Mar 25, 2026 Planning Commission

[00:00:02]

I'LL CALL TO ORDER THIS MARCH 25TH, 2026 MEETING OF THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION.

[I. CALL TO ORDER]

AND WITH THAT, WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT OUR MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING.

[III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? AND ANY ABSTENTIONS? ABSTAIN.

OKAY, WE'VE GOT ONE ABSTENTION. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS THE OPEN FORUM.

THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO PRESENT SOMETHING IN FIVE MINUTES OR LESS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. SO IF ANYONE HAS SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP IN THE OPEN FORUM, NOW IS THE TIME TO DO SO. PLEASE COME FORWARD TO THE DIET OR TO THE TO THE PODIUM.

BUT SEEING NO ONE COMING FORWARD, WE WILL CLOSE THE OPEN FORUM.

THERE IS NOTHING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, SO WE WILL MOVE FORWARD THEN WITH OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING OF THE EVENING,

[2. Case No. CD2026-009: Variance Request to Lot Coverage and Front Yard Setback regulations and Conditional Use Permit to build a single-family dwelling in the RCM (Medium-Density Multi-Family) District at 218 3rd St South – (Staff Reviewer: Ben Gutknecht, 651-430-8818, bgutknecht@stillwatermn.gov)]

MR.. THANK YOU CHAIR. I DO PROMISE WE DON'T MAKE THOSE PURPOSELY LONG FOR YOU TO GO THROUGH.

THE FIRST CASE BEFORE YOU IS, AS YOU NOTED, TWO VARIANCES IN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THE PROJECT SITE IS ROUGHLY ON THE CORNER OF THIRD STREET AND OLIVE STREET WEST, JUST ON THE BEGINNING OF SOUTH HILL.

THE REQUEST IS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

IT'S A THREE STORY STRUCTURE WITH A TUCK UNDER GARAGE AND A ROOFTOP ACCESS FOR STAIRS AND ELEVATOR.

THE REQUEST INCLUDES THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SINGLE FAMILY USE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 20FT TO 10FT, AND THE VARIANCE TO INCREASE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AN ADDITIONAL 30% TO A TOTAL OF 60%.

A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE PROPERTY. THIS IS LOCATED, AS YOU NOTED, 218 THIRD STREET SOUTH.

ON YOUR SCREEN IS A HISTORIC PHOTO OF THE STREET LOOKING TOWARDS THE SOUTH CONTEXT.

IT WAS PART OF THE BUTLER IRONWORKS IN 1887 1897, BUTLER HOUSE WAS CONVERTED INTO AN APARTMENT, FRANKLIN APARTMENTS IN 1939, AND OUR ZONING DISTRICT, I BELIEVE, ACTUALLY CAME INTO EFFECT AROUND THE 1980S.

SO THAT'S WHY THERE WAS THIS APARTMENT UP UNTIL 1993 WHEN IT WAS RAZED, BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THE SLIDE, WHEN IT WAS RAISED, THAT RCM DISTRICT HAD ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED.

SO THERE WAS THIS THAT'S A MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT BUILDING THERE.

RIGHT HERE IS THE OLD 1924 SANBORN THAT IS THAT STRUCTURE.

SOME MORE RECENT HISTORY. ABOUT A YEAR AGO, THERE WAS A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO CORRECT THE LOT FROM 6000FT², WHICH IS WHAT YOU SEE HERE, THIS RECTANGLE TO 12,000FT².

AND THE PURPOSE FOR THIS WAS THE PREVIOUS OWNER WANTED TO ENSURE THAT THE LOT, THEY HAD BEEN LISTED THE PROPERTY FOR A WHILE.

THEY WANTED TO ENSURE THAT THE LOT HAD A BETTER SUCCESS OF SELLING, SO THEY WANTED TO INCREASE THE LOT SIZE TO THAT OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR RCM, WHICH IS 12,000FT². THE ADJUSTMENT DID INCORPORATE EXISTING PARKING AREA TO THE LEFT, OR I SHOULD SAY TO THE WEST.

IT ALSO THAT MEANT INCORPORATING EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND IT RECORDED AN EASEMENT SERVING ADJACENT PROPERTIES, BOTH OF THEM FOR EGRESS, INGRESS, DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND DRIVEWAY MAINTENANCE.

THE RESULT WAS THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS WERE FORMALIZED WITH THAT PARKING LOT.

AS LONG AS WELL AS ACCESS, CONSTRAINTS TIED TO THE EASEMENT.

IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE DO REMAIN, AND THOSE ARE THE KIND OF KEY TAKEAWAYS THIS DEVELOPMENT MUST ADDRESS THESE CONDITIONS REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS.

AND THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS LARGELY DRIVEN BY THESE PREEXISTING CONDITIONS, AT LEAST ONE OF THEM FOR THE MOST PART.

ONE THING I DID WANT TO NOTE IS, REGARDLESS OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAFF WAS ANTICIPATING I SHOULD ALSO ROLL BACK THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.

SO THIS IS SOMETHING STAFF WOULD HAVE REVIEWED AND NOT BROUGHT TO PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL. AND THE REASON WHY I HAD STAFF SUPPORT IS IT MET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LOT SIZE, ENSURED THAT IT WASN'T MAKING ANY EXISTING PROPERTIES NON-COMPLIANT WITH STRUCTURE SETBACKS OR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.

AND THE LOT SIZE WAS CONSISTENT AND THE ACCESS WAS REQUIRED BECAUSE IT WAS OUR THOUGHT THAT THERE WOULD LIKELY BE ACCESS FROM OLIVE RATHER THAN A TUCK UNDER GARAGE.

THIRD, BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A PROJECT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT LOT SPLIT AT THE TIME.

LOOKING AT THE REGULATORY REVIEW FOR WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, IT IS IN THE RCM ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS INTENDED FOR MEDIUM FAMILY, MULTIPLE MEDIUM DENSITY, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.

IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR SINGLE FAMILIES VIA THE ARB.

DISTRICT PLAYS A ROLE HERE. THE RCM DISTRICT DOES ALLOW FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS OR DEVELOPMENTS TO BE.

[00:05:07]

THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. WHY? THAT'S WHY WE'RE NOT SEEING 35% TO 50.

AND IT ALSO IS IN THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW DISTRICT, WHICH LAST WEEK AT THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. THE DESIGN THAT YOU'LL SEE LATER ON WAS APPROVED. THE PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION.

AS I MENTIONED, THREE STORIES. THE FOOTPRINTS, APPROXIMATELY 1700 SQUARE FEET TUCKED UNDER GARAGE ACCESS FROM THIRD IS GOING TO BE THE PRIMARY ACCESS. THERE'S THAT ACCESS OFF OF OLIVE STREET.

THERE'S A ROOFTOP ACCESS FOR ELEVATOR AND STAIRWELL.

THE LIMESTONE RETAINING WALL WILL BE REPLACED WITH A NEWER LIMESTONE RETAINING WALL, AN INTEGRATED ENTRY STAIR.

THERE'S ALSO REAR PATIOS, DECKING, LANDSCAPING.

ONE THING I DO WANT TO COVER WHILE THIS IS ON THE SCREEN AND I CAN SHOW YOU ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS THE HEIGHT.

IT IS COMPLIANT WITH BOTH BUILDING AND ZONING CODE.

AND THIS IS BECAUSE BOTH DO MEASURE HEIGHT FROM GRADE TO TOP OF THE FLAT ROOF.

IN THIS INSTANCE, GRADE DOES START HERE RATHER THAN THE TUCK UNDER GARAGE BECAUSE MOST OF THAT GARAGE IN FLOOR AREA.

AND I REALIZE NOW I DIDN'T HAVE FOOTPRINTS, A FOOTPRINT IN THIS PACKET.

SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT ON THE PRESENTATION. BUT MOST OF THAT FIRST LEVEL IS SUBGRADE.

THEREFORE IT'S A BASEMENT AND NOT CONSIDERED A STORY FROM BUILDING AND PLANNING OR BUILDING AND ZONING CODE.

FURTHER, THE ROOFTOP ACCESS IS SUBORDINATE TO THE OVERALL STRUCTURE AND PER BOTH CODES IS PERMITTED AND NOT CONSIDERED A FOURTH STORY.

