Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-08 CPC MIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 8, 2017 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Collins called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Kocon, Lauer and Siess; Councilmember Menikheim Absent: Commissioners Fletcher, Hade and Hansen Staff: City Planner Wittman and Community Development Director Turnblad APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of October 11, 2017 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve the minutes of the October 11, 2017 regular meeting. Motion passed 4-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2017-52: Consideration of a Variance to the Front Yard Setback to add a second story and covered entryway to an existing home for the property located at 410 Hazel Street East. Jay and Noelle Singerhouse, property owners. City Planner Wittman explained the request. The applicants would like to “pop the top” of their residence and add a covered entry onto the western side of their single family home. The existing residence is nonconforming in that it is situated on the south property line. Because the vertical expansion would maintain this same non-conforming setback, a variance will be required for the setback from this property line. The property is also legally nonconforming in that it does not meet the St. Croix River Overlay District requirements for minimum lot size or for the maximum 20% impervious coverage. However, these two non-conformities pre-existed the adoption of the Riverway rules and, therefore, are grandfathered. Furthermore, the proposed lot improvements do not exacerbate either pre-existing non-conformity. The lot size will stay the same and the overall lot coverage will be reduced by approximately 240 square feet. Therefore, no variances are required for these two non- conformities. The property owners are seeking: 1) a 20’ variance to the 20’ Front Yard setback for the addition of a second story; and 2) a 20’ variance to the 20’ Front Yard setback for the addition of a 6’ deep by 10’ wide covered porch to be located on the west side of the structure. Staff recommends approval of the variances with five conditions. Planning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 2 of 13 John Koch, builder, and Noelle Singerhouse, applicant, offered to answer questions. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve Case No. 2017-52, Variances to the Front Yard setback to add a second story and covered entryway to an existing home located at 410 Hazel Street East, with the five conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 4-0, all in favor. Case No. 2017-53: Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment for the property located at 900 Broadway Street North and 1st Street North. Larry and Paulette Lappi, property owners. City Planner Wittman stated that in August 2017, MnDOT conveyed to Larry and Paulette Lappi a portion of undeveloped right-of-way located adjacent to Elm Street East that was designated as Parks, Recreation, Open Space in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The approximately 125’ long by 50’ deep, 5,767 square foot property was determined by MnDOT to be excess and eligible for private sale. While the Lappis own the land, the City has not legitimized the creation of a new lot in this location yet. This is because the portion of land MnDOT conveyed to the Lappis is not a legal, conforming lot of record. In order for MnDOT’s land to become a legal, conforming lot of record, a portion of it must be combined with a portion of the Lappis' property to create a lot that meets the minimum lot size required in the RB-Two Family Residential zoning district. Larry and Paulette Lappi have submitted a two-part application for consideration of: 1) a Zoning Map Amendment (ZAM) of a track of undeveloped right- of-way adjacent to Elm Street East to be included in the RB – Two Family Residential zoning district; and 2) a re-subdivision (otherwise referred to as a Lot Line Adjustment) that would create a new lot by combining MnDOT’s excess land and a portion of the Lappis’ homestead property. The Lappis' property is located at 900 Broadway Street North. The new developable parcel of land would be approximately 16,795 square feet and contain a 1,820 square foot building pad. A comment was received from neighbors in support of the application. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the rezoning to RB – Two Family residential. Larry Lappi, applicant, offered to answer questions. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2017-53, Zoning Map Amendment for the property located at 900 Broadway Street North. Motion passed 4-0. Case No. 2017-54: Consideration of a Variance to the Side Yard Setback to build a deck and screened porch under deck on the property located at 2735 White Pine Way. Matthew and Katherine Jones, property owners. Ms. Wittman stated that Matthew and Katherine Jones are requesting a 5’ Variance to the required 10’ Side Yard Setback for the construction of a rear deck, to be located 5’ from the west property line. The design of the proposed deck is very similar to that of the deck constructed at 2680 White Pine Way, which did not require a Variance due to the orientation of the house on the lot. Staff recommends approval of the Variance with two conditions. Planning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 3 of 13 Commissioner Siess asked why the City doesn’t look at the decks when housing developments come before the City. Ms. Wittman responded that the deck was not proposed by the developer. Though staff reviewed the setbacks, size and lot coverage at the time of construction, it was probably an oversight to approve the footprint which would not allow a deck to be built without a variance. Situating the house at an angle was likely done to reduce the conflict between the driveway and the island in the middle of the street. However this configuration created a pinch-point at the point where the house is closest to the lot line. Commissioner Kocon noted that the pie-shaped lot contributes to the problem. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Matthew and Katherine Jones, applicants, stated they did not realize a variance would be needed when they bought the property. They added that their home was a spec home built in 2016. Commissioner Siess asked if the builder provided a plan for the deck. The applicants stated no. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Siess remarked that this is about the third house that has come forward that is newly built and the builder has not addressed the placement of the deck, which costs taxpayer time and money. The City should talk to the builders and make sure they are considering placement of the deck when siting homes on the lots. She does not see practical difficulty and will vote no. Chairman Collins acknowledged that the request is reasonable and the lot shape and placement of the house creates a unique circumstance. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve Case No. 2017-54, a Variance to the Side Yard Setback to build a deck and screened porch under deck on the property located at 2735 White Pine Way, with the two conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 3-1, with Commissioner Siess voting nay. Commissioner Siess stated she would like the minutes to reflect that this is an issue the City and the Planning Commission needs to discuss. Commissioner Lauer agreed, adding that it makes no sense to put a door 20 feet off the ground and not expect a deck to be built there. Case No. 2017-56: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat and Zoning Map Amendment for Nottingham Village, a single family subdivision on the property located at 12220 McKusick Road North. Randy and Judy Petrie, property owners and Greg Johnson, Hearth Development LLC, representative. Community Development Director Turnblad explained the request. Greg Johnson, Hearth Development, LLC, plans to develop 5.30 acres of property located at 12220 McKusick Road, to be known as Nottingham Village. The site is located amongst large unsewered lots that were developed while the neighborhood was located in Stillwater Township. In order to develop the property as proposed, the applicant has requested approval of: 1) Rezoning of the property to TR, Traditional Residential and 2) Preliminary Plat for 15 single family lots. Mr. Turnblad presented the site layout plan and explained each of the 15 staff-recommended conditions. Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat and Rezoning with 15 conditions. Planning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 4 of 13 In regard to the point on the site plan where the roads will meet up in the future, Commissioner Siess noted that if that parcel is not for sale, it seems like the City is pressuring it to be for sale if the project is approved. Mr. Turnblad responded that the City is obligated to allow for development to occur in such a way that it creates the opportunity for surrounding properties to develop in a reasonable fashion and not to cut off future possibilities. He added that Washington County is not putting a timeframe on the removal of the temporary road but it is anticipated that someday there will be pressure to develop the nearby properties. As part of design review, staff is obligated to consider the future possible extension of utilities to neighboring properties. Commissioner Siess asked why build the stub road? Mr. Turnblad replied that the stub road provides driveway access for four homes. Commissioner Siess pointed out that the direction of the homes on those lots could be changed. Mr. Turnblad replied that would be possible, but Washington County, which will issue the permit to work within their right-of-way, would not allow that because there would be no stacking room for making a turn out onto McKusick - the maneuver would be awkward and dangerous. The current configuration of the lots seemed to be one possibility that worked. Regarding the road proposed to be extended parallel to McKusick, Commissioner Kocon suggested that to be cognizant of future development, the City should consider the road running to the west as well as the east, to reduce the need for cul de sacs. Mr. Turnblad noted the City tries to avoid cul de sacs longer than 600 feet. The possibility exists that there will be cul de sacs but they would be just about 600 feet. Commissioner Kocon asked what would happen to the existing home. Mr. Turnblad replied that home will be offered for sale to move off the property, as it would not fit properly on a lot when platted. Commissioner Kocon pointed out that speaks to Commissioner Siess’s previously expressed concern about placement of homes on lots. Commissioner Siess asked how big are the lots in the adjoining development? Mr. Turnblad replied in the township residential zone, the minimum lot size was 2.5 acres and he assumes some of them are larger than that. The lot sizes proposed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Collins reminded staff that when planning where decks should go, the City should try to make sure variances would not be required. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Deb and Nick Henton, 12340 McKusick Road North, who live directly to the east of the property, informed the Commission there is an assumption that their land is not for sale, which is not necessarily true. When they met with the developer three weeks ago, there was a different plan for the road, which was going to go right between their homes and connect with Macey Way. As proposed tonight, the stubbed road goes right by their garage. The Hentons explained that they divided their land in half and had to show ghost lots when they were in the township. With the new road configuration, it feels like they may have to sell sooner than they anticipated. They do not begrudge the neighbors their right to develop their property, but need to know if the current proposal is approved, then will they be held to that plan or could they develop differently? Community Development Director Turnblad showed the previous plan. He explained that the escrow account is something the developers would have to deposit with the City to be kept by the City so that Planning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 5 of 13 at the time of development of the Hentons’ property, the City would remove the temporary piece of road. Nick Hinton stated that the stub going toward their land would interfere with anything they would want to build on their land. Mr. Turnblad replied that the Planning Commission, the Council and staff are obligated by various land development rules to consider logical future development. When Washington County came to the City and said they don’t like the original plan, the City had to try to assure that future development would provide the most flexibility. The developer provided the new plan last week. Deb Henton asked for more time to review the new plan to consider its impacts on their property. Community Development Director Turnblad reminded the Hentons they would need 100 foot setback from McKusick right-of-way and they would like to be able to site a row of lots along McKusick. He suggested they have an engineer look at the concept plan for a neutral independent opinion. Mr. Henton stated that the ghost lot plan would be better than this proposal which would cause them to lose some lots on their property. Deb Henton added that with additional time, there could be a better plan developed. Mr. Turnblad stated the project goes before the Council on December 5. The Planning Commission could make a motion contingent, or they could table it. City Planner Wittman reminded the Commission that the mandatory 60 day deadline for land use applications will end December 20 and then the Commission may extend it for another 60 days. Deb Henton asked if there were other road options considered. Mr. Turnblad replied there were three options considered. The first is the one Hentons saw three weeks ago. The second, which staff discussed with the developers, was to bring the stub straight off the existing cul de sac. However that option would have impacted the Brown’s Creek shoreland overlay and caused the 600 foot cul de sac to become 1,000 to 1,100 feet. The developer then proposed the present option, which met all the requirements. Commissioner Kocon recognized the challenges of determining where the road can go, considering the need for stacking and access as well as servicing future lots on the Hentons’ remaining parcel. Mr. Turnblad suggested the Hentons consider the cost of providing the infrastructure for serving however many lots they will create. Nick Henton added that the stubbed road devalues their property. He planted 700 trees for privacy. When the new homes go in, their privacy will be gone. Greg Johnson of the development team stated it is not their intent to bait and switch. They tried to put together a thoughtful plan and adhere to all the City codes. Pam and Peter Fioritto, 12213 87th Street North northwest of the new development, asked about timelines and how the development will impact their property and property values. They enjoy the privacy and rural character and are very concerned about losing that. They just remodeled their house and are hoping to live there a few more years. It seems like developers and the City are trying to push everybody out of the Random Creek area. Planning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 6 of 13 Community Development Director Turnblad stated that if approved by the Council, the start date would probably be spring. The preliminary plat will go before the Council, Joint Board, Parks Commission, then the final plat would need to be approved by the Council before houses could be built, probably late summer. Jill McNelis, 12340 McKusick Road who owns the property next to the Hentons, stated when they bought the house they knew there was a possibility that a road might go in. They were completely open to talking about the Hentons developing their property when the time was right. If it’s best for the community to give it more time, they are open to it. They want to make sure it’s done properly for the County and the whole community but also for each of the residents who already live on these properties. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon remarked the Commission must balance the right of someone to develop their property and their neighbors who are impacted, as well as the fact that they sold 2.5 acres which makes their 2.5 acres harder to develop. It might be best to table it. Chairman Collins acknowledged there is one couple that clearly is interested in selling and others say there is some interest in perhaps selling their property. Maybe by getting the parties to have a discussion, there can be some grander plan. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to table consideration of Case No. 2017-56, Preliminary Plat and Zoning Map Amendment for Nottingham Village, a single family subdivision on the property located at 12220 McKusick Road North. All in favor, 4-0. Case No. 2017-57: Consideration of a Special Use Permit Amendment to the fencing requirements for the property located at 1677 Orleans Street West. St. Croix Village, LLC, property owner and Juanita Pekay, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained the request. Juanita Pekay has applied for an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow for a five foot tall, chain-link fence to replace the existing privacy fence at 1677 Orleans Street West on behalf of the property owner, St. Croix Village, LLC. The existing fence is failing and needs to be replaced. The Special Use Permit allowing for a multi- family dwelling at this property requires that a fence “non-climbable in design” be placed between the development and the residential properties to the north. The proposed fence is not considered to be non-climbable in design, as it is shorter than the current fence and is constructed out of chain-link material. Per the applicant’s narrative, the reason for the change in fence design is cost effectiveness and durability. The applicant states that oil capable of ruining clothing may be placed on the top of the fence to deter climbing. Marlys Rylander, 1567 Driving Park Road, submitted a letter of opposition to the request. Staff recommends the Commission deny the request for a Special Use Permit amendment on the grounds that a chain-link fence is not in compliance with the intent of the original Special Use Permit, and the use of oil to deter climbing is not in the public interest. Commissioner Siess asked the age of the existing fence. Ms. Wittman stated it is 22 years old. Commissioner Siess commented that is over the life span of a wood fence so it’s not that it hasn’t been maintained, it just needs to be replaced. Ms. Wittman agreed, adding that the issue began when the Planning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 7 of 13 City asked the property owner to replace the fence. Over time, pickets can be changed out and maintained but that has not been done. Commissioner Siess stated she read through the 1995 minutes which talked about trees. Ms. Wittman responded there is landscaping in the area in addition to the fence. The Commission could determine that the landscaping is an efficient enough screen but that is not what staff is asking. The requirement is that they need to replace the fence that was a condition of the use permit. They are asking to modify that use permit to allow for the chain link fence. Juanita Pekay, applicant, stated her company purchased the property about two years ago. She apologized that putting oil on the top sounds terrible. The fence is falling down and they want to replace it with a chain link fence due to cost and low maintenance. The north part of the property abuts single family homes, some of whom have their own chain link fences. She would like to erect fencing only where there is none, rather than create a place between two fences where trash will accumulate. She is also the portfolio manager for Charter Oaks on the other side of the fence to the east. Charter Oaks would be happy with a chain link fence or whatever is agreed to tonight. She would prefer not to have a privacy fence between the two properties because it creates a blind spot. Someone was assaulted a couple of months ago between the existing fence and the garages. Craig Laughlin on behalf of St. Croix Village LLC, stated the original intent of the fence was to provide a privacy screen for the single family neighborhood where there are four houses on the north side. Three of the four are screened by foliage and chain link fences. Some of the kids on the multi- family property and adjacent property play together and cut behind the garages along the backyard of the other multi-family property. He is not interested in erecting a fence they would climb over. He has have no intention of oiling the fence. He would like to choose a fence that is affordable to keep kids in the yard and not put fences where they already exist. A six foot cedar fence is not needed to keep the kids in. Commissioner Siess asked Mr. Laughlin if he feels vegetation could be an answer. Mr. Laughlin replied that his residents want a fence there to keep the kids safe. He showed a picture of the fence around the three story apartment building to the south as an example. He feels a six foot cedar fence would be excessive. If the request cannot be approved tonight he would ask that it be tabled so he can meet with staff at the site. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. John Hogan, 1561 Driving Park Road, the house with a pool in back, said he has owned the property since this development went in. It was required that the fence be aesthetically attractive. The previous property owner did not maintain the trees so owners of the houses paid to have the trees removed and then planted the existing trees. The fence was to run all the way to the corner of East Benson and the property owner on the corner chose to put his own fence in so it stops two houses down. The fences were put up specifically to keep kids out. Having little children climb the fences creates a liability with the pool. He feels a chain link fence would invite kids to climb it. The privacy fence has never been maintained, it has blown down four or five times, and is shored up on his property. The previous property owners let it rot and fall down. Commissioner Siess asked what Mr. Hogan would like to see there. Planning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 8 of 13 Mr. Hogan said he does not want a chain link fence there. Foliage will not keep kids from running through it. His pool is a kid magnet. In 1995 the Council wanted a separation because of the turnover in that housing so if a chain link fence is allowed, it will devalue the properties. Mr. Laughlin stated that part of the problem with the cedar fence is that the kids kick the boards out. He would be happy to accommodate the four single family homes with something like the the metal and brick fence in the picture he showed, but he doesn’t think cedar fence is a good idea and he would prefer to do something else for screening on the other two sides. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon pointed out that other types of other fences would work. If tabled, that doesn’t preclude the petitioner from coming back with a different type of fence. Commissioner Siess asked if there was any conversation between the City and the applicant on other ideas. Ms. Wittman responded it was an enforcement action that came into the zoning administrator’s office. Complaints came into the office over six months ago. Community Development Director Turnblad asked if there would be opposition on the dais to having two different fence types. Commissioner Lauer stated he would be OK with one type on the north side and other type on other side. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Chairman Collins, to table Case No. 2017-57, Special Use Permit Amendment to the fencing requirements for the property located at 1677 Orleans Street West. Motion passed 4-0, all in favor. Case No. 2017-58: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to add an amusement and recreational establishment at the property located at 14200 60th Street North, Eagles 94, property owner and Chad Greeder, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained the request. The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit to add 4,614 square feet to the existing structure for an assembly hall. Assembly halls are a type of “amusement and recreational establishment” which requires a Special Use Permit. The use will be accessory to the primary uses as a restaurant and the Eagles 94 club. The assembly hall will be used for club meetings and private rentals such as weddings. The applicant will also need a Special Use Permit for Outdoor Events. While not noted in the application, members of the community have indicated the Eagles 94 currently hosts outdoor events, and staff assumes the Eagles will want to continue these events. A process allowing Eagles to apply to hold four outdoor events per year has been built into the Special Use Permit. Staff recommends approval with 15 conditions. Chairman Collins asked about the light plan and the life span of the existing lights. City Planner Wittman responded she will have to check, it could be another 20 years. Staff does not want to impose restrictions on a property owner for something that has already been there for 20 years, but prefer to require that, as they start to fail, they be replaced with something lower to the ground. Chairman Collins asked if outdoor events would shut down at 10 p.m. Ms. Wittman confirmed that any outdoor equipment or band would have to be closed down at 10 p.m. Planning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 9 of 13 Chairman Collins asked if staff is concerned about the choppiness of the existing roof. Ms. Wittman pointed out that a low pitched roof is proposed and staff is OK with the roof grade under the current guidelines. Quoting recommended condition #8, that the applicant shall consider the use of wood and textured metal, Commissioner Siess asked if they have the option not to use wood and textured metal. Ms. Wittman clarified that staff believes the siding as proposed could be considered an adorned metal siding and therefore could be in substantial conformance. She added that staff has suggested other options to the applicant. The metal panel is a lesser quality material than wood so staff would like to see some preservation of the wood. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Chad Greeder, representing Eagles 94, said the sample is the same siding that Dairy Queen has. It will look like stucco. It has a long life span and a 20-year warranty. Chairman Collins asked Mr. Greeder’s thoughts on reusing of some of the current materials. Mr. Greeder responded that would be acceptable and they are thinking about leaving the soffits on the roof. A paint consultant has recommended a slate gray color scheme so it will not look washed out. Their sign at the old Eagles Club is blue so it will fit in. They have an artist who airbrushed two eagles that they propose to put up in the gables, one on each side. If the Commission wants wood, they will use wood. He explained the lighting plan. They propose not waiting till the lights fail to replace them, but to cut the light poles down to 20 feet and shield all the lights right away. Ms. Wittman reminded Mr. Greeder that the City will still need to review the lighting plan, there should be zero lumens at the lot line, and this should be a condition of approval. Chairman Collins asked about the