14 - Laserfiche WebLink

spots. She stated the look of the lift was not compatible in scale with the look and feel of the downtown area and the lift would be very visible to the public and surrounding townhouses. Commissioner Pace expressed agreement that the lower spots satisfied two spaces and applauded the applicant's creativity. 2. Does the Commission support an in -lieu parking agreement and fee for the off- street parking spaces the applicant is not able to provide as required by the PMC? Commissioner Allen inquired if there were any guidelines or policies in the DSP on in -lieu fees. Ms. Clark stated there was no guidance beyond the existing PMC. She discussed concerns raised during the DSP process about ongoing parking shortages and a desire for projects to be fully parked, however those discussion had not resulted in any changes in the PMC around allowing in -lieu fees; she noted the concern that disallowing them entirely could stifle investment, because many downtown properties had parking constraints. She stated in -lieu fees were considered on a case by case basis. Commissioner Balch stated he was returning to discussion point one and that he would consider the single lift a tandem spot designated to the residents, which would create 11 parking spots as opposed to 12. Ms. Campbell explained the requirement for the applicant to pay for one in -lieu space causing the project to be short one spot of the fully parked requirement in the DSP. She requested feedback from the Commission. Commissioner Balch stated the DSP was intended to create vitalization and he was concerned that was not occurring. Commissioner Allen suggested vitalization was depressed if parking was limited. Commissioner Balch stated the applicant was trying to solve the problem with the lift. Commissioner Allen replied that perhaps a two-bedroom unit was not appropriate for the property if it could not accommodate the parking requirements. Commissioner O'Connor agreed with Commissioner Allen and added his frustration with the in -lieu fees not covering the value of the actual parking space. He stated it was unlikely a parking structure would ever be built from the fees collected. He suggested the solution of fully parking underneath the project. Commissioner Balch concurred but expressed concern that investment and upgrading properties in the City was not encouraged. He stated investment dollars would be added by the project if the parking issue could be resolved. He stated the Commission had approved many remodels and demolitions in the downtown area that included adding a second story in single family residential areas. He asked if first floor residential would be omitted if the entire bottom floor was parking. Commissioner O'Connor explained the parking would be considered a garage. Commissioner Balch asked how the project was different from an Accessory Dwelling 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