pages: PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-07-12 | 6 | Board Member Hom agreed this was an interesting issue. He discussed the broad issue regarding bars and restaurants in mixed-use areas and how they were appropriate but inherently some conflicts arose. He considered the equity issue with Spinning Bones, he knew it was a different use but with Spinning Bones being a restaurant that usually meant fewer complaints than say a bar. However, they had put more restrictive conditions on Spinning Bones than the Club House Bar. He discussed the differences between the two, a bar operates later into the night and since a restaurant relied more on food services they could handle more restrictions. He had studied Spinning Bones' outdoor area with their 3 pm restriction. He also appreciated that the staff had distinguished between the bar's patio and lawn area. He wanted the board to consider limiting the hours for the lawn area to be consistent with Spinning Bones and suggested 3 pm to be equitable. He further discussed how he assessed the use, it was about finding a balance between a legitimate business but also being mindful that there had been a history of noise complaints at this location. Board Member Cisneros liked Board Member Rothenberg's suggestion about scheduling a check at some point. She wanted to know if the lawn was closest to the residential area. Director Thomas said yes it was. Board Member Cisneros said since that was the case she was open to the suggestion of restricting time on the lawn and she also liked Board Member Hom's idea of treating this equally to what they did for Spinning Bones. She hoped that would give relief to the neighbors and be a compromise for all. She agreed that this was an appropriate use and supported the staff's recommendation. President Teague thanked everyone for speaking on this, the staff for their work, and the establishment for working on compromises. He concurred with his fellow board members that this was a permitted use. He discussed what they had done in the past when there was a strong potential for problems which included the condition that the Use Permit was for 1 year then it had to come back for review. He wanted the conditions fixed since they did not reflect what was in the staff report. He also wanted to see that the establishment works with the staff to establish a Good Neighbor Policy and enforcement of that. There was nothing now about enforcement. He discussed that the prohibition on amplified sound (#5) had left out live performances and announcements, it just said no amplified speakers. For the exterior lighting item, the city's Dark Sky Ordinance was not sufficient for this. He wanted to see that the lights be directed below the window lines of the neighboring buildings, even if it's not a bright light it could be disturbing after hours. He had also thought that they could just allow the patio area or cut the lawn in half, but this was a Good Neighbor Policy and enforcement issue. Also, to give the neighbors the tools to hold the establishment accountable. He could support this with these types of conditions. Board Member Curtis pointed out, in regards to Board Member Hom's comment, that the resolution took the grassy area from 11 am to 6 pm. They gave 11 am to 3 pm to the restaurant since that took them through the lunch hour. He thought 11 am to 6 pm was a reasonable time for the bar and didn't cut into the privacy issues. He thought that restricting the hours would hinder the bar and they should do whatever they could to let the bar be successful while also mitigating the noise to the neighbors. Board Member Rothenberg made a motion to advance the conditional Use Permit subject to the refinement of the terms in the resolution as cited by President Teague, Board Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 6 of 18 July 12, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf |