Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />The applicant is proposing to establish a 6,158 SF dance studio in two units of the building. Two <br />tenants are located in the building using units 1, 2 and 5. Units 6 and 7 are unoccupied at this time. <br />The studio is scheduled to be open Monday thru Saturday, 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM. The majority of <br />classes will be weekdays from 4:00 PM to 10:00 PM and expects to serve approximately 15-20 students <br />per class when fully established. <br /> <br />The applicant is not proposing any exterior modifications to the building or the site except for <br />identification signs. Entrance and exit to the building will be at the front of the building entering from <br />the parking lot and emergency exits are located at the rear of the building. <br /> <br />Martell reviewed a previous SRU proposal, the Peak to Peak Charter School proposal reviewed in July <br />2000 by the Planning Commission. Staff looked for any correlation between that school proposal and <br />whether this proposal would be considered a school as well. Staff found that a dance studio is included <br />in the Use Group defining “Public and Private Schools, studios for professional work or teaching of any <br />forms of fine arts …”, but a Dance Studio is not defined as a “School” in Chapter 17.08 in the <br />Louisville Municipal Code. Therefore, this dance studio would not be subject to any of the school <br />regulations or any other school related ordinances. <br /> <br />Martell reviewed the case per the Special Review Use Criteria and stated that Staff had found the SRU <br />application is in substantial compliance with the required criteria. <br /> <br />Martell reported that staff is recommending approval with one condition, that the applicant be aware <br />that this SRU is approved and authorized for this applicant only. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br /> <br />McDermott asked about the overlap scheduling of classes and how that will affect the queuing and <br />parking of vehicles on the lot. <br /> <br />Martell stated that the applicant would need to address that question. <br /> <br />Kalish asked if the summer hours would be the same as what is proposed for the fall or would there me <br />more summer classes held in the daytime since the children would be available. <br /> <br />Martell stated that the applicant would need to address that question. <br /> <br />Pritchard stated that his questions would need to be directed to the applicant. <br /> <br />Applicant Presentation: <br /> <br />Dennis Payne, DP Construction, representing the applicant Kelli Beeson. He stated that Beeson had <br />contacted him to handle the presentation this evening because she had just returned from attending an <br />out of state funeral and could not make the meeting this evening. <br /> <br />Payne stated that the applicant agrees to the one condition presented by Staff. <br /> <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />