Planning Commission Minutes 2016 07 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 14, 2016 Page 31 of 33 Planning's parking study, utilization is the key. Not just creating more spaces, but getting people to where the parking is and getting the parking where the people are. We think this project does that. The only thing we'd like to ask tonight is if you could see your way to modify the condition to add the following: the access area for the handicapped parking space shall be moved onto the property if the City determines in the future that the access area unduly restricts the public sidewalk after the project is completed and in use. It is just about striping at that point. If we go ahead and do it the way we've planned it, we can try it out. If it becomes a problem, then we will eliminate a space, pay the fee, and move on down the road. Anytime we can get even one more parking space Downtown, we think that is a benefit. Paying the fee is not an issue; it is about having more parking spaces adjacent to this building. If we can make it work, that would be great. Commission Questions of Applicant: Hsu says regarding the parking spaces, are those going to be customer parking or completely open to the public? Hartronft says the way the parking regulations work, we have this one dwelling unit on site which is the existing house. We have to provide two parking spaces for that house. Those two spaces will have to be reserved for the residents. The other three spaces are probably going to be "private" in terms of the people going to the store and the tenants in the building wanting their customers to be able to park there. They will probably put up signs as you see in some of the lots Downtown, for customer parking only. Commission Questions of Staff.- Tengler asks about letter submitted from Emily Kean which asks about enforced 2-hour parking for both employees and customers which would require the employees to find alternate parking, but to keep parking turnover. Robinson says it is feasible and Staff would have to look at the parking study done two years ago. Generally, my recollection is there is less parking demand in the north part of Downtown and generally more availability with angled parking on South Street east of Main Street. The museum parking lot often is not full as well. From our studies and our perspective, there is no need for enforced 2-hour parking on South Street. It is enforced on Main Street which is all 2- hour. If this becomes an issue, that is an easy change to make. Tengler says relative to the angled parking that Eric mentioned, is that feasible and something Staff has looked at? Robinson says it is something that Public Works has looked at. It hasn't gone forward at this point. I don't remember exactly why it hasn't happened and it may be that it is not quite wide enough to accommodate it. As demand increases, it is something that will likely be revisited. Rice asks what Staff's response to Eric's proposed modified condition. Robinson says our preference is still for the condition as presented in the Staff Report. If you want to go with the modified condition, I don't think it will be an undue burden. Our preference is still for moving the access onto the property. Rice asks what the difference is with 945 Front Street? Robinson says the space doesn't extend as far off the property and it doesn't extend onto the sidewalk so the entire width of the sidewalk is still purely sidewalk, and then there is an area of pavers between the sidewalk and the property line that is to be used for ADA access. Rice says in that case, they are actually on the public property for their ADA access, but the difference is it isn't on the paved sidewalk. Hsu says regarding the proposed modification, if we found there is an undue burden later on, would the applicant still be required to pay the fee afterwards? Robinson says if we end up having to remove a space to move it on there, they would have to pay the fee at that point. The applicant said he is okay with that.