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 8 of 10 <br />In closing, Mr. Martinsons thanked the Commission for its consideration and he looked <br />forward to working with the City and the community to make a really good space. <br />Brauneis asked Planner Ritchie to comment on sound mitigation. <br />Ritchie stated that she found an example in the City of outdoor seating directly adjacent <br />to residential. Outside seating is allowed to go to midnight but there was no amplified <br />music that was permitted. Ritchie added that regarding the fence, the 6-foot fence was <br />sufficient for security, but it might not be effective for sound muffling. <br />Martinsons added that he thought a higher fence would help because they had a noise <br />evaluation for South Boulder Road that mentioned that a higher fence would help <br />mitigate the sound from the road. He also explained that the combination of the roof and <br />the fence would help dampen the sound. <br />Rice stated that the South Boulder Road Small Area Plan identified this development as <br />a high priority. He added that the area was blighted and this was a good solution to that <br />issue. He thought it would be a magnet and that it could lead to redevelopment for some <br />other areas of the property if the project were done right. Finally, he noted that the <br />amplified word bothered him, explaining that if someone were playing music that was <br />not amplified after hours it would still be potentially bothersome. He recommended <br />taking out the word "amplified." <br />The Commission and staff discussed the details of adding language on hours in the <br />SRU and the application, concluding that the hours were sufficiently noted. <br />Diehl voiced his support for the application and added that his concerns had been <br />addressed. <br />Moline voiced his support, as well, and cautioned against using the word "blighted" for <br />the area beyond the building itself. He urged the applicant to use the term judicially. <br />Rice clarified that he meant that the building itself was blighted. <br />Williams thought that the property needed a refresh and she thought this would be a <br />compliment to the other businesses in the area. She asked if the Commission wanted to <br />add language to the effect that the applicant work with the neighboring residential. <br />The Commission and staff discussed the option to add language to work generally with <br />the neighboring residential. <br />Brauneis asked if the applicant would agree to having the word amplified removed. <br />Martinsons replied he was fine with that change. <br />Hoefner expressed his support and urged the applicant to continue working with the <br />community. <br />Brauneis stated his support for the plan. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.