talking. >> Hi, Mr. Conrad. Can you hear me? This is Lonnie in St. Paul Park. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Have the power to just unmute him as >> I so badly want. Yeah, >> I I can hear you now. I was looking for the bucket. >> Great. Okay, stand by. We'll be live in
just a minute. All right. Thank you. Good evening. I would like to call to order the city of St. Paul Park Planning Commission meeting for Monday, November 10th, 2025. Everyone would please stand for the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Roll call for tonight. I, Patrick
Denm, present. Mr. Glidden, >> present. >> And Mr. Hagerty, >> present. >> Uh, Mr. McCannernney and Mr. Diaz are not available this evening. Tonight we also have Mr. Conrad, our council leaison present. Correct. >> Correct. >> And you can hear us?
>> Yes. >> Okay, good. Um, I'd be looking for a motion to approve the minutes of the Monday, October 13th, 2025 meeting. >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I.
>> It's approved. Tonight, commission actions. We have one action. We have a public hearing on the conditional use permit for 940 Hastings Avenue. I see we got Mr. Sparks in the room and we've got the applicant. So, that's good.
Good evening, honorable members of the commission. Uh it is a distinct honor and privilege to be here with you this evening. Um, this is a continued hearing from your last meeting. The
applicant is proposing to turn a portion of the building at 940 Hastings, which used to be a originally this building was like a warehouse sales place for a frozen food vendor. Then it
became more recently in a a behavioral health facility and that use is proposed to remain in about half the building. But then the old uh warehouse portion of the building
is being proposed to be converted into a banquet hall, dance hall type facility, uh which is permitted under the definition of commercial recreation in this zoning district, the B2 zoning
district where this property is located, which is your highway commercial zone. Um the planning commission tabled this at your last meeting uh to allow the applicant to propose some revisions
related to parking and landscaping and then to uh further clarify what they're using the building for for your review. So the previous month when we reviewed this a
lot of these factors have not changed. They provided some revisions to the parking plan which include uh you know uh the landscaping islands that were requested um because that's part of the landscaping plan by ordinance. When you
have a certain number of parking stalls, uh you have to provide islands in the parking lot. You don't just allow like a big giant parking lot. You got to put like some landscaping in it to break it up. and that's a code requirement.
And so then um they've provided that in there, but the revision to the parking lot we noted does now extend the parking lot into the setback to the rear property line which we need to balance
that with and we have a couple suggestions for how to achieve that. Um, so but for the most part they've added some landscaping and they've uh they've been working on some revisions to their engineering plan to handle the storm
water as well. And then they've provided that revised parking plan. And so when we look at this in general, um, functionally like if you look at the number of parking stalls,
which is one of the concerns that was expressed at the previous meeting, just making sure that we have enough parking, right? Because if you have a use like this where it's across the street from a residential neighborhood, if you don't have enough parking, that can become a
somewhat catastrophic condition for the area because then that's when people will be parking in the residential neighborhood. And as you can imagine, like a business of this nature, which would be an evening type use, you know, you're sitting at home, you had a long
day, you just hit the hay, and then the car doors open and shut right outside your bedroom window. That's what we're trying to avoid, right? That type of condition. So, when we look at how parking's calculated, one of the things we asked was for them to take another
look at how they're doing the parking. And basically by code what you say is that for use like an office use you take the gross floor area multiply it by 10% and that's a reduction
and then it's three spaces per 1200 square ft. And then for the banquet hall and kitchen, uh it's kind of a similar formula where you take the area of the banquet hall and the area of the kitchen or the the
bar area, the service area, and then the kitchen area and you multiply that by the 10% and then you get to a spot where that kind of correlates with the number of spaces that they have. Now, if reducing the size of the parking lot to
accommodate that setback results in not enough parking, they the remedy for that would just simply be they have to reduce the size of that area essentially. Um, and that would be how you could fix
that. And I don't know what perhaps there's a way they could find to balance those two things and get the spaces that are needed. But we got to hit that 5-ft set back to that rear property line. So, however they choose to do that, it seems
like that is something that could be attainable easily by just perhaps reducing the size of the banquet hall area, like moving the wall, something like that. That that could be done. And however they want to do that, we're open
to suggestion on that. So, but I mean from the rest of the issues like the building exterior, it's an existing building. It exists in the space that it already exists. They are when you have an
existing building and it doesn't exactly conform to all the zoning requirements, but it exists and it's a legal nonconformity. things that you do to modify it that bring it closer to conformance are viewed as being an acceptable
movement. Right? So, it may not be completely meeting code requirements in the new zoning district, but if they bring it closer to conformance, that could be viewed as being acceptable. Um the landscaping plan, adding some
more like kind of shrub type things in front of the parking lot between the parking lot and the road would be viewed as uh something that we should probably be looking for here because of the fact that it's across the street from
residences. When you have that condition, you want to make it so that the the lights from the cars don't shine across the street, right? So just beefing that up would be something we'd be looking for.
And um then it kind of comes down then to like uh things like related to the use itself where um you know when you think about
the use being the banquet hall, dance hall type place. So there'll be parties at night and you got a ne residential neighborhood across the street. Is this is this an acceptable condition? Is this
been mitigated enough to allow for that and or is it in your opinion that it can't be mitigated enough to allow for that? Those are things that you need to consider in your review. And one of the other things that you asked for was for
like the noise uh study. They provided an audio testing report to show that after the modifications to the building are made that the building will be soundproofed enough to where that the
noise levels from the building would not be greater than just what the ambient noise in the vicinity is. And that's what their study generally shows. Um but again, if you have just grave concerns
about this type of use being across the street from the residential neighborhood, um you know, the indoor noise being handled is great, but you know, the parking lot noise, the you know,
things like that may be something that you have concerns about. And if you that would be again though what they're showing is that the noise from the building would be handled. And then what we're saying is that the way you handle
like parking lot incompatibilities with properties across the street is you can handle that by landscaping and those would be two options that you would have for that. Um, but outside of that, we just want the
if you were to recommend approval of this to the city council, we'd want that landscaping looked at. We'd want that um they've shown that the lighting would be met. We'd want the parking area to meet the rear setback and that the engineers
comments be addressed. Um then we need like the the tree planting island. There was supposed to be one more by code based on our calculations. But it seems that with those things being addressed
that if you were to recommend approval that these things would handle some of those issues. But if you feel that the use itself isn't appropriate in that area, that would be the alternative. But it would seem that if you
want to condition this on these improvements or move in that direction, you could do either. Your third alternative, of course, is to table it. Again, we would have to extend the 60-day review period and then you'd only be giving the city
council um it would be likely that they would only have two meetings or one meeting to handle this if they wanted to dig into anything more. So, but that's kind of the situation of where we're at.
Um so then like some of the things like the conditions like we noted that you know on their plans they show some things that are outside but they've indicated that they are not intending to do anything outdoors related to this
use. The outdoor areas is merely for the remainder of the office use like for a picnic area and things like that. So that's where we are at with this thing. Um, you know, I guess you could, like I
mentioned, you've got three options. The, uh, you can table it to ask for these revisions, see what those look like, forward it to council requiring these revisions. But if you feel that
the use is incompatible for the area, period, and that you don't feel that it fits this situ, that that's what a conditional use permit is for. If you feel that no matter what happens, it can't remedy those situations, that would be something to add. I mean,
another thing that has repeatedly come up on this and we get contacted by residents in the area who also just kind of question how we have a behavioral mental health facility with uh dance
hall type use in the same building. That that's a question that keeps coming up. I'm sure you guys have heard that question as well and it does I mean I've seen all sorts of things in my time you know and you know it does seem like an
somewhat different type of pairing of use and um you know that might be something that the applicant maybe wants to provide some clarity on since uh you know for the audience watching at home tonight because that is seems to be the
number one question that we keep getting about this proposal. proposal and um you know I guess it's people do sometimes have buildings that share uses that maybe sometimes don't always seem to go
together but um that's by code this use can be introduced to this site with a conditional use permit and that's what they're that's what they're seeking and there are there are alternatives to where
like the parking For example, one thing that could happen with the parking is they could ask for a different type. There's another type of conditional use that you can ask for which allows two uses to share a parking
area and it allows a reduction in the parking area and that could be something that they also seek. But um one surefire alternative to the parking issue is if adding those things to the parking, shifting the parking location a little
bit results in a loss of spaces, that can also be handled by just reducing the size of something that's being used in the building. And the way that the parking calculation works on a banquet hall, restaurant, bar, dance hall type
use is it's based on the square footage of that use in particular within the building. So that could line in that building could be shifted a little bit and then it would technically be making it. But if they can't figure out a way to do it, they could also ask for relief
through that other conditional use provision with the shared parking between the two uses. But then we'd need to know more details about the um existing use in the building like when people are there when people aren't
there. We just need more info about that and then that would be something though that wasn't technically part of the application that we would need to reintroduce. So, you know, that would be something that we'd want to probably talk about a little bit on how you want
to handle that. So, if they had to amend the application, I mean, would it would it have to come back for another public hearing or what would they what would we need to do? >> Well, what we would need to do is we'd have to see how they amended the application and probably consult with the city attorney and if he felt that it
needed another hearing, then we would want it to come back and have a hearing on that if he felt that it was not necessary. But again, if you this was something that you would want to look into as part of your review, then you'd probably want to table the hearing
anyway. >> Well, I mean, if we're just talking about the parking, I guess I I kind of thought that the idea of, you know, looking at this as two businesses are operating, you know, at different times. I mean, I thought that that seemed like a reasonable accommodation, but if that wasn't in the
application, I mean, let's assume, or I should say, let's assume that that was the the modification they asked for. I I I I guess you I mean I guess I'm asking you to predict. I mean would would would the city attorney think that just that light of a change? >> I think you could view it either way.
And if you felt that that was an acceptable then uh acceptable adjustment to the application. You could forward it on to council based on that factor. But then if the council felt that that wasn't they could then redirect it back
to you. >> Okay. Okay. and we would consult with the attorney before the council meeting on on it. Then >> do we know what the occupancy of the building is like per fire code or whatever? Uh
>> the modifications that they're making to the building. They have a licensed architect here who could probably speak to this in great detail, but the modifications that are being made to the building would allow it to be reclassified as the proper use that they're seeking. They have to make some
serious modifications to the structure of the building, >> right? Yeah. So, and that's what I'm looking for is the proposed occupancy. >> I think it would be, correct me if I'm wrong, an assembly use, right? For the >> the assembly >> for the >> the assembly area, the green area.
>> Oh, yeah. >> So, what's the occupancy of that? >> What's that? >> You're looking for >> the classification. >> How many people legally can you fit into that area? Yeah, >> because it's 123 parking spots and if you have four people per car, you could
have, you know, quite a few. 480 92. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, do we do we want I mean do you have any do you have any more comments about
your pre for your presentation? >> No. All right. Should we maybe have the applicant come up and then we can do the public hearing and then we'll have our commentary last? Would that be? >> Yeah, you could allow the applicant, you
can ask them some questions and then open it up to the residents who are here >> to speak because you did table the hearing and then like I laid out some different paths for you and then you could choose the one that you wish to
pursue. Do you want to does the applicant want to come up and maybe ask take a few questions or that be okay? >> You guys want to come up? >> So, we'll just have you give your name and maybe like just give your address or
the address of the business that you have so that we can kind of identify you. >> Good evening everyone. My first name is Nichi and last name is Mubio. My address is 4373 Aba Drive, Woodberry. Zip code is 55129
>> and the people with you. >> Oh yeah. >> My name is Anna Randers. My address is 1261 Brier Street, YZ of Minnesota, 55391. And I am the architect of record for the project. My name is Todd Bernson. The last name
is spelled B E R N T SS O N. I'm at 3600 Hoffman Road in White Bear Lake. That's 55110. And I am the audio v video uh guy who did the design of the room and all of
the systems as well as the audio testing. Okay. Um, well, since you're up on the audio. Okay. Actually, okay. I did have one question maybe and Nate, you might be before I get to you, but it's irrelevant. Okay. I understand that the
code talks about noise emanating from the building. Is there specific language that talks about noise emanating from the property? >> You have to be compliant with the PCA noise standards. >> Okay. >> And the issue that they you most likely
face is going to be related to the noise emanating from the building because it measures level of noise for durations of time. So while people coming in and out of the building chit chatting outside and closing their car doors may be
annoying, it's not going to necessarily rise to the level of it being a violation of the noise PCA noise standards, but the building would be, >> right? So that's why the focus was on the building. >> No, that that's what I'm saying because I know you you had raised the issue and
again I understand which is the the noise of people coming and going, right? Um and so I mean it's at some point I mean the the building owner or whoever's operating I mean you can control maybe what your building does, but once people walk out of your building, we don't
control people. They walk out quietly if they're noisy. So, I just want to make sure that, you know, we're I don't want to hold the applicant to a standard or I don't want to hold the applicant to something that they shouldn't be held to, right? Which is we can't necessarily blame them if people are outside making
noises or if they're slamming their car doors, right? So, I just want to make sure that if if if that's a complaint or if that's a concern, right, that maybe that's not something we would hold against the applicant or say, "Well, you better have a solution for noisy people in your parking lot or slamming doors
because I don't think that they could." >> Well, that gets into the base compatibility >> of the COP. Yeah. >> Yeah. No, I got you. I got you. So, um, do you have any concerns about
their ability to abate noise from that facility? >> I do not. >> Okay. >> Um, I had I had an opportunity to I I did initially, um, because I've, you know, I've I've installed a lot of these kinds of systems and, um, in in
warehouses, warehouses oftentimes are notoriously leaky when it comes to sound. Um, this is a little bit of a unique situation in that it was a big freezer. >> And so, not only is the the roof, but all of the walls are very well sealed
and, you know, double layer steel with solid foam in insulation. Um, despite that, I was a little bit concerned about transmission through the roof. The the walls were not a big concern, but through the roof was a concern, as well as through the loading
dock. that tends to be another leaky area. And um and so I I you know when I I spoke with Nichi um I said well let's get let's get a sound system in there. Let's just bring it up to full volume
and let's just measure to see where we're at because that'll give us some idea some measurable idea of of what we need to do in order to uh be in compliance. And um I was I was actually quite shocked. Uh we we brought the sound
pressure levels inside of the inside of the space up to 110 dB which is about like an AC/DC concert and uh and walked outside and I took measurements at the street in three different locations. Um, one was
uh if if you were to be facing the facing the uh the center right where the loading dock would be projecting right into the the neighbors across the street. That's one of the measurements that I took and uh just because of you
know it it abuts the parking lot of a bowling alley. So there's a lot of activity going in and out of there. And um and we I think measured like you know 56 dB of ambient noise and that was primarily just just road traffic. When I
was standing out there um the the sound coming through that loading dock door was was barely perceptible. Um, in fact, if I were to, unless I mentioned it, you you probably wouldn't have noticed it
because of the the other ambient noise. When I went to the other two locations, there was no not only any nothing measurable above ambient, but there was no perceptible noise at all. And um, and you know, apparently Simix knows how to
insulate walls because I was actually quite surprised. And uh and in in addition to that uh inside the room, one of the things that I suggested for the sound treatment inside there, because not only is there a transmission issue, but there's also interior reflections,
which can make sound pretty harsh interior, is that we're going to be putting in uh another layer of sheetrock, 5/8 inch fire code sheetrock, which um you know, when it comes to sound transmission, uh
is rated at about 30 decel drop, which um would make the being at the street level you you'd be hardressed probably, you know, if you're 3:00 in the morning or or 4 in the morning when everything is super super quiet, you may be able to
pick up that something was was going on in there. But it certainly would be, you know, well below, you know, 30 dB or 40 dB, you know, and just just so you know, like a uh 50 to 60 dB is a is about like
a conversation that we're having now or just ambient levels of traffic. So it it would be even lower than that. Um now at the street level, >> if there was, you know, three or 400 warm bodies standing inside that absorbing sound, would that also have an impact on the amount of sound that would
be? >> Totally. Oh, yeah. 100%. Yeah. And that was with an with an empty room with no interior sound treatment. And uh I mean inside, man, it it just it felt like our ears were going to bleed. I just was like, "Crank it up. Crank it up because
we just need to know, right? We just need to have the data." And um cuz I know you know one of the concerns of of you know Nietze and and is uh whenever I've done venues like this previously it's like well you want to be a good
neighbor right you don't want to have anybody being upset with you because that that you know you just don't want that kind of animosity and so um I've been in the in the plans I know he's been like do we really need all that and I'm like yeah you really need all of
that uh just so that the the interior of the venue is very comfortable to be in and that the any kind of transmission to the exterior exterior environment is is negligible or non-existent. >> Okay. Okay.
>> And I do if you if you don't have copies of the report that I have of the measurements, I'd be I know that uh Jeff got one, but I'd be happy to provide one of those to you to each of you as well. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if you send one to the city, then we can make it available or we could have it. >> Sure. I actually have some printed
copies with me I could hand to you. >> Yes. We could if you have a printed copy, I'll take it. We can make it part of tonight's record. >> Sure. >> And then we just then it'll be here available at city hall as part of the as part of the packet for tonight. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Right. >> Any other questions? >> Have questions
>> for me? >> Okay. >> And is it Anna? >> Yes. >> All right. Um, so Mr. Hagar had a question about how many warm bodies can we squeeze in there? Yes. So I took a look. So the banquet hall I'm calculating 440 and the office is 50.
>> Okay. >> Could you repeat that please? >> I'm sorry. What? Repeat that >> please. Yeah. >> Yeah. The banquet hall is 440 and the office is 50. So, have you seen the recommendations from tonight's packet and from the
engine uh the the city engineer? >> Yeah, we took a look at that. Yes. >> Okay. I mean, in your estimation, are those requirements are those things that you believe could be managed and
resolved from your end? And are you referring to like the storm water? Correct. All those >> the storm water, the the the the tree islands, the the the brush. Um pulling the line back from the from the property
line because in the back from one foot back to 5T. I mean, I'm not sure. I mean, I guess in your in your mind or in your estimate, how many how many parking spots do you think you're going to lose if you've got to pull the the the line back to five feet? I'd have to take a look and really calculate, but I'm sure
we'd lose between five and 10 probably. Um, the civil engineer assured us that they'd be able to do the storm water management. They'd be able to handle all that those issues. The setback thing, I don't know if that was new to the report
from the previous or is that that was published before >> plans got revised and >> yeah, so yet in your revised plan, right? That's where the the Yeah, >> you guys had the line going up. You said what? One foot from the property line where we need it back five feet. >> Okay.
>> So, I mean I I mean >> Yep. >> I'm not sure. I mean, four feet. I mean, you're talking about the width of probably less than a full car space. So, you may be losing one space or so along that whole back line. Right. >> Correct. And we also are hoping for like Nate mentioned the kind of the
concurrent use um permission with having the dual uses with off hours. We're hoping to have that reduction in the parking lot calc as well. >> Well, because I mean I guess not to get too far ahead of it, but you know, the the question becomes is okay, we're we're going to have our hearing here,
then we're going to open it up to the public hearing and then we have to make recommendations. So, I guess one of the things I'm questioning is because if we make the recommendation, this is going to go right to the city council and they're going to take a look at this and they're going to take some votes >> and they're going to want to have somebody saying that, you know, we've
went through tonight's packet. We went through the the engineers and and we've got this solved. So that could put you on a pretty tight timeline. >> Can can we revise it before then? >> Like can we take a look at that 1 foot 5
foot setback? I'm not sure like when that was released that if we had time to kind of update that prior to this meeting is kind of my question of >> well and that's the question which is what do we again this is this goes back to the
our previous meeting which is we want you guys to have a full and fair hearing. We want you to have an opportunity to put the absolute best plan forward so that us as commissioners and everybody in the public can really fully understand what you want to do.
>> Okay. >> So, I guess, you know, I want to kind of have a a sense of what your your guys's thinking is. Um, I mean, I I wouldn't have a problem. We we can keep asking questions. We can hold the public hearing and then that, you
know, the the the commission can have our conversation, but you know, I want to make sure that again, like every applicant in front of us, I mean, we we want you guys to have an opportunity to be heard. I mean, this is a lot of time. limits a lot of money and we and we're not interested in wasting anyone's time
or money. We we really want you to feel like you had a good hearing. So, um I mean again I I mean I don't think that I mean so I think one of the big things was the noise. So I think we've got some we've got some good testimony. We've got some good information on the noise.
