2015-08-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, July 1, 2015 Page 7 As an additional nuance, Mr. Lloyd noted that, with approval of a Conditional Use, it must 302 be executed by the property owner within one year; and if the drive-through was not 303 constructed on the site within that year, the approval expired.On the flip side, Mr. Lloyd 304 noted that the applicant could also request an extension on the Conditional Use approval 305 without going through the formal full application process, but simply by written request to 306 the Commission in reviewing existing conditionscompared to when originally approved. 307 Member Bull noted that he shared Member Cunningham’s trepidation in knowing so little 308 about what could happen with parking, traffic, circulation, cuing and potential light 309 impacts for residential properties in the surrounding area.If he supported this request, 310 Member Bull stated he would like to see more specifics about shielding or screening 311 height on the south and west side of the property as vehicles moved through it. 312 While being more comfortable in knowing an actual use or tenant, Member Murphy stated 313 that the staff report clearly addressed the method available for the City and citizens if 314 things turned out poorly.Therefore, Member Murphy spoke in support of the Conditional 315 Use, even though he would be more at ease if the tenants were known. 316 Member Cunningham asked what process was available if there were objections with a 317 potential user of the drive-through or how a neighbor, such as Ms. West, could resolve 318 her issues at that time.Member Cunningham opined that there was a perception that the 319 City was more business-friendly than neighbor/resident-friendly, which she was trying to 320 be sensitive to, whether accurate or not.Therefore, Member Cunningham asked what 321 recourse was available for a neighbor to appeal based on concerns. 322 In this particular situation, Mr. Paschke noted a potential user with drive-through option 323 would be occupying 1,000 square feet on the end of the building, if and when actually 324 approved by staff based on current City Code.If there were issues or opposition, Mr. 325 Paschke advised that a neighbor could appeal staffs’ decision at their discretion and as 326 staff’s recommended course of action rather than tabling this request until one or more 327 tenants express interest in occupying the space and/or desiring the drive-through.Mr. 328 Paschke clarified that appeals were heard directly by the City Council; whether to appeal 329 the use itself or appeal a tenant use permit. 330 In lines 16-170 of the staff report’s recommendations, Member Stellmach sought 331 clarification of the approval process used by staff in analyzing a use. 332 Mr. Paschke advised that potential impacts generated by a use occupying any given 333 space, traffic volume and stacking, and other considerations tied to a particular proposal 334 for tenant use and impactto the site itself and access points.Mr. Paschke advised if staff 335 concluded that a use is not appropriate or could not be conditioned adequately, the use 336 would be recommended for denial.At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Paschke 337 addressed some of the considerations for a particular use based on a specific site; with 338 traffic models and manuals analyzing most every conceivable use and their potential 339 impacts, such as for drive-through stacking and other concerns. 340 Based on those provisions and limited uses in this small square footage, Member 341 Stellmach stated thatserved to qualm his concerns, and while recognizing the concerns 342 of his colleagues, given those particulars he would support the Conditional Use request. 343 Member Daireasked the ramifications if the Conditional Use application for a drive- 344 through was not recommended tonight to the City Council; and whether the applicant 345 would be free to come in and seek a Conditional Use when a tenant was secured at 346 some future point in time and needing that drive-through. 347 Mr. Paschke advised that the Commission could deny the request; but suggested instead 348 they CONTINUE the request allowing the tenant to utilize this same application; giving 349 the City Council the ability to consider that or other options; and their ultimate approval or 350 denial.If denied, Mr. Paschke noted that the applicant had the ability to come forward at 351 a future time for a Conditional Use when a tenant had been secured. 352