Planning Commission Minutes 2022 02 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 10, 2022 Page 12 of 13 Zuccaro says he has not done that analysis since he was not the acting director at the time of the code review but he says with his general knowledge of the code, he believes staff's recommendation is the best course of action. Ritchie explains staff's thought process of how this applicant's use is fundamentally different from a restaurant use. Hoefner asks if there is anything about this that could prevent a restaurant from hosting any type of party. Ritchie says that is not staff's intention with this ordinance. Osterman says that given the impact of parking, she wonders if there could be any measures that could be added to make the language more enforceable or ways to require for a certain occupancy level of having the use for a shuttle. Bauer says if the commission would like to add this as a condition, that would an option. Zuccaro mentions that if the commission were to do that, we would need to create a development agreement that would give the city the authority to do that. This would not be easy to enforce though. Hoefner asks if the development agreement would be transferable if the property were to be sold. Zuccaro says the development agreement would be recorded and run with the land. Diehl asks if the development agreement is something that should be a part of the application. Zuccaro says yes, that would be reasonable if the commission wanted to review the language of the agreement and see a draft of it before making a decision. Howe points out that we created a ratio of 15 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. This would then require 124 spaces. We then use the 124 spaces for a maximum occupancy of 372 persons. It seem like we are doing that in reverse. It seems like it is different from a restaurant, but we are still using the same equation as a restaurant to create the amount of parking spaces. Is my assumption correct? Bauer says that staff tried to utilize the restaurant use as an example for the 15 parking per 1,000 square feet because of its similarity and downtown location. Ritchie explains the rational of using the restauration use in comparison to an event space. Howe asks if staff thinks this SRU is the same parking capacity as a restaurant. Bauer says she understands that it is a different use but staff does feel that the restaurant parking is the best comparison for the event space. Krantz asks if there is anything that will be done to mitigate noise for the neighborhood. Bauer says that is one of the reasons of putting the time constraint on the event use but also mentions that the applicant can probably better speak to that. She also mentions that for the city code, there are only noise ordinances in our oil and gas section of the code so it would be different than here. Zuccaro discusses the effect of not having a noise ordinance, how that affects this SRU, and the potential for creating a condition in regards to this topic. Moline wonders if there are other use groups that have this midnight or time limitation. Does it make sense to that time limitation in the use group category? Bauer says she cannot speak to other SRU's that have that time limitation as she does not have that analysis, but if the commission would rather have this be a case -by -case basis instead of associated to the use, that is something the commission could further deliberate on. Moline asks if somebody could ask for a waiver on the time. Bauer says they could request a waiver.