Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-12 CPC MINCity of Stillwater • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 12, 2004 Present: Mike Dahlquist, Karl Ranum, Jerry Tumquist, David Peroceschi, Darwin Wald, Paul Teske, Chair Robert Gag, City Council Representative David Junker and Steve Russell, Community Development Director & staff assistant Absent: Dave Middleton Mr. Gag called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Gag stated that the order of the agenda was being changed somewhat - the hospital parking ramp discussion would be addressed before the Boutwell/Deerpath traffic study. Approval of Minutes Motion to approve the December 8, 2003 minutes by Mr. Wald. Second by Mr. Ranum. Vote all in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Case No. SUB104-01. A Resubdivision of Lots 28, 29, 30, Block 1, Wilkins Addition into two lots. Parcel A - 8,026.2 square feet and Parcel B - 8,675 square feet (7,500 square feet minimum) located at 1410 4th Street North in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Henry and Corliss Thomas, applicants. Mr. Corliss explained the request and stated that they always intended to sell the extra property. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. Jeff Johnson of the Heritage Preservation Commission expressed HPC's concerns that development following the subdivision might not match or conform to the neighborhood character. Mr. Corliss explained that the character of the neighborhood is very diverse; different style homes and lot/property dimensions. Mr. Gag closed the public hearing. Mr. Ranum asked if the applicants understood and met the conditions of approval Motion to approve Case No. SUB /04-01 made by Mr. Turnquist, second by Mr. Ranum. Vote all in favor. I• 1 City of Stillwater Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 12, 2004 2. Case No. SUP/04-02. A modification to a Bed and Breakfast special use permit for the relocation of two guest rooms from the main house to the carriage house and for special events (40 guest maximum) located at 306 West Olive Street in the RB, Duplex Residential District. Jeff and Julie Anderson, applicants. Mr. Anderson stated that he and his wife live at 119 West Chestnut Street which is right around the corner from the Rivertown Inn Bed & Breakfast for which the are seeking this two-part special use permit. They currently have a special use permit for nine rooms in the facility and are now seeking permission to take two of those rooms and move them into the carriage house on the property. The second part of the request is to permit special events. The original request mirrored one already approved for the Aurora Staples Inn and was for six special events per month. After appearing before the Heritage Preservation Commission, however, they decided that they did not want to do six special events per month. The request has been scaled back to four events per month. The events in mind are primarily dinners and would be inclusive of the overnight guests. This would then permit only 22 additional guests for the special events. Since appearing before the HPC, some concerns from neighbors were expressed about traffic and frequency (6 per month as stated in the notice) if this were allowed. The request is being scaled back to 2 special events per month, hoping that this will address the concerns of their friends and • neighbors. Regarding the first part of the request, construction had already started when the Andersons were notified by the City that they would have to go back through the process. The carriage house is currently occupied by the innkeeper and the two rooms being requested are on the north end of the carriage house, one on the upper floor and one on the main floor, replacing the garage area of the carriage house. There are 9 parking stalls right now and there will be room for 11 stalls (one for the innkeeper) [7 Mr. Junker asked where the special events would be held and was told they would be in the main house on the main floor, not the carriage house. This, in fact, is why the request to move two of the rooms is being made. Mr. Anderson explained to Mr. Wald that the end result will be seven rooms in the main house and two in the carriage house. No rooms are being added. Mr. Junker asked if the Andersons were still comfortable with the 9:00 p.m. ending time. He stated that they were and also with the other conditions that were placed by City staff. Mr. Ranum asked about the on-site parking or remote parking conditions that were set forth in Condition #2. Mr. Anderson stated that this is definitely the most challenging of the conditions. Because the property is on a corner and there are already ten parking stalls available in the property, he feels that ten or eleven vehicles would have to park on the street and most of them would actually be abutting the Anderson's property on Fifth and/or Olive Streets. In no case would there be more than ten or eleven additional vehicles during the special events. Mr. Junker 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 12, 2004 asked if the special events would be scheduled on any particular night of the week and was told it would more likely be on a weeknight than a weekend night. Nothing definite has been decided. Mr. Peroceschi asked how there got to be a guest room in the carriage house in the first place and was told that since the Special Use Permit stated "9 rooms at the facility", the Andersons always thought that it was okay to have some rooms in the carriage house. It was news to them that they needed special permission to do so, especially considering that the City issued the building permit. It came as a shock to the Andersons when told that construction had to stop. A grapery is being built shield any noise and light from the neighbors to the west and to shield the parking area from the street. Mr. Peroceschi asked how the Rivertown Inn can have nine rooms when other B&B inns are limited to five. The Rivertown Inn was "grandfathered in". Mr. Wald questioned how many rooms are operated at once. Never more than the 9 rooms have been on the property or operated. Mr. Wald expressed his concern that even more rooms will be requested in the future. Mr. Teske questioned what percentage of coverage can exist on a property. How much impervious surface is allowable? Thirty percentage of coverage is allowable in a residentially zoned district. Mr. Russell stated that there are three city lots and according to his calculations, they are in compliance. Mr. Gag opened the public hearing. Jeff Johnson, representing the Heritage Preservation Commission stated they reviewed this request on January 5, 2004. Since then, the special events request has been scaled down to 4 and then 2 per month. The site was grandfathered in, has been used as a bed & breakfast inn since the early 80's, with approximately nine units. HPC found no objection to the plan to move two of the rooms - not to exceed nine. The HPC found that the site is large, being on a corner lot it can accommodate a higher use and has the street frontage to manage the use and it is fairly well screened from the street and neighbors. The commission feels that in looking at the ordinance and how it has been interpreted in the past, especially by City Council, that it is compatible with what was approved for the James Mulvey Inn; actually less because no rooms are being added here. Also, the special events of up to 40 people was approved for the Aurora Staples Inn and this request is no different. The spirit of the ordinance, in the opinion of the HPC is primarily to utilize these large, historic homes in Stillwater. Many of these, including the Rivertown Inn have been everything from farm houses to apartment buildings. This type of use of a big, historic home, is preferred. It is a good and appropriate use of this type of property. These properties can produce revenue that will keep them in good condition and on the tax rolls. The intent of this request is within the guidelines. Mr. Johnson mentioned that although his is on the HPC he did abstain from voting because he lives in the vicinity of this B&B. • • City of Stillwater Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 12, 2004 Lino Sullivan, north of the Inn. He asked for the commissions support of the Anderson's goals in this project. He and his wife feel that the Anderson's have proven to be impeccable neighbors and hosts. He has had no complaints about the guests or the operation of the inn. He is proud to live in the neighborhood of a classic, Victorian house. He feels that every time forty people come to Stillwater and see the gorgeous homes in gorgeous neighborhoods, like this Inn, it increases the value of the entire community. He asked the commission to support the Andersons in this venture and if there are any problems to address them immediately. He feels they are and will continue to be reasonable and cooperative. Leo Lohmer of 303 West Olive stated that whenever problems in the neighborhood came up, everyone worked together to quickly to resolve it. He asked Jeff for two things and they were taken care of. He does worry that people attending special events could be injured while crossing the street. Some drivers come up the hill as fast as they go down it. He is concerned about the 18 or 19 cars that would be involved during a special event but if Mr. Anderson says he can take care of it, then Mr. Lohmer is sure that he will. He asked if the old gas storage tank, under the driveway was ever removed. Jim Martin, 225 Chestnut Street West, stated that he is in support of the Andersons' request and believes that any parking concerns he has will be taken care of. Katie Keller, 207 Sixth Street South, believe the Rivertown Inn is a good thing for the neighborhood. It is being beautifully restored and maintained - a true showplace in Stillwater. The clientele it attracts are up-scale and well mannered. They have experienced little or no problems with unruly behavior or noise. Concerning the carriage house rooms, they trust that the additional lighting necessary for the handicapped accessible entrance, will be appropriate and not bothersome to them. Ms. Keller suggested a motion-sensor type of device be put in place so the lights are on an "as needed" basis. She expressed serious concern regarding the increase in delivery truck traffic that would result from the special events portion of the request. Mr. Anderson assured that there would not be a increase in the traffic - just an increase in the amount of food, etc. in those trucks. She stated that increased parking is a concern and would appreciate that as many cars as possible be parked on site/abutting Anderson property. She would like to see information on the dates, number of guests and number of vehicles parked on the streets for each special event would be a useful way for the Rivertown Inn to demonstrate conformance with the special use permit. She asked the Planning Commission to require the Rivertown Inn, and others to supply this information and provide a summary in the annual B&B report. Mr. Russell stated that this has been performed on an irregular basis - on an individual basis when complaints are received. This process, as required by ordinance, can be formalized. Mr. Anderson proposed that every time a special event is scheduled, he would invite a neighbor to monitor and participate in the special event. This would relieve the Council and the Planning Commission of that duty and would allow the neighbors and friends to see what is going on and if they have any concerns, the Andersons would have the chance to address them. Ms. Keller's 4 • • Ie City of Stillwater Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 12, 2004 final concern is that any future owners might run the inn as a hotel or restaurant. Is this special use permit transferable to a future owner/operator other than the Andersons? Mr. Turnquist informed her that it is not transferable. Judith Lacy, 318 Olive Street West, feels that this affects her more than anyone else. She expects to continue to live in a quiet neighborhood and asks the Council to ensure her a reasonable expectation to privacy. Ms. Lacy recited multiple dates and times that her quiet and privacy was disturbed by the water heater vent in the Inn. She informed the Andersons and they said they would get the sound muffled. Their attempts to muffle the sound did not meet with her approval. She stated that she continued to call Mr. Anderson regarding the problem until he told her not to call again. She then registered a complaint with the City. A decibel level test was completed and found that the sound did not qualify as a nuisance. She hopes that the Andersons will get the noise level under control with a new muffler system being installed within the week. After requesting the City's help to alleviate the noise level she is very concerned that there could possibly be two more rooms even closer to her. She stated that the innkeeper has been observed staring into their bedroom windows. She wants no more rooms in the carriage house. She is upset that no notification was given to her or any of the other neighbors when this latest construction project began. She stated that the plans given to the Planning Commission are not the plans that the Andersons are actually using. She is upset that she has had to live with all the noise for the last two and one-half years without being able to do anything about it. She is concerned about the noise of the guests coming and going late at night. Lighting is also disturbing and even though some lovely things have been done to the carriage house, she cannot erect a 20 foot wall between the properties. She is looking to the Planning Commission to seriously consider the plans, the actual plans before making any kind of decision in this matter. She is concerned about her property value when it comes time to sell her home if there is a restaurant/hotel complex right next door. She does not like her family and friends being exposed to the liquor being served next door. She asked the Planning Commission to deny all of the Anderson's requests, at least until the next meeting. She is willing to consider allowing the Andersons to have some special events but certainly not 4 times a month and especially not on Sundays. That is a day of rest. She would like to designate "no parking" in front of her house and in the area of her bedroom window. The City should provide signage to that effect. She thanked the Commission for their time and consideration. Mr. Anderson addressed some of the issues brought up by Judy Lacy. There are no windows in the carriage house guest rooms visible to the neighbors to the west (Lacys). The grapery structure is designed with the Lacys in mind. It reduces their visual observation of both guests and the parking area. He has offered to reroute the venting system for the water heater if the new muffler system does not meet with their approval. Mr. Ranum asked the Anderson's for the total square footage of either the improvements or the entire property. 8,200 square feet of house, carriage house and grapery. City of Stillwater Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 12, 2004 Kathy Oertle, 118 Fifth Street South thanked Jeff & Julie Anderson for the wonderful restoration and upkeep of the property. She appreciates that the special events request was reduced from four a month to two per calendar month. She is concerned about the delivery trucks for both the Rivertown Inn and the Stillwater Residence. Trucks have backed into her driveway and broken off branches from their trees. Mr. Anderson said he will tell delivery drivers to avoid backing into any of the driveways to turn around. She questioned where all the cars, including staff vehicles, would park. She requested a review after six months of special events. The commission told her that it would be a yearly review period. Ms. Oertle said that most of the neighbors feared being "tattletales" so hesitated to say anything regarding these issues. She was informed that issues cannot be addressed if no one is made aware of them. Paul Lacy, 318 W Olive Street feels that Mr. Anderson really intends to put a restaurant and hotel in the middle of a residential section of town. He pointed out that only four of the 15 items on the special use permit were not violated. He hopes that if any of the requests are allowed, that it is stipulated that all the events be held inside the main house. He cited many lighting violations and signage problems and stated that the outside of the carriage house was completely modified without permission. Mr. Lacy fears that Mr. Anderson is trying to change the character of the neighborhood. He is already in violation on the special use permit and now wants more. When the Dougherty's made similar requests they were flatly denied. He said that no comparison should be made to the Aurora Staples Inn or the Mulvey House because the locations are so very different. He requested the Planning Commission deny this SUP or at the very least delay any decision. Tim Parker, 321 Olive Street West, is interested in a safe, quiet but lively neighborhood. He stated that the Andersons keep the neighborhood alive. He doesn't know how you could support an historic property such as this other than converting it to an apartment complex. He has never had any parking problems or noise problems because of the Rivertown Inn. John Oertle, 118 Fifth Street South, criticized the lack of enforcement of special use permits and monitoring building activities. He feels that the city has let the system fail. He does have concerns regarding the lighting of the Rivertown Inn. Mr. Anderson stated that no matter how important the Inn is to him and his wife, it is nowhere as important as friends and neighbors are. The property was restored to share it with the neighborhood. The use they are seeking, at least the changes, is consistent with why they bought the property and how they intend to use it. They value their friends and neighbors much more than their property. 6 • • I• City of Stillwater Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 12, 2004 Jeff Johnson, 309 Fifth Street South, (also on the HPC), commends Jeff & Julie Anderson for all that's been done to the property. He feels there intent is to operate a business that makes the community better. He asks the Commission to look to the requests as an appropriate use for a larger, historic home, it's consistent with what the City wants as far as preservation is concerned, it makes a viable business that fits fairly well with a busy community/neighborhood. The HPC Commission has looked at all of these issues, previous cases and feels that this is consistent with what has been reviewed and approved and is compliance with the permitting process. Most building permits would not be subject to a public hearing if the fit within codes and ordinances. The Andersons have appeared before the HPC at least 3 times since acquiring the property in 1999. Mr. Johnson supports the project and hopes the Planning Commission will grant approval. Before closing the public hearing, Mr. Gag asked if any questions remained for the applicants. Mr. Ranum asked Mr. Anderson how his property operation/business differs from a restaurant and hotel complex. Because of their plans, he feels that there are no changes from what they have been doing all along. Mr. Ranum stated that there does seem to be more lighting on the property than before. Mr. Anderson reduced the voltage on the front porch light and put it on a timer. He will take down the outside lighting on the stained glass and take down any and all lighting that is not required by code. Mr. Gag closed the public hearing. Discussion Mr. Gag explained that the request would be broken into two separate requests and voted on separately. Mr. Peroceschi expressed his concern that the City Council had earlier decreed that there would be no rented rooms in the Carriage House and now there are two. Mr. Ranum is not overly concerned because no additional rooms are being added, just moved. The original special use permit states 9 rooms, 18 guests. Holding the line at 9 rooms/18 guests is his primary goal. Mr. Wald is concerned that this property has 9 rooms when the code allows 5 rooms. He was told by Mr. Turnquist that this particular permit was issued prior to the code. Mr. Junker agreed that as long as there are no additional rooms, he has no problem with this part of the request. Mr. Teske has no objection because the carriage house use is not being changed and there will be no increase in the number of vehicles because two rooms are being moved from one building to the other. Mr. Ranum sees no impact on the site with moving the rooms. Mr. Dahlquist asked if this decision would affect allowing others to establish residential units in their carriage house/garages. Mr. Ranum moved approval of the relocation of two guest rooms from the main house to the carriage house subject to the conditions set forth in the staff recommendations and adding the 7 City of Stillwater Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 12, 2004 condition that impervious surface coverage on the site not exceed the 40 percent figure that is allowed by current City ordinance. Second by Mr. Tumquist. Discussion Mr. Junker asked if any conditions regarding lighting need be added. Mr. Ranum feels that there are already conditions set on the lighting and it is for the City to review and enforce compliance. Mr. Dahlquist questioned the impervious surface condition. He stated that there is already hard surface under the addition of the grapery so is not sure that there are changes to the existing impervious surface. Mr. Ranum reiterated that checking for compliance is necessary. Vote 6 to 4 in favor. Mr. Wald and Mr. Peroceschi dissenting. Motion passed. The second part of the request is permission to hold special events in the main residence. The Andersons request to offer dinners to a maximum of 40 guests per event. These events would be conclude by 9:00 p.m. The events would be based on a reservation only basis and be defined as business meetings, bus tours, bridal and wedding showers, anniversaries, weddings and wedding receptions and church functions. Mr. Teske expressed concerns regarding the parking problems that already exist in the neighborhood from both the Inn and the Stillwater Residence. Allowing special events, even if only 2 per month, would escalate the problems. It is clearly stated that no off-site parking that would affect the neighborhood, is allowed. Mr. Ranum is "flat-out" not in favor of the special events. Parking for the events, accessibility for neighbors to their own parking, the noise factor with coming and going of up to 40 guests and the fact that this would be more like a hotel/restaurant (not a proper use in a neighborhood) are all his deciding factors. Mr. Junker likes the aspect of the vitality this operation brings to the neighborhood. He is definitely in favor of this. He is concerned that