PCAgenda_05Aug23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Lukermann asked if it could be required that employees must park off-site, leaving all 18 parking spaces for customers. City Attorney Jamnik stated that the Commission could attach a condition to approval of the variances, if it seems reasonable. Mr. Lageson pointed out that if the restaurant seating could be reduced to 45, there would be enough parking. He asked if that would be economically viable. Carol Won, one of the prospective owners, replied that based on the monetary investment required and expected turnover, the business needs to seat 60 to be successful. Mr. Lageson wondered if the restaurant could add a second floor either to the restaurant or to the parking. Ms. Jones replied that a parking ramp is not a legal accessory use in B-1 and would be a "dauntingly expensive" solution to the problem. Ms. Worthington added the comment that fire lane requirements would rule out having parking right up next to the building. She stated that Mr. and Mrs. Won have contacted Twin City Coop about the possibility of renting parking for their employees at the credit union. Stanley Won, the other prospective restaurant owner, confirmed that he is negotiating with the credit union to arrange employee and overflow parking. In response to a question from Mr. Ryan, Ms. Worthington said that the initial proposal was fora 90 seat restaurant. During preliminary discussions with Staff, this was reduced to the 60-seat capacity. She added that the owner would be required to have snow removed entirely from the lot so as not to lose any parking in winter. Council member Lindstrom asked if parking could be added in front of the building. Ms. • Worthington replied that the front line of the building is determined by the existing building, which will be added on to. The five front parking spaces are already as close as possible to the right of way. In response to a question from Commissioner Mercer-Taylor, Ms. Worthington said that the present restaurant had fewer parking spaces because of the pylon sign that will be taken down. Commissioner Lukermann moved that the four variances in the second category be approved with the condition that parking places, off street and off site, will be arranged for employee parking. The motion was seconded. There was some discussion on whether a specific number of extra spaces should be specified and whether those spaces could be designated for employees. It was pointed out by both Ms. Worthington and the architect, Mr. Medina, that parking requirements do not make a distinction between client/customer and employee parking. Ms. Lukermann amended the motion to specify 6 additional parking spaces, without limiting those to employee use. (In other words the additional six spaces could be used by employees or customers.) There was considerable additional discussion on all the ramifications of the proposed condition to the variances. Mr. Jamnik confirmed that the terms and conditions of the variance would apply to all future owners; future owners would have to come back to the City and apply for modification if the future use changes. The Commissioners discussed the issue of enforcing the condition. Ms. Worthington said it • would be a simple matter to require the owner to prove that additional parking is arranged as part of the annual licensing process. Mr. Rodich again raise the possibility of extending City of Falcon Heights -Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2005 -Page 4 of 5