LOOKING AT THE CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS, THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE NOT PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THIS DISTRICT, BUT CP DOES PROVIDE A PATHWAY FOR THAT WITH COMPATIBILITY REVIEW.

SO LOOKING AT THAT, WE DO ALLOW WE DO SEE RIGHT NOW A MIX OF HOUSING TYPES ALONG WITH COMMERCIAL TYPES FOR MULTI-FAMILY, MULTI-STORY, LARGER AND BOTH SMALLER, INCLUDING SINGLE FAMILY.

IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER THAT WAS ESTABLISHED. CODE CLEARLY ANTICIPATES THE LOWER DENSITY INTEGRATION BY ALLOWING FOR THESE RB AND OR I SHOULD SAY, SINGLE TO TWO FAMILY HOUSES. IT'S THERE'S A PATH THERE SO CLEARLY ANTICIPATES THIS.

AND THERE'S NO ANTICIPATED NUISANCE OR WELFARE IMPACTS FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE.

IN CONCLUSION, WE FIND IT'S APPROPRIATE AND CONSISTENT. LOOKING AT THE VARIANCE ANALYSIS.

FOR THE FIRST CASE, THE LOT COVERAGE CODE DOES ALLOW 30% MAX LOT COVERAGE.

THAT IS THE EXISTING CONDITION ON SITE TODAY IN THE FORM OF THE SHARED PARKING AREA AND DRIVEWAY.

THAT'S PRIMARILY MOST OF THAT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.

THIS CONDITION IS TIED TO THAT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND CANNOT BE MODIFIED. IT IS REQUIRED THAT PARKING AREA IS DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE SIX UNIT APARTMENT THAT IS TO THE WEST.

THAT'S THEIR OFF STREET PARKING AND THEREFORE REQUIRED. THE PROPOSAL IS TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL 30% OF NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR A TOTAL OF 60%.

THE. LOOKING AT. THERE ARE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT CREATED BY THE APPLICANT, RATHER THE PRIOR OWNER.

CITE CONSTRAINTS FOR THE PREEXISTING AND LEGALLY ESTABLISHED PARKING LOT, AND THE APPLICANT IS EXPLORING STORMWATER MITIGATION.

YOU DID RECEIVE A HANDOUT WHERE THEY HAVE ACTUALLY HIRED A CIVIL ENGINEER.

AND THEY'VE PROVIDED KIND OF A CONCEPT OF WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. THEY'VE JUST BEGUN TO ENGAGE WITH THE CIVIL ENGINEER TO LOOK AT STORMWATER MITIGATION. AND SO THEY HIRED THAT TO GO THROUGH THE REQUIRED MIDDLE SAINTE CROIX WATER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS.

STAFF DOES FIND THAT THIS IS A UNIQUE SITE CONSTRAINT.

THE OTHER VARIANCE IS THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.

SO THE R B STANDARD, WHICH APPLIES HERE BECAUSE IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE IN THE SAME DISTRICT REQUIRES 20FT.

WHAT IS PROPOSED IS TEN. THE CONTEXT HERE IS THE NEARBY PROPERTIES HAVE REDUCED SETBACK.

THAT IS THE STREET PATTERN FOR THIRD STREET. THIS IS A DESIGN REVIEW REQUIREMENT OR GENERALLY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED AND PART OF WHY IT WAS APPROVED AT THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION LAST WEEK. THIS ALSO HELPS BRING THE STRUCTURE CLOSER TO THE STREET, REDUCING THE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORS TO THE WEST AND DIRECTLY ADJACENT, AND ALSO HELPS REDUCE IMPACT. THAT'S WHAT I MENTIONED.

I APOLOGIZE, AND STAFF DOES FIND THIS AS CONSISTENT WITH THE FINDINGS REQUIRED AND PARTICULARLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT.

THE SURVEY THAT WAS PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET DOES A REALLY GOOD JOB SHOWING THE, I'D SAY, TECHNICAL AND CLEAR INFORMATION.

AS FAR AS WHAT IMPERVIOUS SURFACES, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, I FIND IT'S EASIER TO SPEAK OFF OF THE ILLUSTRATED SITE PLAN, BUT JUST KNOW THAT I DO HAVE BOTH IN THE PACKET.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED FOOTPRINT HERE ABOUT 17 1790FT².

THERE'S ENTRANCE STAIRWELL, THE PATIO AREA DECKING.

THEY DON'T PROPOSE ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING TO THE REAR.

OBVIOUSLY THERE IS SHARED ACCESS THAT IS PERMITTED, BUT THEY PROPOSE THIS TO BE THE PRIMARY ACCESS.

ONE THING I THINK THIS DOES SHOW WELL AND I DID WANT TO BRING UP WELL, OBVIOUSLY AT THE RISK OF I'M NOT LITIGATING WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN, BUT JUST OUTLINING THE PARCEL WHICH PRIOR TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WAS ABOUT RIGHT HERE.

THAT'S ABOUT 6418FT². 30% OF THAT IS 1900FT².

LOOKING AT THE SANBORN MAP EARLIER IN THE SLIDE, THAT STRUCTURE THERE WAS A LITTLE OVER 2000FT².

[00:10:01]

THAT IS DEFINITELY NOT LAWFUL NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS. JUST CONTEXT.

BUT THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO NOTE IS EVEN WITHOUT THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, THIS PARKING AND DRIVEWAY WOULD STILL BE HERE.

IT WOULD LIKELY BE A SHARED ACCESS JUST BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ASSUMED LOCATION WHERE THERE WOULD BE ACCESS.

BUT IF THAT LOT LINE HAD NEVER ADJUSTED IN THIS SITE PLAN WAS PROVIDED, I BELIEVE THAT'S 3700FT² OF IMPROVEMENTS, OR ABOUT 56% OF THE ORIGINAL 6000 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL.

SO FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE OF VARIANCE WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED REGARDLESS OF DEVELOPMENT IF IT WAS SINGLE FAMILY, TWO FAMILY OR RCM WITHOUT THERE BEING A. I SHOULD SAY ONLY YOU COULD PUT A SMALLER HOME THERE.

LIKELY THIS FOOTPRINT OF THIS OFFICE HERE, BUT WITHOUT A DRIVEWAY AND GARAGE.

JUST SOME PICTURES OF THE ACTUAL PARCEL ITSELF.

I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON IT. THAT WAS REVIEWED BY OUR HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION.

THEY WERE IN YOUR PACKET, BUT I'M HAPPY TO PULL BACK IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. ULTIMATELY, STAFF DOES FIND THAT THE CUP DOES MEET THE FINDINGS FOR REQUIRED OF THEM BY CODE.

IT'S CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMP PLAN AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE RCM ZONING DISTRICT.

AND WE DON'T FIND THAT THERE WOULD BE ADVERSE IMPACTS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY OR HEALTH, ESPECIALLY WITH THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED AND VARIANCE FINDING STAFF DOES FIND BOTH VARIANCES, MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THOSE BOTH.

THERE ARE TWO RESOLUTIONS IN YOUR PACKET. BOTH HAVE THESE CONDITIONS ALIGNED ABOUT ONE THROUGH SIX.

I'VE PARAPHRASED THEM HERE. AND ULTIMATELY STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTING A RESOLUTION FOR THE VARIANCE APPROVAL AND THEN MOTIONING RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATION IS HERE TONIGHT.

THE APPLICANT, UNFORTUNATELY, WHILE IN ATTENDANCE WITH THE HPC LAST WEEK, DID HAVE TO LEAVE THE STATE THIS WEEK.

BUT THE REPRESENTATION IS HERE IF YOU DO HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. AND WITH THAT, I STAND FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. YEP.

SO THE ORIGINAL LOT PRIOR TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WAS, WOULD YOU SAY 6000FT², 6418.

THAT'S THIS ONE RIGHT HERE WITH THE LINE IS. AND SO THAT WAS A NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE.

AND HOW DOES THE CITY HANDLE APPLICATIONS TO DEVELOP A NON-CONFORMING LOT.

CHAIR COMMISSION GENERALLY WE DO OUR BEST. WE FOR THE MOST PART, AS LONG AS THERE ISN'T A SEVERE DITCH GRADE ISSUE WATER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND THE WAY IF IT'S GENERALLY PRETTY FLAT, WE DO OUR BEST TO ENSURE THAT A DEVELOPABLE LOT CAN BE DEVELOPED.

