Laserfiche WebLink
with Mr. Luchini that these are all standard in those two districts. He inquired about the <br /> purpose of requesting a PUD when the existing zoning meets the current zoning. <br /> Mr. Luchini clarified the reason was that the applicant removed some uses after working with <br /> staff that staff did not feel would be appropriate for the site. In terms of uses different between <br /> the C-C and C-F, the "bars and brew pubs" use was one in particular that would fall under that <br /> category. <br /> Commissioner Balch stated the restaurant is the high traffic generator. He asked if it was just a <br /> restaurant as part of the plan, if the Commission would have the ability to talk about the traffic <br /> in as much detail as they have been. <br /> Mr. Luchini said that was unlikely, to which Ms. Clark added that a restaurant is a permitted <br /> use in a C-F district. <br /> Chair Allen questioned if the Commission would have the ability to look at how much square <br /> feet would be allowed if traffic was a legitimate concern. <br /> Ms. Clark stated that staff would look at aspects like whether the use would fit the allowable <br /> setbacks, FAR, and provided adequate parking in particular; traffic would not typically be one <br /> of the items studied for a permitted use. <br /> Commissioner Balch referenced if the applicant had proposed a straight zoned, C-C or C-F <br /> restaurant use adequately parked and meeting FAR and setbacks, the Commission would <br /> have no review. <br /> Mr. Luchini clarified that if it was a drive-thru restaurant, it would require a CUP by which would <br /> then be considered by the Planning Commission. <br /> Commissioner Balch recognized the applicant has eliminated some items that they do not feel <br /> are compatible with their project and then these are not included in the list and they have <br /> requested a PUD. This is where the restaurant size restriction element has come forth, <br /> because of the traffic. <br /> Ms. Clark stated this is correct; because the Commission was asked to analyze the range of <br /> allowable uses and staff had to come up with criteria that could determine if this combination of <br /> uses, at this location, will or will not cause a traffic impact. <br /> Chair Allen added that through the PUD they are also reducing some of the setbacks, so there <br /> is a little bit of flexibility the Commission is giving in exchange for that ability too. <br /> Commissioner Balch said the 3,500 square feet the Commission is conditioning in No. 7 as the <br /> maximum was set because it is Suite 5 and that was probably how they derived that number. <br /> But, with that number they are still increasing over the Denny's traffic based upon the traffic <br /> analysis of about 600 daily trips: from around 390 to around 780. <br /> He did not have any further questions and thinks the building is outstanding. The architecture <br /> is top notch but is worried about the traffic on Owens Drive, but as Mr. Tassano stated, it does <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 19 September 25, 2019 <br />trips would be more in line with what C-F allows and would be similar <br /> to what it was with Denny's. <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 19 September 25, 2019 <br />arding available room for the improvements, Mr. <br /> Tassano stated the medians are wide enough, and so as it's acceptable not to have trees in <br /> these locations, the design will work. <br /> In response to Chair Allen, regarding Level of Service (LOS) with buildout of the <br /> improvements, Mr. Tassano stated they are currently at LOS D. One issue is that the <br /> eastbound and westbound movements at Hopyard Road and Owens Drive run independently. <br /> All westbound traffic moves, then all eastbound traffic moves. They need to separate those <br /> movements out so the left turn is activated, which is a heavier movement, and then the through <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 19 September 25, 2019 <br />ager, was in full support of the proposed project with <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 19 September 25, 2019 <br /> <br /> P19-0151 Planning Commission <br /> Page 8 of 12 <br />City will retain the cash <br /> deposit until all work is substantially complete, all areas are stabilized, and all hazards are <br /> mitigated to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering/City Engineer. <br /> P19-0151 Planning Commission <br /> Page 7 of 12 <br />