My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2020 05 14
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2020 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2020 05 14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 8:10:42 AM
Creation date
7/9/2020 8:07:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
5/14/2020
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 14, 2020 <br />Page 3 of 7 <br />Ritchie says adjacency in the code applies to the property that is immediately adjacent <br />but excludes right of way. Which means that if you are across the street, you are still <br />considered adjacent. <br />Williams asks about a scenario in that what if it is not within 150 feet. <br />Ritchie says that the 150 feet applies to the permission from the restaurants. <br />Williams asks what if we have no setback according to when it is adjacent to a <br />residential area. <br />Ritchie says the draft ordinance would propose the parking setback if the property was <br />adjacent to the residential development. <br />Williams asks if we are going to limit how many trucks we would have in a specific <br />development or location. <br />Ritchie says the ordinance does not contemplate that but it would be related to the size <br />of the property. Currently, staff is not proposing a limit. <br />Williams asks if the parking would create a limit anyway. <br />Ritchie relies with yes; it helps relate the amount of development on a property with the <br />size of development. <br />Williams asks if that would limit how many trucks would be on the property. <br />Ritchie says that is not entirely true. You could have eight trucks but only four tables. <br />She says she would assume the number of trucks would equate to more people visiting <br />the site. That may or may not be true though. <br />Howe asks regarding the setbacks, what was the rational for removing the consent from <br />the restaurants? Have you gotten feedback from the restaurants? <br />Ritchie says that we have not gotten feedback yet. The SRU process requires public <br />notice that are within 500 feet of the SRU application. Through the approval of that <br />SRU, all of those restaurant owners would receive the notice. If they have objections, <br />that would be raised through the application process. The intent of removing that is <br />because when SRU is approved, the restaurant owners of aware. The requirement <br />would be that each individual food truck would have to get permission from each <br />restaurant so staff is trying to remove that from the food truck operators. <br />Howe asks if there are existing locations that have been approved for food trucks. <br />Ritchie says there are no permanent mobile food truck locations right now. She does <br />not know if staff could anticipate which locations are appropriate for a permanent <br />location, and does not think they would want to have to select those locations through <br />this process. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.