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