Right. So now we're down to looking at okay the trees, the brush, the storm water I mean engineering things. So, we're down to sort of like the mechanical technical stuff, right? And I'm not smart enough to be able to speak
a whole lot on that. So, that's why I'm looking at you guys and saying, "Okay, tell me we can go back, we can fix it so that when it goes to the city council, we can have a plan and we can address these things." >> Yeah, absolutely. Like we can add the
brush to provide that light mitigation as well as sound mitigation against the street. We'll provide the shrubs and okay trees that are required. I know you said we were down one parking aisle. We can add that as well. >> Um I think the setback thing is the one
thing I want to take a look at with the civil engineer. Um why they didn't catch that type thing. Um >> Okay. Um >> Um Okay. One of the other things and maybe
this isn't you. Maybe this is um is it Moya? How do you pronounce your last name again? I'm sorry, >> sir. It's Mubio. >> Mubio. Okay. So, Mr. Mubio. So, one of the questions that came up that's going to help us understand how how the business operates in general and about
the time difference between the two businesses. What are the normal operating hours of the office section, the behavioral health section? >> Sir, it's from 8:00 to 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 Monday through Friday. 8 4:30 Monday through Friday. Okay. Now, I'm assuming
like every other place, you know, there might be some early mornings or late nights, right? But generally speaking, those are the those are the times it's open. >> Very correct, sir. >> Okay. Um, so if there there's no other staff, is there do you
have like like evening staff, night staff? Is there is there ever is there a reason why anybody would be around that building at any other time outside normal business? >> So, there's no overnight staff there. It's just it's corporate just from 8 to 4:30 Monday through Friday. >> Okay. Okay. And what would be the
anticipated operating hours of the the social half? >> So actually it's just on the weekend. So I'm looking like Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. >> Okay. And what would you say is it would be at a typical start time? I
>> think 6 6 7. >> Okay. Pete, >> would you would you consider opening it up earlier? Like let's say somebody had a four or five hour event, would you consider opening it up earlier so that maybe they wouldn't be there as late?
Actually, if it's uh something it might be like for presentations, the some we might have like metart seminars if that's something might start a little bit early because they might get a leave sooner. >> Okay. Okay. But let's say you're talking about somebody wanted to use it as for a
dance or for something louder for something whatever you're looking at mostly, you know, evening to to later evening hours, right? >> Very correct, sir. >> Okay. Um, um, another question I have is, are you going to are you going to be
looking for like a liquor license or or is there going to be any other licensing you're going to have on that property? I actually might use a caterer, but that's something I'm open to talk with the city about to have a legal license there if that's an option. Sir, >> well, because it talks about there being a bar and obviously if you're having a social event like a wedding or something.
>> Yes, sir. Correct. >> Okay. Okay. And do you have an idea like uh what the frequency of events might be? That's a good question. Sir actually >> how successful are you going to be? >> Well, so first things first, my goal is
to help the community. It's more of like a community where cultural exhibitions. So that's something we have there. People come and present their cultures. >> So my thinking it's for a month per three to four month. My best guess, but it might change based on the need. >> Okay. >> Yes.
>> Um my other question is are you going to have a designated smoking area? >> Yes. Seder is behind the building. >> Behind the buildings. Okay. Okay. And that's easily accessible from is that is that also where where the where your staff for the office part they go to the
same place as the social part or is it different? >> I think we have I think we have two actually behind the building. So it's way to the back of the building. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. One thing that's in here that talks about signage and I know I was taking a
look at the the the photo. I mean, what are your current plans on altering or changing or adding to signage? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think you're going to keep the >> the current >> 940 Hastings above the business area
will remain the same, I assume, cuz there's no simics or anything on that. Um, and then adding a new entry to the banquet hall area, which will provide a signage for the name of your new venue space. But in terms of at the street, I don't believe you're planning on doing
anything out there. No. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Um, again, not knowing how the other commissioners are going to feel or how the city council is going to feel if if for some reason there wasn't an openness to look at the dual use parking
where we kind of would have some overlap where it's like you've got day spots and evening spots. Do you have the ability or or would it be too detrimental to the larger plan to shrink the size to match what you could get out of the parking?
>> I'm very okay to work with the city. >> Okay. >> I'm very Yeah, I'm open to that. >> But you see what I'm saying? We just I mean, if you had to shrink the venue to down to such so much of a usable space that it almost became unus I mean I'm trying to you know again in the event that we couldn't figure the parking
balance. I don't know if you guys have thought of or if if maybe you want to look at you know what would be the minimal reasonable commercially viable amount of space that we would need to have to operate this social venue.
>> So if I understood you well so are you referring to like to the actual occupancy of the building of the venue space is that >> right so the venue space has got so many square feet right and that's telling us how much parking we have but if we can't get you to that parking one of the things Mr. Spark said is you could
shrink the venue space. >> Yes. >> But again, shrinking the venue space means there's fewer people. It means you're making less money. Maybe you're you're not going to be able to attract the same volume or or or kinds of business. So, there's going to be a a certain point where you're getting where
you're not getting a return, right? So, maybe that's something you might want to consider or to look at because you don't want to say we we've met parking. And then all of a sudden, but we've got to shrink our space to the point where well now the space is not really serviceable or it's not going to give us what we
need. So that's something maybe just we should maybe you might want to take a look at. >> So I'm pretty much open to work with the city based on the recommendation. I'm willing to work with the city on that. Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Do you guys I mean is there anything I
mean I I guess I'm I'm kind of out of question. Do you guys have any other question or Mr. Mr. Conrad I'm sorry I forgot you uh there in video land. Um did you want to say anything? Did you have any questions or any comments? >> No, I think you've covered um most of
what I would have thought of or other u relevant questioning or inquiries. >> Okay. I just didn't want to forget you there. I appreciate that. >> May I make one uh one last comment? >> Absolutely. Sure.
>> Excuse me. Um I know one of the one of the uh the this the points that was brought up earlier was this idea of um you know what seems like a mental health center and a a a big party house. And uh
and and when um uh when I was brought in to uh to design this space and and look at the audio vid video and uh the sound, a lot of the the conversation was around um how can we use this for doing
classes, how can we do use it for use doing seminars, um cultural events, weddings, uh things like that as well. So, it's it's not um you know, it's not like First Avenue is uh is going to be moving in there. It's it's really a uh
intended to be uh at least from the design point point of view um be used for a lot of different purposes. And uh and I think totally understand that where the most ruckus is going to be would be like a wedding reception that
was held there. I mean, that's where the the most noise where they bring in a DJ or something like that. Um but it it uh uh it it it is going to be designed for you know many different uses. Um it's we have all the cameras and you know much
like in this room uh for meetings and and workshops and things like that as well. So >> well and I'm imagining you know given your description of how it was built because again it was a giant Simics freezer. I mean it's a giant space that's pretty well
constructed. I would imagine if you wanted to converse, I mean, it'd be probably really expensive to do a lot of demo and to reinvent this entire space. >> It would it would be Yeah, it it would be huge just looking at um looking at the either the interior of the space.
Um, I mean, it's it is it's built solid and uh and and yet having to especially any of the the the walls, the insulated walls, having to do anything with those I think would be that would be extremely expensive and and and wasteful because
it's that's such a you know that that's such an expensive buildout that being able to retain all of that I think would be very valuable. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So, thank you. >> Oh, thanks for saying that. Yeah. Um, so Mr. Sparks, any comments or
follow-ups on anything you've heard that you might want to throw at us or or or or speak to? >> Uh, yeah. >> Okay. I I want to thank the applicants. You guys, you know, grab a seat and >> we have more questions, I'll we'll grab
you. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, when we're talking about a facility that has two uses like this now, we heard some comments about how it was going to be operated
the office 8 to 4:30 Monday through Friday and then this banquet hall, dance hall from Friday, Saturday, Sunday from about 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. to question mark at night. Right. But then we also heard that that space might
be used for meetings some other things to during the day. Now that's when we have two uses like this and if we were to go into the arena where we start talking about the joint parking that becomes something that we
need crystal clarity on. However, if they were to just do the thing where they reduce the size of the banquet hall area then that wouldn't necessarily be necessary. So that's just something that if we go down that route where we start
looking at that concept, we need to like probably you would say something like in your cup that that one spot can't be used when the other spots being used or something like that, right? You may end up in that. >> So just out of curiosity
on based on the plans that were delivered to us tonight, how many parking spots do they have? And I I just don't have a copy of the plan. Do we do we know? >> I believe they've got 123 and it's likely that I mean they could probably come up with a way
to revise the parking area where they lose maybe three parking stalls or something like that. >> So the their plan put them right at the minimum threshold. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I mean >> I mean the minimum I think would be
three just based on my years of reading plans and just guessing at how things go and >> so if they had so if they had to pull that that that set back to the full 5t they're going to lose whatever those spots are at the end right >> so okay
>> and it could be reconfigured a little bit but let's say they lose three stalls >> okay >> then you know the parking calcs based on the um banquet hall area. It's like one per 80 and one per 40 kitchen,
>> right? >> Barroom. So you think about that, we're talking about like 200 square ft, you know, of that space. >> Or another way of looking at it, I mean, let's say that they can only squeeze,
let's say they getund maybe 118 spots. Okay, so they're down by five. So if we were doing like going to do the overlap even in this scenario where there is some hour overlap >> Mhm. >> we'd be talking about let's say five
spots. Yeah. >> Right. >> I mean I mean would we would I guess I would feel a little uncomfortable saying no to the larger plan if there was an overlap of just five spots like
>> Right. But see the thing that I would caution you here is that you know what what happens if we start having issues right and then we've granted this overlapping thing if
we're in that shared parking cup thing then you're responsible for policing that on that cup right but if they could come up with a way where they can arguably hitting the numbers on that,
then you're only the only thing that you're having to look at is the banquet hall use. You're not the you know, you're not you don't have to get involved with that parking thing because your code is stated that they had enough.
>> So, if they can hit the 123, then it just becomes a non-issue, >> right? >> So, if they just have to pull the pull the property line, get meet the set back and get the 123. >> Yes. So that' be the most simple way of doing it and it wouldn't involve you know review.
>> Yeah. >> But if you go into the joint parking thing like for example we have a joint parking arrangement. There's two different ways of doing it. There's the shared parking where it can be on one lot. You have multiple uses on one lot. They can share parking if they're if
they can demonstrate that their uses are at different times. And but what happens then is you got to actually make sure that I mean like how do you say to them that you can only use you can't have an event with more than x number of people
when you have somebody in an office right I mean getting involved with that level is putting the city in a bad situation because then when something goes ary and it's not working then you have to prove that situation is not
being met. Whereas, if it's just off of the if they're meeting the parking, then you just approach it from the land use issue, not from the parking issue. You don't have to play, well, you had 53, not 50 people in the banquet hall when
somebody was in the office building, right? >> You don't have to worry about that. But we do have like the church uh near here has a joint parking arrangement with the bowling alley is because the but the church never has anything going on at
you know Saturday night when the bowling alley is you know going full steam and it's easy in that case in this case there would be some overlap but what we would have to do is if we were to go that path is we'd have to come up with
how do you guard against the facility being used, the banquet hall, dance hall being used at full capacity when the office use is in operation, right? How would you guard against that?
