[I. CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:03] I WILL CALL TO ORDER THIS DECEMBER 17TH, 2025 MEETING OF THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION. WE SEEM TO BE AT THIS POINT DO NOT HAVE COMMISSIONERS SWANSON OR ODEBRECHT. BUT ALL OTHER MEMBERS ARE PRESENT. WITH THAT, WE WILL TAKE UP THE MINUTES OF OUR LAST MEETING. [III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES] ARE THERE ANY CHANGES? ADDITIONS TO THAT AGENDA, TO THOSE MINUTES? THEN I WOULD TAKE A MOTION ON THAT. I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER MEETING MINUTES. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND AND A SECOND. MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES. NOW IS THE TIME FOR OUR OPEN FORUM. THIS IS A CHANCE FOR ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC TO BRING FORWARD ANYTHING THAT THEY WISH TO DISCUSS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN FIVE MINUTES OR LESS. THAT IS NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. SO IF IT'S IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT AN ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO COME FORWARD. BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO TALK WITH US ABOUT, NOW'S THE TIME TO COME FORWARD. BUT SEEING NO ONE COMING FORWARD FOR THE OPEN FORUM, I'LL CLOSE THE OPEN FORUM. WE NEXT HAVE OUR CONSENT AGENDA. AND THIS IS THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDING OF A FINDING OF FACT FOR THE DENIAL OF CASE. [V. CONSENT AGENDA – these items are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion with no discussion. Anyone may request an item to be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately.] CD 2025 045 WHICH WAS THE THE DECK FROM THE LAST MEETING THAT MOTION THAT IS IN OUR OUR PACKET. I THINK WE DO NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT. YEAH. I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY, I GUESS. YEAH, WE CAN JUST DO IT THAT WAY. AND IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND AND A SECOND? OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. THOSE OPPOSED. CONSENT AGENDA IS ADOPTED. WITH THAT, WE WILL START INTO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. [3. Case No. CD2025-054: Zoning Text Amendment to Section 28-182 and Section 28-185 Amending Maximum Lot Coverage Requirements. – (Staff Reviewer: Jason Zimmerman, 651-430-8821, jzimmerman@stillwatermn.gov)] FIRST ONE IS CASE 2025 054, A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 28 182 AND SECTION 28 185 AMENDING MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS. MR. KUTNICK, I THANK YOU, CHAIR. YOU. THIS IS COOL. THANK YOU. YEAH. IN COMMUNITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ZIMMERMAN'S STEAD. THANK YOU. THIS IS JUST COMING ON THE TAIL OF YOUR LAST MEETING WHERE WE HAD A DISCUSSION, MORE OF A BROADER WORKSHOP, DISCUSSION OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, WHERE WE DISCUSSED TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS OR JUST IDEAS OF HOW WE CAN HELP REDUCE THE COMPLEXITY AND FREQUENCY OF SOME OF OUR VARIANCE REQUESTS RELATED TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. I WILL REMIND YOU THAT THE. I'LL REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT THIS WAS FOCUSED ON OUR RA AND RB DISTRICTS. SO SINGLE AND TWO FAMILIES AND THEN OUR LARGER DEVELOPMENTS OR PUDS WHERE WE SEE KIND OF OUTSIDE WESTERN STILLWATER. WHAT STAFF DID WAS FOCUS ON OUR RA AND RB DISTRICTS OR THE LOWER HANGING FRUIT, WHERE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT SOME SMALLER MINOR CHANGES THAT WON'T IMPACT THE STORMWATER RUNOFF FOR BOTH SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS, BUT ALSO MAKE MEANINGFUL CHANGES TO HELP ADDRESS SOME OF THESE VARIANCES THAT WE SEE. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO DIVE INTO RIGHT HERE. SO STAFF TOOK WE ANALYZED THE LAST EIGHT YEARS OF OUR VARIANCE REQUESTS, AND WE FOUND THAT WE HAD RECEIVED 59 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUESTS OR VARIANCE REQUESTS. 41 OF THOSE FOR THESE TWO DISTRICTS, SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY ARE A AND R B INDICATING THAT RECURRING AND SYSTEMATIC THEME, NOT JUST ONE OFFS. AND WHAT WE WERE BRINGING BEFORE YOU IS KIND OF ON THE TAIL END OF THAT DISCUSSION WITH YOU ALL LAST MONTH. SOMETHING WE CAN DO SOME MINOR CODE AMENDMENTS TO ADJUST THIS TO HAVE BETTER JUST ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORDINANCE FOCUSING ON THE RA ZONING DISTRICT, WE HIGHLIGHTED THE SUBSTANDARD LOTS. SO IN THIS CASE, THE STANDARD LOT IS 10,000FT². STANDARD IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS A REQUIREMENT IS 30% OF THAT LOT OR 3000FT². ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT THE THAT ROUGHLY HALF OF THE RA VARIANCE REQUESTS HAD SUBSTANDARD LOTS OR LOTS THAT WERE LESS THAN 10,000FT². THE SMALLER LOT STRUGGLED TO GET A HOUSE, DRIVEWAY, GARAGE, OR PATIO OR DECK SPACE ON THERE AND STILL MAINTAIN THAT 3,030% REQUIREMENT. SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS A TWO TIERED SYSTEM, 130% FOR THOSE LOTS THAT ARE 10,000 OR MORE. SO NO CHANGE TO OUR CURRENT STANDARD AND THEN UP TO 35% FOR SMALLER LOTS, CAPPING IT AT 3000FT². AND THE REASON WHY WE PROPOSE CAPPING IT IS THERE'S KIND OF A SPECIAL NUMBER, 8571 SQUARE FOOT LOT. 35% OF THAT IS 3000FT², OR THE CURRENT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MINIMUM TODAY. [00:05:02] IF YOU WERE TO GO ABOVE THAT BUT NOT BE AT A STANDARD LOT SIZE, YOU COULD TECHNICALLY GET 3150FT². SO TO KEEP THINGS STANDARD, KEEP THAT EASY BUTTON. WHAT STAFF IS PROPOSING IS 35,000FT², OR 3000 FOR THOSE SUBSTANDARD LOTS. LOOKING AT THE IMPACT OF WHAT THAT WOULD DO IS OF THE 2684 PARCELS IN THIS DISTRICT, ONLY 240 LOTS WOULD QUALIFY FOR THAT HIGHER 35% STANDARD THAT THAT ARE UNDER THAT 8571. THE BIG PRO HERE IS THAT LIMITS POTENTIAL STORMWATER RUNOFF DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE WHAT WE ANTICIPATE TO SEE FOR THESE RE ZONING DISTRICTS LOOKING AT 30%. AND I DO WANT TO GIVE YOU A QUICK REMINDER OR AN UPDATE THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH BROWNS CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT. WE ACTUALLY HAVE A MEETING WITH THEM ON FRIDAY. WELL, THEY HAVEN'T FORMALLY COMMENTED ON WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. THEIR BIGGEST PRIORITY THAT THEY SEEM TO INDICATE TO US IS THOSE PODS AND DEVELOPMENTS IN WESTERN STILLWATER. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'LL BE WORKING. AND REST ASSURED, WE'LL BE BRINGING ANOTHER ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS THOSE AT A LATER TIME. AND THEN THIS RIGHT HERE IS JUST THE LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR THOSE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE IN THE RA DISTRICT. ALSO IN YOUR PACKET. FOCUSING ON THE ARB ZONING DISTRICT, THIS IS FLEXIBILITY BETWEEN CATEGORIES. SO AS YOU ALL ARE AWARE, IN THE ARB TWO FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, YOU HAVE A TOTAL OF 50% MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE CATEGORIZED INTO BUILDING 25% FOR BUILDING AND 25% FOR OTHER JUST GENERAL LOT COVERAGE. THE ISSUE WITH THIS IS MANY VARIANCE REQUESTS. AND I THINK THIS WAS ABOUT HALF OF THEM ARE SEEKING THAT. WE'VE SEEN SEEK TO JUST SIMPLY SHIFT COVERAGE. SO MOST OF OR 80% I APOLOGIZE. MOST OF OUR REQUESTS THAT WE'VE SEEN ARE JUST SIMPLY SEEKING TO SHIFT THE COVERAGE OF WHERE THAT CATEGORY GOES. THEY'RE NOT LOOKING TO EXCEED 50%. THEY MOST OF THE VARIANCES THAT WE'VE SEEN ARE STILL UNDER 50% TOTAL LOT COVERAGE. THEY JUST WANT MORE STRUCTURE OR THEY WANT MORE LOT COVERAGE. SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO ALLOW UP TO 35% IN EITHER CATEGORY, AS LONG AS THE TOTAL COVERAGE DOESN'T EXCEED 50. AGAIN, THE OUTCOME. THIS WOULD ELIMINATE NEARLY 80% OF OUR PAST VARIANCES THAT WE'VE REVIEWED. IT WOULD NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY ALLOWING FOR THESE ARB DISTRICTS. SO IT WOULD CONTINUE TO KEEP 50% AS THE MAXIMUM FOR OUR TWO FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT ZONED LOTS. AND IT CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN THAT HISTORICALLY ACCURATE MASSING STANDARDS FOR OUR BUILT FORM. SO WE HAVEN'T DONE A FURTHER FULL IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THIS. BUT EVEN LOOKING AT SOME OF OUR EXISTING BUILT FORMS FROM THE 1880S EARLY TURN OF THE CENTURY, A LOT OF THOSE EITHER HAVE VERY LARGE DOMINATED HOME LOTS WHERE IT MIGHT BE LIKE 35% AND THEN A SMALLER IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OR JUST GENERAL LOT COVERAGE. SO WE STILL FIND THAT THIS CATEGORIZATION OF 35% AND THEN 15 FOR THE OTHER REMAINDER WOULD STILL WORK WELL IN ADDRESSING THAT BUILT FORM. THE TWO OPTIONS THAT WE'RE PRESENTING BEFORE YOU TODAY IS TO APPLY THIS FLEXIBILITY TO ALL OF THE RB ZONED LOTS OR THE SUBSTANDARD LOTS. WHAT'S IN YOUR RESOLUTION TONIGHT, OR THE RESOLUTION DRAFTED FOR CITY COUNCIL IS A PROPOSED FOR ALL RB LOTS. THAT WOULD BE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. AGAIN, IT'S THAT EASY BUTTON. IT ALSO FEELS CONTINUES TO FEEL APPROPRIATE. AND THEN THERE'S THOSE ARE YOUR TWO OPTIONS AND HOW IT WOULD BE DRAFTED. THE EASIEST WAY TO LOOK AT IT IS UP TO 35%, BUT NO MORE THAN 50% TOTAL LOT COVERAGE. AND IT'S CATEGORIZED BY BUILDING OR BY IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. SO SOMEONE READING THIS COULD READ, I COULD DO 35% OF MY LOT IS BUILDING, AND THEN THEY WOULD KNOW THE BALANCE OF THAT WOULD BE OTHER. WHEN LOOKING AT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS OR JUST ANY AMENDMENT TO OUR ZONING CODE OR MAP, WE WANT TO LOOK AT HOW IT CAN RELATE TO THE COMP PLAN. SO WHAT THIS DOES IS IT APPROVES PREDICTABILITY AND CONSISTENCY OF OUR ZONING DETERMINATIONS, ACKNOWLEDGES THE PRACTICAL CHALLENGES OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS. THAT'S THAT OUR DISTRICT CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN FOCUS ON WATER, STORMWATER RUNOFF AND MINIMAL AND RESULTS IN A MINIMAL CITYWIDE RUNOFF INCREASE. IT MINIMIZES RELIANCE ON VARIANCES FOR JUST STANDARD DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS AND REDUCES THE BURDEN ON PROPERTY OWNERS, STAFF, AND THE COMMISSIONERS. AND AGAIN, JUST A REMINDER THAT WE WILL BE DOING ADDITIONAL WORK ON THOSE DEVELOPMENT AND PUDS SO THAT THAT IS TO COME OR ACTION REQUESTED TONIGHT IS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR FIRST AND SECOND READING OF THESE AMENDMENTS FOR SECTION 28, 182 AND SECTION 28 185. WITH THAT, I STAND FOR QUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE ONE QUESTION. SO IN THE ARB DISTRICT THEN THEORETICALLY WE COULD STILL HAVE VARIANCE REQUESTS WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO SWAP THINGS AROUND AMONG THE CATEGORIES. RIGHT. AND IN YOUR ANALYSIS, HOW MANY I MEAN. DID THAT ACCOUNT FOR A GREAT NUMBER OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT WE HAD? CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. IN THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE TO PREPARE THESE DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS OF 29 [00:10:08] RB IMPERVIOUS VARIANCES THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST EIGHT YEARS, 23 OF THEM WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSITATED WITH THIS CHANGE. SO THE BALANCE OF THE REMAINING SIX EITHER WERE SEEKING GREATER THAN 35% STRUCTURED COVERAGE, OR WE'RE SEEKING GREATER THAN 50% SITE WIDE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M I'M JUST CURIOUS. I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST TIME. I'M JUST CURIOUS IF YOU GOT ANY FURTHER WITH IT OR GIVEN ANY MORE THOUGHT. THE RB APPROACH WITH THE, YOU KNOW, TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. DO WE KNOW? I WORRY, WE'VE GOT SOME KIND OF CHESTERTON'S FENCE EXERCISE HERE. DO WE KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL THINKING WAS WITH THAT? AND I'LL ACKNOWLEDGE I'VE ASKED THAT QUESTION BEFORE. I'M JUST STILL NOT COMFORTABLE WITH. DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND. CHAIR COMMISSIONER. SO WE DON'T WE IT LOOKS LIKE FROM FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, JUST BEING FAMILIAR WITH OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND SOME OF THE ORDINANCE THERE, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S MORE OF A BUILT FORM MASSING STUDY. SO JUST MAKING SURE THAT WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING ON THAT PROPERTY, YOU'RE NOT DOING TOO MUCH