I THINK THE COMMISSION HERE HAS ACTUALLY SEEN THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THAT. ONE EVEN BEING CLOSE TO RECENTLY, 1824 FIRST STREET WAS A LAWFUL NON-CONFORMING RA LOT WHERE VARIANCES WERE PERMITTED DUE TO THE JUST IN THAT CASE, IT WAS PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WAY.

AND THE GRADE CHANGE TO THE REAR THAT ALLOWED THOSE VARIANCES TO MOVE FORWARD TO, TO ALLOW FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

BUT IN THAT CASE, FOR THE MOST PART, THE CITY DOES TRY TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANTS TO FIND A WAY TO DEVELOP THOSE LAWFUL NON-CONFORMING LOTS, PROVIDED THERE ISN'T, AGAIN, A SEVERE PHYSICAL ISSUE THAT JUST MAKES IT EXPENSIVE, FRANKLY.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? GREAT. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

I UNDERSTAND THE ARCHITECT IS HERE. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING WISHING TO ADD TO THIS? PRESS THE BUTTON ON THERE TO TURN THEM. TURN IT GREEN.

THERE WE GO. HI, I'M JEREMY IMHOFF WITH IMPRINT ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, AND I'M REPRESENTING DAN AND APRIL MILLS, THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. JUST TO FOLLOW, I MEAN, THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT OVERVIEW OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTS AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. JUST KIND OF COVERING THE THE TWO VARIANCES LOT COVERAGE FIRST.

OBVIOUSLY, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD ANYTHING ON THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHOUT THE VARIANCE.

AND SO WE ARE CURRENTLY LOOKING, YOU KNOW, WE, WE BASICALLY ARE LOOKING TO PLACE THE I'VE LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. MY APOLOGIES.

WE'RE LOOKING TO DEVELOP THE LOT IN, YOU KNOW, IN A KIND OF A MINIMAL WAY OR LIKE A MINIMAL FOOTPRINT.

SO BUILDING UP HELPS WITH THAT. AND ALLOWING FOR MORE OF THAT OPEN SPACE AT THE BACK.

AND WE ARE ALSO WORKING WITH THE CIVIL ENGINEER, AS WAS MENTIONED TO LOOK AT HOW WE CAN HANDLE THE WATER RUNOFF OFF THE ROOF LINES. SO WE'RE NOT IMPACTING THE PROPERTY FROM THAT STANDPOINT.

[00:15:05]

AND IN A FOLLOW UP WITH THE WATERSHED, THEY WERE RECOMMENDING THAT WE GET A CIVIL ENGINEER INVOLVED TO HANDLE MORE OF THE WATER. RAINWATER OVERFLOWS OFF THE ROOF.

SO WE'RE CURRENTLY AS, AS I BELIEVE YOU RECEIVED THE LETTER LOOKING AT AN UNDERGROUND FILTRATION SYSTEM, AS AN OPTION. NOTHING HAS BEEN SETTLED YET, BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING WITH THEM FOR A SOLUTION ON THAT.

AND THEN SECONDLY, JUST THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REDUCING THAT TO TEN FEET.

WE FEEL LIKE IT'S MORE IN LINE WITH THE STREET.

AND MOST, MOST OF THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ON THE STREET ARE ALREADY WITHIN THE 20 FOOT SETBACK.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MAYBE THE IMMEDIATE HOUSE TO THE NORTH.

AND BUT BY ALLOWING US TO PULL THAT HOUSE TOWARDS THE STREET IT GIVES THE CLIENT MORE SPACE IN THE BACK TO CREATE THAT, YOU KNOW, ACCESS TO A BACKYARD. IF PUSHING IT BACK ANOTHER TEN FEET REALLY RESTRICTS THAT MAYBE MAY RESTRICT THE ABILITY TO GET THE THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT WE PUT IN PLACE IN THE BACK BECAUSE WE'RE OBVIOUSLY WITH THE PARKING AREA ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN THE BACK, WHICH YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO ALTER. THAT KIND OF LIMITS.

YOU KNOW, ANY FLEXIBILITY THERE ON THAT END? SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR DO WE HAVE ANY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? JUST ONE. STAFF TELLS ME YOU'VE BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

JUST ONE QUESTION. MR. HUDSON'S MEMO JUST GOT ME A LITTLE TURNED AROUND ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS IS THE 208 FACILITY IS THE ILANO. AM I PRONOUNCING THAT CORRECTLY? SOCIETY? YEAH, I GUESS I DON'T EVEN KNOW THE EXACT PRONUNCIATION, BUT THAT SOUNDS CORRECT.

AND THEN THIS IS GOING TO BE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, NOT PART OF THE OTHER.

OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. IT'S AMAZING.

JOHN. ALREADY COMING BACK AT US. DID YOU, BY MISTAKE, GET THE WRONG SIDE OF MY THING? OH, OKAY. GOT IT.

YEAH. SO I GUESS THE QUESTION THAT I KIND OF HAVE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, AND PART OF WHAT WE'RE BATTLING HERE IS THE AMOUNT OF PERVIOUS SURFACE OR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE THAT WE HAVE ON HERE AND TRYING TO GET ENOUGH DRAINAGE.

AND THE BEST WAY TO DO DRAINAGE IS STRAIGHT INTO THE GROUND VERSUS TRYING TO PUT IN OTHER THINGS TO GET GUMMED UP OR WHATNOT.

AND IT LOOKS LIKE, AND JUST LOOKING AT THE, WHAT YOU HAVE IN THE DRAWINGS HERE AROUND THE BASE OF THE, THE STRUCTURE ITSELF ON THE NORTH SIDE THERE LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A HARD SURFACE WITH A PICNIC TABLE ON IT.

ON THE WEST SIDE, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S LAWN FURNITURE.

AND THEN THERE'S AN AREA WITH SOME STEPS THAT GO DOWN TO IT AND AN AREA THAT'S CALLED PATIO NUMBER TWO.

YEAH. THAT'S THE PICTURE THAT I'M LOOKING AT.

ON A SITE WHERE, WHERE WE'RE BATTLING TOO MUCH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.

HOW MANY OF THOSE PIECES ARE NECESSARY? RIGHT? YEAH. WE'RE, YOU KNOW, THE OUTDOOR LANDSCAPE IS IN PROGRESS.

IF YOU ACTUALLY GO BACK TO THE SURVEY, WE'RE ALREADY STUDYING OPTIONS WHERE REDUCING SOME OF THAT.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE NORTH SIDE, WE'VE, WE WANT WE'RE REBUILDING THE RETAINING WALL ON THE NORTH END.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE PATIO HAS BEEN PULLED IN IN A WAY.

THERE'S A DESIRE TO AT LEAST HAVE, YOU KNOW, A PATIO OFF OF THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO HAVE A SPACE OUTDOORS AND USE THAT BACKYARD. OTHERWISE YOU'RE WALKING RIGHT INTO THE LANDSCAPE.

AND THERE'S ALSO A DESIRE TO HAVE A OUTDOOR COOKING AREA ADJACENT, HENCE THE PATIO, WHICH WRAPS AROUND THE NORTH SIDE.

THE LOWER PATIO IS JUST A FIREPLACE SITTING AREA.

WE HAVEN'T REALLY DISCUSSED HOW THAT'S CONSTRUCTED YET OR IF IT'S MORE LANDSCAPE, BUT THIS IS JUST KIND OF A STARTING POINT.

OKAY. AND DO YOU HAVE APPROXIMATE SIZES ON THOSE? HOW MUCH CLOSER IS THAT GOING TO GET US TO YOU KNOW, TO THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE?

[00:20:07]

OKAY. 30% OF OF WHAT? SORRY, 30% NEW DEVELOPMENT LOT COVERAGE AREA. IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 30%, ROUGHLY 30% THAT'S ALREADY THERE.

SO OVERALL, WE'RE AT WE'D BE SITTING AT 60. YEAH.