What condition would you place on the permit? And if you don't want to get into that level of micromanaging it, then you have to just say, "We want you to meet the parking." Right. >> That would be the concern because you're you're setting yourself up for a
difficult situation then. And then also like let's say you know they they are meeting the parking, they have the minimum amount of parking, but then people keep parking in the neighborhoods around here. That
could happen anyway, but at least they would have the ability. Then you could go to them and say, "We want you to tell your people to park in the parking lot." and not be in the neighborhood or we're going to start putting up no parking signs and then you can still be assured.
Now, alternatively, they wouldn't have the opportunity to do like what the church did because their peak would be the same time as the bowling alley. So, they can't share with the bowling alley because they're both on peak at the same time. But it's just
getting into the minutia of that parking calc has some downsides for because you guys would be the ones that would be reviewing this if somebody's complaining about it. And how would you, you know, you're just leading yourself into a situation where you're going to
have to be more in the details of a business operation than perhaps you want to be. But again, they don't know for sure that they how big of an issue this is. And maybe that is the only alternative.
But if they kind of re-examine this parking thing, they don't really lose that many spaces, reducing the size of that area a little bit might be the easiest thing to do. But if you don't do that, what you know we typically look
for is what assurances do you want to have related to you have to say something about you can't be at full capacity at both if you give somebody that type of cup and and what do you how would you
monitor that and what would you say about that? like you can only be at the most people you could have in the banquet hall is like a hundred people if the if if the if it's during the hours of operation of the office or something like that. That would be what you'd have
to do. And if you don't want to do that then it's you're better off asking for the parking. >> I'm not sure that we could even police it to be honest with you. I think that would be next to impossible trying to distinguish which cars for which
business just outside looking in. That's what I see. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, no, cuz it seems to be the two biggest hang-ups on this are are are noise and parking, right? So, let's assume for the sake of argument that we we've got the auto test report. Let's say we can check noise off the box. Like that's we're not worried that once all
the modifications are done that the noise is going to impact the neighborhood, at least from the building, right? So, then we're down to parking. So, I just I mean I again like I said before, I mean I just want to make sure we're giving everybody the best opportunity to to put the best plan forward. Yeah.
>> And again, you mentioned the the noise. Noise is easier because what you would say is in your cup noise levels cannot be detected like from this use off the property or something like that. You'd
say something like that. And then like what he had was a a Mr. Baronson had a um like a noise volume reader which you know the police department might have one of those cuz that's how they you
know can prove that a house party's out of control. The sheriff's department has them for sure. I know you can buy them too, but you I don't know how admissible an Amazon one is in the court if you got into a battle with somebody, but um what you do is like you can you have meters
for noise and light and things like that that you can use to help enforce your codes for these types of situations. So when you take like a a a noise reading and it's over a certain threshold for a certain amount of time, you know, then
it's a violation of the PCA standards. But with a cup, typically you'd be like kind of like you do with light is you say you can't have a light reading over a certain number off the property. So it would just you'd want the noise levels
to be just essentially at like the center line of the road in front of it to be just the same as what the ambient noise is in the area. and like a a condition like that would be would be
acceptable for monitoring that. And then for the parking, it's just that's the when you do the cup for the the joint parking, you have to come up with something that that regulates when you know how that works because you
can't just say, "Oh, you got one." And then you don't say anything about that and then there's a parking problem. Then how would you you didn't give yourself any tools to correct it, right? >> Yep. >> It's all subjective. Then >> speaking of parking, I have a question. Um you know, you're talking about
putting like shrubs and trees along the city or along the street line, right? To for light mitigation. >> Um and I just cuz I don't know is is part of that a county right away along that along that road? >> Yes, it's a county right of way. And and
what we what we would do in that situation is if you can't fit it in the right of way, like shrubs and stuff grow out, sometimes go into the right of way. And if you can't fit it in there, what people will commonly do is just replace
it with like a little like a short little fence. >> Okay? >> And that's considered to be screening. And they they they could they could look at it. They've got professionals who they've been working with who have produced these plans which you got to
admit are very well done, right? And so they know what they're doing. And if we're saying that we want some sort of screening and they can't fit the screening in the area, typically you see them replace that with some sort of fence. Now, fencing becomes problematic
in terms of snow removal then cuz sometimes when you do the snow plowing it pushes up against the fence and then the fence isn't there in March anymore. So, we prefer the landscape vegetation. Sometimes a mix of the two. Um because
I'm sure you've seen like like every business that in the suburbs that you drive by has dealt with this, right? They all do this where they block the the lighting coming from the headlights in the park because your those stalls on the front have headlights that shine out
and you try to mitigate that to the properties across the street. And they have a range of options available to them on how they could address that. But the most common one and the one that uh we recommended and they seem to already
be thinking of is that you'd put like a like bushes in there or something in there. But if you can't fit it in in the space, then you might have to increase the space or decrease the width of what you're using. And the easiest way to do
that would be via some form of fencing. Well, then you know I have a question which is I mean is that going to look strange by having just one section with shrubs and because there's nothing in front of the bowling alley and there's nothing I mean >> if the bowling alley were to be built
today there would be but yes it is. >> But no but no no but no you're right but I'm just you know because again part of the conversation you want to have is is >> what would this do to the area? I mean, what what what how do all these things impact? It impact the the sight lines, the what does it look like? So, I'm just
like imagine there's just going to be this section of trees and brush and bushes and then nothing this way and nothing that way. So I >> well when when you see these the way that it's typically done, you know, like you'll see it it'll be like a a row of
landscaping that it's it's not like some big, you know, overgrown juniper bush that's like unwieldly growing in the rightway. They're pretty targeted like low plantings that are just intended to
mitigate the edge of the parking to the properties across the street. And it it's a pretty common requirement. And there's multiple ways you can approach it. And like a lot of times you'll have like it's almost like there's like mulch
or rock on the ground and these plants coming out of it, you know, and just space just enough to where it cuts down on that glare from the parking lot and the impact from the parking lot. And it's it's it's pretty common when people do
this. I mean, you'll see it like at Targets and Walmarts all the time that they do this on the edge. Like they'll have the little fence and then they'll have like the plantings and it's something that undoubtedly somebody could come up with something to to do on
that. >> Other questions, thoughts? Mr. Conrad, anything? I don't know if it's relevant here just the some of the rumblings on social media wondering in general that the term of event center and some of the comments
that people made. I think it's advantageous to maybe clarify that this is more of um an an extension of the the use of the building, not necessarily meant for public
u gatherings of just chance. It's more planned events. Um just to help ease the some of the public comments and concerns that they might have had around this and maybe that'll get addressed more at the council level meeting. But um I just uh
I think it was worth uh just noting that. >> Okay. >> So if there's if we don't have any more questions or thoughts, if you don't have any, then I think we should probably open up the public meeting. Okay, we're good. >> All right. So I'm going to open up the
public meeting on the uh application. So, if anybody wants to come up and say a few words, you just have to give your name and address and Hi, I'm Steve Hartfield. I live at 1027 Aurora, right across the street from this property. Uh, my concern still is
the sound. I know that there was testimony that the decibel level when they did a test uh was not significant, but I'll tell you, you had an event on Saturday and it got done with the noise at 1:45 a.m. So, whatever devices they
were using, the base that was going on, you could feel the thump thump thump thump thump until 1:45 a.m. And that's ridiculous. So, I I I know you're like, "Oh, we don't have to change a whole lot." I something will have to change if you're going to be open. I I just it's
just it's not right. Um I and and to even have a reception go that late in our town seems ridiculous to me too. I I midnight seems to be a proper cut off for normal receptions. I think that's what they have for the Legion. Um I
would expect that to continue here. I don't I I what type of thing? It was a wedding reception maybe that was going on on Saturday and and were you there? >> The family reunion. >> Oh, family reunion. Okay. So, whatever
base that they had um it did a great job making a lot of noise. I It was um a constant thump thump thump until like I say 145. >> So, was that audible from your home or from outside or where were you hearing? >> I was in my house. I could um I could
feel it. I I can't necessarily say that it's an audible thing, but you can feel the thump thump thump. Um that's the problem with bass. I I don't know if you can actually measure decibel levels. I I don't have a tool that would do that, but it could definitely I I definitely
knew it was present. Couldn't sleep because it was, you know, the thump thumb thump thump. Um we could hear it in our living room, which is actually on the other side of our house, but our bedroom is actually on that side of the house. So, you know, by the time we wanted to go to bed at, you know, midnight, it it was quite bothersome.
Partly too, it is nighttime at, you know, at that time. I think the sound is going to be different because you don't have the wind that you normally have during the day. Um, and it's something that has to be considered as well. >> Okay. >> That's my main concern. Thank you.
Any other public comments? >> If you want, you're welcome to make a comment. You just have to come on up and name and address. >> All right. I'm John Ecklund, 1150
Chicago Avenue, St. Paul Park 55071, my question, and this is what I got out of this. You're going to have an event center with 450 people. Is that correct? >> Possibly. >> Possibly up to 450 people. Okay. You're
going to have service staff of I don't know 20 people for this event. Is that >> which is why they're they've got a minimum parking requirement because it it includes the the social aspect but also includes
>> dining space which would be staff. >> Okay. So you're talking Yeah. somewhere in the ballpark of maybe almost 500 people. How many cars are you planning on parking? 123.
That's not a realistic number. >> But that's but that's code, right? So, we don't arbitrarily set the number, right? We ask Mr. Sparks and we ask >> where are they going to park 123 cars at this location is my question.
>> Well, that's for the applicant to I mean that's what the plan show. The plan show this is where we're going to have a parking. This is how many spaces we have. Are they going to put it in the back of the building? >> The parking pretty much wraps >> around the whole building. >> Yeah. >> Okay. That was my question,
but the city has decided 123 cars, 123 spots will be enough. I'm just >> Well, >> I'm I'm asking where this number came from. >> So, Mr. So, if in tonight's packet and you can get this online, you can go on the city website. They matter in fact
it's really nice on they've got a little >> a little >> okay >> little grid with the breakdown of like how the number of spaces what what how do we get there what's what's the percentages so you can go in there at the very bottom it's got the little square it says you got to at least have
at least 123 spaces to meet code >> that's that was my question >> yep where the number for 123 parking spots came from so okay that was my only question. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Any other public comments? Seeing no. Uh oh. Oh. Getting right in on the wire here. >> Hi, I'm Peggy Hartfield. I live at 1027
Aurora Avenue, 55071. um on when you did your uh your test for the ambient sound, >> where when did you do that and like what time of day? And I was just curious, did you have I know you heard sound, but did
you have a base going because that really is you can literally feel it in our house and you can feel I have decorative spoons that hang on my wall and they rattle. So that's I was just kind of curious when you said I walked over closer to the neighbors because we
are the neighbors. We are on the corner house. Um and you said well you could barely hear it. I can hear the traffic on the highway and like my husband said different times of the day it's different. During the day it's not as
big of a deal. when it's really quiet and especially now that there's no leaves in winter, the sound carries so much farther and so you can hear the traffic, >> right? When the air is cold and the air is still, it's going to I mean,
>> well, that's where like when they did have your event over the weekend, it was cold. It was not a lot of wind and the sound you could just I mean, you could feel it and it was 1:45 and it's kind of like, okay, is it going to end? Do we
have to call the police? Because this is kind of getting to be like midnight. We're we're we're reasonable people. when you get to be one, two in the morning, I love my family, but I say move on, you know. So, it's kind of
that's my biggest concern. It's the and if it's going to be Friday night, Saturday night, Sunday night, you know, by Monday, I'm not going to be a very happy human being doing my job because I have grandkids that come over at 7 in the morning. And so, it's kind of it's
it makes it more of a challenge. But that's that's my biggest concern. the parking. Yes, it's important to the city. That's not my concern. My concern is the sound, >> right? And as a state, I mean, there is going to be more noise mitigation. I
mean, that they're not done, right? >> And I guess I would be curious when you do your mitigation, could you come into my house or near my home? I mean, like actually up to my bedroom window and see if you can hear and or feel. >> Yeah, Mr. Yeah. Come on up.
