Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-06-23 PC MIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 23, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Dybvig called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chairman Dybvig, Commissioners Hansen, Hoffman, Knippenberg, Meyhoff, Steinwall, Councilmember Odebrecht Absent: None Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of May 26, 2021 regular meeting Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to approve the minutes of the May 26, 2021 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM Lael Smith, 609 Fourth Street North, requested clarification and reasoning behind Case 2021- 30, Consideration of ZAT for Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. Chairman Dybvig referred Ms. Smith to the last Planning Commission meeting when the zoning text amendment was tabled. It will be addressed again at next month’s meeting. He stated it came out of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. City Planner Wittman said she will provide Ms. Smith with the staff reports and address her questions. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2021-33: Consideration of Variances to the side yard setback and the total ground coverage of an accessory building, in order to construct a “Porte Cochere.” Property located at 717 Pine St W in the RB- Two Family District. Seema Anwar and Prashant Nayak, property owners. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicants are proposing to construct a 12’ X 45’ (540 square foot) attached carport on the west side of their existing home. The carport will be 1’-5” from the west property line and connect to the existing detached garage in the southwest corner of the lot, also 1’-5” from the west property line. The applicant is requesting: 1) a 3’-7” variance to allow the attached carport to be set back 1’-5” from the west side lot line, whereas the required side yard setback is at least 5’; and 2) a 24 square foot variance to allow the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings including attached and detached private garages and other accessory buildings (1,024 square feet) to be greater than 1,000 square feet. Staff finds that, with conditions of approval, the proposed carport meets the standards set Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 2 of 10 forth for the issuance of a variance to the side yard setback, however, in light of the input from the Building Department, staff recommends a sideyard setback variance of 3’ rather than 3’-7”, with seven conditions. Furthermore, staff finds that the requested variance to exceed the total allowed square footage of 1,000 square feet for garages does not meet the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance, and recommends denial of the garage square footage variance. With the reduction, two vehicles could still be accommodated under the covered area. Seema Anwar said it would not be a problem to stay under 1,000 square feet as recommended by staff. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Commissioner Steinwall, noting Condition #3, said she would be inclined to require gutters now rather than in the future if warranted. Ms. Wittman explained that staff did not recommend imposing this condition now because the existing home does not have gutters. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, regarding Case No. 2021-33, to approve Variances to the side yard setback of 3’ in order to construct a “porte cochere” at 717 Pine St W, with the seven staff-recommended conditions, and to deny the total ground coverage variance for an accessory building. All in favor. Case No. 2021-34: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum allowed height within the Downtown Height Overlay District. Property located at 223 Main St S in the Central Business District, and the Downtown Height Overlay District. Brandon Larson, applicant and White Bear Ventures, Richard Farrell, property owner. City Planner Wittman reviewed the case. Richard Farrell, White Bear Ventures, is renovating the second and third stories of his building, and is proposing to relocate an existing stairway roof access and elevator on the rooftop to the northwest corner. Also proposed is an approximately 250 square foot vestibule to accompany the stairs and elevator. This will require a variance to the height limitations. The applicant is requesting a variance to: 1) allow the height of a building, with an elevator, stairway and vestibule, to be 59’, whereas the maximum height allowed is 37’; and 2) to allow the building to be four stories, whereas three stories is the maximum in this overlay district. Ms. Wittman pointed out that stairwells and elevators, when integral to the building, are allowed to project above the roofline per height regulations. Staff feels that if the area and height of improvements did not exceed the code compliant minimums for ADA accessibility, the request would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code, nor would there be flagrant changes to the characteristic of the building or the Downtown District (and its sightline). Therefore, staff recommends approval of the request for a 22’ variance to the height of the building in order to have the minimum ADA compliant area, but limiting the storage area to the minimum code-complaint walkway, with four conditions. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hansen said it is clear the proposed area is intended for more than storage because there is a sink there. Because it is already a three story building, he feels there is no justification for adding this space. Commissioners Meyhoff and Hoffman agreed. They asked what the space will be used for. Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 3 of 10 Ms. Wittman noted that stairways and elevator bulkheads, as long as integral to the building, are allowed to be above the roofline. The code will not allow them to build a closet for a future elevator above the roofline - they would have to have the plans for that elevator now. Commissioner Steinwall pointed out the other elevator is not proposed at this time so the Commission seems justified in denying the requested variances; at the time of construction of an integral elevator and landing, they likely wouldn’t need to go before the Planning Commission as this type of improvement is allowed to extend above the maximum allowable height in this overlay district. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to recommend denial of Case No. 2021-34, Variance to the maximum allowed height within the Downtown Height Overlay District at 223 Main St S. All in favor. Case No. 2021-35: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum height for a replacement fence in the exterior side yard. Property located at 1025 Sunrise Ave, in the RA- One Family District. Deborah Veitch, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that Deborah Veitch is proposing to replace an existing 6’ tall perimeter fence. The western edge of the lot is an exterior side yard along a right-of-way that serves a neighboring property as an access. City code limits fences in the exterior side yard to 4’ in height. The applicant is requesting a 2’ variance for the height of the replacement fence in the exterior side yard. Staff recommends approval with four conditions. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to approve Case No. 2021-35, Variance to the maximum height for a replacement fence in the exterior side yard at 1025 Sunrise Ave, with the four conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. Case No. 2021-36: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an existing Accessory Dwelling Unit above a detached garage; and Variances to the Rear yard setback for an ADU, the location of an ADU within the Exterior Side Yard and the Height of an Accessory Building. Property located at 231 Everett St N in the RB Two Family District. Daniel and Jess Sather, property owners. Ms. Wittman explain the application. Daniel Sather has constructed a 24’ X 28’ detached garage in the northeast portion of the lot, which has access from Mulberry Street West. This garage was built to have an equally sized dwelling unit above it. The applicant built the habitable addition to the garage prior to getting CUP approval for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The applicant is requesting: 1) a Conditional Use Permit to allow an ADU above a detached garage; 2) an 18’ variance to allow the ADU to be set back 7’ from the rear lot line, whereas the required setback is 25’; 3) a variance to allow the ADU to be located within the exterior side yard; and 4) a 2’ variance to allow the height of the accessory building (22’) to exceed 1 story, or 20’. Staff finds that, with conditions of approval, the garage and proposed ADU meet the CUP provisions and the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and therefore recommends approval of a CUP and the requested variances with five conditions. Dan Sather, applicant, noted the building is up to code according to the building inspector. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 4 of 10 Commissioner Hansen commented the garage is located in a logical place based on topography of the lot. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to approve Case No. 2021-36, Conditional Use Permit to allow for an existing Accessory Dwelling Unit above a detached garage; and Variances to the rear yard setback for an ADU, the location of an ADU within the exterior side yard and the height of an accessory building located at 231 Everett St N with the five staff-recommended conditions. All in favor. Case No. 2021-37: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment and a Heritage Preservation Use Variance to allow the property to be used as a real estate sales office. Property located at 626 4th St N in the RB Two Family district. William Griffith, of Larkin and Hoffman, applicant and Tom and Sandra Lynum, property owners. Ms. Wittman explained that the company 626 4th, LLC would like to purchase the National Registry-listed William Sauntry mansion, located at 626 4th Street North, and convert the single family residence and bed and breakfast into a commercial real estate office. However, MN Stat. 462.357 Subd. 6 indicates the City “may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under the zoning ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” That said, MN Stat. 471.193, Subd. 3(6) indicates municipal Heritage Preservation Commissions have the power to grant use variances to a zoning ordinance. Thus, William Griffith of Larkin Hoffman has submitted a request to change the City Code to allow consideration of Heritage Preservation Use Variances (HPUVs) and, simultaneously, for a HPUV to allow 626 4th Street North to be converted into a commercial real estate office. Both actions require the Commission to hold a public hearing. For the former portion of the request, the Commission makes recommendation to the City Council. For the latter, the Commission makes recommendation to the Heritage Preservation Commission who will take final action on the matter. The two-fold request includes: 1) a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to amend four sections of the City Code to allow for HPUVs; and 2) a Heritage Preservation Use Variance (HPUV) for a commercial real estate office to be operated at 626 4th Street North. Staff asserts that, with certain conditions of approval, both the proposed Zoning Text Amendment and the proposed Heritage Preservation Use Variance for the allowance of a six-office real estate sales business are in conformance with the general principles and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code, and those of the Heritage Preservation Commission. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission recommend approval of both requests with nine conditions. Commissioner Steinwall asked if a HPUV would be transferrable/run with the land. City Planner Wittman replied it could be transferred to a new owner but that could also be restricted by the City Code. Commissioner Steinwall said the City Code should be clear that a HPUV, if granted, relates to a very specific proposal, not a general proposal such as “use as offices.” Tom and Sandy Lynum, property owners, said they held a public meeting for affected neighbors. The neighbors feel this proposal is the best way to preserve the property in its present state because it requires a lot of maintenance and care. They pointed out that the HPUV as written states the neighborhood impact of the proposed new use must be either equal to present use or less than present use. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 5 of 10 Steph Leonard, 703 Fourth Street North, said she has grown attached to the beauty of the home. She said there is misinformation about what the HPUV would mean, for instance the misconception that this proposal would allow the elimination of the National Register designation. Ms. Wittman explained that any property owner may request a structure be removed from the National Register, however to be eligible for a HPUV, a property would have to be listed on the National Register. A Design Permitting requirement would help ensure the exterior of the structure is maintained in perpetuity to the standards required by the Secretary of the Interior. Ms. Leonard said she will be sad to lose the single family/BnB but she also understands the position the owners are in. She would like there to be some requirement that it be maintained to the Secretary of the Interior’s standards. Lael Smith, 609 Fourth Street North, said the William Sauntry Mansion has been a good neighbor. Noise and parking are concerns with a new use. Also, what happens when the new owner decides to sell? How does opening it to commercial affect the rest of the neighborhood? Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hansen said he would like a condition added to prohibit the use from being transferrable, and a requirement that if a property owner de-lists the property from the National Register, the HPUV goes away. He feels this proposal provides for the income stream needed to maintain these large historic structures. It is a good use and he is in favor of the HPUVs. Ms. Wittman noticed another person on Zoom. Chair Dybvig reopened the public hearing. Ms. Widenbrant (no address given) said currently the Sauntry Mansion has limits on events. She asked Ms. Wittman to address the new limits under the proposal. Ms. Wittman replied the new use would not allow for events at all. It would be a six-office commercial real estate business. Chair Dybvig re-closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hoffman remarked this proposal would help ensure the buildings don’t lose their integrity as local icons. Requiring a Design Permit would also help. Councilmember Odebrecht commented that the ability to have a revenue stream is in the homeowner’s and City’s interest. The proposal empowers the HPC to review external Design Permits. He thanked the Lynums for caring for the property for the past 22 years. Commissioner Steinwall voiced support. She would like to require that the HPUV is not transferrable, that the use be very specific, and that the National Register designation must be maintained. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to recommend to the Council approval of Case No. 2021-37, Zoning Text Amendment, establishing the HPUV process with the two conditions in the staff report, adding Condition #3 stating that HPUVs are not transferrable, Condition #4 stating that an HPUV would be rescinded if the property is dropped from the National Register designation, Condition #5 stating this is not a rezoning but a variance, and Condition #6 stating that application for an HPUV must be very specific as to use. All in favor. Commissioner Steinwall asked the current property owners if the gardens are part of the historic preservation, or could parking expansion potentially destroy the gardens. Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 6 of 10 Mr. Lynum replied that the turn drive was always there. Commissioner Steinwall proposed an additional condition suggesting the HPC look at whether additional parking for example would have the potential to destroy another historic resource on the property. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to recommend to the HPC, approval of approval of Case No. 2021-37, a Heritage Preservation Use Variance to allow the property at 626 Fourth Street North to be used as a real estate sales office with the nine conditions recommended by staff, adding Condition #10 stating that the HPC should consider the integrity of the garden and landscaping when reviewing Design Permits. All in favor. Case No. 2021-38: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, associated Variances and lot line adjustment to construct a new residential apartment building on the property located at 107 3rd St N and 110 Myrtle St E in the Central Business District. Nathan Landucci, applicant, Jon Whitcomb and Mark and Cathy Balay, property owners. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. Nathan Landucci, Landucci Homes, is proposing to construct a 42-unit apartment building at 107 3rd Street North; the building is proposed to span the property line with 110 Myrtle Street East where the new structure will extend behind the historic home located on that site. The developer is proposing to construct 32 underground spaces and two uncovered spaces outside. Portions of the building are proposed to be 4.5 stories and 48.5’ tall (as measured from 3rd Street North). This exceeds the maximum allowable three-stories and 37’ height in the Historic Height Overlay District. The applicant is requesting variances to the City’s CBD Setbacks and the Height Overlay standards; while not a variance to the off-street parking and loading requirements, the applicant is also asking for City consideration of a transfer of 40 ‘parking credits’ granted to the current landowner. Given the scope and location of the project as well as the proposed height being 10% greater than the maximum allowable limit, City Code requires the Planning Commission make recommendation for the City Council. Approval of a Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) Design Permit is required prior to Council consideration. On June 16, 2021 the HPC reviewed the Design Permit application for the property that contains a mix of residential units, enclosed common space, and rooftop terracing in a 4.5 story building. Citing the project’s need to conform to the mass, scale, materials, and color of buildings in its vicinity, the HPC tabled the design permit application, requesting consideration of: removing the uppermost story; ways to step the east side of the 107 3rd Street portion of the building towards the 110 Myrtle Street property; removing the easterly 3rd and 4th stories behind the historic resource; breaking up the metal with brick and possibly a color of brick that is more in line with context of brick in the area; landscaping between the two buildings to create more privacy and separation; and exploring window and balcony placement facing the historic home. On June 17, 2021 the item was scheduled to be heard by the Downtown Parking Commission (DTPC). However, that Commission did not have a quorum and could not discuss the request. The City is trying to schedule a special meeting for the Commission’s review. However, if that cannot occur, the Downtown Parking Commission will review the request at their July 21 meeting. It is not customary for the Planning Commission to review requests for consideration of Use Permits and Variances without first having recommendations from advisory bodies and commissions. Given the request will be heard by other commissions in July, staff thought it good for the applicant to hear Planning Commission discussion as it might aide in potential alterations the applicant may want to take prior to reconsideration by the HPC and review by the DTPC. The applicant is requesting consideration of: 1) a Conditional Use Permit for 42 multi-family Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 7 of 10 residences in a large building project in the CBD Zoning District; 2) a 1.5-story variance to the three-story maximum height in the Central Business District Historic Height Overlay District; 3) an 11.5’ variance to the 37’ maximum allowable height in the Central Business District Historic Height Overlay District; 4) Variances to the 20’ (Combined) Side Yard and 20’ Rear Yard Setback in the Central Business District; 5) a Variance to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations for eight (8) parking spaces. While not necessarily for the Commission’s direct consideration, the applicant is also requesting the following from the City Council: 1) Consideration of a transfer of a 40 parking space credit from Browns Creek West LLC; and 2) Consideration of a Lot Line Adjustment and public land sale for portions of land attached to the City Parking Ramp. It is clear the development team has spent considerable time developing a thoughtful addition to the downtown area. As the development has not obtained HPC Design Permit approval nor DTPC parking plan recommendation, staff is unsure whether the development as proposed conforms to the standards set forth for the issuance of a Large Building Project Conditional Use Permit. Given this, staff would recommend the Planning Commission table consideration of the matter. That said, if the Commission was favorable to advancing this project without traffic engineering and downtown parking recommendations as well as a Design Permit, staff would recommend the Commission also deny the parking variance and allow no great than 19 units onsite (which would accommodate 1.5 parking spaces for the residential units). Commissioner Meyhoff asked how the parking credits work. Ms. Wittman replied a parking credit is basically a variance that effectively pushes 40 vehicles into the public parking system. The agreement for 40 parking credits was part of development negotiations with Trinity Church and the former Post Office. Nathan Landucci, applicant, explained his project has similar height and setbacks to the project previously approved for this site by Jon Whitcomb. This project is bigger because it incorporates the neighboring Balay property representing a 40% increase in land area. The inclusion of this property allows a right-in, right-out traffic pattern eliminating the need to cross Myrtle Street traffic. The project has yet to go before the Downtown Parking Commission but he believes a parking variance will not be needed. Chair Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to table a recommendation for the City Council regarding Case No. 2021-38, Conditional Use Permit, associated Variances and lot line adjustment to construct a new residential apartment building on the property located at 107 3rd St N and 110 Myrtle St E. Councilmember Odebrecht said he feels the height is more of a challenge here than the 200 East Chestnut project, which was recently approved with a fee-in-lieu of $20,000 per parking space deficit. He is particularly interested in what the Downtown Parking Commission recommends for this project. The exterior is well designed but he struggles with the design encompassing the Balay house. Commissioner Hoffman said he would like to wait for a traffic study, noting it is a very busy intersection. Commissioner Hansen said he cannot support any project that involves traffic mid-block on Myrtle Street. The intersection is already dangerous. He feels the previous traffic study did not consider large events downtown using Myrtle Street as the main arterial. He does not support Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 8 of 10 any vehicles going in or coming out onto Myrtle Street. Parking and height are also sticking points for him. He would like a Third Street entry to be considered. Chair Dybvig agreed with previous comments. He does not see any practical difficulty for a height variance. He also feels the sight lines will be extremely problematic especially for a major artery. He supports delaying action to see what the other Commissions say. All in favor of the motion to table. Case No. 2021-39: Consideration of a Variance to the Shoreland Overlay district maximum impervious surface to construct a deck. Property located at 1860 White Pine CT in the Traditional Residential District. Kyle Randolph, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that Kyle and Rachel Randolph are proposing to install a 16' X 20' deck that would add a total of 320 square feet of impervious surface coverage. Currently, with all structures and manmade improvements, the property already exceeds the 25% threshold, with a total impervious surface coverage of around 30.7%. The applicants are requesting an 8.8% coverage variance to allow the impervious coverage to be 33.8% (or 3,529 square feet), whereas the maximum impervious surface coverage is 25%. Staff finds the proposed deck meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance, practical difficulties have been established, and this variance would not negatively impact the visual character of the neighborhood as a whole, due to the fact that most of the houses in this neighborhood have similar rear decks. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances with four conditions. Staff would like to revisit the Shoreland regulations that seem overly burdensome at times. Chair Dybvig opened the public hearing. Denise Storck-Schattner, two houses down, said a year ago they were not able to add coverage in a similar request, due to the 25% threshold, and they were told it was due to drain space and flowage into Brown’s Creek. She would like the regulations to be applied consistently. Ms. Wittman said the shoreland ordinance protects all natural resources. The flowage is proposed to go away from the creek. Staff is recommending a water runoff treatment plan incorporating a rain garden or other infiltration system be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. Chair Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to approve Case No. 2021-39, Variance to the Shoreland Overlay district maximum impervious surface to construct a deck. Property located at 1860 White Pine Ct, with the four staff-recommended conditions. All in favor. Case No. 2021-40: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow amplified outdoor music and commercial recreational uses on the property located at 123 2nd St N Suite 102 in the Central Business District. Sara Jespersen, applicant and Judd Sather, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that Sara Jespersen, owner of The Lumberjack bar, is proposing an amendment to the property’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for live music with amplification once a week and a speaker outside on her private patio that plays background music. In review of the property record, it was determined a Use Permit for the ability to have outdoor axe-throwing is also needed. Currently, The Lumberjack has one outdoor speaker on its private property that plays low background music, as well as axe-throwing on their patio, Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 9 of 10 which the City is requesting to have legitimized. The Lumberjack would like to add another speaker for a performer to perform once a week from 7-9 p.m. The Lumberjack would like to amend their CUP to: 1) allow for outdoor commercial recreational entertainment (axe- throwing); and 2) outdoor entertainment (live music performers once a week and a background music speaker on their private patio). Ms. Wittman pointed out in recent weeks, the City has received numerous noise complaints relating to this alley. Staff believes that the complaints will rise in response to outright granting this CUP amendment. Additionally, as the patio has been approved for outdoor dining and it is the desire to continue axe-throwing on the patio, the multitude of uses could conflict with one another. Simply put, there is not enough room for multiple types of commercial recreation and entertainment in this location. Therefore, staff is recommending partial approval of this request to amend the CUP. Staff recommends allowing the Lumberjack to keep the existing outdoor axe-throwing and speaker on their private patio, however staff would recommend denial of a weekly outdoor performer. The applicant has approached the City Council about a request to have a performer outdoors. Councilmember Odebrecht asked who was responsible for the cleanup of Union Alley. Ms. Wittman replied that a big part of Union Alley was cleaned up by citizen efforts led by Ms. Jespersen. The cleanup project did not come before the Planning Commission. Chairman Dybvig asked how long Union Alley will be available for outdoor seating. Ms. Wittman replied the temporary outdoor seating allowed in response to the pandemic will expire in October 2021. Staff has been directed by the City Council to consider what outdoor seating looks like post-COVID. Time is needed to develop community policy on the issue. Sara Jespersen, applicant, told the Commission she cleaned up the alley but the 226 Myrtle Street East chiropractic building was not part of the cooperative. Last year she had acoustic music once a week without realizing it was unpermitted. When she learned it needed to be permitted, she reached out to the neighbors and they told her they would love to have music in the evenings. She reached out to those who submitted written complaints. She would like to keep making the alley attractive but it takes a lot of effort to keep it clean and well lit. Music is a draw and increases her sales by 30%. Commissioner Steinwall pointed out that some of the complaints indicate the music is so loud they cannot do their work. She asked if piped music is used during work hours. Ms. Jespersen said she is only open 5-10 p.m. during the week. Music is quiet so as not to compete with the axe-throwing. The music was blaring one time only. Commissioner Hoffman said the report states the single amp speaker will face north. He asked if the current piped music is facing a different way. Ms. Jespersen said it is pointed out currently. On a question from Commissioner Meyhoff, Ms. Wittman explained the axe-throwing was approved as part of the temporary COVID provisions. Chair Dybvig opened the public hearing. Dan Forest, property owner of 226 Myrtle Street East, said he has been getting many complaints from his tenants and a couple of them have considered not renewing their lease due to the noise. The music piped into the alley has been a consistent problem. He asked Lolito at one point if they would be willing to talk about it and they declined. He did not talk with The Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 10 of 10 Lumberjack at the time but didn’t realize their music was also piped into the alley. The music affects all of his tenants and his ability to lease the building. Councilmember Odebrecht asked Mr. Forest about business hours of his tenants. Mr. Forest said they start at 9 a.m and the latest one goes until 10 p.m. Having music after 10 p.m. is totally fine. The 10 p.m. one is an aesthetician and she has a room that has a door that enters into the alley. There is a table in the alley blocking the door which may be a fire exit. Ms. Wittman remarked this is the first she has heard of blocking an exit. It is a Lolito table and she has asked the Zoning Administrator to take a look at it. Ms. Jespersen said none of her staff said they have ever talked to anyone from Mr. Forest’s building. She would immediately make a change. She has never known about this complaint until tonight. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Councilmember Odebrecht said this request did not move forward at the City Council meeting last week because of Councilmember concerns about it being on public land. However he is supportive of the newly configured plan for the music to be on private property. He pointed out Ms. Jespersen is the community volunteer of the year for the Chamber of Commerce. He believes she will address the issues with the neighbors. Many of the businesses downtown have music that spills onto the street; it should be considered to be part of the downtown landscape. He would support allowing an outdoor musician Saturday/Sunday after 7 p.m. Commissioner Hansen said it is important to be respectful of all the businesses. He has concern that noise can escalate. It is a little easier to justify amplified music here because the location is somewhat contained. He would not be in favor of going past 10 p.m. on a weeknight. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve Case No. 2021-40, Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow piped music during business hours, axe- throwing any day of the week, and to allow amplified single-speaker live outdoor music one night per week Thursday through Sunday, from 7-10 p.m. All in favor. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. FYI STAFF UPDATES Ms. Wittman reminded the Commission of the Boards and Commissions picnic August 11. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to adjourn the meeting at 9:47 p.m. All in favor. John Dybvig, Chair ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner