My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2017 02 09
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2017 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2017 02 09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 1:29:36 PM
Creation date
7/9/2020 11:46:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
2/9/2017
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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 />February 9, 2017 <br />Page 11 of 14 <br />the deck playing while people are dining. We don't want something in the conditions to prevent <br />this. I have talked to Staff about measuring the amount of decibels from recorded music in the <br />public ROW. I don't know if that has been done in Louisville previously. We borrowed this <br />language from Bittersweet. <br />4. (Same as 2011) The businesses shall provide sidewalk dining in the appropriate <br />seasons to maintain street level pedestrian activities. <br />My strong recommendation is that the PC make a decision about the conditions or possibly alter <br />the conditions. The applicant is eager to begin construction. As a restaurant operator, he wants <br />to be open by midsummer. Given our schedule for this hearing and CC, and building permit <br />applications, it will take three months to build out. This puts his opening at the middle of July, <br />which is later than he would like. <br />Commission Questions of Applicant: <br />Sheets says in terms of amplification of music, was that always part of the applicant's intention <br />to have potential amplified live music? Is this part of his operation plan? <br />Stewart says it came up in the SRU because it was a condition from Staff. From what I <br />understand, the applicant wants to keep the current Waterloo location as his music venue. This <br />location will be more dining venue. He is not focused on getting music there and it will not be a <br />big part of the draw. <br />Hsu says given the urgency that the applicant has, do you think he would be willing to accept <br />the "no dancing or live music" SRU criteria for now? It doesn't seem to affect the building <br />permits and he would get the summer opening. Perhaps we can deal with it later. <br />Stewart says if it comes down to a mandated condition by the PC, his choice would be to move <br />the music inside. He doesn't want to have another hearing date and be delayed. <br />Zuccaro says Staff has been discussing a possible solution. Staff can mail notice to the 500' <br />buffer as required for public hearing for CC and include the proposed conditions that come out <br />of PC. <br />Moline asks if the applicant reached out to any neighbors. <br />Stewart says no. The applicant is eager to get started. We rushed to get documents together to <br />submit to Staff and Public Works. <br />Moline asks about the noise ordinance in the City. <br />Zuccaro says there is a noise ordinance but it is not decibel -based. The City Clerk is working <br />on adopting one for all zone districts. There is a nuisance ordinance for noise but it is difficult to <br />enforce. We are looking at by -use or zone district. <br />Stewart says I have not talked to any neighbors. The applicant is the operator and has been in <br />Louisville for a long time. He may have ongoing conversations with people I am not aware of. <br />Moline asks if the PC meeting tonight publicly noticed to the 500' buffer. Zuccaro says yes. <br />Public Comment: None. <br />Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: <br />Staff recommends approval with the conditions: <br />1. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant enter into an agreement with the <br />City to ensure the safety and maintenance of the staircase within the public right-of-way. <br />2. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall comply with all requirements of the <br />amended conservation easement, including the interpretive signage. <br />Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: <br />Below are listed the conditions proposed by Staff: <br />1. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with <br />the City to address safety and maintenance of the staircase within the public right-of- <br />way. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.