CC_Minutes_2018_0827 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,August 27, 2018 Page 6 drive-throughs as conditional uses would continue to conform to that part of the code and be allowed without further review. Mr. Gaughan referenced current Condition C on page 4 of the RCA, "The appli- cant shall submit a circulation plan that demonstrates that the use will not inter- fere with or reduce the safety pedestrian and bicyclist movements. Site design shall accommodate a logical and safe vehicle and pedestrian circulation pattern. Adequate queuing lane space shall be provided without interfering with onsite parking/circulation." By way of example, he would encourage the Council, if there are particular concerns about drive-throughs and this kind of use, condition- al as it is, then explore that. In regard to additional concerns and how can they place additional conditions to alleviate those concerns, he would submit Condi- tion C as a starting point for those kinds of concerns. Mr. Gaughan stated as opposed to an indefinite interim use, he would encourage the Council to look at what are their specific concerns about this sort of use and what sort of conditions would best alleviate those concerns. If Council is not in a position to arrive at a conclusion there, then maybe they don't amend the Code. Mayor Roe specified if a change to the layout of the site was pursued by someone down the road, either the current ownership or subsequent ownership, was Mr. Gaughan suggesting that alone could trigger a review or a new approval require- ment for a conditional use? Mr. Gaughan advised that condition could include additional language such as "The applicant shall submit and adhere to a circulation plan", so if there is any deviation from the original circulation plan, it would trigger review by the City. Whereas if the new circulation does interfere with or reduce safety of pedestrian and bicyclist movements, then the City would have a basis to say the conditions upon which this use is granted are not being satisfied and the conditional use could be revoked. Mayor Roe asked if the council could be reminded of the specific conditions as- sociated with the interim use approval. Mr. Lloyd explained he did not attach the original interim use approval,but he did indicate in the beginning of the staff report three conditions that were applied to that interim use approval. He noted the site used to have four entrances and exits, two from Lexington and two from County Road B. The two nearest the intersec- tion, one on each street, required to be closed. The parking on the property was going to be limited to employees and not to customers and there was also an expi- ration clause. Councilmember McGehee acknowledged she was going to disagree with the at- torney. She did not see anywhere in any of the Statutes that regulate interim use