PC 092519 - Laserfiche WebLink

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