Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-01-10 CPC MIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 10, 2018 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Collins called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Kocon, Lauer and Siess; Councilmember Menikheim Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Turnblad, City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of December 13, 2017 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve the minutes of the December 13, 2017 regular meeting. Motion passed 7-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2017-62: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Variances to build a new residential condominium at the property located at 107 Third Street North. Brown’s Creek West LLC, property owner (continued from December 13 meeting). City Planner Wittman explained the request. Browns Creek West LLC has applied for: 1) a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for the construction of an 11-unit condo complex; and 2) Variances necessary for the construction of the condo building as follows: a 10’ variance to the 35’ maximum height of a freestanding building, for a 45’ tall structure as measured from Third Street North; and a 1.5 story variance to the three story maximum height for a four story building that includes an underground parking level; and a 15’ variance to the 15’ front yard setback for the construction of a 5’ tall retaining wall on the southern property line, adjacent to Myrtle Street West; and a 5’ variance to the 15’ front yard setback for the construction of a 4’ deep architectural component and garage entrance adjacent to Myrtle Street West; and a 10’ variance to the 20’ combined side yard setback for the construction of the building and projecting balconies; and a 15’ variance to the 20’ rear yard setback for the construction of the building; and a 2’ variance to the 3’ maximum yard distance projection for necessary steps adjacent to Third Street North. Planning Commission January 10, 2018 Page 2 of 11 Ms. Wittman went on to explain that the specific proposal includes four stories of residential units, a centralized commons area with two sets of stairs and an elevator. The elevator and both stair wells are proposed to go to the fourth story where there would be common roof access on the south. The north roof access would be for mechanical equipment. All parking is proposed to be located underground. There will also be storage areas in the basement. This is not considered a story, as greater than half of the wall spaces are subsurface. Ms. Wittman added that eight letters have been received from nearby property owners with concerns about height, safety and impact on the streetscape. Staff finds the CUP is not consistent with the code, practical difficulty cannot be determined for setback variances, and recommends tabling consideration until after the City Council has acted on the height variances and a Design Permit has been submitted for review and approval by the Heritage Preservation Commission. On the basis the application in not in harmony with the general purposes of the Zoning Code, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and has not established practical difficulty for the addition of the fourth story, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial, with prejudice, of both height variances. Chairman Collins asked if a traffic study has been done in the area. Ms. Wittman replied that a traffic study has not been done recently. Roger Tomten, ARCHNET, architect for Jon Whitcomb, owner and developer, said the applicant met with residents of Steeple Towne Condo on December 6 to get their comments. He showed a movie indicating the proposed building from various viewpoints and related ways in which it complies with the Comprehensive Plan. He described the materials to be used in the building and emphasized that all required parking will be accommodated underground on site. Access from Myrtle Street is the most logical solution. He presented several schematics of gateways and viewsheds and stated that only one of the lots falls into the 35 feet blufftop district but they are using that as the criteria for this project since the building encompasses all four lots. The applicants feel the variances are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning codes and the Comprehensive Plan and that the hardship is the severe topography on the site. Chairman Collins asked if the applicants considered downsizing the units to reduce the mass of the building. Mr. Tomten replied the size is market-driven. The size of the units could be reduced a couple of feet but to create the pedestrian feel and scale of the structure, they felt the sizing was appropriate. Commissioner Kocon asked why have three staircases and an elevator for rooftop access? Mr. Tomten replied that modern rooftops are a desirable amenity. The occupant load triggers the need for a second stairwell according to code. Commissioner Siess asked when the applicants will bring the project to the HPC for design review. Mr. Tomten responded that the HPC looks at whole building design including colors, so it may be a month or so before it is brought to the HPC. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Scott Wallace, 112 Third Street South in the Steeple Towne Building, speaking on behalf of the Steeple Towne Association, voiced concern about the overall height of the building and visual impact; traffic safety at an already confusing intersection; and green space and zero lot line development. Mark Balay, 110 East Myrtle Street, next door to the site, said during winter the Myrtle Street hill can be difficult to navigate. He feels multi-family housing is a good fit for the site, but feels the 10’ side Planning Commission January 10, 2018 Page 3 of 11 yard variance would put the building 5’ from his property and he doubts they could put up their building wall without actually excavating onto his property. He believes floor plans could be modified to remove 5’. He feels that what it boils down to is money, not fitting into the neighborhood. The applicants should look at moving the building back and reducing the square footage because the variances are not warranted. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hade said he opposes the project because of its visual impact. The residents would like to keep their view of the river. Additionally, as cars turn from Myrtle into the underground parking they will have to wait on the steep hill for a garage door to go up, which could affect downtown accessibility. Commissioner Kocon stated he supports the CUP and feels condos are appropriate, but the variances are not palatable and the plan does not address traffic issues. To avoid some of the variances, the developer will probably have to remove some square footage. The height variance for him is a deal breaker. He feels the variances are profit-driven. Chairman Collins stated that the intersection of Myrtle and Third is one of the worst in the city. Traffic definitely is an issue. His other concern is the height and mass of the building. He agreed with Commissioner Kocon that there are too many variances. Commissioner Hansen agreed. He feels it’s a bad intersection already, and the building is too tall for the space. He is not against putting a building there and feels the look of the building as designed is top notch but the height is an issue. Having underground parking is great. He would like to see the HPC and Council review the project and see a traffic study. Commissioner Siess commented that she struggles with the design but feels the HPC will deal with the design. She is fine with tabling it. Commissioner Fletcher said she leans toward denial because she does not see a practical difficulty for any of the variances. She is not even sure the Commission has the ability to approve the CUP because it has not gone through design review by the HPC yet. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to deny without prejudice the CUP, and to deny without prejudice the setback variances for Case No. 2017-62, to build a new residential condominium at the property located at 107 Third Street North, and to recommend that the City Council deny with prejudice the height variance. Motion passed 7-0, all in favor. Case No. 2017-65: Special Use Permit (SUP) to operate a Segway tour business from 204 Main Street North in the CBD District. Steve Gnan, property owner and James Linden, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained the request. James Linden operates a guided Segway Tour business in Sheridan, Wyoming, and Grand Marais, Minnesota. He would like to relocate his business to Stillwater, offering guided tours three times daily, from April 1 through October 31, 2018. The tours would accommodate up to six guests, for a total of seven segways during each tour. The applicant has indicated that they may offer for sale t-shirts, sweatshirts, and other related items. Stillwater Segway Tours is proposed operate out of a 10x12’ steel frame and polyester sided tent at the southern side of Let There Be Light, approximately 10’ from the Commercial Street sidewalk. The business would also Planning Commission January 10, 2018 Page 4 of 11 have a 6X12’ aluminum sided trailer for storage of the segways when not in use. The trailer would be situated approximately 18’ from the Commercial Street sidewalk. The applicant is proposing two, 20 square feet banners, and a single, six square foot sidewalk sign. Ms. Wittman explained the proposed routes for the segways. She stated she talked with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) which would not require any permitting for this use. She has not talked with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) may be favorable to use permitting for this commercial business operating on their property. On the basis this Seasonal Recreational Business is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, would impact pedestrian safety in the downtown core and historic residential neighborhoods, and that the congregation of segways on public sidewalks and trails will interrupt the smooth flow of traffic, creating a public nuisance, staff recommends denial. Commissioner Kocon asked about use of City streets and sidewalks. City Planner Wittman replied that the tour into the historic neighborhoods is the one that could have more impact because sidewalks are narrower. The other place that could become congested is getting over to the trail on the pedestrian plaza. Commissioner Fletcher asked, if accountability is an issue, could the Commission refer this to the Council? Ms. Wittman replied that the Planning Commission may refer any item to the Council. James Linden, applicant, 1548 Oakridge Lane, Houlton, said the tour routes proposed are not set in stone. His intent was to bring this to the City so the City would have some control of the operation. He has operated segway tours in Sheridan, Wyoming and Grand Marais, Minnesota and there has not been one complaint in four years. Chairman Collins asked if the trailer would be removed every night. Mr. Linden replied it and the gazebo would be there for the season. Commissioner Hade