My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2014 04 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2014 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2014 04 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:21 AM
Creation date
7/30/2014 3:23:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2014 04 10
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April; 10, 2014 <br />Page 13of 37 <br />were to request operation within the public ROW, we are allowing in Section 3 of <br />the proposed ordinance a temporary use,because they must get City <br />permission. It is not a use by right. The uses we are allowing to occur are the <br />following uses permitted in specific locations. Commissioner Rice sent me an <br />email saying that I needed to do that. Designated zone districts subject to <br />applicable regulations. Within those regulations we have performance criteria. <br />ABC in the following items arethe districts that are being permitted in the public <br />ROW are only public ROW and public parks within nonresidential zone districts <br />by temporary use permit, ice cream vendors as defined earlier, and private <br />catered events arepermitted in the residual zone districts. That was a request of <br />Susan Honstein because change in administrations, what is private activity could <br />be interpreted differently by adifferent planning director or by a City Manager. A <br />private catered event has pre-sold tickets to it. If you wanted a wedding and <br />wanted it catered, the industry has changed. They may come into your kitchen <br />with prepared food but also food trucks recognized as tailored to the specific to <br />that user. If a wedding is held at the Art Center and pre-packagedevents, this is <br />a use allowed within the ROW. A special events and sales and use license must <br />be obtained from the City, as well as a Health Certificate from Boulder County. <br />For location requirements, staff is recommending one block. On the public ROW, <br />staff is proposing at least 300’or one block from any existing restaurant unless <br />approved by the City Manager or consent from all restaurant owners within 300’. <br />This is within the public ROW only and not giving that exemption forprivate. <br />Restaurants change over time and for private property, it will use by right. On <br />public property, it is a temporary use. The City Manager can either give an <br />exemption within the 300’, an example being Street Faire with food events and <br />food vendors in tents, trucks, or carts being within 300’ of a restaurant. It is City <br />sponsored event on the City ROW. The City Manager has the right to do that. <br />Another example is an applicant coming forward with consent of the owners <br />within 300’. Staff does notthink the distance requirement should apply. <br />Graphic shows 300’ buffer for Downtown, it excludes all the properties based on <br />current locations of restaurants. <br />Regarding Centennial Valley, Commission asked for special consideration <br />because they don’t have as robust of an evening crowd and have a weaker <br />market. Staff believes there isn’t a rational nexus to differentiation based on <br />current market conditions and zoning, and it is immune to current market <br />conditions. Staff wants to treat all property owners equally. The Centennial <br />Valley is a mix of PCZD zone districts as well as community commercial zone <br />districts. If we created an inequity by treating Centennial Valley differently, we <br />would be treating different areas of the City that have the same zoning <br />classification. We think this is differential treatment to private landowners. We <br />cannot find a rational nexus. We can go into Planning Law and defend it if <br />Planning Commission chose to give a special treatment to Centennial Valley but <br />from staff’sperspective, we wanted to explain that. If you wanted a condition <br />added to do something special for Centennial Valley based on a weaker evening <br />market, this is what we heard at the last public hearing and we can do this under <br />this certain condition and present the ordinance to City Council. In this draft, we <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.