Planning Commission Minutes 2022 08 11

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 11, 2022 Page 2 of 10 Applicant: Garret Nicodemus Case Planner: Rob Zuccaro, Director of Planning and Building Safety All notice was met as required and there is no commissioner conflict of interest. Staff Presentation: Ritchie begins her presentation showing the vicinity's aerial image. Going over the background, she mentions that the 0.64 vacant acre lot is located in the DELO Plaza development and the DELO Plaza PUD was approved in 2015. She discusses the proposal and what is and is not allowed. Outdoor dining is an allowed accessory use in the mixed -use zone district. An approval of a PUD or SRU is required prior to development and operation of outdoor dining use. The applicant is requesting approval of a temporary use permit as a precursor to a permanent use. The applicant anticipates approval of a PUD Amendment to authorize the permanent use. This typically requires approval of the PUD, however staff recommends an exception because this is in support of an existing restaurant in operation and they have already begun to install the improvements. The applicant and staff have revised the request to be a 9-month time frame to ensure adequate time to complete the PUD Amendment. She concludes her presentation by reviewing the criteria and staff's recommendation. In regards to Sections 17.60.010(D) and 17.16.190(A)(5), the use is compatible with surrounding area and community facilities, conforms to the applicable requirements, the applicants are capable of restoring the site to its previous condition, and the site has adequate parking and service areas. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval for nine months with the following conditions: 1. Execute the Restoration Agreement prior to City Council public hearing 2. Submittal of a complete PUD Amendment application Commissioner Questions of Staff. - Kathleen Kelly, City Attorney Kelly confirms that adequate notice was provided as noted by staff. Moline says that the applicant mentions parking is available because of vacancies in the building. Will there be adequate parking if the building no longer holds vacancies? Ritchie mentions that when staff was reviewing the special review use (SRU), the application at that time had an analysis of the parking, which assumed the building would be completely full. Staff feels confident that there is adequate parking for the site because of the review of the previous SRU, but will review again during the PUD Amendment process. Moline says on the seasonality of the use, is that something that will be discussed more at the PUD stage? Ritchie says that is a good question for the applicant if they intend to change the use seasonally. From this approval, the applicant would be able to operate through the entirety of those nine months. Krantz asks if staff can give more information on the relationship between the tenant and owner and if this is agreed upon for the long term.