Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 9, 2017 <br />Page 12 of 14 <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 />3. Prior to the City Council hearing, the applicant shall amend the plan to include the <br />following notes: <br />A. Nighttime hours of operation for the outdoor patio shall not extend past 12 am. <br />B. Patio lighting shall include down -cast soffit lightinq with full cutoff fixtures with a <br />maximum light level of 1500 lumens per light and string -lights with a maximum level <br />of 900 lumens per lamp. <br />C. Amplified live entertainment shall be allowed in the open upper level deck area and <br />shall be restricted to Friday evenings, weekends, holidays, and City sponsored <br />special events. <br />D. The businesses shall provide sidewalk dining in the appropriate seasons to maintain <br />street level pedestrian activities. <br />4. Prior to the City Council hearing, the applicant shall amend the parking notes on the plan <br />as follows: <br />Approved PUD Recalculation (2011) <br />New floor area 1, 081 SF <br />(excluding service and food <br />preparation space) <br />Existing Spaces 3 Spaces <br />Fee in lieu paid 1.7 Spaces <br />PUD/SRU Amendment #2 <br />New floor area 5 SF <br />(excluding service and food <br />preparation space) <br />Cumulative floor area added (1, 081 SF + 5 SF) 1, 086 SF <br />Existing Spaces 3 Spaces <br />New Parking Required 0 Spaces <br />Pritchard says we know this is a time sensitive issue. I ask the commissioners if you have any <br />issues with conditions 3B and 3C. On 3C, my personal belief is because it wasn't properly <br />noticed with the intent of music, we should pass this motion but stay with the 2011 standards of <br />lighting, no outside dancing and music. If neighbors had known the potential for outside <br />amplified music, they would have attended. I would like this matter to move forward. <br />Sheets says that is one approach. I am sorry to have brought up the issue but it was sensitive <br />to me in terms of neighbor concerns. They were also concerned about lighting. Another option <br />that could be on the table that we defer to Staff and assume they will carry the weight and bring <br />it up to CC in the way that Pritchard described or leave it in as new conditions. <br />Pritchard says CC may wonder why the PC did not do our job. I am sensitive to anyone on a <br />time line. <br />O'Connell says the question is whether we vote for the resolution as amended or the resolution <br />as came in the packet. <br />Pritchard says I would vote for the resolution as it came in the packet. <br />Sheets says the lights are okay but the music amplification is not. <br />Pritchard says the lighting is muted towards Main Street, and not going back to the alley. <br />Music, however, travels in every direction. <br />O'Connell says there will be more enclosed space. How that will affect the ricochet of the music <br />is unknown. CC will need clarification on what type of music will be out there. <br />Moline says my sense is this is the right venue and right place to discuss this. It is fine for us to <br />decide if we think amplified live music should be allowed. This proposal was noticed properly. <br />Many times, details are not available unless you dig into the web. I don't want the PC to get <br />caught up in a process hiccup that prevents us from carrying out our duties. I still believe this is <br />