2_Exhibits A, D & E - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Luchini explained that a more intense use would require a modification to the CUP. Commissioner O'Connor confirmed that, although a drive-through could be allowed, the impacts could be mitigated. Commissioner Balch questioned how Chick-Fil-A would be flagged as a higher intensity use than Taco Bell. Mr. Luchini responded that each proposal would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis and he explained the process of queuing analysis through the discretionary queuing process. Vice Chair Brown reiterated that the restriction was only on Pad B. Commissioner Pace asked if the Commission could include conditions to ensure that a new request would require staffs review. Mr. Luchini explained the standard condition of approval in a conditional use permit that allowed the City to review the permit if the use was modified. Commissioner Balch confirmed that the CUP ran with the land and asked the trigger for the City to evaluate traffic for a similar use. Mr. Luchini explained that the zoning clearance change provided the opportunity to review the use. He discussed the staff review process. Ms. Clark explained that it happened often, especially as it pertained to parking and traffic. Commissioner Balch asked what triggered the zoning certificate. Ms. Clark responded that a change of ownership would necessitate a zoning certification. Mr. Luchini explained that a change of use requiring interior changes or tenant improvement would trigger a zoning clearance. Vice Chair Brown asked what could be built instead of a drive-through Taco Bell. He confirmed that denying the application would not diminish their property rights. He expressed concern with limited information nor the history on the intent of prohibiting drive-throughs. Mr. Luchini responded that a 5,000-square-foot restaurant use was already permitted. Commissioner Balch questioned the odd restriction for a such a small pad and suggested the City Council consider a city-wide moratorium in CAP 2.0. Commissioner O'Connor noted that all components of the project were acceptable to the City except the drive-through. He indicated support for removing the condition. Commissioner Allen stated the particular location seemed like an outlier and indicated support for removing the condition. Excerpt: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, January 22, 2020 Page 4 of 5 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