CONSTRUCTION ON A, YOU'RE NOT FILLING A 7500 SQUARE FOOT LOT WITH JUST 50% OF THAT BEING A HOME, AND VICE VERSA. IF IT'S JUST A PATIO, IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE SEE IN OTHER COMMUNITIES, EVEN OUTSIDE OF THE HISTORIC CONTEXT, WHERE THEY HAVE SOME SORT OF BALANCE LIKE THIS, WHERE IT'S 35 AND THEN TEN FOR OTHER BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE BEST WE'RE ABLE TO FIND. IT IS A LITTLE BIT LIKE, AND YOU'VE PROBABLY HEARD ME SAY THIS AS WELL, IT'S A LITTLE BIT LIKE OUR BAKED IN FRONT YARD SETBACK WHERE WE IN THIS SAME DISTRICT, WE LOOK TO HAVE OUR GARAGES BE DE-EMPHASIZED AND LOCATED TOWARDS THE REAR. I THINK THIS IS A BAKED IN, SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT SIMILAR DESIGN REVIEW STANDARD, WHERE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR BUILT FORM ISN'T DOMINATED BY ONE TYPE OF LOT COVERAGE OVER THE OTHER. WHEN YOU MEET WITH THE WATERSHED DISTRICT, WHICH HAS TWO OPENINGS, BY THE WAY, IF ANYBODY KNOWS ANYBODY, WE ARE ALWAYS IN NEED OF WATERSHED PEOPLE. THE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION THERE FOR BACKGROUND USED TO BE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR HERE. SORRY. DID I GET THAT WRONG? NO, NO. YOU'RE OKAY. AND VERY SHARP ENGINEER. CAN YOU ASK HIM THAT QUESTION? AND JUST. I JUST DON'T WANT TO GET UPSIDE DOWN IN OUR WATERSHED STUFF WITH THIS. AND FOR YOU AND THE AUDIENCE AND ANYBODY WHO'S LISTENING. THE MAIN REASON WE WORRY ABOUT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS A WATER QUALITY IS REALLY IMPORTANT. AND IT GOES FILTER THROUGH AND BE. WE LIVE IN A VALLEY. WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE A WHOLE BUNCH OF DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OR UPSTREAM THAT CREATES FLOODING OR THAT KIND OF STUFF. SO IT'S CRITICAL FOR US. THANK YOU. CHAIR. COMMISSIONERS. WE DEFINITELY WILL DO THAT. WE HAVE A MEETING WITH OUR WITH BROWNS CREEK THIS UPCOMING FRIDAY. AGAIN, THEIR FOCUS WILL BE ON THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT WE WOULD LIKE SOME COMMENT ON WHAT IS BEFORE YOU. SO WE WILL WE HAVE STILL SOME TECHNICAL REVIEW. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS OR ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FOR STAFF QUESTIONS? CAN YOU JUST REMIND ME THE NEXT STEPS AFTER THIS MEETING? OF COURSE CHAIR. COMMISSIONERS, THE NEXT STEPS FOR THIS SPECIFIC REQUEST WOULD BE FIRST READING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AND SECOND READING. WHAT I SEE IS IF THERE'S ANY BIG ISSUE THAT COMES UP FROM OUR REVIEW WITH THE WATERSHED DISTRICT THIS FRIDAY. WE WOULD WORK THAT INTO THE REVIEW BY CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND READING, BUT AGAIN, BASED ON THEIR INITIAL REACTION. WELL, IT'S NOT A COMMENT. THEY DIDN'T FLAG ANYTHING. I'M NOT TOO CONCERNED. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE OTHER COMPONENT OF THIS, OR I'D SAY THE MAYBE MORE DIFFICULT COMPONENT AS ARE PUD AND DEVELOPMENT RELATED CONVERSATION. THAT IS LIKELY GOING TO BE THE BULK OF OUR CONVERSATION THIS UPCOMING FRIDAY, AND SOMETHING WE WILL BE BRINGING BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF HOW TO ADDRESS THOSE. AND THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT WAYS THOSE COULD LOOK SIMILAR TO HOW WE DISCUSSED. SO WE HAVE NOT MOVED ANY FURTHER ON THAT SIDE, AND WE WILL BE BRINGING THAT FORWARD. SO IT'D BE THE SAME CONCEPT. BRING A TEXT AMENDMENT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. FIRST AND SECOND READING THIS ONE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS SIMPLY FOR THE RA AND RB DISTRICT. THE WAY STAFF LOOKED AT IT IS SIMPLY LOW HANGING FRUIT. WE HAVE GOOD MOMENTUM HERE AND WE THINK THIS COULD BE A POSITIVE, MEANINGFUL CHANGE. GREAT. ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. FOR THE RB DISTRICT WHERE YOU HAVE THE OPTION A OPTION B CAN YOU JUST TALK ME THROUGH WHAT OTHER THAN WHY IT, IS IT SIMPLY JUST BECAUSE IT'S EASIER TO DO OPTION A THAN TO DO OPTION B, WHICH IS KIND OF MORE MIRRORS WHAT RA DOES IS LOOKING TO DO. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS THAT'S PART OF THE REASON, AND I'D SAY THE BULK OF IT. WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS AT OUR LAST MEETING IT APPEARED TO BE A PRIORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO JUST KEEP THINGS EASY, SOMETHING THAT WE COULD ADMINISTER EASILY AS STAFF, BUT ALSO FOR OUR PROPERTY OWNERS TO UNDERSTAND AND BE APPLICABLE. I THINK THE BIG THING FOR US IS THE IT DOESN'T CHANGE MATERIALLY IF IT'S A OR B, SO EVEN IF YOU ARE A STANDARD SIZE LOT OR EVEN LARGER, [00:15:07] YOU'RE STILL ONLY ALLOWED TO GO UP TO 50%. AND I THINK THIS CHANGE TO ALL LOTS VERSUS JUST SUBSTANDARD IS EASIER TO UNDERSTAND, EASIER TO ADMINISTER, AND STILL RESULTS IN A NET BENEFIT FOR FOR THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. SEEING NONE I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. ANYONE WISHING TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM, NOW IS THE TIME TO COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE COMING FORWARD FOR THIS ITEM, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS. WHAT DO WE THINK ON THIS ONE? DO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS HERE? AND WE'RE WE'RE IT WOULD BE EITHER TO RECOMMEND OR TO NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS BY THE CITY COUNCIL. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 28, 182 AND 28 185. SPECIFICALLY WITH OPTION A FOR THE RB PORTION. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT SECOND? AND WE HAVE A SECOND. SO DISCUSSION ON THAT. I'LL JUST SAY THAT I KNOW I WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE HISTORICALLY COMPLAINED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF IMPERVIOUS VARIANCES. I WILL ALSO CONFESS THAT I WAS NEVER OFFERING ADVICE OR SOLUTIONS ON HOW TO ADDRESS THAT. SO KUDOS TO THE STAFF FOR COMING UP WITH A SOLUTION WHICH REALLY ACHIEVES, I THINK, A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. NUMBER ONE IT DOES HELP TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF VARIANCE REQUESTS. IT CREATES A LITTLE BIT MORE CERTAINTY IN THE RULES. NUMBER TWO, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SIMPLICITY, HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS NOT ONLY FOR STAFF BUT ALSO COMMISSIONERS AS WELL AS THE RESIDENTS. I THINK, AGAIN, I WOULD SAY THAT OPTION A FOR THE RB ACHIEVES THAT. AND I REALLY LIKE THE SIMPLICITY AND THE OTHER VACCINES AS WELL. THE LAST THING I'LL JUST SAY, AND IT'S NOT SO MUCH RELATED TO THIS PARTICULAR MOTION IN FRONT OF US, BUT THE FUTURE CONVERSATIONS WHICH IS THAT WHEN WE START LOOKING AT THOSE PODS AND I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN YOU KNOW, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT LOOKING AT THE WHOLE OF THE PROPERTY AND ALLOWING INDIVIDUAL SITES TO USE THE WHOLE PROPERTY, MEANING ALL OF THE OPEN SPACES, SHARED OPEN SPACE TO ACHIEVE THEIR THE, THE PERVIOUS AMOUNTS AGAIN, I THINK IT LIMITS IT. NUMBER ONE, IT'S GOING TO CREATE A POTENTIAL RUN ON THE BANK WHERE IT'S KIND OF A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE. SO I THINK THERE'S PROBLEMS THERE. AND NUMBER TWO, I THINK GIVEN OUR CONFLICTING GOALS OF MANAGING RUNOFF THROUGH IMPERVIOUS COATING AND TWO, INCREASING HOUSING SUPPLY I THINK THERE MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, THERE COULD BE PRESSURE TO, TO UTILIZE THAT SPACE IN THE FUTURE, DESPITE THE INTENTION NOW. AND SO I WOULD JUST ASK THAT STAFF REALLY WEIGH THOSE TWO GOALS IN MIND AS THEY START CONSIDERING THAT. AND I SORT OF SAID, BY THE WAY, WITH THE MOTION CONDITIONAL IF IT'S TOO LATE, IT SHOULD BE CONDITIONAL ON THE BROWNS CREEK FEEDBACK. YOU'RE OKAY WITH WITH THAT AS THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE TO THE MOTION. OKAY. GREAT. SO THEY DON'T WANT US TO VOTE ON AMENDMENTS EVEN THOUGH WE'RE SUPPOSED TO. SO THIS IS THIS IS JUST THE MOTION. THIS IS JUST THE MOTION. AND IT'S THE PERSON MAKING THE MOTION THAT CAN ADJUST IT THAT IS MAKING. SO IT'S BASICALLY COMMISSIONER NORTH IS MAKING AN ADJUSTMENT TO IT AT THIS POINT. UNTIL WE VOTED ON THE ON THE ON THE AMENDMENT. WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. SO IT JUST CHANGES WHAT'S BEFORE US. SO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? I'D LOVE SOME MORE LOVE MORE FEEDBACK. I'D LOVE SOME MORE FEEDBACK. KNOW WHERE EVERYBODY'S HEAD IS. I SEE MY PROBLEM IS, IS THAT I WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW WHAT THE COMMISSIONER NORTH SAID. AND THAT IS A YOU KNOW, IT IS A VERY DIFFICULT TASK. AND SO I THINK HE'S PUT IT VERY ELOQUENTLY AND, YOU KNOW, WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE MIND SHARE ON THIS. I THINK, I THINK I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD SOLUTION. I'M HOPEFUL THAT THIS WILL HELP US WITH A LOT OF THIS. I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS WE'VE IDENTIFIED, IT'S ESPECIALLY IN THE RA DISTRICT, IT'S A SMALL NUMBER OF PROPERTIES ACTUALLY, THAT POTENTIALLY ARE IMPACTED, BUT IT HAS A LARGE IMPACT ON THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US. YOU'D BE SURPRISED HOW MANY PEOPLE WATCH THESE. SO I'LL JUST SAY ONE THING. THE REASON THIS IS IMPORTANT TO US IS WE DON'T WANT TO PASS VARIANCES. [00:20:03] VARIANCES MEAN WE'RE BREAKING OUR OWN RULES. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE FOLLOWING OUR OWN RULES. RIGHT. SO IN MY HEAD PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TEST PROBABLY DOESN'T APPLY AS, AS I'M USING IT, BUT AT A, AT A HIGH LEVEL, I THINK WE'RE ACKNOWLEDGING THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A WEIRD TOWN, ESPECIALLY FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. GO FIND A STREET THAT IS NAMED AFTER A TREE AND LOOK AT IT ON GOOGLE MAPS. AND THE HOUSES ARE IN WEIRD PLACES, AND THEY ARE WEIRD SIZES SHAPED OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO IN MANY CASES. AND THESE GUYS HAVE A REALLY HARD JOB OF TRYING TO APPLY SOMETIMES COOKIE CUTTER TYPE THINGS TO COOKIES THAT ARE IRREGULAR. SO THE REASON WE'RE DOING THIS IS NOT JUST RECLAIMING STAFF TIME, ALTHOUGH THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE RUN THIS PLACE REALLY LEAN. WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO DO THIS. SO WE HAVE A VERY CONSISTENT EXPERIENCE FOR OUR CITIZENS. YEAH. THANK YOU. I THINK THIS IS GREAT WORK. I'D ECHO THAT IDEA WAS WITH THE SLIDING, WE GIVE MORE CLARITY TO OUR HOMEOWNERS, BUT ALSO GIVES IN MY MIND A LITTLE BIT EASIER TIME TO SAY NO WHEN WE NEED TO SAY NO. SO SOMETIMES WE GET CAUGHT IN THAT SCENARIO HERE. AND THIS IS JUST LIKE, OKAY, WE'VE GIVEN YOU MORE TOOLING, WE'VE GIVEN YOU BETTER UNDERSTANDING. THIS IS SOMETHING YOU CAN LIVE WITHIN. AND WE GIVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO HOMEOWNER. IT'S EASIER FOR US TO SAY THERE'S NOT A REASON FOR THIS VARIANCE BECAUSE THERE WERE OTHER OPTIONS. I APPRECIATE STAFF'S TIME AND STARTING WITH THE LOW HANGING FRUIT WHEN WE GO WITH THESE, THE RAS, THE ARB, THIS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME. I WILL SAY MOVING FORWARD, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS STAFF IS GOING MORE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW WE FACTOR IN MULTIFAMILY. I THINK THAT WHEN YOU START WITH THE LOW HANGING FRUIT AND THEN YOU START TO CHIP AWAY AT WHERE WE'RE ABLE TO USE OUR FLEXIBILITY. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THE PIECES WHERE WE WANT THE MOST FLEXIBILITY, LIKE, YOU KNOW, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, THAT IS OFTEN WHERE WE MIGHT NEED SOME MORE CREATIVE PLACE. SO AS LONG AS THAT'S IN THE TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE PLANNING, THAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT'S OFTEN WHERE PEOPLE CAN RUN INTO THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS OR ARE WE READY TO VOTE? