Laserfiche WebLink
File M4-2977 <br />April 16, 2004 <br />Page 7 of 8 <br />permit review a coimnercial site plan review is conducted in an effort to review the entire <br />site plan and determine what, and if any, negative impacts may result in approval of that <br />use. This becomes a key issue with this application because a Class II, or a restaurant <br />with liquor, is proposed. The Planning Commission should review this site plan with the <br />understanding of the increased le'. -Is of noise, activity and traffic that come with a liquor <br />use. <br />Staff has met wiJx the applicants to discuss these issues. The applicants have indicated <br />that a restaurant, coupled with the bowling alley is the best possibility for success in the <br />lower portion of the building. Thr ee options for these uses in the lower portion of the <br />building are; <br />1. A restaurant with liquor and a bowling alley with liquor. <br />2. A restaurant without liquor and a bowling alley with liquor. <br />3. A restaurant without liquor and a bowling alley without liquor. <br />TliS applicants are proposing option number one. Planning Department staff feels that <br />because of the potential negative impacts of liquor and the oroximity to the residential <br />neighborhood, options 2 and 3 would be most viable. Staft would support option 2 only <br />if there was no connection of the re.«taurant and bowling alley. Staff feels this issue is <br />non-negotiable due to the City’s inac'lity to regulate liquor between the uses. If the <br />applicants insist that the connection is important for the success of both uses, then liquor <br />would have to be eliminated completely. Staff has met with the applicants regarding <br />tliese issues, "’ll jf which were indicated in a memo attached as Exhibit G. <br />The Planning Conmission should determine whether a restaurant is appropriate for <br />the iite considering parking, access, green \s. hardcover, impacts on adjacent <br />properties etc. If the Planning Commission believes the site is appropriate for a <br />restaurant, then the effects of liquor vs. no liquor should be weighed as they relate to <br />the CUP and overall site plan approval. If the Planning Commission determines a <br />restaurant is not appropriate then the Commission may want to consider what uses <br />may be appropriate given the existing site layout (the B-1 standards are attached as <br />Exhibit I). <br />2. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Should the applicant be required to ext'*nd the green yard along Shoreline <br />Drive and eliminate the 7 parallel stalls? Do the benefits of the greer pace <br />outweigh the need for those 7 stalls? <br />Are 104 (97 without the parallel spaces) parking stalls adequate for a <br />restaurant with liquor? Without liquor? <br />Although no new hardcover is proposed (the gravel parking lot is considered <br />hardcover already), docs the paving of the gravel lot have a negative impact <br />on the area? Should the applicant be required to not let it develop? <br />Is the Planning Commission okay with added structure over existing <br />hardcover? This requires a structural coverage variance to go &om 13% to <br />4.