hours of the club. Mr. Greeder said the club is open 10 am-1 a.m. seven days a week except they close around 8 pm. on Sundays. He presented a sound plan from the architect. All walls are R-24 in insulation and ceilings are R-35. There is a sound barrier door planned between the hall and the entrance. All the other doors are emergency access only. All doors and windows will be insulated. Commissioner Lauer asked what kind of music is performed. Mr. Greeder replied every year they have a local band, the More Tishans, play at a dance for mentally challenged adults. They also do a free concert every year for the food shelf. The whole idea of the hall is to have weddings to make money for the community so they will have live bands at the weddings. Cheryl Price, 1962 Eastridge Court, asked if the trash enclosure planned for the northeast corner of the property could be closer to Rose Floral to distance the noise further from the residences. She added that the whole area is like a sound and wind tunnel. She also would like the fence to be maintained because it is cracked and swaying. She expressed concern about car headlights shining into her home and she would like more trees for a buffer. She stated the neighborhood gets lots of sound off Highway 36. Georgine McCauley, 1952 Eastridge Court, voiced concern about the noise of more cars and motorcycles. She feels the proposal is ridiculous. Marjorie Young, 1965 Westridge Court, said she has a big concern about lights shining into her house. She also is concerned about an increase in noise from cars and motorcycles. She asked why doesn’t Planning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 10 of 13 the City enforce a noise ordinance? She deals with constant noise and lights from trucks and motorcycles, from the highway and frontage roads. Commissioner Siess asked what trees she would prefer. Ms. Young replied maybe pine trees, something that doesn’t have leaves that will blow into nearby yards. She would like lights to be downlit and timed to go off at 10 p.m. Sandy Gramenz, 1945 Westridge Circle, told the Commission the traffic on the road is already bad and will get worse with all the people coming to the events. Headlights will be hitting the houses all the time. She would like the fence replaced with a fence that buffers the light and noise. She feels that four outdoor events a year is excessive. Chairman Collins asked what will be the capacity of the events. Mr. Greeder replied there are 166 seats planned. Marsha Zahler, 1940 Westridge Circle, said she had no problem with the restaurant being there but she would object to the special events up to four times per year which could cause a noise problem. She also is concerned with event parking and the possibility of partying in the parking lot if there is alcohol served. Asked if the Eagles pays taxes, Mr. Greeder stated they pay taxes to the City, liquor tax, gambling tax, pull tab taxes and property taxes. They are a nonprofit, so everything they make goes back to the community. He suggested that if the City would want to give up the property between their land and the service road, it would give them a little more property, put it on the tax rolls, and the City wouldn’t have to pay for the maintenance and upkeep and the Eagles would pay for the fence for their section and the City’s section. Ms. Wittman said that is not something this body can consider. Chairman Collins summarized issues of lighting, noise, garbage enclosure, fence, trees, and the number of events. Mr. Greeder stated they haven’t had an outdoor band for six or seven years. They do a motorcycle ride every year that starts at 11 a.m. and ends by 6 p.m. They cannot help with the noise and lights from Highway 36 or the service road. Commissioner Lauer noted it sounds like the fence needs repair. He asked if it could be moved onto the Eagles property. Ms. Wittman replied that a fence wouldn’t block the floodlights. Mr. Greeder added that if a fence is erected between the Eagles parking lot and the holding pond, which is on their property, he doesn’t know how they would get in there to cut the grass. Ms. Wittman added that staff would be concerned about creating a no-man’s land there. Chairman Collins asked how many trees staff would recommend as a buffer with the residences. City Planner Wittman said it would depend on the species and the size. Staff is trying to reduce the negative impacts on surrounding properties while imposing conditions that are substantially weighted toward the use permit but also help clean up the existing condition of the property. Ken McCauley, 1952 Eastridge Court, said from their sunroom they can see all of the parking lot so the fence doesn’t help at all. The headlights face directly into the homes. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Planning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 11 of 13 Commissioner Siess asked has anybody ever thought about changing the direction of the parking spaces? Ms. Wittman replied that the parking configuration went through design and engineering in 1997. It is doubtful that the applicant would be able to retain all their parking in a different configuration. Councilmember Menikheim said as the Councilmember representing this ward, he was unaware of the neighborhood concerns about noise and traffic on Highway 36. It might be beneficial to have a conversation. He would be willing to facilitate communication between the neighborhood and the Eagles. City Planner Wittman summarized the staff-recommended conditions for the benefit of those in the audience. Commissioner Kocon commented that the major issues seem to be things the applicant can ameliorate such as trash, sound, wind tunnel, and car lights coming off their property. Some noise and sound issues have to do with the highway and the frontage road. He reminded the neighbors that the Eagles is willing to do everything they can to minimize impacts. Commissioner Siess noted if there are substantiated complaints about the events, then the event permit has to go before the City Council so the neighbors’ voices will be heard. She asked if there is anything that can be done about the garbage location. Ms. Wittman replied that locating the garbage along the north property line may preclude a truck being able to access the trash bins. Staff can ask the applicant to consider that location. It would be a reasonable condition to ask them to look at the possibility of an alternative trash location pending haulers’ ability to access the location. Regarding the eagle paintings on the side of the building, Commissioner Siess asked if they will go through staff review. Ms. Wittman responded that staff would want to review them. They would not be considered a sign - they would be a graphic mural. Staff review could be a condition of approval. Chairman Collins noted his biggest concern was how the building would look. Seeing the proposed material put him at ease. He thinks it will be a better look than what is currently there. He reiterated that if approved, if there is an issue with the four outdoor events, residents may file complaints. City Planner Wittman added that the City’s noise ordinance applies any time of the day. Police officers have decibel meters and may be called to measure sound. Commissioner Lauer said he feels the plan as proposed doesn’t adequately address the light from the cars in the parking lot. There is going to be noise. Neighbors have a way to address that with the City but will still be impacted. The fence will not eliminate these concerns. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Chairman Collins, to approve Case No. 2017-58, Special Use Permit to add an amusement and recreational establishment at the property located at 14200 60th Street North, with the 15 conditions recommended by staff and the addition of the following: Condition #16, together with City staff, the applicant shall consider the possibility of an alternative trash location pending haulers’ ability to access the location; and amending Condition #14 regarding signage, to state that applicant shall submit the eagle graphic murals for staff review prior to installation. Motion passed 3- 1, with Commissioner Lauer voting nay. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 12 of 13 There was no new business. STAFF UPDATES 2040 Stillwater Comprehensive Plan (handouts) City Planner Wittman provided a recap of the Comprehensive Plan 101 meeting last month, which Commissioner Lauer attended to represent the Planning Commission. Commissioner Siess pointed out that it is important for the City to look at the school schedule because the meeting was on an MEA weekend when everyone was gone. Ms. Wittman stated that the Planning Commission will be directly involved in two to three future Comprehensive Plan meetings, and that everyone is welcome to attend the community engagement meetings. Commissioner Lauer reported that he was encouraged by the level of engagement of the group, which was a good cross section of participants. City Planner Wittman will update the Commission on a regular basis. City Council Actions City Planner Wittman stated that last night the Council heard two of the Commission’s recommendations. They approved Ecumen with two additional conditions, and tabled the zoning text amendment for the cigar/tobacconist operations. She also assured the Commission that the promised discussion of long term planning issues will take place, but permits are up 40% this year so workload is high. In addition, the Council is directing the Planning Commission to start working on a small cell modification ordinance to address design standards for infrastructure for grid systems which is likely to go on telephone poles, buildings, street lights. Regarding code clean up, there are five pending Zoning Text Amendments which staff will bring before the Commission over the next few months. Meeting with the City Council Commissioner Siess asked for an update about having an annual meeting with the City Council. Chairman Collins stated he does not want to impose a meeting on the Commission or the Council if it’s not necessary. Commissioner Siess replied either you call a meeting or you don’t. She would like an answer. She added that Commissioners Fletcher and Hansen have shown support for having such a meeting. She suggested agenda items should be sent to Chairman Collins. Chairman Collins said it’s best for staff to receive agenda items. Commissioner Siess noted that staff is very busy. Commissioner Kocon said at the last meeting he suggested if the Commission has agenda items they want to discuss with the Council, they should bring them forward to staff. He does not have anything to bring forward. Chairman Collins stated he has nothing either. He invited the Commissioners to send agenda items to Ms. Wittman and he will take a look at them and decide if it’s necessary to have a meeting or not. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to adjourn the meeting at 11:06 p.m. All in favor, 4-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Planning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 13 of 13 Recording Secretary