Laserfiche WebLink
The Applicant, Wassim Naguib, provided a presentation on the item. <br /> Dawn Chatham provided her comment on Item 7 _ e _ -e -- _ • - - . ___ e. She <br /> stated that after addressing her concerns about the patients and the staff of the dental office <br /> parking on her street to the dentist and staff themselves, there were still parking issues. She <br /> did not believe that the lift would solve the parking problem. She also stated that the signs that <br /> say "no parking" that are put out during the Candy Cane Lane December event did precent <br /> people from parking on the street for that period, but she had to call the police and have <br /> vehicles ticketed to address the dentist office parking. She was still concerned about the <br /> issues that this project would cause. <br /> Herb Ritter provided his comment on Item 7 and expressed his support of using the parking lift <br /> _ . - e. _ e . _ •. loved the parking lift as a creative parking solution. He also <br /> stated that he would like to change the PMC Code 18.20 to allow lifts to be classified as <br /> parking. He did not support in-lieu fees for the project and thought that all parking should be <br /> provided on site. He said that the Planning Commission could condition spots one through non <br /> in the lot to be for commercial only. He felt the lift meets the spirit of the code and should not <br /> be considered deficient. <br /> Mr. Naguib explained that Walnut Drive had residential permit parking. He stated he did not <br /> want to reduce the number of parking spaces. <br /> Commissioner Brown asked why the dental office that was only open two days a week was <br /> causing parking problems. Mr. Naguib stated he did not know and assumed people were not <br /> using the provided parking. He stated they added signage to help mitigate the issue. <br /> PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br /> Commissioner Morgan asked if the unit was specifically a rental unit. Ms. Clark confirmed and <br /> stated it would have to be made into a condo or lot split to be sold separately. Commissioner <br /> Morgan then asked if there were any conditions that required retention of the lift. Ms. Campbell <br /> stated it would have to stay since it was part of the approval. <br /> Commissioner Nibert asked if the public was encouraged to use the parking lot when the <br /> dental office was closed. Mr. Naguib explained that Adobe Shopping Center employees could <br /> use the parking. In response to Commissioner Nibert, Mr. Naguib confirmed that the parking lot <br /> was currently signed to indicate that parking was for the commercial building. <br /> Commissioner Nibert stated he generally liked the project and the proposed parking was an <br /> innovative approach to address the parking concern. He expressed concern with allowing in- <br /> lieu fees for residential projects Downtown. <br /> Commissioner Allen stated she would make her decision based on preserving the downtown <br /> parking to maintain retail vibrancy and not opening the door to set the precedent to approve in- <br /> lieu fees for residential projects that are not fully parked. and-4Therefore, she could not support <br /> the project. She stated she found the architecture of the building was good. She discussed <br /> parking habits and why people might park on the public street. <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 January 12, 2022 <br /> days a week. Commissioner Brown asked why the project was <br /> proposing the lift. Ms. Clark explained that the lift spot was better than no space. <br /> THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 January 12, 2022 <br />