Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />April 8, 1998 <br />Page 18 <br />"conditionally permitted" uses within the City's various comercial districts. The <br />following were the two questions to be considered in this amendment: <br />1. Whether operational or physical differenced exist between land uses which <br />warrant CUP processing of only certain uses with accessory drive - through <br />facilities (i.e., drive -in restaurants). <br />2. The need to address drive- through facilities associated with uses other than banks <br />and drive - through restaurants (i.e., drug stores). <br />The recommendation by staff is to allow bank drive - throughs as "permitted" and approve <br />the Text Amendment. <br />Mr. Dunn stated that their function was to maintain the integrity of traffic flow. Mr. <br />Brixius explained that in regard to the drive - through windows, the traffic flow was the <br />main concern. Other concerns are outdoor audio equipment and stacking space. Mr. <br />Dunn asked his opinion of the change, in relationship to the ability of the City to still <br />maintain the intergity of the situation. <br />Mr. Brixius said that banks differ from fast food facilities because they are enclosed with <br />canopies, they are multi -lanes so the stacking is not so intrusive, and the turnover is much <br />quicker. In that respect, he believed they should consider this. They still have review <br />authority and that is taken very seriously. <br />Mr. Robinson asked how many banks they could possibly have, which could not be <br />answered, so he wondered why they should change it. <br />Mr. Johnson stated that the similarities are more important than the differences, noting <br />that multi -lanes indicated more traffic. He is concerned about drive - throughs being put in <br />residential areas and stated they intend to pay very close attention to where they are <br />located. Therefore, he felt the conditional use permit allowed them the best opportunity <br />to control this. He did not feel that there was any advantage to approving this. <br />Ms. Wyland stated that they did approve a site plan review for a bank contingent on this <br />review, and wondered what would happen to that approval. <br />Chair Schaps said that they intended to make it retroactive. Mr. Robinson noted that it <br />needed to be handled on an individual basis. Mr. Brixius said that they did not have <br />approval for the drive - through based on this discussion. Ms. Wyland stated that they <br />could come back for approval. <br />Mr. Robinson then agreed with Mr. Johnson and asked if the existing bank had a CUP. <br />Ms. Wyland said they did not since they were in a district that did not require one. <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />