2_Exhibits A, D & E - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Balch asked and confirmed that, without the PUD, the property would be zoned the same as other businesses in the area. Commissioner Pace agreed with the pull of competing considerations and inquired if there was some kind of direction that could be taken related to the number of drive-through locations allowed within the City. Ms. Clark responded that she could not because the conversations have not yet occurred. Commissioner Allen mentioned the traffic study and City Traffic Engineer Mike Tassano's summary about pass by trips and asked what was expected. Mr. Luchini responded that Mr. Tassano's comments did not account for the applicant's analysis; he also discounted pass by trips by about 50 percent. He stated the City would not account for a pass by reduction, because even through the vehicles were currently on the roadway, there was no discount for a pass by trip. He stated Mr. Tassano came up with a discount in the PM peak trips for 39 trips from the hours 4PM-6PM; the AM peak trips would increase the daily trips from 10 to 66 peak trips; and the over trips would increase from 121 to 777 trips. Commissioner O'Connor confirmed that the analysis did not include consideration of vacating the current location and what could fill the vacant space. Commissioner Allen mentioned that staff discounted the trips based on the current conditions. She asked if a conditional use was requested if the zoning were changed. She also inquired if another drive-through would be allowed if Taco Bell decided not to move forward. Ms. Clark explained staff's proposal that, if the modified condition were supported, a CUP and design review would be required for a restaurant at that location. She explained that any drive- through would be allowed if the modified condition allowed for a drive-through with a CUP. Commissioner Balch referenced Phase III and whether another project would be subject to the condition; he pointed out that only Pad B was singled out for the restriction. Mr. Luchini responded that the condition was specific to Pad B, so the removal of the condition would be specific to the proposed location. Commissioner Allen asked if the condition would run with the land. Ms. Clark responded that a consistent use could move into the same space. Vice Chair Brown stated neither straight zoning nor PUD would restrict the type of drive- through. Ms. Clark explained that a coffee drive-through creates a different trip generation. Commissioner Balch asked if a Chick-Fil-A, with additional car queue needs, could replace the Taco Bell. Excerpt: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, January 22, 2020 Page 3 of 5 to prohibit drive-through locations in general. She responded that it was a policy discussion for the future. Excerpt: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, January 22, 2020 Page 2 of 5 commissions, employee and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and/or the applicant to attack, set aside, or void the approval of the project or any permit authorized hereby for the project, including without limitation, reimbursing the City its attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. te D Planning Commission 7of8 Noise Patrons' voices and entertainment/music within the interior of the proposed bar would be the main noise sources generated from the subject site. The proposed hours of operation for the bar are 4 p.m. to 1 a.m., seven days a week while indoor entertainment and music would occur from 4 p.m. to midnight, seven days a week. P19-0432, 310 Main Street, Suite D Planning Commission 6 of 8