Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 02 11

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 9 of 10 would make use of that zoning. He added that he appreciated the work that went into this iconic structure on one of the town's main intersections and he appreciated the applicants work to protect and preserve that historic southwest corner. Rice stated that as planning commissioners one of the most important criteria to consider was promoting commerce in the city. The fact that a successful business wanted to invest and expand should be treated with deference. That being said, he stated that he felt that there were two issues, the wall and the sound. He did not think that anyone should have the expectation that a property would never be developed. He stated that it was the owners' right to develop as long as they were retaining to setback, which they were. Regarding the music, he noted that the SRU process allowed them to consider the specific issues of each case. He thought that the business should be allowed to have music but should have a reasonable limitation on music, limiting music past 10 PM. Moline asked staff if there was a limitation on a residential property owner playing acoustic music on their front porch, explaining that he hesitated to limit a commercial business to something that somebody could be doing by right in a residential area. Ritchie responded that those instances fell under Disturbing the Peace. She shared the language in Title IX of the Code, which included a limitation on sound between the hours of midnight and 6 AM and a limitation to sound that was "plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet." Diehl stated that he thought it was inarguable that the addition would improve the general welfare of Louisville. He added that there should be a single standard for Old Town for hours of operation. Williams stated that she was not a fan of mixed -use and had great pains when there was commercial next to residential. She stated that this case was a tough one, because it was a business on Main Street and there was one residential neighbor. She understood the concerns of the neighbor but noted that he lived there now with the current zoning. She stated that it was vastly different when a residential area was built before a commercial use, but that was not the case in this instance, as a business had been in this location for decades. She stated that the positives included the historic preservation and that the SRU was exceeding the criteria. She stated that there should not be any different hours or sound regulations for Moxie relative to other businesses. Finally, she thought that the improvements to Moxie were a huge benefit to downtown. Brauneis noted that there could be a restaurant with live music that would open underneath the owner of the neighboring unit and that the whole block was zoned as community commercial for this type of use. He stated that if people had protested the new Moffat building and prevented it from getting built up to two stories it might be a different story, but the Moffat structure with two stories was now part of the history of the block. Those two contexts helped him to be in favor of the proposal. Diehl asked if the SRU stayed with the property or with the property owner.