asked if he is still operating in the two other cities. Mr. Linden said no, his intent is to move the business to Stillwater. Commissioner Siess asked if he has considered any other sites. Mr. Linden said no, sites are very limited. Commissioner Kocon mentioned that the downtown design guidelines will probably not allow the gazebo as proposed. Mr. Linden replied it is more attractive than a typical art fair tent. He went on to state that each rider gets 15-20 minutes training. They must be 14 years old minimum with a parent or 16 years with parents’ consent. Commissioner Siess said if a segway tour group is on a sidewalk, and a child on a tricycle is coming in the opposite direction, who wins? Mr. Linden responded that he realizes they have to have a good rapport with the residents and the City. They will opt to pull off to the side for a stroller or tricycle. Tours are single file and are all guided. Ms. Wittman added that State statute requires users of segways to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and bicyclists. She reviewed recommended conditions of approval if the Commission decides to approve the request. Commissioner Hade remarked that sidewalks are already crowded on weekends. Planning Commission January 10, 2018 Page 5 of 11 Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon noted the gazebo and signs proposed are not consistent with ordinances. He would like to limit the use to trails, not sidewalks. Otherwise he could see the proposal working. Chairman Collins said he too would prefer the segways stay off the sidewalks. He is willing to support the SUP on a trial basis for a year. Commissioner Hade said the segways would be appropriate single file for streets but not sidewalks. Commissioner Hansen said he supports the use of segways on trails but not on sidewalks or streets. Commissioner Siess pointed out there are safety issues, and training for riders is difficult. The proposed training area is space-limited. If they could just go on the trails it would be fine. Commissioner Fletcher agreed with the stated issues, saying she would prefer the segways to remain on the trails. Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve Case No. 2017-65, SUP to operate a Segway tour business from 204 Main Street North, with the 17 conditions recommended by staff, modifying Condition #4 to state “Segways shall be kept in an enclosed trailer when the business is not in operation” and modifying Condition #7 to state “Tours shall follow designated routes on the Brown’s Creek Tour and the St. Croix Bridge Crossing Tour along designated trails. Tours shall cross Main Street and utilize the pedestrian plaza to access trails” and adding Condition #18 to state “This permit shall not become effective until the business has obtained applicable DOT and DNR use permits and licenses to operate on State trails.” Motion passed 6-1, with Commissioner Siess voting nay. Case No. 2017-66: Special Use Permit (SUP) for rooftop mechanical improvements for Lakeview Hospital, located at 927 Churchill Street South in the RB District. Keith Messinger, representing Lakeview Hospital, property owner and Jason Gottwalt, representing Dunham Engineers, applicant. City Planner Wittman reviewed the case. Lakeview has requested an amended Special Use Permit for: 1) the replacement of the rooftop fluid cooler with an 18’ tall cooling tower to be located near the southern portion of the building, which has been installed; and 2) the replacement of two rooftop air handling units on the clinic portion of the facility. The City was unaware that the rooftop cooling tower had been installed. On the basis that with certain conditions, the application conforms to the standards set forth for SUPs, staff recommends approval with six conditions, modifying Condition #4 to state that the landscaping plan should be for all facades and all mechanical equipment, and in cases where landscaping is not possible, that rooftop changes be explored. Commissioner Hade asked about noise complaints. City Planner Wittman said previous complaints were from patients; the Police Department does not have a record of any external complaints. Commissioner Hansen said considering how many times the Commission has discussed rooftop units at this facility, management should have known they would need to apply for a permit. He noted the Commission has heard complaints from neighbors about noise. He asked if there is a plan for future improvements. City Planner Wittman responded that the Commission could request a replacement Planning Commission January 10, 2018 Page 6 of 11 schedule for existing mechanicals. If the mechanicals are replaced 1:1, that would be permitted through the building department. If it were an expansion, it would come before the Commission. The old unit was 44” and the new one is 72.5” so this is an expansion. Commissioner Siess commented that the Commission also is seeing it because it’s in a residential area. John Scheller, Lakeview Hospital Facilities Manager, and Jason Gottwalt, Mechanical Engineer, explained the project. Mr. Scheller said he is new to the hospital. He learned that the cooling tower, which is already installed, is to serve the surgical area. It is the quietest cooling tower they could find. The units proposed for the clinic area are to replace existing units that are failing, in an effort to improve indoor air quality. Mr. Gottwalt added that the rooftop units are very comparable. They did a sound study on the cooling tower, which is quieter by 6 decibels or 25% of the old unit that was there, which had drew complaints from patients. The rooftop units are larger to comply with new requirements. The old ones were not compliant with the current code. Both have been submitted to Department of Labor and Industry. Rooftop units are on order and scheduled to be replaced this winter. The cooling tower installation was done on a fast pace so they could start it this fall and be ready for next spring. Commissioner Kocon asked about the manufacturer’s DBA rating for the units. Mr. Gottwalt replied the DBA at the unit is 76. Given the distance and screening of the building it will be under the 50 DBA limitation. 50 DBA is quieter than conversation. Commissioner Siess noted the staff report says the units will be increasing in size to accommodate the removal of the condensing unit and air intake. Mr. Gottwalt responded the rooftop units are 1:1 replacement. They are significantly bigger but noise output is less because they use newer technology. Ms. Wittman added that each of the units that will be removed had the air intake and compressor - they will be replaced with one much larger unit that is a single package. Chairman Collins asked if there are any other smaller options. Mr. Gottwalt replied they are all fairly comparable in height. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Tony Beyer, 904 Churchill Street, directly across from the Clinic, said he would like the noise mitigated and the aesthetics improved to make it fit better into the neighborhood. He would like the SUP to address the north side of the property in the same way it is addressing the south and east sides with regard to landscaping and noise mitigation. The one rooftop unit is visible from all windows of his house. When he purchased his property, he could not see the clinic at all because there were homes across the street (before the hospital acquired those properties). They have only graded the property and planted grass seed - that is the extent of the landscaping that has taken place there. There is also a cluster of ground level mechanicals on the north side of the building and when it gets cold they are remarkably loud. He would request as a condition of the SUP that all the hospital’s mechanicals be required to conform to existing noise limits. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Planning Commission January 10, 2018 Page 7 of 11 Commissioner Hansen asked how many rooftop units are at the hospital. Mr. Gottwalt said it is dozens. There are some units as old as 30-40 years. Mr. Scheller stated there is no long term plan to remove or replace any more units. The hospital has purchased land elsewhere for a future move. City Planner Wittman noted that what causes the most noise on the north side is a pressure valve attached to the boiler system. In extreme cold it goes off intermittently and releases at a high pitched sound for various periods of time. Commissioner Hansen asked if it is possible to do any screening for something of that nature. Mr. Scheller responded he is not familiar with that noise and will have to investigate it tomorrow. Mr. Beyer said the colder it gets, the more frequently it releases, but it is not high pitched, it sounds like a dump trunk idling at the curb. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No 2017-66, SUP for rooftop mechanical improvements for Lakeview Hospital, 927 Churchill Street South, with the six conditions recommended by staff, modifying Condition #4 to state “A comprehensive landscape plan for all four sides” and modifying Condition #7 to state “The property owner shall screen the new rooftop heating units (RTU) on the north elevation. Screening shall be included in the building permit submittal and shall be installed within three months after the installation of the new RTU.” Motion passed 7-0, all in favor. Case No. 2017-67: Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Preliminary Plat, Zoning Map Amendment and any related Variances for the property located at 8911 Neal Avenue in the AP District. Ken Heifort, property owner and Todd Ganz, Integrity Land Development, applicant. Community Development Director Turnblad reviewed the application. Todd Ganz, Integrity Land Development, is proposing to develop Phase Two of the 26.1 acre Heifort Hills Planned Unit Development (PUD). The 24 home sites located in the 15.2 acre first phase were platted as the Ponds at Heifort Hills. This, the second phase, also has 24 home sites, which are spread across 10.9 acres of land that will be platted as Heifort Hills Estate. All of this phase lies within the Natural Environment Shoreland District of South Twin Lake. Consequently, development must either be on one acre lots or must occur as a Shoreland PUD. The developer in this instance has chosen to develop according to the Shoreland PUD standards and is requesting: 1) Rezoning of the second phase’s 10.92 acres from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RB, Two-Family Residential; and 2) Final Shoreland PUD approval for the second phase; and 3) Preliminary plat approval for Heifort Hills Estate. The proposed Final PUD, rezoning and preliminary plat for Phase Two represent a good solution to the need for balancing the density envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and the protective goals of the South Twin Lake Shoreland Overlay District. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requests with 18 conditions. Commissioner Hansen asked how many homes could be built on the neighboring 3.8 acre property. Mr. Turnblad replied it is possible to do a PUD on that property if access could be given somehow. A PUD would allow higher density. Todd Ganz, Integrity Land Development, offered to answer questions. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Planning Commission January 10, 2018 Page 8 of 11 Jason Kehren, 8820 Neal Avenue North, across the street, asked if water and sewer will extend up to his property. Mr. Turnblad stated that one condition of approval requires the developer to stub sewer and water to Mr. Kehren’s property line. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Siess asked the developer to comment on renaming the street. Mr. Ganz replied they are open to changing the name. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2017-67, Final PUD, Preliminary Plat, Zoning Map Amendment and related Variances for the property located at 8911 Neal Avenue, with the 18 conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 7-0, all in favor. Case No. 2017-68: Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to allow retail uses in the BP-I District by Special Use Permit for the property located at 1815 Greeley Street South. Michael McGrath property owner. Community Development Director Turnblad explained that Michael McGrath, doing business as 1815 Greeley, LLC, has applied for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to allow for limited retail uses to be permitted by Special Use Permit in the BP – I Business Park Industrial zoning district. If the ZAT were approved, he would then proceed with the SUP process for the Commission’s consideration of a retail store not exceeding 10% of the total floor area of the existing building he owns, located at 1815 Greeley Street South. Staff finds that the preservation of industrial-zoned properties for industrial use is in the public interest, but that allowing retail space of no greater than 10% of an industrial building’s total area by SUP, up to 4,000 square feet, would not significantly change the nature of the industrial building. Additionally, staff finds that allowing limited retail of this nature would help to satisfy a demand for retail space while still preserving the majority of industrial-zoned properties for industrial use. Staff finds the proposed ZAT is not in general conflict with the principles, policies, and land use designations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff would recommend the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Commissioner Kocon pointed out the issue in this case involves a relative or complementary use. He questioned whether it should be a requirement that the retail use be related to the industrial use. Mr. Turnblad it could be required that the retail use be associated with another use on site and not be the only use. Commissioner Fletcher remarked she doesn’t see the need to be more restrictive because the SUP application will come to the Commission. Commissioner Siess pointed out that industrial use occupies a fairly small percentage of property in Stillwater. She does not favor allowing retail because retail may go in several other zoning districts. Commissioner Kocon agreed, adding that if the industrial use goes away, the commercial use would likely go away too and there would logically then be a new industrial application for some other use. Tim Sauro stated he works for Mike McGrath. The use that occupies the building now is similar to what they had last 15 years with Roof Depot. Sew With Me is doing repairs on equipment and not a lot of retail customers come in to buy supplies, so they feel it’s similar to what has been there. It’s only 3,000 square feet of finished space. Planning Commission January 10, 2018 Page 9 of 11 Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Siess noted that the experience of the senior living ZAT near Our Saviors Church showed her that the ZAT process is a slippery slope. The industrial section in the City is extremely small and creates a lot of revenue, and there are other areas for retail in Stillwater. She feels this is not what the industrial zone was designed for. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to recommend that the City Council approve Case No. 2017-68, ZAT to allow retail uses in the BP-I District by SUP for the property located at 1815 Greeley Street South, modifying the recommended approval to state “allowing for retail space of no greater than 10% of the total building area or 4,000 square feet, whichever is less.” Motion passed 6- 1, with Commissioner Siess voting nay. Case No. 2017-70: Variances to the proposed single-family structure for the property located at X Linden Street in the RB District. Jessie Bostrom, property owner and Paul Bruggeman, applicant. City Planner Wittman stated that Paul Bruggeman is requesting approval of: 1) a 5’ variance to the 25’ rear yard setback for the construction of a rear deck on a single-family home; and 2) a 3.9% variance to the 25% structural coverage for the construction of a single-family residence with rear deck and attached two-stall garage. Staff finds practical difficulty has been established for the 3.9% Variance to the structural lot coverage allowance and recommends approval of this Variance. However, staff also finds that practical difficulty has not been established for the 5’ encroachment into the rear yard setback area. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this Variance. Jessie Bostrom, applicant, stated that other lots in this area have structures closer to the rear yard lot lines. With the deck they still would be maintaining a 20’ setback which is consistent with existing conditions on the street. Commissioner Kocon asked if they considered switching the floor plan to put the deck behind the garage. Ms. Bostrom said they considered that, but they would have had to put a door on the dining room, which would eliminate one of the only full walls and limit practical use of the dining room. Chairman Collins opened the public hearing. Becky Dawson Cox, 417 West Cherry Street, told the Commission drainage is an issue on the property. The lots slope down to her garage. She asked that the Commission deny the variance. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon stated he does not see practical difficulty with regard to the deck location. Commissioner Siess said she wants the applicant to know that the Commission is required to find a practical difficulty in order to grant a variance. She struggles with the deck variance. Commissioners Fletcher and Lauer agreed they could see no practical difficulty. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve a Variance of 3.9% lot coverage and to deny the requested 5’ rear yard setback for Case No. 2017-70, Variances to the proposed Planning Commission January 10, 2018 Page 10 of 11 single family structure for the property located at X Linden Street. Motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Hade voting nay. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 2017-57: Special Use Permit (SUP) 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 reviewed the request. At the November 2017 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission tabled consideration of CPC Case No. 2017-57, a request 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. The Commission directed the property owner to work with the neighbors to develop an alternative solution to the proposed chain-link fence. The property owner has submitted a request to replace the 6’ cedar fence on the northern property boundary with a 6’ cedar privacy fence. While the applicant has support from the four of the six adjacent property owners, the other two property owners do not need to concur, as this 1:1 replacement is consistent with the conditions of approval of the original SUP. The applicant is further requesting replacement of the eastern and southern fencing, bordering adjacent multiple family dwellings, with a 5-6’ chain-link fence. This request is supported by the adjacent property owners and management firms. Staff finds that the modified proposal is consistent with the SUP regulations and recommends approval with eight conditions, permitting a minimum 60” chain-link fence on the east and south property boundaries. Chairman Collins asked if there is any time limit for completion. Ms. Wittman replied the Zoning Administrator has been working with the property owner on the issue for almost a year. A timeline will be based on negotiations the property owner makes with enforcement staff. Commissioner Siess stated if the property owner replaces what they have right now, it’s climbable. Ms. Wittman said it could conceivably be climbed. The traditional 2-sided design could be considered climbable. Commissioner Siess questioned whether the Commission should be more specific about a non-climbable design. Juanita Pekay, applicant, 7063 Terraceview Lane, Maple Grove, informed the Commission that the non-climbable design was a condition that the neighbors north of the property had requested because they did not want the townhomes built at the time they were built. The neighbors reported that when originally installed, the nicer side of the fence faced the street, which at the time did not meet the code and the neighbors had the City require that the prior owners turn the fence around and face it in the direction it is facing now. Her company has owned the property for 2.5 years. She understands that the single family homes to the north wanted the barrier. They are not concerned with the east and south side and would support the chain link on those sides. The chain link fence would eliminate the blind spot between the garages and fence, and be lower cost and maintenance. There is 216 feet of fencing that the City would like to be double sided or turned around. The neighbors absolutely want the nicer looking side on their side. She asked that the Commission permit the 5’ chain link fences on south and east side and allow her to do the 6’ cedar fence with the nicer side facing the north so it will make the neighbors happy. Ms. Pekay added that she still has not been advised what the compliance issue is. City Planner Wittman replied the issue surfaced because the fence is in disrepair. Usually when issues like this come up, an enforcement letter sent is sent to the property owner. She assumes that process was followed. Planning Commission January 10, 2018 Page 11 of 11 Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Chairman Collins, to recommend approval of Case No. 2017-57, as modified by the applicant, with the eight conditions recommended by staff, modifying Condition #4 to state “The 6’ cedar fence adjacent to the public rights-of-way and the properties located at 1573 and 1567 Driving Park Road shall be constructed with the finished side facing Orleans Street.” Motion passed 7-0, all in favor. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION Small Wireless Facilities Future Zoning Text Amendment City Planner Wittman noted that staff is working with representatives of other communities that have historic districts to look at language for wireless right-of-ways in historic districts. Planning Commission Annual Case Report City Planner Wittman provided the Planning Commission Annual Case Report. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to adjourn the meeting at 11:01 p.m. All in favor, 7-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary