pages: PlanningBoard/2019-09-09.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2019-09-09 | 5 | Board Member Saheba asked if there have been any other discussions with the landlord regarding possible mitigations to help satisfy the residents. Staff Member Sablan said that even though the owner submitted the official application, staff primarily worked with the applicant to draft the conditions to the use permit. Board Member Ruiz asked if it would be within the board's purview to require a fountain or some other white noise mechanism to mask the noise from the patrons. Staff Member Tai said that the board could require that, though it would create additional noise. President Curtis said that when his neighbor has a dinner party on his patio the noise carries right up to his window and vice versa. He said he can't imagine that happening every night. He said it is an unfortunate and untenable situation. President Curtis asked if the noise from normal business operation and privacy loss from being 11 feet away from residents would constitute any kind of violation that would entitle the tenant to a remedy. Staff Attorney Chen said she does not believe it does. She said this location is in a mixed use district. She said the board should stick to the four findings before them to make a decision tonight on the use permit. Board Member Teague said he lived next to a night club for years and had to call the police many times and that it took three murders for the use permit to be revoked. He said he may be in favor of a restricted use, but it would need to have conditions and a "three strikes and you're out" policy. He said the residents have a potential claim for reduction in housing services and should speak to the head of the rent program at the Housing Authority. He said he would be in favor of a one year probationary period and limit the hours to the lunch period. He said he would make a motion to approve with those conditions. Board Member Ruiz said she agreed with Board Member Teague and wanted to add a condition that the privacy fence be raised. She was told that the planned fence was six feet, which she agreed was adequate. Staff Member Tai summarized the motion: the hours be further limited to 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Board Member Hom suggested raising the privacy fence an additional two feet with a screen wall or vines, subject to the neighbors' approval. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 5 of 11 September 9, 2019 | PlanningBoard/2019-09-09.pdf |