Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 10, 2022 <br />Page 11 of 13 <br />Bauer says she is unsure what it is for those existing restaurants. She touches on that if <br />this was for a dance hall, that would be over 600 of occupancy. <br />Diehl asks if the 12AM cutoff is consistent with other restaurants. <br />Bauer says that is correct, especially as it relates to outdoor music. <br />Diehl says in terms of parking and shuttle options, was there any discussion around <br />requirements that event holders are required to have shuttling? <br />Bauer says staff did that have discussion but looking in downtown where a restaurant <br />use would not have do this, staff thought that by limiting and having the condition that <br />the limit to any event is 251 persons would speak to that even if the parking limit is not a <br />condition. <br />Diehl clarifies that in terms of an event, there is no requirement to provide any shuttle <br />service. <br />Bauer says she would like to let the applicant speak to that during their presentation. <br />Howe asks what the total occupancy is for that SRU. <br />Bauer says she does not have that number but she does have the parking data. <br />Zuccaro says that staff did not determine occupancy at the level of an SRU or PUD, but <br />that that is determined with the building permit when the floor plans are known. <br />Bauer reviews the parking spots to the commissioners. <br />Moline asks what the final parking determination was for this use. Also, what are the <br />requirements for onsite parking? How do you handle if there is no option for onsite <br />parking? <br />Bauer says based on the restaurant calculation, the applicant came to is 124. Regards <br />to onsite parking, there is no strict enforcement that the city would have. <br />Moline asks if the applicant is required to have an in -lieu parking fee for the basement if <br />it were to be expanded. <br />Bauer says that is correct. <br />Zuccaro reviews the parking regulations for downtown for the commissioners, which <br />includes onsite parking. <br />Hoefner mentions the public comment email they received discussing how this type of <br />use seems similar to a mobile food court. Why is this one a no for mixed -use <br />residential? <br />Bauer says that from staff's point of view, we felt that some of the SRU criteria and <br />taking into consideration the immediate adjacent properties, keeping it the commercial <br />and industrial zones was the most appropriate. <br />Hoefner point out that if it has to come to Planning Commission for an SRU anyway, it <br />better to do the approval on a case -by -case process? <br />Bauer says that if the commission feels that is appropriate, that is something that can <br />be discussed. <br />Hoefner mentions he thinks it is unusual to simultaneously discuss the code <br />amendment and the application as one piece together. The last time that was done was <br />for the mobile food court. Was there an application attached to that? <br />Bauer says she believes they were separate at that time. This is a unique case though <br />in that the code does not have a pre-existing category for an event space. <br />Zuccaro reviews to the commissioners why the food court code amendment and the <br />application was separated out from one another. He discusses the pros and cons of <br />separating them out. <br />Hoefner asks Zuccaro if this could be shoehorned into an existing restaurant use or <br />would this use be impossible under the existing code. <br />