Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />April 4, 2000 <br />Page 8. <br /> <br />Mayer asked Schnitzer about the number of children per class, and if the class size could <br />be limited to 15 students. Schnitzer stated that the only class, that would exceed 15 <br />students, is a Sunday Adult Drumming Class. <br /> <br />Mayer asked Schnitzer if she would have any objection to setting the maximum number <br />of students for children's classes at 15 and the maximum number of students for adult <br />classes at 20. Schnitzer stated that she had no problem limiting the number of students <br />for children's and adult classes. <br /> <br />Mayer stated concerns with regard to the loading and unloading of children. Schnitzer <br />stated that the loading and unloading of children only applies in the afternoon. Parents <br />would attend with their children in all the morning classes, while older children would be <br />dropped off in the afternoon. <br /> <br />Keany asked Wood if noise complaints would become a code enforcement issue. Wood <br />stated that noise complaints would be a basis to revoke the Special Review Use. <br /> <br />Keany asked if that revocation would come from Council or Staff. Wood stated that <br />revocation would be by Staff. <br /> <br />MOTION: Mayer moved that Council approve Resolution 21, Series 2000, a Resolution <br />approving a Special Review Use for the Boulder County's Community Music School at <br />557 South Boulder Road, Village Square Shopping Center, with the following <br />amendments to be noted on the PUD: 1.) The maximum occupancy capacity is 24 people, <br />maximum adult class size is 20, and the maximum children's class size is 15, seconded <br />by Sisk. <br /> <br />Keany offered a friendly amendment that Council notes that, if for any reason, there are <br />multiple complaints about noise, Council could recall the Special Review Use and apply <br />additional conditions. <br /> <br />The friendly amendment was acceptable to Mayer, but not accepted by Sisk. <br /> <br />Schnitzer stated that this issue came up at Planning Commission and it was determined <br />that this kind of problem would be considered a landlord/tenant issue and if it could not <br />be resolved, would come before the City. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that the reason he would not accept the friendly amendment is that the City <br />would become involved in private affairs between landlords and tenants as arbitrators. <br /> <br /> <br />