Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 14, 2020 <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />Zuccaro weighs in on the consent of the adjacent restaurants. He mentions that it is not <br />practical for a property owner and business owner to invest in a business concept <br />surrounded by a food truck court. <br />Howe states that we currently have restrictions on where restaurants can be in the city. <br />If we could create ideal location requirements, you could also have an SRU for these <br />types of requests. <br />Ritchie asks Howe if he is suggesting that some of these zone districts could be a use <br />by right and then others would require an SRU. <br />Howe replies with yes; he believes it could be a mix of the two. The benefit of that is <br />that you could have a food truck using certain locations that have been previously <br />approved by the city, but there could also be SRU uses in conjunction with that. <br />Diehl states that when the agenda first came out, his first reaction asked the question of <br />is it the right time to be promoting food trucks as an alternative. He does feel like food <br />trucks align with the city's vision and being a small community though. Food trucks is an <br />avenue and propels more entrepreneurship. He is therefore in favor of promoting food <br />trucks. He mentions that his one concern is if somebody develops a food court and then <br />it does not get used. <br />Diehl asks if there should be language added if the space is not being used. Does the <br />property owner have to do something with that? He also mentions the traffic concern. <br />Ritchie says she cannot think of an instance where staff would require a property owner <br />to make changes to a site just because a portion is not being utilized. She mentions that <br />the city does require landscaping to be maintained per the municipal code. <br />Zuccaro says the only time he has seen an abandoned use is in the wireless code. For <br />a business use like this, he says the business is making an investment. He mentions <br />that staff could talk to the city attorney and have a discussion to address that concern. <br />Williams mentions that in regards to downtown, she is apprehensive of having a food <br />truck court when there is a lot of space for restaurants. She wonders if they could think <br />about omitting this from downtown or create more regulations for downtown. She adds <br />that because it is an SRU, she is not in favor of choosing where in town this would be <br />allowed. She does not want to tell property owners what they can do with their property. <br />Rice proposes to the other commissioners to reserve their discussion points for later in <br />the meeting. Rice then asks if restrooms are going to be required for food trucks. <br />Ritchie says that they would want to require access to restrooms. Restrooms could be <br />shared through the permission of the adjacent property owner. <br />Zuccaro says that staff could create a prevision that says a food truck court has to be <br />associated to a physical building and not just be in an open field. <br />Rice asks if the public has any comments. None is heard. <br />