Planning Commission Minutes 2017 02 09

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 9, 2017 Page 8 of 14 1. (Same as 2011) Nighttime hours of operation for the outdoor patio shall not extend past 12 am. 2. Patio lighting shall include down -cast soffit lighting with full cutoff fixtures with a maximum light level of 1500 lumens per light and string -lights with a maximum level of 900 lumens per lamp. 3. Amplified live entertainment shall be allowed in the open upper level deck area and shall be restricted to Friday evenings, weekends, holidays, and City sponsored special events. 4. (Same as 2011) The businesses shall provide sidewalk dining in the appropriate seasons to maintain street level pedestrian activities. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to address 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 two interpretive signs. 3. Prior to City Council hearing, the applicant shall amend the plan to include the following notes: (SRU conditions) • Prior to City Council hearing, the applicant shall amend the parking notes on the plans as follows: 1. Approved PUD Recalculation (2011) 2. New floor area (excluding service and food preparation space) — 1, 081 SF 3. Existing Spaces — 3 spaces 4. Fee in lieu — 1.7 spaces • PUD/SRU Amendment #2 1. New floor area (excluding service and food preparation space) — 5 SF 2. Cumulative floor area added — (1,081 + 5) 1,086 SF 3. Existing Spaces — 3 spaces 4. New Parking Required — 0 spaces Letter entered into record: Moline makes motion to enter letter from Peter Stewart dated February 8, 2017 into record, seconded by Rice. Voice vote approved. Commission Questions of Staff.- Sheets says I have a procedural question. The significant change I see in the letter submitted tonight is the amplification of music. I am concerned from a process standpoint if there has been adequate public notice. If the public read this letter without the amplification, and now it is in, the adjacent residents might have some issues. Trice says that is a good question. Staff interprets it that the redesign of that second floor has more enclosed space, so there will be an overall minimal impact of outdoor space. As far as adequate public notice, there could be a valid concern. Sheets says in terms of the amplification of music, this issue has come up for different times when music is permitted. There may be a distinction with the Bittersweet core area because there are no adjacent residents. Trice says the Bittersweet SRU was an administrative SRU because there is no adjacent residential. It is the most restrictive as far as Downtown and limiting times of music allowed. Hsu says about the lumens. In the draft resolution slide, there is maximum light level of 900 lumens.