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE OF RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS. SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED. THAT MOTION CARRIES. WE NOW MOVE ON TO OUR UNFINISHED BUSINESS. THE ITEM THAT WE TABLED AT LAST MONTH'S MEETING. [4. Case No. CD2025-049: Variances to Lot Coverage and Front and Side Setbacks in the RA: One Family Residential District at 1824 1st St N for Construction of a New Single Family Home – (Staff Reviewer: Johnny Menhennet, 651-430-8822, jmenhennet@stillwatermn.gov)] CASE 2025 049 VARIANCE TO LOT COVERAGE. FRONT AND SIDE SIDE YARD SETBACKS IN THE RA ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AT 1824 FIRST STREET NORTH FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THANK YOU. CHAIR. YES. SO WE ARE REVISITING A TABLED CASE FROM LAST MONTH. OUR APPLICANTS ARE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FOR US AFTER THE TIME IN WHICH STAFF HAS ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS. I'LL BE PRESENTING TODAY WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY A REQUEST FOR A LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE, AS WELL AS THREE SETBACK VARIANCES THAT HAS RETURNED AS A REQUEST FOR ONE SETBACK VARIANCE AND LOT COVERAGE. SO WE'RE IN THE RA ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. SO APPROVAL OF A FROM THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED FOR THE DESIGN OF THE HOME SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACQUISITION OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE SITE PLAN PRESENTED TO US TODAY. SO THIS IS A SUBSTANDARD LOT. THIS LOT IS 7555FT², WHERE RA TYPICALLY ASKS FOR, OR WOULD PRESCRIBE A LOT TO BE A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM. THE LOT COVERAGE STANDARD IN THE RA DISTRICT IS 30%, AND THE PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE IN THE PROPOSAL BEFORE US IS 42.4%. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE APPLICANTS ARE SEEKING AN EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE OF 25FT TO THE 35 OR THE 30 FOOT STANDARD, WITH A PROPOSAL FOR AN EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK OF FIVE FEET. WHAT HAS CHANGED IS THE BETWEEN THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS TABLED LAST MONTH AND WHAT WE ARE REVISITING TODAY. THE ASK ON LOT COVERAGE HAS COME DOWN FROM 47.1% TO 42.4%, A REDUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 300FT² OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FROM THE FIRST PROPOSAL. THE FRONT SETBACK IS NOW MEETING THE RHA STANDARD. THE SIDE SETBACK IS NOW MEETING THE OR. THE INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK IS MEETING THE RHA STANDARD AND THE EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK HAS BEEN THE VARIANCE HAS INCREASED. HOWEVER, THAT WAS AT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE CURRENT EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK FRONTS WILLOW STREET, WHICH IS IMPROVED TO A PRETTY [00:25:08] NARROW ROAD, AND IT HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED TO US BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS THAT THE CITY HAS NO INTENTION OF WIDENING THAT STREET. AND AS IT STANDS, THE. SETBACK FROM THE CURB TO THE PROPERTY LINE IS ALREADY 20FT. SO WE'RE NOT EXAMINING A HOME WITH A FIVE FOOT SETBACK AS BEING FIVE FEET FROM THE CURB, BUT 25FT FROM THE CURB. SO THE SITE MAP THAT IS BEFORE US TODAY SHOWS THE HOME IN THE CENTER OF THE LOT WITH THE 30 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. THE TEN FOOT INTERIOR SIDE. THE FIVE FOOT EXTERIOR SIDE. AND THE DECK AND STAIRS TO THE EAST OF THE HOME WITH DRAINAGE FLOW SHOWN ON THIS MAP. SLOPING DOWNHILL TOWARD FIRST STREET NORTH AND EVENTUALLY TOWARD THE SAINT CROIX. THE SITE LOCATION. THIS IS NOT DOCTORED. THE STREET IS THIS STEEP. THIS IS A SCREENSHOT TAKEN FROM GOOGLE MAPS AND THIS SITE LOCATION IMAGE, THOUGH THE SITE HAS BEEN CLEARED AND TODAY DOES PRESENT AN AVERAGE GRADE OF 16% ACROSS THE SITE AND IS PART OF WHY STAFF IS OF THE BELIEF THAT THERE ARE MEANINGFUL, PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AT PLAY THAT MERIT SOME VARIANCE FROM CITY CODE FOR LOT COVERAGE. THE PARTICULAR REASON IS THAT WITH A SLOPE THIS STEEP, IT WOULD BE QUITE TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE, AND ALSO FROM A GRADING PERSPECTIVE, INFEASIBLE TO HAVE A GARAGE ACCESS DIRECTLY OFF A SLOPE LIKE THIS. AND SO TO BE ABLE TO GRADE AND ACCESS A GARAGE SAFELY, YOU NEED A WIDER DRIVEWAY FOR THIS APRON TO CURVE INTO THE HOME. THAT COULD BE ACCESSED FLAT. SO THE AMOUNT OF DRIVEWAY NEEDED FOR THIS HOME IS GREATER THAN THAT, WHICH WOULD BE PRESENT IN A FLAT LOT WHERE ONE COULD SIMPLY PULL IN RIGHT FROM THE SIDE INTO A FRONT LOADED GARAGE RATHER THAN A SIDE LOADED GARAGE. SO THAT IS THE PRIMARY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY PRESENT THAT STAFF SUPPORTS, IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THIS IS SUBSTANDARD BY APPROXIMATELY 2500FT² FROM THE CODE MINIMUM. THE PROPOSED ELEVATION OF THE HOME IS SHOWN HERE, AND WE CAN SEE WHERE THE TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE WHEN COMBINING THE HOUSE, GARAGE, DECK, AND DRIVEWAY IN ADDITION TO STEPS, HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 42.4%. WE NOW, BASED UPON THE CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE SITE, PLAN WITH THE STAFF AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK FROM THE LAST MEETING STAFF NOW IS OF THE BELIEF THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TEST HAS BEEN MET, AND THAT THE SUBSTANDARD NATURE OF THE LOT AND THE STEEP SLOPE THAT NECESSITATES A MUCH LARGER DRIVEWAY THAN WOULD BE TYPICALLY REQUIRED, DO MEET THE TEST OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. AND WITH THAT THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THIS VARIANCE ARE THAT THE APPLICANT WILL CONSTRUCT THE HOME ACCORDING TO ALL PERTINENT BUILDING CODE STANDARDS. THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT A SITE PLAN SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT APPROVED IN THIS VARIANCE, WHEN IT SEEKS REQUISITE DESIGN APPROVALS FROM THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. AND THIRD, THAT THE APPLICANT WILL MITIGATE THE ADDITION OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES TO THE SITE THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF AN APPROVED MITIGATION STRATEGY IN THE AMOUNT OF 12.4% OF THE SITE, OR 934.5FT². EVEN THOUGH THE CODE CHANGES THAT WERE VOTED UPON EARLIER THIS EVENING WERE REFERENCED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THOSE HAVEN'T YET TAKEN EFFECT. SO FOR THE TIME BEING STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITION FOR MITIGATION IS THAT WE MITIGATE BACK TO THE 30% CONDITION RATHER THAN THE 35% FOR THE RHA DISTRICT THAT YOU ALL MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF EARLIER, AND THE APPLICANTS HAVE INDICATED IN THEIR PRE-APPLICATION MEETINGS WITH STAFF THAT THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF COMPLYING WITH THE RECOMMENDED ON SITE MITIGATION MEASURES. SO WITH THAT, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE COMMISSION MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION PC 20 2518, TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS AT 1824 FIRST STREET NORTH. I STAND FOR QUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? [00:30:06] I NOTE THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION IN OUR PACKET IS DIFFERENT THAN THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU PRESENTED ON THE SCREEN. I'M NOT ARGUING. I THINK THAT NUMBER TWO IS A. ASTHMA IS A CONDITION THAT WE NEED, BUT I JUST WANTED TO POINT IT OUT TO MY COLLEAGUES HERE. SO I THINK IF WE MOVE FORWARD THAT ALL THREE CONDITIONS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED RATHER THAN THE TWO THAT ARE IN THE PACKET. CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR NOTING THAT INCONSISTENCY. IT'S MY APOLOGY THAT THE THREE CONDITIONS SEEN BEFORE YOU ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THE IN THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS PRESENTED IN THE PACKET. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FOR OR FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? AND THIS COMES FROM I'M SORRY, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS THAT I HAVE A LOT OF IGNORANCE. AND COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW IT WILL WORK IF WE APPROVE THIS? AND AT THE SAME TIME AND BEFORE CONSTRUCTION THERE THIS, THE 30% THAT WE JUST VOTED ON WENT THROUGH. LIKE, IS THERE A WAY FOR THE APPLICANT TO BE ABLE TO REDUCE IT TO 30 INSTEAD OF 35% NUMBER FOR THEIR RAIN GARDEN OR MITIGATION EFFORTS? AND IF SAY THEY STARTED CONSTRUCTION AND NOW THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THAT 30% NUMBER TO WORK AGAINST, CAN THEY REQUEST TO BE TO BE REDUCED TO THAT 30 NUMBER? IT I'M JUST WONDERING ABOUT THAT 5% DIFFERENCE IN HOW THAT AFFECTS, YOU KNOW, PRACTICALLY THE EXPERIENCE. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE AS IT STANDS TODAY, AND I WELCOME A CORRECTION FROM THE PLANNING MANAGER. SHOULD I BE MISTAKEN THAT TO PROPOSE A STORMWATER MITIGATION STRATEGY? THAT WOULD MEET THE 35% THRESHOLD AND NOT 30% WOULD STILL REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONS RATHER THAN BEING SOMETHING THAT WE COULD APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVELY. IT IS LIKELY THAT AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE APPLICANTS SEEK TO PULL THEIR BUILDING PERMITS. AT WHICH POINT WE WOULD NEED THE STORMWATER MITIGATION PLAN TO BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEERS PRIOR TO PLANNING, GIVING ITS APPROVAL TO THE BUILDING PERMITS, THAT THAT STANDARD WILL HAVE ALREADY CHANGED. BUT I BELIEVE THE APPROPRIATE PATH WOULD BE TO RECOMMEND OR TO HAVE THE APPLICANT'S PETITION FOR A CHANGE IN CONDITIONS OF THE CONDITION OR OF THE VARIANCE, RATHER THAN MITIGATE TO A LESSER DEGREE THAN WHAT IS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING. AND CHAIR COMMISSIONERS THIS ISN'T CITY PLANNER. MANHATTAN IS CORRECT. THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO FORMALLY. IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WANTED TO CONSIDER TONIGHT IN LIGHT OF THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS, YOU COULD DRAFT THAT SPECIFIC CONDITION TO SAY MUST COMPLY, MUST BE MITIGATED BACK TO THE MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM LOT SIZE OUTLINED IN CODE. SO IF CODE DOES HAPPEN TO CHANGE AT THE TIME THAT THE AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL OR SOMETHING RELATED TO THE CODE AT THAT TIME AND AT THAT TIME BEING BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL. SO THEN IF CODE DOES CHANGE AND IT'S 35%, THEN AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL, WHAT THE CODE SAYS, THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE TO MITIGATE BACK TO. OTHERWISE YOU COULD TODAY THE CODE IS 30%. AND AS THE CONDITION IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED, THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO MITIGATE TO UNLESS THEY WANTED TO APPEAL FOR A OR REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO THAT. DO WE ANTICIPATE SEEING THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT ON THE 1ST JANUARY CITY COUNCIL? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY, PERFECT. SO WE'LL GET IT ALL BASICALLY TAKEN CARE OF. THIRD WEEK OF JANUARY WILL BE WHEN THIS GOES THROUGH, ASSUMING WE DON'T HAVE ANY PUSHBACK. AND I DON'T ANTICIPATE MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVING A LOT OF PUSHBACK, BUT THAT'S NOT A PROMISE. THIS IS YEAH, THEY GET SQUIRRELY SOMETIMES, ESPECIALLY AROUND THE HOLIDAYS. ONE THING I WOULD WHEN I WAS ON HPC EVERY NOW AND THEN WE WOULD CONSIDER SOMETHING THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND THAT CAN SOMETIMES BE AN UNCOMFORTABLE POSITION FOR THE HPC. SO IN THIS CASE, I THINK WE SHOULD ADD A FURTHER PROVISO THAT OUR APPROVALS OF THE VARIANCES. YOU KNOW, ALL OF THIS IS CONDITIONED UPON APPROVAL OF THE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR PLAN BY THE [00:35:03] HPC. SO, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU KNOW IF THE HPC DOESN'T LIKE SOMETHING IN, IN THE PRESENTED PLAN THE, OUR, YOU KNOW, OUR APPROVALS WOULD BE NULL AND VOID. YEAH. I, YOU KNOW, I JUST, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE, YOU KNOW, TO NOT HAMSTRING THE HPC. YEP. NO, I AGREE WITH YOU THERE. AND THAT'S TYPICALLY WHY WE TRY AND ENCOURAGE GOING TO HPC FIRST. GIVE THEM THE FREE HAND RIGHT ON ON THE WHOLE THING. AND THEN WE HAVE A BETTER IDEA WHAT THE PLAN IS REALLY GOING TO BE. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT WAS THE ONE WHO REQUESTED THAT WE GO WITH THE VARIANCE FIRST. AND IN THIS ONE YOU KNOW, AT THE SAME TIME, I GUESS I KIND OF SEE IT. WE LOOK AT WHERE IT SITS ON THE LOT AND THE BASIC SIZE AND BULK AND SOME OF THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. AND HPC IS LOOKING AT DIFFERENT THINGS WITH THAT, AND THEY'RE MORE LOOKING AT WHAT THE DESIGN LOOKS LIKE AND THE STYLE OF THE HOUSE. AND SOME OF THAT AND COMMENTS IN PARTICULAR ABOUT SCITUATE, ABOUT THE SITUATION OF THE GARAGE IN A IN A LARGE DRIVEWAY. SO I JUST DON'T WANT THE HP TO HAMSTRING THE HPC IF THEY HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT A SIDE LOADED GARAGE OR A LARGER DRIVEWAY? NO. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. JUST TO ADD TO THAT, YOU ARE CORRECT. THAT IS WHAT YOU'D BE DOING HERE TONIGHT IS APPROVING THE SITE PLAN AND THE VARIANCES ASSOCIATED WITH IT. IF THERE WAS TO EVEN BE A CHANGE, REGARDLESS OF THE HPC, SAY THE APPLICANTS WANTED TO CHANGE SOMETHING AND IT WAS SUBSTANTIAL, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU AND WE. AND THAT GOES FOR THE HPC AS WELL. SO TO COMMISSIONER POINT, IF THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE PROPOSED DESIGN THAT RESULTED IN A CHANGE OF THAT FOOTPRINT AND IT WAS SUBSTANTIAL, WE WOULD REQUIRE THAT THEY COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO, AT THE MINIMUM, UPDATE THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT'S BEING APPROVED AT THIS VARIANCE TONIGHT. SO YOU ARE THAT THAT WILL BE REITERATED TO THE HPC AND HAS BEEN INDICATED TO THE APPLICANT AND TO THE COMMISSION'S POINT, THAT IT'S ALWAYS APPLICANT'S CHOICE ON HOW THEY WANT TO RUN THROUGH THESE. AND IT IS DIFFICULT, I WILL ADMIT, WHEN THERE ARE TWO COMMISSIONS FOR A PROJECT, IT'S ALWAYS WHAT HORSE DO YOU PUT IN FRONT OF THE CART OR CART? DO YOU PUT IN FRONT OF THAT HORSE WHAT CART YOU PUT IN FRONT OF THE HORSE? I DO HAVE AN INFORMED OPINION ON THAT. SO ONE ONE QUESTION THAT I HAVE, AND I KNOW THAT THIS IS THE RA DISTRICT AND NOT THE RB DISTRICT, BUT DO WE HAVE A BREAKDOWN OF HOW MUCH IS BUILDING VERSUS HOW MUCH IS DRIVEWAY? AS FAR AS PERCENTAGES YES, CHAIR WE DO HERE. YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT THE TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE IS 42.4%, OF WHICH 31.5% IS THE COMBINATION OF ALL STRUCTURED ELEMENTS OF THE BUILDING. SO THOUGH THIS ISN'T OUR A LOT, AND IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE A VARIANCE EVEN AT THE NEW STANDARD RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TONIGHT. THIS IS FUNCTIONALLY IN ITS WIDTH AND DEPTH AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER IN RB LOT. AND THIS WOULD NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE TO THAT RB STANDARD THAT WE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TODAY. NOT THAT THAT MATTERS. IT'S NOT RB, BUT RIGHT. YES, YOU STILL THE RA BUT OKAY. THAT WAS YEAH, THAT WAS KIND OF THE DIRECTION I WAS GOING WITH MY QUESTION. 31.5% OF THE LOT IS THE STRUCTURED COVERAGE COMPONENT OKAY. GREAT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. WE HAVE ALREADY HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM, SO WE DON'T NEED TO REOPEN THAT. BUT WOULD THE APPLICANTS LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING IF YOU WANT TO? IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO COME AND DO THAT AND COME ON UP TO THE COME ON UP TO THE MIC AND PRESS THE BUTTON TO MAKE IT TURN GREEN. YES, HELLO, I'M WILLIAM VEZINA, 1008 EAGLE RIDGE COURT, STILLWATER. AND THANK YOU FOR THIS HEARING TONIGHT. I REALLY HAVE NO MORE NOTHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL TO ADD OTHER THAN I, I BELIEVE THE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE IN PARTICULAR IS DOING A FANTASTIC JOB ON THIS, AND I THINK WE HAVE A PRETTY SOUND RESOLUTION TO THE CONCERNS OF THE OF THE CITY. AND WE ARE VERY RESPECTFUL OF RAINWATER RUNOFF, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THIS IS PRETTY DARN CLOSE TO THE RIVER. SO IT DOES MATTER. AND WE'RE GOING TO DO THE THE A RAIN GARDEN IN TERMS OF. I APPRECIATE YOUR MENTIONING THE REDUCTION TO THE SMALLER RUNOFF AMOUNT, IF IT DOES GO TO 35%, MAKES US A NINE FOOT RAIN GARDEN VERSUS A SEVEN. AND HONESTLY, IT DOESN'T THAT DOESN'T MATTER SO MUCH TO ME ANYWAY. YOU KNOW, THERE'S ABOUT THE SAME SIZE. SO I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO ADD, BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT. GREAT. APPRECIATE IT. THANKS. SO SO WITH THAT, WE WILL TAKE THAT TO COMMISSION DISCUSSION. [00:40:09] DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS OR DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? I WOULD LIKE A MOTION FIRST IF POSSIBLE, BUT. SO I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF CASE 20 2518 WITH THE CONDITIONS STATED IN OUR PACKET, BUT WITH THE ADDITION OF A SLIGHTLY REVISED CONDITION NUMBER TWO, WHICH I THINK SHOULD READ YOU KNOW, APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT ON HPC APPROVAL. ON A SITE PLAN SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT APPROVED IN THIS VARIANCE. SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. SO RATHER THAN JUST REQUIRING A PRESENTATION, WE SHOULD ALSO OR WE COULD ADD TO MAKE IT CLEARER I GUESS HAVE THESE THREE CONDITIONS. AND THEN ADD A FOURTH THAT THIS APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT ON APPROVAL BY THE HPC OF A SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR SITE PLAN. I THINK WE KIND OF HAVE THAT IN TWO ALREADY BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT SEEKS REQUISITE DESIGN APPROVALS FROM THE HPC AS THE SECOND. BUT I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO SAY THAT AND THAT THE HPC HAS TO APPROVE IT. WELL, THAT'S WHAT IT'S SAYING. IT JUST SAYS IT WILL PRESENT. OKAY. WELL, WHEN IT RECEIVES REQUISITE DESIGN APPROVALS, MAYBE MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST CHANGE SEEKS TO WHEN IT RECEIVES REQUISITE. SO THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT A SITE PLAN SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT APPROVED WHEN IT. BECAUSE WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS WHEN YOU WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO THE HPC THEY HAVE TO YOU KNOW I THINK THERE'S AN ASSUMPTION OR AN UNDERSTANDING THIS NEEDS HPC APPROVAL. WELL, I KNOW I KNOW, IT'S THERE'S THE ASSUMPTION THERE. I JUST AM BEING PICKY TONIGHT. OKAY. THAT'S SOMETHING UNUSUAL. I KNOW, I KNOW, WE'RE ALL SURPRISED BY THIS, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD ALSO SAY THAT THE HPC MUST APPROVE IT, OR THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT ON HPC APPROVAL WHEN IT RECEIVES THAT. YEAH, I THINK I THINK I THINK IT'S ALL IN THERE. BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S MY MOTION. I KNOW. OKAY. THAT'S FINE. OKAY. SO WE HAVE SO WE HAVE THAT AS A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND TO I'LL SECOND. AND WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION. DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM. WHAT. SO OKAY. BUT AND IS STAFF CLEAR AS TO WHAT SHE'S, WHAT SHE'S AIMING FOR WITH THAT? YES, CHAIR. IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S A FOURTH, FOURTH POINT ON THERE THOUGH, WHICH WOULD BE ADDING REQUIRES HPC APPROVAL. SO. YES, CHAIR. OKAY, GREAT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? OVERALL. AND THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. SEEING NONE. OH. I'M SORRY. WERE WE GOING TO HAVE LANGUAGE IN THE MOTION ABOUT IT MATCHING CODE AS OF THE CURRENT CODE? I AND I SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT LATER OR EARLIER. EXCUSE ME. WELL, I MEAN, IT'S IN. I MEAN, MATCHING CURRENT CODE IS IN THERE CURRENTLY WHERE IT'S SAYING MITIGATION OF 12.4% BECAUSE THAT'S BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY, WHICH IS THE 30% CRITERIA. THE APPLICANT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE TOO WHIPPED UP ABOUT IT. I WOULD SAY WE GO WITH WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY. YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAY END UP DOING. AND SO WE GOT WE GOT TO BASE ALL OF OUR DECISIONS ON WHAT IS CURRENT CODE. YOU KNOW, AND SO THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION ON IS THAT WE NOT TRY AND WE DON'T MUDDY THE WATERS ANY FURTHER AND MAKE THIS ANY LESS CLEAR. ABSOLUTELY. SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION THAT MAY NOT BE SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE. AND MY APOLOGIES. SHOULD THE RESOLUTION'S GOING FORWARD ALSO SAY THAT WHEREAS IT MEETS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TEST OR THAT THE COMMISSION OR AND STAFF HAVE FOUND THAT MEETS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TEST. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT FOR HISTORICAL PURPOSES SO THAT IN A YEAR SOMEONE COMES BACK AND SAY, HEY, MY NEIGHBORS, DOES IT HAVE ENOUGH? AND I TRY AND YEAH, WELL, IT'S NUMBER THREE. AND I ALSO TRY AND AND I GUESS I GUESS I DIDN'T IN THIS SITUATION, BUT I ALSO TRY TO ANYTIME THAT WE'RE BEFORE WE VOTE ON THESE THINGS, I TRY AND BRING BRING THAT UP AS PART OF MY COMMENTS SAYING THIS MEETS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES BECAUSE AND I THINK IN THIS SITUATION IT'S THE, YOU KNOW, THE ELEVATION CHANGE IN THIS, IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT AS TO WHERE YOU PLACE THAT, THAT STRUCTURE ON THERE, [00:45:05] IT MAKES IT YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A BIGGER YOU'RE LIKELY GOING TO JUST NEED A BIGGER DRIVEWAY APRON. WHICH IS THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE GOING TO THAT THEY'RE RUNNING INTO WITH THIS. SO NOW ANY FURTHER, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? ARE WE READY TO VOTE? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED. THAT MOTION CARRIES. CONGRATULATIONS. THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU FOR THANK YOU FOR YOUR YOUR WORK ON THIS. WE APPRECIATE IT. THANKS FOR THE MODIFICATION. SO OKAY OKAY. GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD. YEAH. WE HAVE NO NEW BUSINESS IN FRONT OF US, AND THE ONLY STAFF UPDATE SEEMS TO BE A COMMISSION CALENDAR UPDATE FOR [5. 2026 Commission Calendar Update] 2026 CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS. THAT IS JUST AN UPDATED CALENDAR THAT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET FOR THIS UPCOMING 2026 COMMISSION SEASON. SO JUST WANTED TO HAVE THAT FOR YOU. FYI. AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER FYI THAT I DO HAVE FOR ALL OF YOU IS REGARDING THE PROPOSAL AT 211 OLIVE, THAT WAS THE NURSING HOMES ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY THAT CAME BEFORE YOU TWO MEETINGS AGO. JUST AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE THERE. JOHNNY HAS HAS REACHED OUT TO THE APPLICANT AND HAS SECURED A CONFIRMATION THAT THEY HAVE NOW SECURED CONSULTANTS TO HELP FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF ACTUAL SITE PLANS AND ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR PRESENTATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE WILL NEED THOSE BY, I BELIEVE WE SAID JANUARY 5TH, THE FIRST WEEK IN JANUARY, BECAUSE WHAT WE PLAN ON DOING IS ALSO RE NOTICING IT. SO IT DOES SOUND LIKE THERE'S A SLIGHT CHANGE OR MODIFICATION TO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED BECAUSE OF THE INTEREST BY THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE THERE'S A SLIGHT CHANGE. WE'RE JUST GOING TO SEND OUT ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE SO THAT THESE THOSE THAT WERE INTERESTED THE FIRST TIME KNOW THAT IT'S COMING. YES. WE TOLD THEM TO PAY TO WATCH THE WEBSITE, BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY KNEW THAT AS WELL. SO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD WHAT WE NEEDED BY THAT TIME AND SO THAT WE COULD GET A NOTICE OUT. THE DEADLINE FOR US TO GET THAT MATERIALS IS JANUARY 5TH. IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. SO THAT'S BEST CASE SCENARIO, THEN WE CAN HAVE THAT BEFORE YOU IN JANUARY. NOT BEST CASE SCENARIO. THE NEXT TWO OPTIONS ARE WE ASK THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE AN WRITTEN A WRITTEN REQUEST TO EXTEND THE REVIEW TIMELINE SINCE WE'RE COMING UP ON OUR 120 DAYS. SO AT THIS POINT, IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST THAT ADDITIONAL TIME, WHICH THEY ARE MORE THAN ABLE TO DO. OR IF THEY'RE UNWILLING TO DO THAT, WHAT WE WOULD DO IS BRING THE CASE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL. SO THOSE ARE LIKE THE THREE PRONG APPROACH FOR THE NEXT STEPS. AND WE'RE HOPEFUL ON THE FIRST AND BEST PRONG. OKAY. THAT SOUNDS GOOD. YEP. I WAS GOING TO I WAS GOING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE WERE WITH THAT ONE BECAUSE THAT WAS STILL STILL THERE. SEEING NO OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION. WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.