2015-07-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 1, 2015 Page 7 constructed on the site within that year, the approval expired. On the flip side, Mr. Lloyd 303 noted that the applicant could also request an extension on the Conditional Use approval 304 without going through the formal full application process, but simply by written request to 305 the Commission in reviewing existing conditions compared to when originally approved. 306 Member Bull noted that he shared Member Cunningham’s trepidation in knowing so little 307 about what could happen with parking, traffic, circulation, cuing and potential light 308 impacts for residential properties in the surrounding area. If he supported this request, 309 Member Bull stated he would like to see more specifics about shielding or screening 310 height on the south and west side of the property as vehicles moved through it. 311 While being more comfortable in knowing an actual use or tenant, Member Murphy stated 312 that the staff report clearly addressed the method available for the City and citizens if 313 things turned out poorly. Therefore, Member Murphy spoke in support of the Conditional 314 Use, even though he would be more at ease if the tenants were known. 315 Member Cunningham asked what process was available if there were objections with a 316 potential user of the drive-through or how a neighbor, such as Ms. West, could resolve 317 her issues at that time. Member Cunningham opined that there was a perception that the 318 City was more business-friendly than neighbor/resident-friendly, which she was trying to 319 be sensitive to, whether accurate or not. Therefore, Member Cunningham asked what 320 recourse was available for a neighbor to appeal based on concerns. 321 In this particular situation, Mr. Paschke noted a potential user with drive-through option 322 would be occupying 1,000 square feet on the end of the building, if and when actually 323 approved by staff based on current City Code. If there were issues or opposition, Mr. 324 Paschke advised that a neighbor could appeal staffs’ decision at their discretion and as 325 staff’s recommended course of action rather than tabling this request until one or more 326 tenants express interest in occupying the space and/or desiring the drive-through. Mr. 327 Paschke clarified that appeals were heard directly by the City Council; whether to appeal 328 the use itself or appeal a tenant use permit. 329 In lines 16-170 of the staff report’s recommendations, Member Stellmach sought 330 clarification of the approval process used by staff in analyzing a use. 331 Mr. Paschke advised that potential impacts generated by a use occupying any given 332 space, traffic volume and stacking, and other considerations tied to a particular proposal 333 for tenant use and impact to the site itself and access points. Mr. Paschke advised if staff 334 concluded that a use is not appropriate or could not be conditioned adequately, the use 335 would be recommended for denial. At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Paschke 336 addressed some of the considerations for a particular use based on a specific site; with 337 traffic models and manuals analyzing most every conceivable use and their potential 338 impacts, such as for drive-through stacking and other concerns. 339 Based on those provisions and limited uses in this small square footage, Member 340 Stellmach stated that served to calm his concerns, and while recognizing the concerns of 341 his colleagues, given those particulars he would support the Conditional Use request. 342 Member Daire asked the ramifications if the Conditional Use application for a drive- 343 through was not recommended tonight to the City Council; and whether the applicant 344 would be free to come in and seek a Conditional Use when a tenant was secured at 345 some future point in time and needing that drive-through. 346 Mr. Paschke advised that the Commission could deny the request; but suggested instead 347 they CONTINUE the request allowing the tenant to utilize this same application; giving 348 the City Council the ability to consider that or other options; and their ultimate approval or 349 denial. If denied, Mr. Paschke noted that the applicant had the ability to come forward at 350 a future time for a Conditional Use when a tenant had been secured. 351 Member Daire questioned if that would allow the applicant to still market the site with that 352 drive-through potential already in process. 353