PC 041509 - Laserfiche WebLink

etc. is not allowed.…” He concurred with the applicant regarding Condition No. 2 and requested the Commission to assist with the Downtown vitality by not being over-restrictive and to interpret the hours as liberally as possible. He added that he did not believe the hours should be restricted at all and suggested that the condition be completely struck. He also concurred with the applicant regarding Condition No. 9, stating that people hang out at Tully’s and Fontina’s and believed people should be allowed to hang around Downtown and cruise up and down its sidewalks. Mr. O’Callaghan stated that knows the building owner, Mr. Moret, and sound attenuation should be between the owner and his tenants. He added that government should not be telling people how much noise they can or cannot make unless it is a Code violation issue. He also questioned the need for Condition No. 14, noting that this most likely is part of the State’s law. Commissioner Olson stated that he visited the building and noted it was completely empty. He inquired if businesses went out of business and left. Mr. O’Callaghan replied that he was not sure, but many businesses are moving out of town to locate to other communities. He reiterated his request that the City not over-regulate, and added that they are trying to revitalize the area as best they can. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Blank inquired why the establishment was being restricted to Friday through Sunday. Ms. Rondash replied that the restriction is based upon the applicant’s narrative, and staff was hoping to provide some flexibility for the applicant to return and get extended hours after six months of operation. Commissioner Blank agreed that Condition No. 9 regarding interior signage should be deleted. He noted, however, that Condition No. 11 should remain because it simply states that the applicant will follow what the laws say and does not require the tenants to soundproof the room unless they do not comply with noise standards. He inquired if the tenant would need to soundproof the room if the existing state of the building meets the Code. Ms. Rondash replied that if the applicant can show that the existing insulation would dampen the noise to a satisfactory level, they can request the condition to be removed and the Director of Community Development could review the request. Mr. Dolan confirmed that the applicants may be able to document that they meet the law, that the insulation is adequate and no improvements are needed, and that, therefore, they do not need to soundproof the building. Commissioner O’Connor stated that he found Condition No. 11 to be redundant and suggested that only the first sentence of the condition be retained. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 15, 2009 Page 20 of 24