PC 092816 - Laserfiche WebLink

the Starbucks next door at the Safeway as an alternative. I'm just saying it's a factor to consider. Commissioner O'Connor: So very much like the Starbucks at the Safeway, this proposal also has, as far as I can see cars back into the parking lot, and that makes it very problematic for Starbucks and Safeway because people can't get in and out of parking stalls. I mean I don't even go into that parking lot whether I'm a walk in or drive through. I don't go through there. Commissioner Brown: Well, that Safeway actually competes with the gas bar right next door. Chair Ritter: Are we at questions? Commissioner Allen: So normally when we approve projects we approve let's say a drive -in. Let's say Starbucks went out of business here and this was being considered for a Jack in the Box or some other use. Would that be allowed? Or would that come back to us with a different traffic study, or Chick- Fil -A. Another second Chick -Fil -A because the first one was so successful, would that come back to us? Or would we be giving permission for just a drive -in use? Luchini: So there are a couple of factors at play there. One would be obviously the uses that would be approved with a PUD whether or not restaurant facilities would be approved or I guess if we're looking at coffee shops; a drive -thru coffee shop versus a drive -thru fast -food restaurant. Secondly, the use permit would remain valid on the property but then they would have to operate within the same parameters and if they were to go outside of the perimeter and generate more traffic or things like that, we would evaluate that at that point in time. Commissioner Allen: And a use permit would be needed? So we sort of are granting it to the parameters we're defining. Luchini: Correct, within the current confines of the traffic study that's been prepared. Weinstein: So as currently proposed in the list of uses that you have as an attachment to the staff report, restaurants and soda fountains including drive -ins and take -out food establishments are not a recommended or a conditionally permitted use in this PUD. Beaudin: I actually think it's kind of a fine hair split and Julie and I were just discussing this. The difference between a Starbucks these days and a lot of other kinds of restaurants, fast -food restaurants isn't that great. They're starting to serve more food and certainly have a wider menu for varying locations. So we wouldn't be approving their menu. It wouldn't be that level of detail so I think it actually might be a little difficult for us to regulate a change of use for something like a coffee shop Starbucks kind of a place to a Jack in the Box or something like that. Commissioner Allen: Okay, well that's helpful. There's a risk PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 28, 2016 Page 13 of 32