3. Does the Commission support use of the parking lift to meet DSP Policy LD-P.20? Vice Chair Brown asked if a homeowner could install a lift on their driveway. Ms. Clark explained it would most likely not obtain design review approval. Commissioner Balch suggested an enclosed lift under the building could be considered a car port with the shared wall in the middle. He questioned how developments could vitalize downtown without an in-lieu option. Vice Chair Brown asked if the project could be a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with the restriction on the use of spaces from 12 to 11. Ms. Clark explained a PUD would allow more flexibility and it may have been how tandem spots were approved in the past. Ms. Campbell requested the Commissioners clarify their stance on the discussion questions. Commissioner Balch stated he could support a single lift as a design element. Commissioner O'Connor stated he could not support an open-air lift. Commissioner Allen agreed with Commissioner O'Connor and added that a lift needed to be fully enclosed. Commissioner Pace stated he would consider approval of a lift if it was enclosed on three sides and assigned to ensure its use. Commissioner Brown stated he could not support tandem parking or an open air lift. Commissioner O'Connor stated he was not supportive of the in-lieu option nor an exception to the fully parked requirement. Commissioner Allen agreed, stating it would reduce vitality and exacerbate the parking issue. Commissioner Pace stated there may be an exception that he could not determine but he might consider. Commissioner Balch expressed his concern the applicant would reduce some of the existing commercial space in order to reduce the required parking, thus reducing vitality. He stated the importance of on-site parking but added the lift should be considered. He indicated support for in-lieu fees for one spot. Vice Chair Brown stated he would consider in-lieu for one space and would consider an enclosed lift for residential. Discussion Point #2: 4. Is the architectural style and design of the proposed building acceptable? Commissioner Balch expressed his agreement with Staff's comments. He liked the design but stated it was out of place with the building in front and should be Craftsman-style. Commissioner O'Connor agreed stating it should fit the front building and downtown area. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 August 26, 2020 Unit (ADU). Ms. Clark explained it was not an accessory dwelling to a residential building on site. Commissioner Balch requested further clarification on what configurations would be considered ground floor residential. Ms. Clark explained a story or two above a garage was considered ground floor residential. A residential unit above a commercial would not be considered ground floor residential or be subject to those related policy requirements. Commissioner Balch pointed out page 53 of the DSP. Ms. Clark suggested any effort to circumvent the ground floor residential parking requirement (such as elevating the unit, would Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 August 26, 2020