Planning commission grants parking variance allowing on-street spaces to count for new business

The Planning Commission on July 9 approved a variance that lets the applicant count public, on-street spaces within 500 feet of the property toward required off-street parking. Members of the commission centered deliberations on whether the applicant performed adequate due diligence to find private parking or lease options before requesting a variance and on how enforcement of public parking rules would be handled. City staff explained the variance request originated from an existing commercial building with little or no off-street parking; staff records show an earlier, similar variance for the property in 2006 and a 1928 original building permit for the structure. Commissioners noted written testimony had been submitted from a person named Brandreth and from an attorney representing the applicant; those materials were included in the record for the continued hearing and were available to the commission prior to the vote. During deliberations, one commissioner said solicitation of property owners for potential leases is not explicitly required by city code; another said the absence of a code requirement makes a mandatory solicitation standard difficult to enforce. Commissioners also discussed practical constraints on the parcel — narrow lots, steep rear hill and potential geologic constraints — that limit opportunities for adding private parking on or beside the site. Staff noted vehicles are commonly parked in front of the property and that the public spaces in question are unrestricted by the city other than general state highway parking rules (a maximum of 72 hours on public rights-of-way was cited as state statute practice). A motion to grant the variance as described in the staff report, amended to adopt findings of fact and decision criteria, was made, seconded and approved by the commission. The order granting the variance incorporates the conditions listed in the staff report and the record; the motion passed and the commission closed deliberations on the matter. Less urgent details: the commission clarified that individual commissioners who felt they did not have enough background on the previously heard record could abstain, but several commissioners indicated they had reviewed the written record and voted. No additional oral testimony was taken at the July 9 meeting because the hearing record had been left open previously for written submittals.