Agenda - Council - 10/12/2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Councilmember Woestehoff stated, for purposes of clarification, the number of trips provides a "not to exceed" limit, to reduce trips and traffic, rather than putting other barriers on them. He added he does not support removal of Line 18. Councilmember Howell asked the applicant whether a limit on the number of trips has any effect on the number of trips to and from your business, or if it puts a burden on the applicant. Jacob Johnson, 8351 160th Avenue NW, stated a limit on the number of trips would be a burden, because at the height of the summer he had 6 employees. He added employees do not use their personal vehicles during the day, and they can be parked off-street. Councilmember Howell stated she would like to second Councilmember Specht's motion. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl reviewed the proposed amendments to the Resolution: - Limit of 4 employees - Remove requirement of authorization by City Council to extend the business - Allow street parking - Remove condition for number of trips per day - approve hours of operation of 7:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m., Monday — Friday with flexibility to schedule work hours on the weekends in case of inclement weather Councilmember Specht stated the applicant indicated that he has 6 employees. Mr. Johnson confirmed that he had 6 employees at the height of the summer season. He added right now he has 4 employees. He noted he believes that was amended at the Planning Commission meeting, and it was agreed that he could have 6 employees. He requested that the condition be changed from 4 employees to 6 employees. Councilmember Howell stated she is concerned about the possibility of having weekend hours beginning at 7:00 a.m. Councilmember Musgrove agreed, adding the weekend hours could be required to start at 10:00 a.m. Councilmember Howell agreed. Councilmember Woestehoff stated he serves as Planning Commission Liaison, and when this case was presented, the Planning Commission's consensus was to have restrictions on the business to preserve the neighborhood feel. He added these types of restrictions are not uncommon in this type of case, and are fairly common and standard language. He expressed concern that loosening up the language to this extent will mean less protection for the neighborhood. He noted, at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant was amenable to 4 employees, and indicated he had no expectations for going beyond that without moving to a bigger space, Councilmember Woestehoff stated he would approve this Resolution as originally drafted, but he cannot support it with all the changes that are being added. City Council / September 14, 2021 Page7of19