Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 8, 2020 <br />Page 4 of 10 <br />No disclosures or conflicts of interest. <br />Ritchie described the history of the location and the plans for the Rose and Raven <br />project. The mobile food court would be on the west side of the property with an outdoor <br />area wrapping around the south side of the property. The rest of the internal building <br />was a food hall concept. The cider for the cidery would be created and consumed on - <br />site. She noted that staff and the applicant had considered how to minimize the impact <br />on the residential area, including slanting a roof to keep the lighting and sound inward to <br />the property. Ritchie also described the three waivers associated with the application. <br />Ritchie also described one condition of approval, which was to work with adjacent <br />residential property owner on a proposal for a fence on the west side of the property <br />prior to the issuance of a building permit. <br />Hoefner asked if staff was recommending that the Commission approve the SRU under <br />the criteria from Resolution 12. <br />Ritchie confirmed. <br />Hoefner asked if staff felt confident that an SRU could be approved based on something <br />that was not yet law. <br />Ritchie replied that staff had checked with the city attorney who was confident that these <br />recommendations could proceed simultaneously. <br />Rice responded to an emailed public comment about parking fees paid by the property <br />owner. He stated that he understood that the applicants would have to pay fees and <br />contribute to the upkeep of the parking. <br />Ritchie replied that the City was not a party to that agreement and so could not verify its <br />content but she had heard from another property owner that the applicant's property <br />was part of the maintenance responsibility of the common areas. <br />Rice observed that the project would be located in a highly residential area and would <br />allow people to walk to the site rather than drive. <br />Ritchie replied that it was not adjacent to transit but it was next to regional and local <br />trails and residences. She added that the applicant was over -parking the bike parking <br />and would be undertaking outreach to local residents to encourage walking and biking <br />to the property. <br />Howe asked about the hours of operation in the application and stated that he did not <br />think that a 6-foot fence would mitigate the impact of the project on residential <br />neighbors. <br />Ritchie replied that staff was hopeful that any members of the public would weigh in on <br />the hours being too broad or impactful. She acknowledged that a 6-foot fence and a <br />patio cover were not sound walls. She thought the applicant had reached out to the <br />neighboring properties and was hoping to hear from the public. She added that she was <br />