I'm gonna have you state your name again just so that everyone know >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Uh, my name is Todd Bernson and um I I I I did want to respond to you. I'm a little bit concerned about the the report of of the
thumping. And um you know, as as the sound guy, I want to figure out why why why you got that, whether there was a door that was left open or what was going on. When we did the test, we had four 1,000 watt subwoofers in there that were they were cabinets
about like this. There were four of them in addition to four powered PA uh speakers. And um and when when I did my testing, it was I I showed up at the at the center at about 7:00. We actually
started doing the testing around 8. Um there was there was a fair amount of traffic going in and and out of the bowling alley and so hence the the um you know 56 del 60 decel uh ambient
noise primarily from that. Um, and when we when we had that system cranked, um, I you must be the house that that I was standing in front of that that that kind of the driveway out of that you know
comes out of that that unit. Um, honestly, I could barely hear anything and and my my concern from your report, I don't doubt you in the least. um is I I want to find out what the conditions were in that room so that if
we need to have some kind of policy about making sure that that the interior because my my suspicion is that the interior loading dock doors were not closed and that they were they were open. So, the only thing that was
separating the interior of the venue from the the exterior was just the this the garage door. And if that's the if that's the case, that'll be a fairly easy fix. If that's not the case, if those doors were closed, then um then I
I I I do want to find out what what system was in there and and what they were using because I I know the system that we're installing. Um, but I want to find out what was being used to uh to help explain why you were you were experiencing that in your home when when
I was not experiencing that during testing. So, I'll but but I will I'll take that very seriously. So, thank you for for sharing that. >> Okay. Well, thank you. So, any response? Any more public comment?
Okay, seeing no other members of the public wanting to stand up, we're going to close the public hearing. And I guess this would be the time for the commission to ask questions, talk. Mr. Conrad, you're feel free to dive in and jump in. Uh, this would be a great
time for you to raise any points you want to bring up or talk about anything you want to talk about. >> All right. Thank you. >> So, as Mr. Sparks stated, I mean, like, you know, there's a there's a threshold question of I mean, do we think that
this is a use that we would be okay with seeing in this in this space. Um, in our packet, we've got the condition the conditional use permit
review. Um, you know, is this proposed use so unusual or different or of such a character or nature that it would not be
appropriate for this space or not be appropriate in this area? Um, does it do something to the area or does it fundamentally change the nature or the aspect of this area? Um, I mean, I guess I'll go out first here,
which is I mean, I I don't think converting the warehouse section of this building into a sort of a social use place seems out of character for the area. Again, we've got a church across the street.
We've got the bowling alley right next to it. We got the bank. So, this is a kind of a commercial area, right? This is where things are happening. I know it's across the street from some houses, but it it's I mean the as far as the zoning goes and the other
properties next to it, it's it's not completely out of character. It doesn't seem to be completely some sort of alien or foreign um use for the property. Um I don't think it would be incompatible. I mean, they're not making
and I guess the good thing is they're not making a lot of significant changes to the building. So, we're not looking at construction and demolition. Um, we're pretty much taking the building as is and we're we're we're repurposing it, which is, I think, a good thing. Um,
you know, having lived on Lincoln Avenue for 20 years and spent the last four months watching dirt trucks come up and down and shaking the hell out of my house, I would appreciate not having a giant construction project, you know, that close to me. um >> you know um
one of the factors, you know, will this use would it would it somehow depreciate the area or or somehow cause damage to the to the neighbors or to values there? I I don't I mean that building's been there since I've been here for 20 years. I I don't it's not it's not going
anywhere. I don't see that it's uh by by repurposing part of the building, I don't think we're necessarily going to harm or hurt or or devalue the other properties around it. Um I don't see it as necessarily being a a
drain on on on the public resources. I mean, they're going to put in the the storm water mitigation. They're going to ret they're going to take care of the parking spaces. They're going to have to work with the county in terms of the curb cuts and deciding what entrance and entrances and exits that's going to be something that they're going to have to
handle. So, I'm looking at the criteria and I'm not seeing a a a particular one of the criteria that's jumping out at me that says that somehow this proposed use is of such a character, such a nature that
we would be concerned about issuing a a conditional use permit. So other thoughts, other perspectives? >> Yeah, I I don't have an issue with the proposed use, but I think there are four matters requiring attention that would
need to be uh addressed before you continue moving forward. Uh the first separate parking, it seems nearly impossible to keep the office separate from the event venue. And in fact, it might behoove you to keep them separate
because then you would be able to have events during the day if you chose at the event center without having to keep the parking separate from the office in the event center. Uh the second issue I see is the sound. Um while I do
appreciate the report that was provided, I'm not sure that it was provided by a non-biased third party. um you are a service provider to them. So you are inherently attached to the applicant and I'm also not sure that um the test level
measurements you're using in decibb is capturing base. I could be wrong on that but I'm not certain that it is capturing base that other residents have brought up as a concern. Uh the third and the fourth smaller issues, the landscaping and the storm water, those would be
issues that you would solve down the line, but the big two that I see are the separate parking and then the sound and the noise complaints that would follow. >> Yeah. Now, uh, for me, I'm kind of along the same lines, uh, is that the sound transmission, cuz I know you did have
the decibel meter out there, um, and that measures the sound in the air. It can't measure the sound in the ground, and that's what they're feeling there is that low frequency, uh, sound transmission through the ground. Uh, and that's going to be difficult to mitigate
because the only way you can do that is putting sound dampeners on the actual uh, bass speakers themselves. Uh, and those usually don't work either. Uh, they usually break down pretty quickly. Um, so yeah, so those are going to be
the biggest concerns that the neighbors are going to have. Uh, as far as the parking spaces go, using the shared parking and what have you, I think that can be handled. you guys can manage that. So, I'm not too concerned about that, but it's definitely the sound. And
then, you know, what if there's chaos at at an event or something and something goes this way and something goes sideways? Uh, you know, how are we going to handle those type of situations? And when I say how you guys are going to handle those situations, that's that's
what we need to be reassured on. Yeah. Well, I mean, but if they can meet the 123 parking, then we're like Mr. Spark said, you know, and and I agree with you, right, which is, you know, there's a level of detail, right, we don't want to get involved in, right? So, if they hit 123,
>> that's it. We're out, right? You you've got the spaces and whether the office people park in the front, the back, or the side, >> we don't we don't want to, right? We don't want to be the policemen of that, right? So if you hit the if you can hit the the the right number um then I think
that again that just becomes a box you cross off and >> it just becomes one less hurdle that you have to deal with in terms of getting what you want out of the space. Um, so I I I guess I mean at some point we're going to have to decide whether or
not >> there's been enough here that we can make a recommendation one way or the other >> to the city council. Right. Um, >> if I could make a comment.
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. I know they were talking about um you know an after midnight situation with the base. Is it possible to put some kind of recommendation for a a a time adjustment? you know, if they're
still gathering and um celebrating whatever their event is that they do put some form of uh maximum basis in particular if it's just the general volume, but some kind of maximum um sound level after midnight if
that would be the case. and maybe actually have a an ultimate event closure also as if in the old days when there would be banquetss at the bowling alley, you know, they they couldn't carry on till 3 4 in the morning. They had to end at midnight one or you know
at the time before co 2:00 was our limits. Is is those types of things or suggestions an option? So Nate, only because I just don't know the code that well. I mean, do we have do we have code uh that are op hours of operation for
the B2? >> No. Um but >> but as a part of the CUP, we could make that >> hours of operation, we could put that in there, right? as the honorable council liaison was noting. Um, one probably the
like having some regulation on the the what types of sound and whatnot might be uh hard for us to enforce in our small idilic community. But
the suggestion that he had about the like end time is something that you would be able to probably more easily regulate if they could come up with something on the the sound that was something tangible that we wouldn't have
trouble enforcing. That's one thing. And >> well, we're actually talking about two things, right? Which is >> we're talking about >> we're okay. when does the music end versus when does the venue close? Those don't have to be simultaneous. >> That's correct. But that that would be
something we'd probably need to >> ask the applicant about. Uh because you know, like if you said you're you're done at 10 p.m., is that something that Right. I mean, but again, you know, these like a time an ending
time is something that you could add to a cup that is enforcable. We'd have to probably think and stroke our chins and come up with something on the the the sound changing.
Um that might be difficult for us to do but the end time thing would not be difficult to do. >> Well I mean I would imagine okay just from like being on this side of the the fence you know planning commission which is as to the noise I mean saying okay
you got to turn the volume down to you know half by okay we're not going to police it. We're not going to send a sheriff or somebody out there with a noise. Okay. I would imagine that the easiest simplest way to to get this place is like music till
this time then music is done and then venue clo I mean just the best I mean the the the simplest fastest easiest way of regulating is is it on or is it off not where's that between 1 and 10 right I don't want to be dealing with is that
three five seven or nine right >> on and off that would seem to be from again from this side the easiest way of coming up for the standard because it'll be pretty obvious if you're meeting it or not. >> Yep. >> Yeah.
>> So, I I would just if you're thinking about an end time thing though, we'd probably want to talk to the applicants about that before and you and you would want it to be maybe tied to something cuz like if the you
know do do we tell other businesses that they have to shut off stuff at certain times? And again, I mean, if if this is a hurdle that you can't get across, you know, is this a compatibility issue for the use or is this a use issue that you
can mitigate, which is what you can do through a cup, right? So, so okay. So, so in the event that we would that we're going to push this to a vote, would we then want to include our
recommendations to the city council for, you know, We think you should approve it if city engineers specs are met, if the the if Mr. Sparks notes are met, and if these other
conditions, which is like noise off here, closing by here? I mean, would we want that to be a part of a recommendation that would come out of this tonight? Right. >> Right. So you have a option if you were to make a recommendation to the council.