YEAH. OKAY. ONE QUESTION I HAD IS THE SURVEYOR NOTES AN APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE, I GUESS I SEE YOUR, THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS HAVE A STONE WALL THERE. DO YOU KNOW WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS? AND MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING YOUR ENGINEERS WORKING ON TO LOCATE THE SEWER AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE NOT BUILDING ON TOP OF IT.

YEAH. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL YET WITH THE, THE SITE WALLS AND THESE ARE DETAILS WE'RE WORKING THROUGH.

OKAY. OKAY. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE WISHING TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO COME FORWARD.

PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

KEEP COMMENTS UNDER FIVE MINUTES. BUT ANYONE AT ALL WISHING TO TESTIFY.

SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSIONERS. WHAT DO WE THINK? SO WE HAVE THREE ITEMS. THREE ITEMS IN FRONT OF US.

SO I'LL START WITH THE VARIANCE WITH RESPECT TO LOT COVERAGE.

AND I FOR ANY NUMBER OF REASONS, I THINK THAT I, THAT I WOULD NOT SUPPORT THAT VARIANCE LOT COVERAGE AT 60% IS AGGRESSIVE. WE'VE CERTAINLY THIS COMMISSION HAS CERTAINLY TURNED DOWN OTHER MORE MODEST REQUESTS FOR VARIANCE FROM A LOT COVERAGE RATIO YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT CREATE THIS SITUATION HAS IS NOT PERSUASIVE. YOU KNOW, THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, THIS THE EASEMENT ENCUMBERING THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY WAS, YOU KNOW, CREATED THROUGH, YOU KNOW, VIA A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT.

YOU KNOW, IT IS NOT THE KIND OF CONDITION I THINK FOR WHICH VARIANCES SHOULD BE, SHOULD BE GRANTED.

THIS IS A, A LEGAL IMPEDIMENT, NOT A NATURAL IMPEDIMENT.

SO I, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE DENY THE VARIANCE WITH RESPECT TO LOT COVERAGE RATIO. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND AND WE HAVE A AND A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? I HAD THE SAME REACTION WHEN I FIRST READ THE VARIANCE REQUEST.

YOU KNOW, 60%, YOU KNOW, JUST FORENSICALLY LOOKING AT IT, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY THAT'S THAT WOULDN'T BE ACCEPTABLE.

YOU KNOW, THERE HAS TO BE SOME REVISION PROVISIONS THAT, THAT WE COULD IMPLEMENT ON THERE.

HOWEVER AS CITY STAFF SO VERY WELL ARTICULATED AND KIND OF DEMONSTRATED, IT IS A PRECARIOUS SITUATION THAT WAS KIND OF DEVELOPED OVER TIME WITH THE LOT CHANGES EXISTING IMPERVIOUS, THAT WASN'T THE FAULT OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. AND AND BEING THAT IT IS ZONED FOR MULTIFAMILY AND IS ACTUALLY POSITIONED TO HAVE, YOU KNOW JUST BY, BY DEFAULT A LARGER STRUCTURE ON THERE, NO MATTER WHAT WE ALLOW OR WHAT WE LOOK TO DEVELOP IN THAT AREA, THERE'S GOING TO BE IMPERVIOUS ISSUES JUST BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE BEAST.

SO I STEPPED BACK AND TOOK A LOOK AT IT UNDER THAT LENS.

YOU KNOW, I TRIED NOT TO TAKE THE 60 QUITE SO LITERALLY BECAUSE I FEEL IT'S A LITTLE BIT MISLEADING.

[00:25:04]

SO THAT'S, THAT'S JUST MY TAKE ON IT. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I'LL JUST SAY I APPRECIATE THE ACTION TO MAKE VERTICAL TO BUILD VERTICAL ON THAT, ON THAT SITE. I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE GIVEN SOME OF THE OTHER CONSTRAINTS.

I THINK COMMISSIONER SWANSON'S POINTS ARE INTERESTING IN THAT IT'S ALMOST LIKE A TIFF, A BUT FOR TEST, YOU KNOW WOULD THERE BE ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD FIT THE REQUIREMENTS ON THIS PROPERTY? WITH THE PREEXISTING CONDITIONS OR THE PRACTICALITY, THE PRACTICALITIES TEST.

I DO, HOWEVER, STILL HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT AND I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND WHERE WE LAND ON SOME OF THE DECKING, WHICH ADDS TO THE IMPERVIOUS SQUARE FOOTAGE. I'M NOT SURE WHERE WE LEFT OFF ON THAT.

SO IS THAT STILL WHAT WE SEE HERE? THE PROPOSED SITE LIGHTING PLAN.

IS THAT STILL THAT THAT ONE. YEAH. THANK YOU.

IS THAT STILL KIND OF WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING OR WHERE DO WE.

IS THAT STILL WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING? OKAY. SO WHILE I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SWANSON, I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME.

CHOICES MADE HERE WHICH REALLY BUMP THIS UP TO A PRETTY HIGH LEVEL.

AND PART OF THE REASON OF THE CONCERN IS NOT JUST FOR THE RUNOFF ON THIS SITE AND THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS, BUT IN A YEAR OR TWO, WHEN THE NEIGHBORS ALL COME AND SAY, HEY, LOOK AT YOU ACCEPTED 60% ON THIS LOT.

WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR 40%, 50%, ETC. AND WE END UP WITH THIS KIND OF ACCUMULATING EFFECT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD OF RUNOFF.

AND SO THAT'S KIND OF THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING THAT QUESTION.

I DO AGREE THAT THERE ARE SOME CONDITIONS TO THIS LOT, AND WE DO WANT TO SEE SOME DEVELOPMENT THERE.

I SUPPORT THAT, BUT I DO WONDER IF THERE ARE SOME OPTIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT COULD BE DELETED AS WELL.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I THINK I'LL ADD TO THAT.

JUST AS WE'VE SEEN PREVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, THERE IS AN ABILITY UNDER THE CITY CODE TO DEVELOP NON-CONFORMING LOTS.

WE'VE DONE IT JUST RECENTLY. AND IT IS NOT I THINK TRUE TO SAY THIS LOT COULD NEVER BE DEVELOPED.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF IT'S A HARD ONE, IT'S A TOUGH ONE.

YEAH. BUT THERE ARE OTHER HARD ONES IN IN OUR OLD CITY.

SO AND I ALSO THINK, AND THIS COMMISSION HAS POINTED THIS OUT BEFORE WHEN YOU'RE STARTING WITH ESSENTIALLY A BLANK SLATE AN EMPTY LOT YOU'VE GOT SOME ADDITIONAL, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE CONSTRAINTS CAN BE DEALT WITH IN A MUCH MORE EXPEDITIOUS MANNER THAN OTHER OTHER SITES THAT ARE NOT VACANT.

SO. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? STRUGGLING WITH MANY OF THE SAME THINGS.

IT TECHNICALLY FITS OUR HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. IT FEELS OUT OF SCALE TO ME FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY WITH SIGHT LINES AS THEY ARE TO THE RIVER.

WE LET THINGS LIKE THESE GET BUILT AND WE TEND TO HEAR ABOUT IT AFTERWARDS, BUT YOU KNOW, IT IS WITHIN. SO I'M NOT GOING TO I'M NOT GOING TO FIGHT WITH THAT ONE.

I AGREE WITH BOTH JOHN AND BRADLEY. I KNOW THEY'RE PULLING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, BUT I THINK THERE IS SOME ROOM TO GIVE BACK SOME SPACE HERE INSIDE OF THEM.

AND WHILE I'M USUALLY THE ONE THAT SAYS DECKS THAT ARE LOW TO THE GROUND ARE NOT REALLY MEETING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE STUFF THAT OUR FRIENDS AT BROWN'S CREEK WOULD TELL ME THEY DO. THERE'S SO MUCH SLOPE AND THERE'S SO MUCH TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT ON THIS LOT THAT IT'S IT'S I CAN'T REALLY THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THIS THAT I CAN'T REALLY TRUTHFULLY APPLY THAT RULE BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE JUST A LOT OF ENGINEERING TO THINK THROUGH ON THE WATER.

SO I TEND TO AGREE. I THINK WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT THE DECK SITUATION.

[00:30:04]

LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I APPRECIATE YOU WORKING WITH THE WATERSHED AS WELL.

WE TEND TO LEAN ON THOSE GUYS A LOT. AND IF THEY COME AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS GOING TO WORK THAT PASSES MUSTER WITH ME A LOT OF THE TIME.

SO THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. IF I MAY ADD ON ONE LAST THING.

JUST ADDING ON TO MR. ALBRECHT. THAT WAS MY CONVERSATION WITH CITY STAFF AS WELL.

IT'S JUST THE GRADIENT OF THE LOT. I WAS, YOU KNOW, INITIALLY CONCERNED, OF COURSE, WITH WATER RUNOFF ONTO THE NEIGHBORS, BUT THAT PARTICULAR ELEMENT IS GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF WHEN THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODES.

SO YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS PLANNING COMMISSION, I'M GOING TO REMOVE MYSELF FROM THAT KNOWING THAT BY CODE, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CONTAIN ALL THAT WATER RUNOFF FOR THEM TO DESIGN AND STAFF.

PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THEY'LL HAVE TO SUBMIT A DRAINAGE PLAN THAT MEETS THOSE PARTICULAR DEALS.

SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT UNDER THAT LENS. THAT'S KIND OF HOW I'M LOOKING AT IT.

THANK YOU. THAT WAS HELPFUL. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR ME TO CLARIFY? SURE. TOO LATE FOR THAT. YEAH. YEAH. NO. I JUST WANTED TO NOTE HOW WE GET THE 60%.

SO THE WAY WE SEE THIS IS WE CAN'T, IF WE WERE JUST TO TAKE THE LOT, WE COULDN'T GET A VARIANCE.

WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PUT ANYTHING HERE, INCLUDING THE BUILDING. AND SO THE WAY WE LOOKED AT THIS IS OKAY WITH THAT IN MIND, A NORMAL LOT WOULD BE ABOUT 30%. SO SO IF WE WERE GOING TO DEVELOP WHERE WE CAN WE'D BE ALLOWED TO USE UP TO THAT 30%. SO THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO 60.

AS FAR AS THE REQUEST GOES, JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.

IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR 60% PER SE.

WE'RE JUST TRYING TO ASK FOR THE 30% THAT WE WOULD BE NORMALLY GIVEN IF IT WAS A STANDARD LOT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. AND I THINK HE TOUCHES ON WHAT I SEE IS REALLY THE CRUX OF THIS PROBLEM HERE, THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO PUT A HOUSE AND A PARKING LOT ON THE SAME LOT, AND THE DEVELOPER OR WHOEVER DID THE, YOU KNOW, WAS ABLE TO SPLIT OFF THE PARKING FOR A DIFFERENT BUILDING, PUT IT ON THIS OTHER LOT, SELL THAT LOT, MAKE MONEY ON IT. THEY NOW GET TO PARK ON IT FOR FREE IN PERPETUITY AND PROVIDE THAT AS AN AMENITY TO THIS OTHER BUILDING AND FOUND SOMEONE WHO IS WILLING TO BUY THAT LOT.

YOU KNOW, CONGRATULATIONS. THAT'S GREAT. BUT I'M HAVING A REAL YOU KNOW, IT MAKES IT REAL DIFFICULT FOR ME TO THEN SAY, YOU KNOW, NOW WE HAVE A DIFFICULT SITUATION TO THAT THE CITY HAS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THIS DEVELOPED.

YOU KNOW, IT'S IN SOME WAYS IT NEEDS TO BE BACK ON THAT ORIGINAL.

THE ORIGINAL, THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THIS WHO IS DOING THE DIVIDING AND THE.

BUT WE NEED TO HAVE PARKING IN PERPETUITY ON THIS LOT.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, THEY, THEY SOLD IT TO SOMEONE ELSE.

YOU KNOW, SO I'M, YOU KNOW, I WAS, I REALLY, I LIKED, I'M FINE WITH THE DESIGN OF THE HOUSE.

I THINK IT'S GREAT IF WE DIDN'T HAVE TO BE DEALING WITH THIS PARKING LOT SITUATION IN THE BACK, YOU KNOW? I WOULD LOVE THIS PROJECT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE SITUATION THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US. WE CAN'T REDESIGN THE BUILDING. CAN WE REDESIGN THE LOT? I GUESS FOR THAT MATTER. RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW, AND THESE WERE EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT THE THAT WERE ON THE PROPERTY WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED. AND SO IT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS UNKNOWN.

IT WAS NOT, YOU KNOW, I, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME EVEN COMING UP WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES BECAUSE IN SOME WAYS THIS WAS THIS WAS THINGS THAT WERE MADE BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME THAT THESE DIVISIONS WERE BEING DONE.

SO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM, CHAIR COMMISSION, IF I MAY? I NOTED THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED A FEW COMMISSIONERS HAVE MENTIONED THE REMOVAL OF SOME IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, PARTICULARLY THERE'S A CONVERSATION OF THE DECKING ON THIS SITE PLAN, WHICH, AS NOTED BY THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE, THIS IS NOT THE MOST ACCURATE.

WE DO HAVE THE SURVEY THAT DOES SHOW THIS AREA WAS PROPOSED GARDEN RATHER THAN DECKING.

SO THAT HAS BEEN UPDATED. AND I DID WANT TO NOTE ON THE SURVEY THAT THAT'S IN THE PACKET.

THIS PATIO NUMBER TWO IS ABOUT 296FT². SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT LIKELY AGAIN, THE APPLICANT COULD REVIEW REMOVING.

[00:35:02]

BUT THERE MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO ALSO CONSIDER REMOVAL OR SHORING UP TO THE FURTHEST EXTENT POSSIBLE THAT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE THAT IS THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY.

BUT THAT HAS NOT BEEN ENTERTAINED YET. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING UP THAT POINT.

OH, YOU'VE TURNED YOURSELF OFF. I DID. SOMEBODY HAS TO QUIET ME.

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING UP THAT POINT. THAT WAS THE NEXT DISCUSSION POINT I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO BRING UP IS IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WE CAN TAKE OUT OF THE EQUATION OTHER THAN THAT SMALLER DECK. YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T CHANGE THE LOT SIZE.

WE CAN'T, YOU KNOW, NECESSARILY CHANGE THE HOUSE SIZE, BUT THE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF THAT GRAVEL DRIVEWAY, IF THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED REDUCED SIZE, CHANGE THE SURFACING TO SOME SORT OF PERVIOUS PAVEMENT.

THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY. I KNOW IT'S AN EXPENSE, BUT IF THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION THAT COULD BE ENTERTAINED BY THE COMMISSION, BY THE CITY. I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY GO A LONG WAY, BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION ON THAT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? SO IN FRONT OF US IS A MOTION TO DENY THE THE VARIANCE FOR THE LOT COVERAGE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING I, I MEAN, SO WE'RE VOTING.

THIS WOULD THIS WOULD DENY THE DENY THE VARIANCE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED. NAY, NAY. THAT MOTION CARRIES.

SO DO WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THE OTHER PIECES THEN AS WELL? OKAY. SO WE HAVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS WELL AS THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.

TO, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, THEY BECOME MOOT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A VALID PROJECT IN FRONT OF US, I WOULD THINK. SO I THINK WE PROBABLY CAN. WE CAN TAKE THOSE UP TOGETHER.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY THOSE AS WELL? BECAUSE WE BECAUSE OF LACK OF A PROJECT, WOULD IT BE INSTRUCTIVE STILL TO SEPARATE THEM SO THAT THERE IS CLEAR GUIDANCE? NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE WE'RE. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT REALLY GETS US ANYTHING.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT DENYING IT EVEN BASED NECESSARILY DIRECTLY ON THE MERITS OF THIS.

YOU KNOW, I THINK A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE WOULD BE ALLOWED.

WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO PUT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OUT THERE FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO JUST FILL IT WITH WHATEVER.

MISTER CHAIR, WOULD IT BE GOOD? SHOULD THE APPLICANT BRING THIS BACK TO KNOW IF THESE WOULD BE OTHER C P IN THE VARIANCE WOULD BE APPROVED OR IF IT'S JUST A LOT COVERAGE ALONE.

WHY IT WAS DENIED JUST ON MERIT ALONE. JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE.

AND, AND I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THOSE, I THINK, GET MORE DIRECTLY INTO THE PROJECT ITSELF.

