Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 9, 2017 <br />Page 10 of 14 <br />Hsu asks what is Staff recommending tonight? Is it Resolution 07, Series 2017 or what was <br />included in the packet? <br />Trice says Staff recommends the resolution before you on the table. <br />Pritchard says applicants usually want more signage. The Rex and Alley Cat were not allowed <br />to have signage on the east side. Is the applicant entitled to it? <br />Trice says the Historic Preservation Commission has worked with the Rex sign in the mesh <br />many times with the Madera Grill and the current applicant. They have determined this can be <br />an area for signage but does not need to say Rex. There is a transition to a different sign. The <br />sign does comply with the Downtown Sign Manual. They are removing the marquee. There is a <br />sign in the previous PUD on the west. <br />Pritchard says those two signs are within their allotted square footage. We have a valid <br />concern about whether this procedure can move forward based on the noise. I was here in 2011 <br />and the neighbors were upset. I believe this is a Downtown restaurant that has been here for a <br />long time. The compromise was that we would not allow outside music. I agree that the <br />precedence was set in 2011 and the expectations might still be there. I don't want this matter <br />going to CC without this matter resolved. <br />Moline says I am not quite in agreement. I would be very interested to hear from the people <br />with concerns. The fact that there are no people here tonight concerns me. I think if you are a <br />person interested in this application and you walk by the posted sign, you would attend. <br />O'Connell says I will go on record that valid notice should be full notification of the entire <br />proceeding and what the entire proceeding contains. I object to that. <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Peter Stewart, Stewart Architecture, 1132 Jefferson Avenue, Louisville, CO <br />Josh Karp, the applicant, wanted to be here tonight but he is out of town. He wants the hearing <br />to go ahead because he needs to get the place opened. He cannot have an empty building for <br />too long. Earlier when they did the conservation easement review with CC, which was publicly <br />noticed, and it had the fagade changes, he attended. He thought he was all done and he could <br />get a building permit. He has planned on contractors starting. From his point of view, this has <br />been a delay. I understand why this has to be a public hearing. These are valid points about the <br />SRU. From my perspective, the applicant has made an application for a SRU amendment. We <br />did not put any conditions in that. The conditions came from the recommendation of Staff for the <br />applicant's review, for PC review, for CC review, and for public debate. In general, the previous <br />SRU allowed a certain amount of rooftop patio dining area. This amendment makes it smaller. It <br />is reducing the area of the upper dining. <br />1. (Same as 2011) Nighttime hours of operation for the outdoor patio shall not extend past <br />12 am. <br />2. Patio lighting shall include down -cast soffit lighting with full cutoff fixtures with a <br />maximum light level of 1500 lumens per light and string -lights with a maximum level of <br />900 lumens per lamp. <br />Stewart says from the 2011 PUD, it had the condition of 1500 lumens down lighting. That works <br />fine for the soffit lights, but since then, there have been string lights for years. They are over the <br />canopies which are the patio covers. There are light bulbs every 36" or so. I don't want this <br />condition to be confusing that the string lights are supposed to be down lights too. <br />3. Amplified live entertainment shall be allowed in the open upper level deck area and shall <br />be restricted to Friday evenings, weekends, holidays, and City sponsored special <br />events. <br />This is a holdover from the last SRU. The dancing does not make sense because it is difficult to <br />define. I understand the concern for "live music permitted in the open upper level deck area" but <br />currently on the patio, there is recorded music or amplified music and it has been this way for <br />the past 2-3 years. The applicant is not sure about what is the difference between recorded and <br />live music. They can both be loud. We have discussed an acoustic guitar musician playing on <br />