Planning Commission Minutes 2017 02 09

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 9, 2017 Page 13 of 14 an important issue but it does speak to me that no neighbors are here. What went on until recently on the rooftop could have been just as loud as what we are discussing tonight. Rice says my solution is we can move forward if we keep the status quo in terms of the music consistent with the 2011 Resolution. I have no problems with the public noticed properly. I am not comfortable moving forward and changing the status quo without a properly -noticed hearing so the public can raise their concerns. This was discussed at prior meetings. If I was a neighbor and saw there was no modification to the SRU in terms of prior rule, I would not have worried about it. If now we show up at noon on the hearing day with a circulated notice that says "we do want live outdoor music", I have problems with it. I am comfortable moving forward keeping the same condition. Moline asks Staff to make comments about Rice's statements. Zuccaro says I think these are good concerns. I know from history that this was controversial. We don't want something to go through without the neighbors knowing about it. From a technical standpoint, Staff views that the applicant submitted an SRU plan without carrying forward any of the conditions from 2011, either on the SRU document or in the applicant's materials. Staff then recommended that certain conditions or restrictions be applied to the SRU. Nowhere did it state that the applicant had proposed them or agreed to them in the application. We want everyone in the neighborhood to know what the final conditions are. Whether that happens with a new hearing here or with the CC hearing, we would make sure that all of the neighbors within the 500' buffer receive a new notice letter with the adopted conditions from PC. Hsu says on procedure, if this goes to CC, these minutes are included. I agree with Pritchard and Rice's recommendation. I don't have the same level of process concerns as some other commissioners regarding music. What seems odd to me is that Staff has changed its recommendation after having a first recommendation. I also don't think Bittersweet is directly comparable to the Rex. Sheets says one of the points that keeps arising in discussing any outside venue with music is that the PC is in a bind. It is very subjective in terms of whether we should approve outside activity past 10 or 11 or 12, and whether it should be amplified or acoustic or live. We need some guidelines and we could then answer this quickly. Pritchard says this application is unique because it is on the second story. O'Connell says it is also next to a basically empty parking lot. Pritchard says the applicant, Josh Karp, was the first one at the original Waterloo to have live music and the time limit. Sheets says I would like guidelines in the future so if we have any outdoor request for music, amplified or acoustic or live, we can deviate from that in a SRU. Each time, we are reinventing the wheel and applying our own subjectivity. For the record, I think this is a wonderful proposal and I want the Waterloo to take over this building. I don't want to stop it with the music issues. Zuccaro says in the future, Staff can bring forward a history of what has been approved. Moline says this proposal is exactly the kind of business we want to see in Downtown. We also want to do it in a way that is sensitive to neighbors. O'Connell says this is a shortfall of the applicant. They are asking for different music. The PC is left with no guidance because we don't what it will be. The applicant knows this is a big issue and it should have been addressed. Motion made by Rice to approve Rex Theater PUD and Special Review Use, Resolution 07, Series 2017. A resolution recommending approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment and Special Review Use (SRU) Amendment to allow for a modification of interior and exterior spaces, with the following conditions. 1. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant enter into an agreement with the City to ensure the safety and maintenance of the staircase within the public right-of-way. 2. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall comply with all requirements of the amended conservation easement, including the interpretive signage.