09/26/1989 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PLANNING COPIMISSION SEPTa4BER 26, 1989 PAGE 4 will install a fence along the east property line as mentioned at the last meeting (not shown on plans); and also if the Star Lounge looses its license, they still plan to install the additional parking. In reference to sound barriers, City Engineer Cesen advised that he had contacted O.D.O.T. who does have an expert on sound barrier•s and he advised that greenery would not mask sounds unless it was quite deep. Mr. Morgan pointed out that the Commission had mentioned an earth mound plus greenery, but he stated that the noise must be controlled on the property, and does not believe that the Planning Commission can handle the entire problem. Mrs. Perry, Mr. Lizanich, and other neighbors reiterated complaints against the Star Lounge: excessive noise, rewing up of motorcycles (pointed out that the expanded parking lot would only be about 120 feet from bedrooms of adjacent homes); and customers f ighting and shouting obscenities in the middle of the night. They believe that it should be the responsibility of the owners of the center to control their tenants and they stated that the liquor license has, in fact, been-renewed. They are requesting that the Commission deny the expansion since expanding the parking will exacer- bate the existing problems. Councilman Wilamosky advised that several members of the Council have visite.d the bar and suspected.that .there were some building and fire code violations. Councilman Bohlman also believes that the expansion should not be granted until these problems are solved. Fire Chief VanKuran agreed that he has heard these same complaints from his men in the fire station and further stated that they would inspect the bar for any fire code violations. Mr. Thomas questioned if the owners really wanted to continue with the plans since the Star Lounge is having such an adverse effect on the community, and also questioned if the owners are really trying to alleviate the problems.since they should have some control. Mrs. Nemeth claimed that there were no problems when they oper- ated the bar, and they did not know these owners would create so many problems when they granted them a 6 year lease. Mr. Knight suggested that the owner reduce the seating to what it was originally since there did not seem to be as many problems u7hen there were only two store fronts. Mr. Conway stated that it would appezr that the problems are caused by the type of customers and that the number of seats would not matter. J. Thomas moved to table the Nemeth Commerical Building proposal until we are provided more information by the developer as far as what actions they are going to take and would like to verify some of the information re- quested, and also verify whether or not the tenant has actually had.a renewed license. Mr. Bierman questioned why this proposal should be tabled again after having been heard two or three times, since the Com- mission does have the right to approve or disapprove. Mr. Thomas withdrew his motion. Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised that he did have a concern about disapproving this since the Planning Commission is a limited body and should address the proposal only as it relates to the zoning code, they cannot solve problems of noise, disturbances, these must be addressed by other city bodies. :.He pointed out that the plan is before the Commission in order to deal with a problem that was brought to their attention by the Building Department, but if the parking proposed is in excess of what the developer needs, the Commission has the right to require landbanking ofysome spaces. Mr. Morgan clarified that the Commission does not have the right to reject a proposal that meets the zoning codes, but they are striving to find a compromise that will remove the owner's violation as well as give some satisfaction to the residents and believes that this could be addressed at the next meeting. Mr. Thomas pointed out that even