some of the neighbors felt that if they voiced their opinions then they would be considered "tattle tales". He stressed the importance of expressing specific complaints to the City so they can be addressed immediately. There is also the yearly review for these concerns. If no one complains, then the City is under the assumption that there are no problems - "no news is good news". In turn, it is important to hear that all is fine. He feels that the Andersons are very in tune with neighborhood concerns and are willing to compromise to address concerns. Since the SUP is nontransferable he is definitely in favor of this. Mr. Russell stated that it is important to clarify the requirements. If you want the special events to be confined to the interior of the main house then state that specifically. If additional parking is to be restricted to either on-site or at a controlled, remote location then adhere to that condition. He feels that this hasn't been discussed even though it is listed as item 2 in the staff recommendations for approval. If that i If it is two special events per calendar month, then state "calendar month" in the permit. Also, state that the special use permit will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in January of 2005 so everyone will have the opportunity to attend and City of Stillwater Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 12, 2004 review how the first year has gone. This gives everyone the chance to participate and express their opinions without feeling they are complainers. Mr. Peroceschi favors monitoring of the special events as Mr. Anderson offered - guest monitors comprised of neighbors. Mr. Dahlquist feels that the controlled, remote location parking will be as detrimental to the neighborhood as on street parking. A maximum of 2 special events per. Discussion to strike item #2 from the conditions of approval. Mr. Ranum stated this permit is up for yearly review and that it can be reviewed upon complaint. Therefore, rather than the Planning Commission being specific in the parking conditions, the applicant must find some solution to the parking issues. He should leave with the knowledge that he should be attending to parking issues so he is not looking at complaints which would bring them up for review. Mr. Tumquist moved approval of the special events portion of SUP/04-02 with the following changes to the conditions listed in the staff recommendation: Condition #1 changed to read a maximum of two special events per calendar month Condition #2 be striked Conditions #3 through 10 be retained Add Condition #11 to read that the noise from the water heater be reduced and feasible Add Condition #12 stating that this SUP will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in January of 2005 Reword Condition #7 to read all special events are to be held indoors. Second by Karl Ranum. Discussion Mr. Peroceschi addressed the concerns of Mayor Kimble that this would become another restaurant, not simply a Bed & Breakfast Inn. Mr. Wald stressed that the limit of 2 special events per calendar month was "iron-clad". Vote 4 in favor, 4 against. Motion denied. Mr. Turnquist, Mr. Wald, Mr. Teske and Mr. Junker in favor. Mr. Ranum, Mr. Dahlquist, Mr. Peroceschi, and Mr. Gag opposed. Mr. Russell stated that this may be appealed as a separate issue. Mr. Gag called a short recess at 9:25 p.m. Reconvene at 9:40 p.m. 9 • r? I• City of Stillwater Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 12, 2004 Other Items -Review of revised parking facility plans. (Lakeview Hospital) Mr. Jeff Robertson, Lakeview Hospital Administrator, presented the revised parking plans. Mr. Peroceschi asked if any changes were made since the City Council meeting and the initial presentation to the Planning Commission on October 13. Mr. Robertson stated that the parking ramp size is reduced by 2700 square feet overall. The exits on Everett Street decreased from four to one. An internal transition from the upper level to the lower level is incorporated into the design. Everett Street will no longer be used as a transition from one level of the ramp to the other level. The setbacks along Everett Street increased from 37 feet to 77 feet and from 49 feet to 56 feet on the south side. Earth berms were added between Everett Street and the parking lot. Screening with walls as well as landscaping is now a part of the design. Keeping as many of the existing trees as possible is a goal of the design. They have also agreed to put a brick fagade matching the rest of the hospital on the south side of the ramp and the screening walls. The neighbors across the street and directly south of the ramp are invited to take part in the detailed landscaping to ensure it meets with their approval. The neighbors did request that one condition be removed from the seven conditions sent to the City Council. The neighbors requested the hospital give the city a walking path easement to the south of the ramp but no longer want that. Mr. Robertson feels that many different options to the ramp were explored and that the concerns of the neighborhood have been taken into consideration. Mr. Gag asked to see the original drawings along side of the new plans and specifications. Mr. Teske asked about the walking path easement and the neighbors' request to remove this item. The neighbors expressed concerns regarding vandalism and partying in this sheltered area. Mr. Peroceschi stated that this type of activity was reported before so the path would probably make no difference now. He also expressed his concern if there is too much vegetation planted for screening. Mr. Robertson displayed a drawing depicting the screening plan. Mr. Ranum asked what the "15 Foot" marking, painted on the red house indicates. He was told that that indicates the height of the structure relative to the height of the red house. The top of the structure will actually be lower than the existing house. A security arm will be used at the Greeley Street entrance to prevent non-hospital personnel from using the ramp as a cut-through to Churchill or Everett Streets. Mr. Junker was told that the road width is 20 feet and will have two lanes. 10 City of Stillwater Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 12, 2004 Mr. Gag invited the public to speak about the plans. Tom Sherber of 1121 South Everett stated that the whole process has been confusing. He commended Mr. Robertson for being able to convince the community that the need for this ramp and the benefits outweigh the 80 to 90 signatures on a petition opposing it. It outweighed the concerns regarding the traffic, air pollution, light pollution, noise pollution, and it outweighed a 9 to 0 vote of the Planning Commission. He remarked that somehow people were led to believe that if the hospital did not get approval for this ramp that the hospital would leave. He is concerned that the next time the hospital wants something that this (implied) threat will surface again. He thanked the Planning Commission for their understanding and support although it was overturned. Rich Soderholm of 1128 Everett Street South is concerned about storm water runoff. Drainage will actually be greatly improved. Drains from the ramp and open parking lots will divert water to two different holding ponds, not directly into Brick Pond. Dr. Karen Hofstrand of 1204 S Everett Street expressed her sadness about the decision and her concerns regarding light pollution. She would like some guarantee that lights will be turned off when not in use. She also stated that she would not want a walking path on the south side of the parking structure - it would likely cause more problems. Mary Soderholm of 1128 S Everett Street expressed her concerns regarding the type of natural screening to be planted between her property and the parking structure. She plans to taking part in the decision process. She, too, does not want a walking path to be included in the plan. Stuart Glaser, 1103 Everett Street South thanked the hospital for inviting him to participate in the landscape design. He is saddened by the City Council's decision in this matter and is disappointed that zoning ordinances did nothing to protect their neighborhood. Mr. Ranum asked Mr. Glaser what changes he would most like to see in the plans. He stated that the 15 foot boulevard is pretty narrow and does not know how large of a tree can be planted in that much limited space. He doesn't know where the snow will go when plowed - will it slide back off the berm into the street? Mr. Glaser also expressed his concern about headlights shining into their house. He does not want a walking path between Greeley and Everett Streets. Mr. Sherber regrets that the neighborhoods original plan for the parking ramp was rejected by the hospital. He feels that this would have obtained unanimous approval from the neighbors yet was not presented to the Planning Commission or to City Council. He also talked about the importance of the types of trees, not merely the size of the trees being planted. Deciduous trees do not provide much coverage in the winter. He wants the hospital to commit to the planting is plan now. 11 City of Stillwater Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 12, 2004 Mr. Gag stated the Planning Commission is charged with reviewing the City Council's approval, the results of subsequent meetings and to make recommendations on some of the changes. Mr. Junker recommended removing condition #6 - pedestrian trail easement shall be provided connecting Everett Street to Greeley Street. Mr. Teske recommended retaining the easement rights for the future but not developing a trail at this time. Mr. Ranum asked how auto headlights will be screened from the neighbors to the south and east. Mr. Robertson stated that 3 %2 foot high walls in combination with landscaping will shield the headlights from the neighbors. Mr. Turnquist recommended adding an eighth condition for approval - Residents shall be involved with landscaping decisions/changes both now and in the future. Mr. Junker enhanced this recommendation further to include addressing the vehicle lighting situation Mr. Ranum recommended it read "landscaping plan shall involve resident input concerning and including vehicle lighting and the screening of it. Mr. Russell suggested having the Heritage Preservation Commission review the final lighting and landscape plans and invite the neighbors. Mr. Ranum moved approval of the revised plans as presented to the Planning Commission including the conditions set forth on page 2 of the staff memo dated November 26, 2003 with the addition of Condition #8 - the landscaping plans shall involve resident input and concerns regarding vehicle lights and additional screening thereof to the site. Condition #9, Final lighting and landscape plan shall be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission with inclusion of concerns directed at vehicle headlights and containment of on-site lighting. Second by Mr. Turnquist. Vote all in favor. -Continued discussion of Boutwell Area Traffic Study. (Deerpath/Brick). Mr. Junker recommended tabling this discussion to another date. He, along with Robert Gag, felt that this issue deserves its own meeting. After discussion, the meeting was rescheduled for Thursday, January 22"d at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Turnquist moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:05p.m. Second by Mr. Dahlquist. Vote all in favor. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Rogness Acting Recording Secretary r 12