I believe the applicant is going to finish their plan revisions. They may seek to not go to the council next week. They may seek to go at a future time. We can extend the 60-day period and then they could go to a later meeting if they
wanted to finish tweaking their plans, which it sounded like they were thinking about doing. Uh but and then you would just say, you know, like one of the things we would do is if like I were making the resolution to the city council, like some of the things that
are inherent to those plans, we would say, you know, the cup includes those plans and then like like one comment here tonight was that there's a smoking areas behind the building, right? we would put that like in the resolution
just so it's called out even though it's on their plans, right? Because sometimes it's easier to pull out the cup and say, "Oh, you're not supposed to have 150 people smoking cigars in the front parking lot." Right? So, like things like that. But then when it comes to
these other issues that you've been discussing in great detail on this end, um you would need to specify what it is that you're looking for. And if they come up with something that meets it, we put that in the cup. They show this and
it has to be this. But if you're gonna say something like you want uh like something related to the sound done, right, and you specify that, then we can put that in that resolution. But
if you're looking for um like an end time to the sound, then you need to state what that is so that can go into the the the final conditions. But everything else, we may put things in the resolution that you
didn't say because what we'd be doing is writing up what was inherent to the plan for easy reference essentially. So you don't need to call every little thing out like must go people must go in through the front door, right? I mean it's if it's inherent to the plan, it's
inherent to the plan, right? And but then it's just that you're looking for them to meet the engineering requirements that add that little bit of landscaping. Uh set it up so that the parking is
something that you city doesn't have to monitor. Just >> they just got to meet they just they just need to meet their minimum parking. meet the minimum parking and then >> but the sound issue seems like something that you're maybe still >> talking about here and like it was
suggested something about uh some additional information related to the sound being provided that if you can show that you can do it and meet requirements then maybe that's acceptable and if
that's something you want to see again then you should table to come back here next month. If it's something that you think if you just provide something that shows that you can that this can be handled, then we're okay with the council
approving it. You could do that either way. But if if you want to see that information related to the sound, then it should stay with you. But if you are comfortable with seeing something or having something provided that proves what you're assuming that it is
potentially correct, then that could go to council. Right? So we could we could we could we could craft recommendations, take a vote, and then who would be responsible for deciding when this goes to council? Would the applicant say I want some time
or would we have to make a recommendation that it would be >> it would just go to council. So if like let's say the way that we would typically do this is I would put it on for the council agenda. I would submit
it to the administrator and clerk and say uh they're going to tweak a couple things and then we just need enough time to look at it. I mean what happens is if there's not enough time then it comes to the meeting and nobody understands what's going on because nobody had a
chance to look at it and it just gets tabled right so we know we there's no point in that right so what we would do is get the information from them have enough time for our team to look at it get back to them if we need something tweaked and then we would schedule it
for the the next available council meeting after that. So if we so we could pass it on and it wouldn't necessarily have to go to the next council meeting, right? >> No. >> Okay. So we can make a vote, we can make a recommendation, you know, meet all these conditions and we could at least get it out of the planning commission so
that we have have to keep bringing everybody back, right? And then we could let the city council >> deal with sort of the finetune. >> That's you could do that. Yeah. Um if you have
>> if it isn't something that you need to finish your inquir inquiry here. >> No, I mean I don't know what you guys mean, but tonight was much moreformational than what probably we would have gotten a month ago when we tabled this. I mean, I I agree. I think if we do if we were to submit it and it
does go to the city council, I'm not sure that the sound issue would be solved. That's my underlying concern. I think after he's >> if the commission's okay I think if you want to come up if you can offer up us
something to help us make some decisions that would be great. Yes. >> Sure. >> So um one of the concerns that was brought up was about the transmission of base that uh that that happens through rigid structures right through the ground through walls things like that. Totally understand it. It does it there.
It's very high. It's very, you know, high energy, low frequency um stuff and that that transmits very easily through the ground. The uh unlike the s anything that's been in there previously, the system that we're uh that that uh I I
have proposed to purchase is uh is what's called a a a suspended line array system. So nothing actually touches the floor. um the uh the the subwoofers are actually hung from the ceiling from a single chain. So there's actually very
little physical transmission of sound through uh through the floor unlike uh all the other systems where the subwoofers have been sitting on the floor pounding. Um and in in just speaking briefly with NZE, it sounds
like that those double doors were likely open. And uh one of the things that that I would like to I haven't spoken with them um but one of the things that I think would make some sense is um once
we have the suspended line array in place um we can bring up we can bring up the sound levels and if you would be amanable to this is for us to be on the cell phone and just like can you hear it and can you feel it because then what
what I can do is I can actually go up on the speakers and adjust so that the maximum volume at the mixer could never get to the level where it's bothering them. And I think that that's, you know,
that seems like it would be a little bit more of a of a workable solution rather than, you know, them sitting at 11:45 looking at the clock, you know, go boom, boom, you know, waiting for waiting for midnight or whatever. Um, I really do
believe that the suspended line array system is going to solve a lot of the base transmission through the the ground. Um, and uh, and you know, as as long as everyone be amanable to just, you know what, let's just let's just
test it. We'll we'll we'll crank it up. We'll, you know, see if they're if they have any noise in their house. If they do, we can actually these speakers are going to be hung about 15 ft in the air. So we'll be up on a scissor lift adjusting these. So it's not like a partygoer, you know, could just reach up
and and turn up the volume on the on the boxes. So that would just that's just uh just something that that came um that just came up during our you know during this conversation. So >> So okay, then the devil's advocate
question is when would they be hung or how fast could they be hung and how fast could this be tested? Well, um, we could actually, uh, depending on, you know, depending on this, uh, I could pick up the system this week and we could we could hang
them up and, um, and crank some sound through. We didn't have to have the entire sound system installed to get to test the speakers. Right. >> Right now, we're we're kind of focusing on just this bass. >> Right. Okay. Right. And uh we could get those we can get those flown and even
without the any additional sound abatement we could get you know we we could be in contact with them and just say you know do you hear anything? Do you feel anything? You know are are your spoons rattling? Um because then then if it's if it's not an issue then woo all
right it's it's solved. And then that that really clarifies a lot of things, right? And um you know then then they're they're satisfied. Our system is up there. It's been adjusted and we know that you know if you get an enthusiastic
G DJ in there that you know pushes the faders up to 10 on the mixing board, it won't matter because the speakers are set to a point where they cannot go above a particular volume level. >> Okay. >> That would that's kind of my thought.
No. And again, okay, those are good facts. Th those help. I mean, that certainly pushes the issue in the right direction, right? Which is we can and will do things that are going to mitigate that issue. >> Totally. Okay. >> Yeah. Whatever Whatever it takes to get it done. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thanks.
>> If I can ask a couple more comments. >> Sure. >> Some issues that he kind of touched on. One was referencing the double doors. So as an insulation factor, whether it be for HVAC or for sound in this case, is the new entry going in through the dock
area, the entertainment area, would that be a double door entry? Um so that there would be insulation not just of >> Yeah, I think >> air be it AC or heat, but also for noise that the to minimize the chances of the doors being open so that whatever is
inside air or sound is limited. That's a question of that I would ask. And then then he also mentioned about the uh >> somebody may have opened the dock doors. Is there a way to assure that those doors stay closed unless it's an emergency egress situation? But uh that
it's understood that the door should be be and remain closed. >> Just those two things. >> Sure. But with the the the current design, the uh the double doors are open right into the into the event center
itself. So if those double doors are open, all of the sound spills directly out, you know, right out through that that loading dock area. That is not where people come in and out. There's actually a a separate entrance in a a vestibule area that uh where there's a
an enclosed room that separates the the exterior entrance from the entrance into the into the um the event center itself. So there's a an additional buffer room that um you know if people were coming
in and coming out it wouldn't be the same situation as as with the loading dock. But I I agree. I think there would need to be a um just kind of by um by policy those loading dock doors unless
there was some active loading or unloading happening after the event is over or before the event started that those would always remain closed. There is another emergency egress. There's actually several other egress doors in
that uh in that room as well. um you know may not need to like you know lock that closed in case of emergency but but just to keep those closed I think would be would be important. >> As far as the loading docks and the and the doors facing the street wise there's
there's basically two doors between the noise and the the exterior of the building whether it be from the entrance or from the loading docks. >> That's correct. Okay. And the interior doors, the reason why those are so important for the for the sound is that those were the doors that separated the
refrigerator from the exterior. So, they're heavily insulated and they're very heavy doors. The garage door is it's a I mean, it's it's an insulated garage door, but it's, you know, it's a garage door. And so, um, for all intents and purposes,
>> you know, they're um, you know, while well while they'll they'll block some sound. I mean, they're they're fairly acoustically transparent, especially when you get into the into the low base, but when you have the, you know, these high density insulated doors, I mean, they're and they're heavy, these big heavy steel insulated doors, when those
are closed, that really uh that that's really where your kind of your your sound block is and that that loading dock. So, if those were open, it it doesn't surprise me that there was quite a bit of bleed. And that's just a that and that's just something that they have to be aware of and they have to just
police at the center. >> Right. Right. Right. >> Okay. >> Any other questions for me? >> No. Okay. Thank you. >> Mr. Conrad, did you have other thoughts or questions or >> No, I think that pretty much covers what
I had on my mind. >> Okay. I mean, did did that additional information help you? Did it give you any peace or did it did it move you in a direction? >> I I think hearing his willingness to address the issues um and I agree that
he does have, you know, a personal interest in coming to resolution and I appreciate that. But I still think uh you seem very forthcoming and and willing to try and address these things and and um you know maybe it's something we look at having some wording in there
that we still have these concerns and assuming that they are addressed and met that we can move forward with this. Well, like I mean I think I think if we're going to make recommendations, I mean one of my notes was, you know, basically that we would as far as the noise goes that, you know, we would want them to meet the abatement that they've
already put in the plans and that they would include, you know, policy. So, not just physically meet the conditions that are in their plans, but then also have human written policies that says, you know, we're going to make sure that doors remain
closed and that all the sound abatement tools at that property are being used. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Other thoughts, other questions? Uh >> yeah, just mostly just a time limit as far as how long they can play music at
night. That's my biggest concern just because they've we've already observed that they've been playing music later than >> the neighbors would like. >> Mr. Mr. Sparks, just again, not because I I just don't know, but I mean, are there are there hours of operations or
there are there other things in the ordinance concerning this district or citywide that we would want to be aware of when we're when we're thinking through this topic? >> Well, your code has requirements. It's
mostly around though like the way these codes are typically written. It's like when you have amplified music outside and how that travels and when it's really really loud music in a building. I mean that's not
really uh ever thought of is that that would be the case, right? So that's where you have to come up with some way to say and this is what we would put in the cup would have to be
something that the music can't be from inside the building can't be audible from like adjacent properties not within the same zoning district or properties in the vicinity zone you know not in the B2 district or
something like that. So the noise would not you you wouldn't the noise would have to be abated such that you couldn't hear it from adjacent or or adjoining properties. >> Well, we'd have to be careful with our wording there because if we were to
enforce on it and we end up in court, right? >> That's what I'm Yeah, >> we don't want that. Our goal would be that you can't detect the music in the residential properties across the street or
something like that. So what you say is like one way would be from cuz I mean we aren't really concerned if you can hear it a little bit on the bowling alley property, right? I mean, but we don't want to be able to hear it
from like the center line of the road of Hastings or the the residential properties across the street. And that would be what we'd be looking for. And then detectable is what does that mean,
right? But what we'd be looking at in enforcement would be like, you know, we keep talking about like the background noise, the ambient noise and stuff. If you're hearing it over that from like the neighbor's house across the street, well, then we clearly have
an issue, right? So we wouldn't want to be able to have like so if normal ambient back wire noise is 50 to 60 dB like we wouldn't want to have no detectable noise that would exceed the ambient noise levels or something. >> Yeah. But the the ambient noise changes
and comes and goes as it was noted. It's like when cars are driving by on Highway 61, you you would hear that, right? But what you would do is it's just if the noise is detectable from those
properties, then that's a problem. I mean, you shouldn't be having like when a band plays in a bar, you know, you do you want to be able to hear them like two blocks away? No. I mean, you're you have a residential neighborhood across the street. So, we'd have to come up
with a way of wording that. Well, we have to make a recommendation that gets approximates approximates what we want and then unfortunately we're have to leave it to the city council and to sort of fine-tune it. Right. >> Right. So, I mean probably the easiest
way to handle some of this just end time of hours of operation and then you know getting into the weeds on like >> so we would re we make a recommendation music ends at this time the venue must close by this time. That's that's the
easiest way of dealing with this. But I mean, if you're you're because again, we want to get out of the situation where we're putting too much of a burden on ourselves to prove it. But the other thing you can do is if noise, if sound is detectable from the properties, the residential properties across the
street, that would be a violation. Now, I mean, there's wedding venues all over the place, right? Some of them are part indoors, part outdoors, right? So, what do the neighbors in those situations do? Well, they're constantly calling the cops saying, "It's too loud here." And
then, you know, then you're pulling the police away on a Saturday night to come out and stand there with a noise meter. and you know the ambient noise is this and but but this is the you know it's not we we don't want to put the too much of a burden on the enforcement side of
things but I think you know hours of operation is an easy thing to handle and um having just the detectable noise levels from offsite these are things that you could easily do but I mean
that's kind of where you need to put your discussion on. And then, you know, I think we just have to, you know, you either need to at this juncture, this is just my friendly advice, is do you want
to see what they come up with on this sound issue or do you want to go to council for their review? I think that's kind of where you're at right now. And if and you can do it either way. We have a little time on the we can extend the 60-day rule. And if you want to see it,
because if they aren't going to be done to go to council anyway next week, you know, you're just essentially adding two weeks to the process for you to see it yourself at that point.
I I mean, as much as I love to micromanage and control of everything, um I'm balancing like, do we make them come back here for a third time versus can we trust the city council to hear this maybe two
or three meetings from now and that maybe by then their plans will come in and trust that the five members of the city council? >> Well, and the council could always refer it back to you if they felt >> correct. If they didn't like Yeah. I mean, so I I >> I'm I'm open. I mean, I again, I have my own ideas.
>> We have uh we have a council liaison and then we have another city me city council member. So, we have two people who are >> intimately familiar with the details. Correct. So, I agree that having them come back for a third time might not be
the right option, but we also have two people who are sitting on the city council who can help speak to the sound issue, which is the underlying large issue at hand right now. >> Right. >> So, I mean, would you feel comfortable like letting it come leave the commission and go to the council >> given that we have two people here
tonight who are sitting members on the city council? Yes. >> Okay. >> Um, can I add one more thing then? Yes, >> as many as you like. >> So, I know we've discussed an end time.
Our our local establishments have ultimate end times, which I think are 1:00 right now. Um, some of them are discretionary. If their crowds vacate early, they'll close early. It It would be clearer and easier if there was an end time. Is that end time
opposed? >> No. Is this something we we look at what the uh >> I think they made they made some suggestions. So I mean I again I'm going to go on a limb. I mean if maybe you get you know music off at midnight and the and the place closes at 1. Give some
people the windown time. Music is off because once the music goes off I'm assuming most people are going to be like okay that's the signal the party's over. They're going to start to filter out. you know, if you give an hour. So, good evening everyone. So, what Mr. Todd said is we can work with us with
the neighbors so he can get assistance up then they can they can actually dial to see when they can hear the sound if that's your concern. We're willing to work with them to make sure that sound is not an issue. >> Right. So, right now the question from Mr. Conrad was like what would be
appropriate end times? Like my suggestion was turn your music off at midnight. Make sure everyone's gone by 1. Is is that does that meet with like your expectations for that business or good? Sometimes and the
party starts at 600 7. So it might uh it might go depends on the crowd size and it it varies. It might close sometime at 11:00. Sometime might go to like maybe 1:32. But that's something I'm willing to work with the city. >> Well, now remember, we're just saying I mean you can you can end the party as early as you want. Okay. >> We're just saying you can't go any
further, right? So again, and everyone's free to jump in that like my suggestion would be we want your music off by midnight. So at the very least we can get some sleep and as long as people are gone by 1,
you know, then then we've cleared the space. We don't have to worry about noises all night long. So I mean if if if that was a recommendation that came from this commission or if it came from the city council, do you think that's that you think that would be reasonable for your business? Could you operate
within that that restriction? Good question. So from what I've noticed actually from from my past experiences, you know, it starts sometime late and goes to like 132. >> But if we said you got to be gone by one, you got to be gone by one. That's that's going to be part of the cup that
there's going to be a there's going to be a drop dead time. >> Fair court, sir. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. >> Clarification if I may. >> Sure. >> What's the closing time of the bowling right next to it?
>> Yeah, I know that. I don't know. We can find out. >> It's 10. >> Okay. Ever since co they've been kind of >> Okay. >> Yeah. I've done some midnight bowling
there, but that's not >> so there. Okay. So, I I threw out an idea. 12:00 for noise, 1:00 they shut the doors. Has anybody got an alternative theory or a different idea that they >> I wouldn't say it's for us to say. I think that would be the the applicant's job to come forth with a with a
suggestion and then try and work through the compromise, right? I think if we say that the music needs to be off by 12:00, we don't have all of the information. >> Well, we can make Well, but we but we can make we can make we're just making recommendations. >> Correct. It's just a recommendation at this point. >> Yeah. >> Based on the body language I saw, I got
a lukewarm response on midnight. Just >> based on what I understood, is is midnight too early? >> Yeah, the bowling alley does close at Friday and Saturday at midnight. Uh during the week they close at 10:00 and Sundays they close at 8:00 p.m.
>> Okay. >> Well then we're I mean that that well I mean but this is part of the give and take of the process. Right. Right. >> So it's it's a part of you want to operate a business that's a little different than what we're used to and so but we've also got to help run the city
and keep the peace. Right. So it's a part of the give and take. So, I guess if the bowling alley is open till midnight, maybe that's not such an unreasonable time because everyone can just start clearing out, right? >> So,
>> I I think that the applicant might not >> I know this is the starting point, but that's up to them. >> Okay. The start I can I can go with the starting point. Yeah, >> sure. >> Because then we'll at least have a hard >> condition to enforce, right?
>> Yep. I believe it would be a clear decision for anybody that would get involved. Um like with the noise is discretionary. It's either on or unless it's on or off. It's if you say is it half what it was?
Who knows what it was. So >> it's just Yeah. On and off is the easiest thing to police. >> Yeah. Not not quiet or soft or you know how many decbels, right? I I mean I don't want to figure that out. Okay. So, are we at the point where maybe we want to
>> make a motion? >> Think about making a motion. Okay. >> Does somebody or I can try to fashion a motion. Is that >> you're usually the best at doing this? >> I don't know if I'm the best. I tend to do it a lot. That doesn't always
>> part of my OCD type A, which you know has its pluses and minuses. >> Okay. So, no more comment from the commission. Correct. Mr. Conrad, >> I'm done. >> Okay. I am going to move
that we recommend to the city council that they approve the conditional use permit for 940 Hastings Avenue with the following conditions. that the again as per the packet that
the applicant would provide details on the proposed building facade materials demonstrating compliance with the code section 74-238. that they would modify the plans for the parking lot to meet the required setback from the rear and that they would also
meet the minimum number of spaces as required under code particularly section 74-259. Including that we would want to include language in the CUP that all the events must be held within the building that there would be no use of outdoor areas
for the social events. We would probably want to have some language as per the recommendation that smoking areas would be behind the building and that they would be clearly designated for public use. We would want to make clear that the cup
included language that said that there are no outdoor storage to be permitted that the plan would appropriately reflect and be amended to show that the tree plantings uh in terms of numbers of species and the raw number of trees and
locations would meet code particularly section 74-222. We would also request that the conditional cup include language that there would be the required number of tree planting islands within the parking area.
We would want to include language that would require the applicant to provide appropriate shrub plantings or light mitigation along the property line that would meet requirements of section 74-222.
Um and that obviously would have to be um mindful of the county right of way and the space that's available in terms of deciding whether or not they would have to go with the shrubs or some other alternative um screening.
The COP would also require, we would also require that there be detailed plans for trash enclosure and that they would have to demonstrate compliance with section 74222 showing that the trash recepticles were appropriately screened from public view.
Um, we would also want to make sure that, again, I know there was testimony tonight about any potential new signage, but that the signage would be um any different or new signage, including, you know, awnings or whatever over the event center um entrance, that those would be
uh provided so they could be approved. Um, that any access points off of the street into the property would be approved by Washington County. We would also want that the applicant to comply with all the recommendations of the city
engineer that are found in their letter. Um, we would also recommend to the city council that they adopt a noise off policy that noise would end or music would end at 12:00 p.m. and that the
venue would have a closing time of 100 p.m. Um, we would also ask that in far as the noise mitigation that the that there would be that the the applicant would have to fully comply with the noise mitigation that is in the plans and that
they would also develop policies and procedures at the event center that would ensure that all the mitigation measures were used at all times that music is playing. >> Did I miss anything? It's 12 a.m.
>> 12 12 I apologize. 12 a.m. is noise off, right? >> 1 a.m. venue close. I I'm I'm an old man living in a different time. Sorry. >> Um I mean, >> so I'll second. >> We have a We have a first and a second.
Any further discussion or any questions or comments about the conditions that we're going to be recommending to the city council? >> Mr. Conrad, just >> Yep. Yes. I have just one thing that um with regard to the Oops, my thing just with regard to the
smoking. >> Are you still there? >> Yes, we hear you. We see you. Yes. >> Okay. Would that area be able would people just be able to walk out and smoke or if there had a a drink? Could they take a drink outside? Would it be a
fenced area, a a bordered area? I'm just thinking of that with relationship to any of the bar establishments. >> If they if they had a later date applied for a liquor license, then they're going to have to go through that application process and meet those standards. But as
far as >> just for the the the recommendation tonight, I think we can get away with that that they agree that there's going to be designated smoking areas and they're going to be behind the building. Now, if and when they go to the liquor license, if they ever do get one, yeah, then they're going to have to they're going to have to sort through that
problem at that point. >> Okay. >> All right. Hearing no further discussion, um I'll put this up for a vote. So, all those in favor of approving the or or or recommending the approval of the cup for 940 Hastings
Avenue, please say I. >> I. Any opposed? Hearing none opposed. The motion passes. Okay. Um, we actually have some new business tonight. Uh, a subdivision ordinance
update discussion led by Mr. Sparks. >> Uh, gentlemen. >> Oh, just Okay. at some point like be before you guys leave, right? You're going to hook up. You're going to exchange some numbers. You're going to exchange some information, right? Okay. And um the
city website's got uh uh city council members emails on there, too. So, if if you need to count contact a city council member or if you guys want to contact the city, >> you know, if you feel like you need to get a hold of us, get a hold of us. Otherwise, you guys can work on talking to each other. Yeah.
>> Okay. I'm sorry. I just didn't I just didn't want them to rush out and not have said something to them. I didn't mean to interrupt you. I'm sorry. >> I forgive you. >> Thank you. You're very magnanimous. Um, so
we in the I've been working with the city for a couple years now and in that time we've had um really only two subdivisions that have come up and um one of them was kind of a redo of an
existing subdivision. One of them was uh new from the scratch. And the issue that we faced with the subdivision ordinance and was that our subdivision ordinance is kind of based off of how things used
to be done like 30, 40, 50 years ago. And today in this day and age, we want to require more of the procedural burden to happen at the preliminary plat stage. And so with that last subdivision, we
noted that there was u a lot of um procedural tactics that tilted some of the burden to the final plat review. And the way that it would be more prudent for the city to operate would to be that all of
those issues get thoroughly resolved at pre-plat. So your public hearing is the pre-plat public hearing. Then it goes to council and that the final plat shouldn't be much more than Yeah. Everything fits with the pre-plat
approval that we held the hearing on. Everyone can be comfortable with that. and then lets the council focus on the development agreement and those types of documents instead of worrying about um you know things that are more
pre-plat stage things >> like like getting a license for your sewer or something like that, right? >> Well, yeah. Uh you could just you could identify that as one. um like the final plat requiring a public hearing is one
of the things that we have in our code. Problem with that is you technically can't go back in time and undo the pre-plat approval. So you're just having a public hearing for the people to come in and error potential things that they see wrong with it that you can't then do
anything about. >> Should have done at pre-plat >> pre-plat, right? So that procedural element uh then it says that you hold that hearing at the council too which is a strange
procedural step and then why would the planning commission need to gather to review something that you can't really change anything on. So what we really want to do is change the procedural elements to fit. And this is what cities do nowadays because back in like the 1960s
pre-plat was kind of a glorified engineered concept plan, right? And the final plat was where it was. But years of cities getting sued and years of uh refining how things work and statutes
changing all of that. The Super Bowl is the pre-plat stage, right? The final plat's supposed to be the victory parade. And so we want to put everything on that pre-plat stage and make sure that the people who have comments on it
are there for that hearing because then you can do something about stuff at that meeting, but you can't do it much about anything at the final plat stage because once you give them pre-plat approval, you're compelled to approve the final
plat. So what we want to do is reorient this review process to kind of fit what every other city does nowadays. And then also we have some Byzantine language in our
uh zoning ordinance about when you can do like a lot split and when you can take property and add it to your neighbor's property and things like that. that is in the zoning ordinance and then it references something in the
subdivision ordinance but it's not very clear and it we managed to muddle through fine for decades on this don't get me wrong but what becomes problematic is that like when people
look for this themselves in the code book they can't find it so like a surveyor is like I can't tell what I'm supposed to do for this? And that's their job. They go in there and they look it up. And so then it just pushes them into having to come into city hall
and talk to people or call me when they normally can just look this stuff up on their own and see it. And it's usually a pretty simple procedure. But the way that we've got it kind of disjointed in the zoning and the subdivision ordinance a little bit and the two sections kind
of contradict each other. I mean, I had to spend an hour on the phone with the city attorney like, "Okay, if this is this, then this is this." You know, us going through it to make sure that we were still doing it right. Because sometimes, you know, cities have
procedures that are just hand down from administration to administration. And then when some people are no longer part of the administration, things get lost to time. And so then it's like you have the Kensington runstone of ordinance interpretations in
front of you and that's not how it should be. So we're lacking some clarity on that aspect. So, with those two things, um, we really need to kind of improve our subdivision ordinance and take that
element out of zoning and put it into the subdivision and then also make it so that the big-time public hearing on the plat is here at pre-plat and that we have adequate notice procedures for
people to be aware of what's going on with that review. So if they've got a beef with something, you can actually do something about it, right? And that seemed and then the other element is we've got standards for what a road is
supposed to be and what drainage and utility easements are supposed to be. We've got a set of engineering standards that we tell everybody they have to follow. But then we've got a set of standards in the subdivision ordinance that are so strange and
not what other people do anymore so that it doesn't match our engineering standards. And it's like we got to have those in sync because we can't be saying, well, it's almost like double jeopardy for every subdivision applicant. So, none of these things were
really that big of a deal because the last subdivision we had, they weren't building any roads. It was just existing property on existing streets. We had that other one that went to pre-plat, but didn't go to final plat. That one never got finalized. So, we never got to
live through this for that one. But um and then then the one before that was the one by Creative Homes where they replatted like a town home development into single family. And so because all the roads were already in on in that
one, it wasn't really that big of a deal. The big issue we had with that one was we had these tree planting requirements that were new and the bedrock was so high that the there was issues getting the trees in. So, um, and I'm sure those trees will live
very long, healthy lives, but maybe stunted in growth because their roots have nowhere to go. But, um, with that, those are kind of some of the things we're looking at. And then noting that a lot of the vacant land that we have,
it does have the ability to put things like town homes and duplexes >> because we just had that presentation at the last meeting about that that concept plan, right? So it's if people are looking at then right we need to clean up our act right so that these people know what they're doing. >> Yeah.
>> Right. And so it's it's time to do that. And um so we got to like hold a hearing and revise that. And we're thinking of you know unrolling this in one of the next
couple meetings that you have. I mean if this would have gotten tabled that would have been a perfect meeting but we'll see what we've got. for uh for ne we'll see if we can get it together. Um and then that it's mostly going to be focused on the subdivision
or but there is a zoning element to it because part of this is found in the zoning orders because we've got it a little bifurcated. But then additionally like um we were talking about this use in the B2 district. We did a run through of the B2
district and there was a a couple things that we talked about possibly revisiting in the B2 in the future and it might be a good idea to do that because one of the things a lot of cities face is there's a
lawsuit that happened that was called Ar Lupa. Uh it was a actually it's like a federal uh statute called that they hyphenate as arupa not hyphenate abbreviate as ar lupa which is religious land use and institutionalized
persons act which talks about where you allow assembly uses of any type. You also have to allow churches. And like we talked about this dance hall use here tonight,
but one thing that we may have to do is be more explicit about that. We now have to allow essentially churches in this zoning district. And we have to um like
we should probably just put that we allow uses where people assemble and numbers in that. >> So would that be would that be a straight use or would that be a cup? >> CUP. >> So we'd say okay this is what we want it to be but if you wanted to do something a little different we just add religious
institution as one of the >> Yeah. I mean we have to word it a certain way. >> Okay. >> And so you can't just put religious institution. And you can say assembly use and in the definition say you know the dance hall on hastings banquet hall
where wedding receptions happen church religious institution whatever you just put >> let people congregate for some reason. >> Yeah. >> You can't say well let you do it for one but not the other. >> Yeah. And then what we can do then is because the bowling alley
kind of counts as one of those types of uses. Our B2 district already has so many of these uses that mean that you have to allow those types of uses in that we probably need to examine that and have a deeper look at that topic
before something happens to us that we regret not looking at that because that's a common thing for cities to get sued over. And you know, it's just like uh we got to it's a little more complicated than I'm making it out to be
too because we've been at zoning churches in their own zoning district. And by the fact that we're starting to allow like these assembly uses in this zoning district, it means we maybe don't we want to maybe look at if whether or
not that zoning district is adequate or necessary anymore because >> you mean the church exclusive one? >> Yeah. Like the the public semi-public zoning district. we might want to examine that district, which is not one
of the districts we examined. Cuz if you recall, we used to go through zoning districts and like review them and make sure they were consistent with the comp plan and that there wasn't weird language in them. And that zoning district was one that we never really looked at because uh it was considered
to be a minor one. But with this B2 overlap with that district, that's another thing we should probably look at. But the subdivision ordinance is the one that we're most concerned about because if that concept plan goes to pre-plat and we haven't fixed this yet, we might have a little bit of a a
difficult process to go through. >> Something could come up. They might want to propose something that we don't like or we're not interested in. But if we don't have the ordinance fixed, it's too bad, too late on us. >> Right. Exactly. So, that was the point of putting this on the agenda was that
we're going to have to do this and um we'll see if we get an application in for next month. If we don't and we have time to put something together on this, maybe we will, but we usually kind of let that up to like the city
administrator on whether or not he wanted us to gather on an off month. So, I'll consult with him if we don't get an application in, but uh just plan on being ready for that type of discussion at your next meeting that you get
notified that we're having. >> All right, that sounds good. >> That's the end of new business. >> Yep. >> All right. Well, we have no staff reports. I don't think we have any unfinished business. So, I will look for a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second.
>> All those in favor say I. >> I. This this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.