Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 14, 2020 <br />Page 5 of 7 <br />PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS <br />Diehl agrees with Williams that he is concerned with the downtown competition. He <br />proposes the possibility of excluding CC zoning and shows the downtown restaurant <br />owners that they are considering them. <br />Hoefner states that he does not think the commission is responsible for protecting <br />existing restaurant owners from future competition. He thinks a food truck court is seen <br />more as a restaurant and that it does not have the same risk or confusion element as a <br />mobile food truck does. He brings up other concerns such as restrooms and thinks that <br />setbacks are minimal and need to be addressed through an SRU as a case by case. He <br />informs the other commissioners that he does not want to create many rules and inhibit <br />a creative proposal, but instead keep it as flexible as possible given that it will be an <br />SRU application and they will already be reviewing it. He also thinks the commissioners <br />will not have to review many of these, so they will not be frequent approvals. <br />Howe agrees with Hoefner that they should not micro organize the survivability of some <br />of these restaurants. He recognizes that there will be competition within downtown. He <br />mentions tax revenue and wonders if they are the same to a brick and mortar to a pad <br />that has some of these food trucks. He then asks if it was not, do we acknowledge that <br />they have the same rights to attract customers or do you give preference to the existing <br />restaurants? <br />Moline says that the SRU is a good process for these applications, and believes it is a <br />good way of capturing and helping the public be aware of what is happening in a <br />particular area. He is in favor of choosing a setback that is in alignment with a parking <br />setback just as a starting point. <br />Ritchie makes the point that through the SRU process, all applications will be required <br />to go through the public notice process. If the application is not adjacent to residential <br />development though, they are eligible for an administrative review and approval. This <br />means that the SRU process does not necessarily trigger a public hearing. She then <br />asks the commissioners to speak on if they believe these applications should always go <br />through the public hearing process. <br />Brauneis says he believes all applications should go to a public hearing. In regards to <br />restroom access, he thinks this should be woven in as a requirement for the applicant. <br />He also thinks that the commissioners should steer away from picking specific locations. <br />Williams says she is apprehensive about the downtown discussion, but agrees with <br />Hoefner's discussion on the points he made. She wants to make sure that they do not <br />pick and choose which land would work best for this. She also mentions that there <br />should be a parking setback for this. She is inclined to support everything else staff has <br />proposed. <br />Rice mentions that he has had past concerns with the competition between permanent <br />restaurant owners who are invested in the community versus the mobile food trucks <br />who are not. He believes this discussion of mobile food courts is completely different <br />though. A mobile food court would require leasing or buying real estate and improving it; <br />therefore, he does not have the same concerns. He thinks going through the SRU <br />