YOU KNOW, WHAT WE SEE AS BEING THE PROJECT ITSELF, WE CAN HAVE THAT.

WE COULD HAVE THE DISCUSSION ON THOSE TWO PIECES AND MAYBE TABLE THEM.

I WAS GOING TO SAY THERE'S TIME ON THE CLOCK. WHY DON'T WE WHY DON'T WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION? BECAUSE NOW THAT WE'VE DENIED ONE PIECE OF IT ISN'T THERE A IMPEDIMENT TO BRINGING THE VARIANCE BACK? CHAIR COMMISSION. I'M GOING TO LOOK IN THE CODE RIGHT NOW, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS.

SO IF YOU DENIED THE VARIANCE TO LOT COVERAGE, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEEK THAT SAME VARIANCE WITHIN 12 MONTHS.

AND SO TO EXPLORE THE OPTION THAT COMMISSIONER SWANSON JUST MENTIONED WOULD REQUIRE TABLING THAT LACK COVERAGE VARIANCE.

AND SO I THINK AT THIS POINT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD RECOMMEND IF THEY HAD NO ISSUES WITH THE SETBACK.

YOU COULD, FOR WHATEVER REASON SAY YEP, WE APPROVED THE SETBACK VARIANCE.

AND THE CIP FOR THE USE OR DENY EITHER OF THOSE.

BUT I THINK TABLING, IF THE INTENTION WAS TO HAVE THE PROJECT COME BACK WITH REVISED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE WOULD BE OR NOT.

YEAH. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I THINK WE SHOULD DENY THE REMAINING REMAINDER ON THE TABLE, WHICH WOULD BE THE CUP AND THE SETBACK VARIANCE AND ALSO MOVE.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY THE CUP. I GUESS IT'S RECOMMEND TO THE TO THE COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE CUP AND TO WE HAVE TO BREAK IT APART, RIGHT? OKAY. OKAY. YEAH. I GUESS WE WOULD HAVE TO BREAK IT APART BECAUSE ONE'S A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL AND THE OTHER IS A DIRECT.

SO I, I, I MOVE, I MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND DENYING THE CUP.

[00:40:05]

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? NAY, NAY. AND THAT MOTION CARRIES.

AND SO THEN WOULD BE THE OTHER VARIANTS FOR THE TEN FOOT SETBACK IN THE FRONT.

OKAY. SO TO KEEP MY RECORD PERFECT, I MOVE THAT WE DENY THE VARIANCE FOR THE TEN FOOT SETBACK.

OKAY. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE SOMETHING. YOU GO AHEAD IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A SECOND FIRST AND I JUST HAVE A COMMENT.

OKAY, I HAVE A SECOND. OKAY. MOVED AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? YEAH, I JUST SAY, CHAIR JUST TO BE SURE THAT YOU HAVE SOME FINDINGS TO GO ALONG WITH THE DENIAL OF THIS VARIANCE, I THINK IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR WITH THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.

BUT IF YOU'RE ALSO MAKING A VOTE OF DENIAL FOR THIS ONE, TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THE FINDINGS, TO SUPPORT THAT, BECAUSE THE FINDINGS IN THE PACKET WERE FOR APPROVAL, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE BASED ON SOMETHING MORE THAN WE DON'T THINK THE PROJECT COULD GO FORWARD. WELL, I THINK IT'S THAT WE DON'T HAVE A VALID PROJECT IN FRONT OF US.

REALLY IS THE IS THE THING. YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR, YOU KNOW, TO BE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, IF I WERE LOOKING AT THIS PROJECT AND WE WEREN'T DEALING WITH THE PARKING LOT, I WOULD BE ALL ON BOARD WITH THE TEN FOOT SETBACK.

I THINK THAT'S MY MY POINT IS YOU'RE YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, THE PLACEMENT, IT'S THE IMPERVIOUS THAT GIVES YOU PAUSE. AND SO I'M JUST TRYING TO PULL THOSE TWO THINGS APART. AND SO IF, IF THEY WERE ABLE TO GET RID OF ALL THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, YOU KNOW, AND STILL HAVE THE LAYOUT WITH THE SETBACK, WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON BECAUSE IN THEORY, THEY COULD COME BACK AND SAY, THE BUILDING IS ONLY TEN FEET AND WE'LL TAKE AWAY THE DRIVEWAY OR SOMETHING ELSE.

YEAH, I BUT I DON'T WANT YOU KNOW, I THINK I THINK PART OF THE PROBLEM THEN BECOMES HOW DO YOU KNOW? YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE FAIRLY MAJOR CHANGES TO THE PROJECT AND I DON'T WANT A VARIANCE FOR A TEN FOOT SETBACK SITTING OUT THERE THAT SOMEONE COULD COME IN AND DO SOMETHING COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WITH.

I THINK THAT THIS COMMISSION HAS GOT THE WHEREWITHAL TO MAKE FINDINGS THAT IT FAILS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TEST.

AND SO I THINK IT'D BE SAFER TO DO THAT IF POSSIBLE.

YEAH. AND SO, YEAH YOU KNOW, IN ADDITION TO EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, YOU KNOW, THE PROJECT DOES NOT APPEAR TO MEET THE, YOU KNOW, REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TEST INSOFAR AS WE DON'T SEE A VIABLE PROJECT BEFORE US AND AND THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO BE MOVING AT THIS CLOSE TO THE FRONT IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE PARKING STUFF IN THE BACK.

YEAH. SO WE HAVE A MOTION IN FRONT OF US. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE DENIAL OF THIS VARIANCE, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. AND THOSE OPPOSED? NAY, NAY. IT'S VERY CONSISTENT EVENING.

THAT MOTION ALSO CARRIES. SO SO SORRY ABOUT THAT, YOU KNOW, BUT THEY THEY CAN, YOU CAN TALK WITH MR. GUTNIK ABOUT KIND OF NEXT STEPS FROM HERE. SO WITH THAT WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING,

[3. Case No. CD2026-005: Preliminary and Final Plat request at 12210 McKusick Road North – (Staff Reviewer: Johnny Menhennet, 651-430-8822, jmenhennet@stillwatermn.gov)]

MR. MENHENNET. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO BE EVALUATING A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT ENTITLED SHEPHERDS CROSSING IN THE NORTHWESTERN PART OF STILLWATER, CREATING FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS WHERE ONE EXISTS TODAY.

THIS IS THE TR TRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

THIS WAS REZONED FROM AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION LAST OCTOBER, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THIS SPLIT, THE COMP PLAN DENSITY DESIGNATION IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OF WHICH TR IS A ZONE WITH MINIMUMS THAT ALIGN WITH THIS DENSITY DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPOSED WORK.

WE'RE LOOKING AT CREATING FOUR LOTS ON WHAT IS TODAY 3.33 ACRE LOT.

SO THE AVERAGE PARCEL SIZE WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 0.8 ACRES, THOUGH TWO OF THE LOTS, BOTH ONE AND FOUR,

[00:45:02]

THE OTHER TWO LOTS WILL HAVE ONE OWNER. ORIGINALLY THIS REQUEST WAS FOR A LOT SUBDIVISION LAST FALL, BUT DUE TO THE NEED TO ALIGN THE NUMBER OF NEWLY CREATED LOTS WITH THE COMP PLAN DENSITY DESIGNATION, STAFF INSTRUCTED THE APPLICANT TO PLAT THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE FOUR PARCELS HAD TO BE CREATED TO MEET THE MINIMUM DENSITY THAT OUR COMP PLAN ASKS FOR DUE TO CITY CODES SURROUNDING REQUIRED HOOKUPS FOR UTILITIES AND THE PRESENCE OF CITY WATER IN FRONT OF LOTS ONE AND TWO LOTS ONE AND TWO ARE REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO CITY WATER, BUT THERE IS NO SEWER IN FRONT OF ANY OF THESE PARCELS.

AND WITH THE CITY NOT OTHERWISE EXTENDING SEWER DOUGAN MCKUSICK FROM WHERE IT TERMINATES IN NOTTINGHAM VILLAGE TODAY.

THE APPLICANTS ARE ALLOWED TO STILL PURSUE SEPTIC FOR THEIR SEWAGE TREATMENT.

THERE IS A PUBLIC ROAD EASEMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE LOT THAT IS GOING TO BE VACATED THROUGH A SEPARATE CASE THAT DOES NOT NEED TO COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT WILL HAVE ITS PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 21ST BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL WHICH ULTIMATELY MAKES, BINDING DECISIONS ABOUT EASEMENT CREATION AND VACATION.

HOWEVER, EVEN IF THIS WERE NOT TO BE VACATED, THIS ROAD EASEMENT ON THE WESTERN PART OF THE PARCEL UNDER THE. ALL FOUR OF THE LOTS REMAIN BUILDABLE, EVEN IF THAT IS TO STAY.

AFTER WE RECEIVED CONFIRMATION THAT THE PROPOSED SEPTIC DRAIN FIELDS CAN BE ACCOMMODATED OUTSIDE OF THAT EASEMENT FOR LOT ONE.

WHICH IS WHY IN YOUR ADD ON PACKET, THE CONDITION REQUIRING OR TYING THIS APPROVAL TO THE VACATION OF THAT EASEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE ANOTHER SEPTIC DRAIN FIELD HAS BEEN REMOVED. AND FINALLY, THE NEW DRIVEWAY FOR THE PROPOSED HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON LOT TWO WILL CONNECT WITH MCKUSICK AT THE EXISTING INTERSECTION OF MARY LANE AVENUE NORTH, AND LOTS TWO AND THREE HAVE A PROPOSED 20 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY EASEMENT AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNTY, SO THAT IF LOTS ONE AND FOUR ARE IN THE FUTURE DEVELOPED WITH OTHER RESIDENTIAL HOMES, THEY WOULD ACCESS MCKUSICK FROM THOSE DRIVEWAY EASEMENTS TO NOT FURTHER ADD INTERSECTIONS TO COUNTY ROAD 64. OH, I APOLOGIZE THAT THAT SITE MAP IS NOT ACCURATE, BUT HERE IS OUR PLAT. WE ARE LOOKING HERE AT OUR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO THE EAST.

SINCE THE SITE MAP WASN'T CORRECT IS NOTTINGHAM VILLAGE WHICH WAS PLATTED I BELIEVE IN 2018.

THAT IS ALSO THE TR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHICH IS ALSO GUIDED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO THIS DOES SHARE THE PROPOSED OR IT DOES SHARE THE ZONING DISTRICT OF ITS NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S AN EXISTING HOUSE ON LOT THREE AND AN EXISTING SHED AND GARAGE ON LOT FOUR.

ONE OF THE CONDITIONS, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHOUT A PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON A SITE.

ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IS THAT AFTER ALL, FOUR LOTS ARE PLATTED AND RECORDED THAT THE OWNERS OF LOT THREE WILL GO TO THE COUNTY AND COMBINE THE TAX DESCRIPTION OF LOTS THREE AND FOUR WITHOUT COMBINING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION.

SO THAT WAY IT WILL FUNCTION AS ONE LOT. UP UNTIL THE POINT IN TIME AT WHICH THE TAX DEFINITION CAN BE COMBINED.

AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME A IT WOULD ALLOW FOR A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON LOT FOUR.

LOT ONE DOES NOT FACE THAT CONSTRAINT. THERE'S NO EXISTING STRUCTURE ON HERE.

SO LOT ONE IS UNENCUMBERED AND COULD BE BUILT ON TOMORROW.

WE JUST ADDED THAT CONDITION TO AVOID CREATING A NONCONFORMITY BY APPROVING THIS PLAT WITH A,

[00:50:07]

HERE'S OUR FINAL PLAT. THERE ARE EVEN FIVE FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ON THE SIDE OF EVERY ONE OF THE FOUR LOTS.

AND THERE IS A TEN FOOT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT IN THE FRONT AND THE REAR.

WHAT YOU DON'T SEE ON THIS FINAL PLAT THAT'S MORE CLEAN IS ADDITIONALLY THE DRIVEWAY EASEMENT ON THE 20FT OF LOT TWO AND THREE THAT CONNECTS LOTS ONE AND FOUR TOGETHER.

IF LOT ONE EVER DEVELOPS, IT CAN USE THAT DRIVEWAY EASEMENT TO ACCESS THE INTERSECTION AT MARY LANE, WHERE THE DRIVEWAY FOR LOT TWO'S HOME WILL BE. LIKEWISE, THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY HERE CAN HAVE ACCESS TO LOT FOUR, OR IT CAN PROVIDE ACCESS THROUGH THAT EASEMENT TO LOT FOUR.

BUT THE COUNTY DID SAY THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ASK THAT ALL FOUR OF THESE HOME PLOTS MAY BE CONSOLIDATED TO HAVE THEIR ACCESS AT MEMORY LANE INTERSECTION, WHICH IS WHY THAT DRIVEWAY EASEMENT EXTENDS ACROSS THE WHOLE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY AND THE EXISTING, SO THAT THESE COULD TIE IN AND ELIMINATE ONE MORE ACCESS POINT FROM THE COUNTY ROAD AT A FUTURE TIME.

SO THIS IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH ALL OF THE GUIDANCE GIVEN TO US AND TO THE APPLICANTS FROM THE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.

THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE THE SEVEN AS FOLLOWS.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER. APPLICANT SHALL RECORD ALL REQUIRED ACCESS.

EASEMENT AGREEMENTS REQUIRED BY WASHINGTON COUNTY.

APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE PROOF OF SOIL TESTING THAT CONFIRMS SEPTIC DRAIN FIELDS ARE APPROPRIATE AND UP TO COUNTY STANDARDS PRIOR TO RELEASE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR ANY NEW STRUCTURES ON THE LOTS BEING CREATED. THE PLAT WILL NOT BE RELEASED UNTIL PAYMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR PARKLAND AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES FOR THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

NEW CONSTRUCTION ON LOTS ONE AND TWO ARE. AGAIN, THOSE ARE THE TWO WESTERN LOTS.

SINCE THERE'S CITY WATER THAT COMES UP MARY LANE TO THE INTERSECTION OF MCKUSICK AND THEN TURNS RIGHT.

NEW CONSTRUCTION ON LOTS ONE AND TWO ARE REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO CITY WATER AND PAY ASSOCIATED CONNECTION FEES.

IF FURTHER SUBDIVISION OCCURS ON ANY OF THE FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS BEING CREATED, A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WILL HAVE TO BE REPLATTED INTO THE DEVELOPMENT WITH ACCESS FROM MARY LANE. FURTHER THAN FOUR LOTS WITHIN THIS PLAT MUST BE SERVICED BY A STREET EXTENSION FROM THE MARY LANE AVENUE NORTH INTERSECTION, RATHER THAN JUST A SHARED DRIVEWAY. AND FINALLY, THE OWNER OF LOT THREE MUST COMBINE LOT FOUR INTO ONE.

IN TEXT DESCRIPTION ONLY. SO THAT ONE FUNCTIONAL PARCEL OF THE COMBINED LOTS THREE AND FOUR DOES NOT CREATE A NON-CONFORMING STANDALONE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON LOT FOUR. SHOULD IT NOT BE TIED TOGETHER IN TAX DESCRIPTION.

AND WITH THAT, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLOTS FOR SHEPHERDS CROSSING. THE REASONS BEING THAT ALL DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT ARE MET.

THE COMP PLAN DENSITY GUIDANCE WAS ACHIEVED BECAUSE WE'RE FORCING THE APPLICANTS TO CREATE AT MINIMUM FOUR LOTS WHERE THEY'RE DESIRED.

WAS ONLY TWO AND LOTS ONE AND FOUR, THOUGH NOT INTENDED FOR DEVELOPMENT, ARE SUFFICIENT IN SIZE SUCH THAT REASONABLE HOMES CAN BE FEASIBLY CONSTRUCTED.

WITH THAT, I STAND FOR QUESTIONS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ONE QUESTION. SO OUR RECOMMENDED NUMBER TWO APPLICANT SHALL RECORD ALL REQUIRED ACCESS EASEMENTS REQUIRED BY WASHINGTON COUNTY.

SO IN THIS CASE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY EASEMENTS CHAIR COMMISSION.

THIS IS CORRECT. THE ACCESS EASEMENTS THAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF ARE THE FRONT 20FT OF LOTS TWO AND THREE.

