My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2020 10 08
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2020 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2020 10 08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/3/2022 3:21:49 PM
Creation date
2/3/2022 3:20:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
7/9/2020
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Quality Check
2/3/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 />October 8, 2020 <br />Page 5 of 10 <br />hopeful that if anything became a problem in the future that the applicant would work <br />with adjacent property owners. <br />Howe asked if the property had to abide by the existing limitations on live music. <br />Ritchie confirmed. <br />Diehl asked for clarification on the separate regulation for live versus amplified music. <br />Zuccaro stated that all of the restrictions in the application applied to outdoor dining, not <br />to inside music. They would just fall under the noise ordinance. He added that <br />downtown, most often, there was a 10 PM restriction on amplified music outdoors. <br />Diehl asked if that was consistent with what was under review tonight. <br />Ritchie noted that the exterior hours of operation would be 11 AM — 10 PM on <br />weeknights and 11 AM — 12 AM on Fridays and Saturdays, and amplified music would <br />be limited to 11 AM — 9 PM all days of the week. <br />Williams asked about the hours of the other businesses in that area. <br />Ritchie replied that she did not know. <br />Williams asked about the 6-foot fence. <br />Ritchie replied that the applicant and the adjacent property manager had come to that <br />proposal. She noted that the fence was to mitigate impacts on the adjacent property <br />owner and to prevent people from cutting through the residential area to get to the <br />restaurant. <br />Williams asked if that was adequate buffering and about the setback. <br />Ritchie replied that the setbacks were well inside the required minimum setback. There <br />were limited options for additional landscaping because of the access easement in that <br />area. Within the site itself, the orientation of the food trucks served as a bit of a buffer <br />when they were present, as well. Raised planting beds with trees on the property also <br />provided buffers as did the patio cover with the sloped design. <br />Brauneis clarified that nearby Mudrock's had outside seating. He invited the applicant to <br />speak. <br />Applicant Joshua Martinsons, 707 12th Street in Boulder, stated that the plan was to <br />shut down on weeknights at 9 PM and 11 PM on Fridays and Saturdays and that any <br />outdoor music would be shut down by 9 PM. He stated that he did not expect that food <br />trucks would be an integral or a common part of this business. The food hall had tenant <br />kitchens and he did not want to take business away from those kitchens, unless the <br />kitchens were overwhelmed with orders. For the most part, the trucks would be out <br />during clement weather. He responded to the fence conversation saying that he was <br />happy to build a higher fence if needed and expressed the importance of protecting the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.