DO YOU THINK THAT WE SHOULD JUST ADD SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE SAYING, YOU KNOW, AS SET FORTH IN THE WASHINGTON COUNTY'S APPROVAL LETTER OR AS SHOWN ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.

I IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED, WE WILL DO.

SO WHAT'S THE MOST EXPEDITIOUS WAY OF DOING IT? IT WOULD BE AS SHOWN ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.

YES. OKAY. I WOULD MAKE THAT SUGGESTION AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? GREAT. THANK YOU.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE? HAVE ANYTHING THEY WISH TO ADD?

[00:55:01]

PUSH THE BUTTON TO TURN IT GREEN. I'LL TRY NOT TO MUTE YOU THIS TIME.

NATE WINKLER, I'M REPRESENTING THE SELLERS AND THE BUYER HERE.

DAN. SO OUR ORIGINAL PLAN ON THIS PARCEL IS THREE ACRE PLUS PARCEL WAS TO SPLIT IT IN HALF.

CURRENT OWNERS STAY WHERE THEY'RE AT. THE NEW BUYER BUILDS HIS NEW HOUSE THERE.

WE COULDN'T DO THAT. WE SPLIT IT IN FOUR LOTS. SO RIGHT NOW, THE PLAN IS THE OWNERS ARE GOING TO STAY IN THEIR HOUSE.

LOT THREE, LOT FOUR SMALLER LOT. THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP THAT.

NO DEVELOPMENT. IT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THEIR LOT. SAME WITH LOTS. ONE AND TWO ARE GOING TO REMAIN PRETTY MUCH LIKE YOU SEE THEM.

SO THERE'S NO PLANS TO REALLY DEVELOP LOTS ONE AND FOUR, BUT WE HAD TO SET IT UP TO BE IN COMPLIANCE THAT EVERYTHING CAN BE DEVELOPED.

SO RIGHT NOW THE PLAN IS LOT THREE AND FOUR IS GOING TO STAY JUST LIKE THAT.

AND LOT TWO IS GOING TO HAVE A NEW HOUSE RIGHT THERE. AND IT'S ONE AND TWO ARE GOING TO BE A NEW, BEAUTIFUL NEW HOME. SO THE WHAT YOU'RE WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THE BLUE LINES UP THERE IN LOT TWO IS WHERE YOU'RE PLANNING A NEW HOME, NEW HOUSE HERE. OKAY, HERE'S THE NEW DRIVEWAY COMING IN.

YEP. OKAY, THIS LOT'S GOING TO STAY LIKE THAT.

SO IT'S PRETTY MUCH FUNCTION AS ONE BIG PART.

OKAY, SO THAT'S 1 OR 2. SO THIS IS ALL STAYING THE SAME YEAR TWO, THREE AND FOUR.

OKAY. THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU GUYS.

ANY ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. SEEING NONE I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE WISHING TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM. ANYONE AT ALL.

SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSIONERS, WHAT DO WE THINK ON THIS ITEM? AND IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD START WITH A MOTION.

YOU SHOULDN'T FEEL LIKE DRUDGERY, BUT. IT'S NOT.

IT'S GLORY. RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT. I MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR SHEPHERDS CROSSING BE APPROVED WITH THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS AS MODIFIED.

THAT CONDITION NUMBER TWO STATE THAT APPLICANT SHOULD RECORD ALL REQUIRED ACCESS EASEMENTS REQUIRED BY WASHINGTON COUNTY AS DEPICTED IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES. CONGRATULATIONS.

AND WITH THAT, WE ARE DONE WITH OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE EVENING.

WE HAVE NO UNFINISHED BUSINESS, BUT WE DO HAVE NEW BUSINESS.

STICK AROUND GUYS. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT GOING TO GET SUPER EXCITING ABOUT TO GET WILD.

THANK YOU. THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE UPDATE.

[4. Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (Staff Reviewer: Jason Zimmerman, 651-430-8821, jzimmerman@stillwatermn.gov)]

SO THIS IS MEANT TO JUST KIND OF BE AN INTRODUCTION TO THE REBOOT OF OUR ZONING CODE UPDATE.

I THINK YOU'RE ALL AWARE THAT IN 24 IN THE SPRING, THE PROCESS WAS STARTED, YOU HAD SOME INITIAL DISCUSSIONS.

AND THEN DUE TO A NUMBER OF REASONS, INCLUDING STAFF TURNOVER AND OTHER THINGS HAPPENING, THE WHOLE EFFORT KIND OF STALLED.

SO WE ARE WE'RE GOING TO RELAUNCH THIS NOW. SO THE MEMO JUST KIND OF OUTLINES, YOU KNOW, REFRESHES WHERE WE WERE GOING AND HOW WE INTEND TO TACKLE THIS.

JUST TO KIND OF REMIND EVERYONE AND GROUND EVERYONE, I THINK THE PROJECT GOALS ARE REALLY REMAINING THE SAME. YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST WE'RE TRYING TO MODERNIZE AND SIMPLIFY THE CODE, INCREASE THE ACCESSIBILITY AND COMPREHENSION FOR BOTH THE PUBLIC WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT IT.

AND FRANKLY, FOR STAFF, WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO FIND SECTIONS OF CODE, IT CAN GET REALLY CONFUSING AS IT'S CURRENTLY SET UP.

WE'RE GOING TO REORGANIZE THE CHAPTER CONTENTS TO MAKE IT MORE USER FRIENDLY, ADD SOME MISSING INFORMATION THAT WE'RE AWARE OF AND CLARIFY SOME THINGS, AND THEN TO ALIGN ANY STANDARDS OR PROCEDURES WITH THE CURRENT LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS. THERE'S THINGS AROUND SIGNAGE AND MAYBE UPDATING OUR OUR WETLAND OR SHORELAND REGULATIONS TO MAKE SURE THOSE ARE AS CURRENT AS POSSIBLE. SO WE'RE WORKING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO REVIEW THOSE. AND I SHOULD NOTE THAT WHILE WE'RE CALLING IT THE ZONING CODE UPDATE, IT DOES INCLUDE CHAPTER 26, WHICH IS OUR SUBDIVISION CODE AS WELL.

THERE'S FEWER CHANGES TO MAKE THERE. BUT WHEN THE COUNCIL ADOPTED OTHER CHANGES IN 24, THEY KIND OF SET THOSE TWO CHAPTERS ASIDE TO SAY THERE'S MORE WORK THAT THE PLANNING STAFF WILL, WILL DO. SO THAT'S THAT'S THE BROAD OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE INTEND TO DO WITH THIS PROJECT.

STAFF HAVE GONE THROUGH BOTH LOOKING AT WHAT WAS DONE, YOU KNOW, TWO YEARS AGO AND TAKING A FRESH LOOK AT THE CHAPTERS AND KIND OF DONE AN AUDIT

[01:00:01]

I THINK YOU SAW IN THE MEMO BACK IN 1980, THERE WERE ABOUT EIGHT ZONING DISTRICTS AND NOW THERE'S 26.

THERE'S A NUMBER OF REASONS WHICH WE'LL GET INTO ABOUT WHY THAT MANY WERE CREATED. BUT REALLY IT'S, IT'S REALLY UNTENABLE AND IT'S CREATING ISSUES AS PEOPLE COME IN TO TRY TO DO DEVELOPMENT. IT'S CONFUSING. SO OUR, WE HAVE SOME STRATEGIES THAT WE'RE LAYING OUT HOW TO REDUCE THOSE AND GET THEM DOWN TO A REASONABLE NUMBER THAT STILL COVERS ALL OF STILLWATER'S NEEDS, BUT MAKES IT A MUCH MORE USABLE CODE.

SO THAT'S THAT'S A BIG ONE. SIMPLIFYING THE USE TABLES.

IF YOU'VE LOOKED AT OUR CODE, JUST, YOU KNOW, USE AFTER USE LISTED ACROSS ALL THE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS, IT'S BOTH OVERLY DETAILED IN SOME AREAS AND JUST TOO VAGUE IN OTHERS.

I THINK DIALING IN THE RIGHT LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT A USABLE TABLE THAT YOU'RE NOT SCROLLING PAGE AFTER PAGE TO FIND WHAT YOU NEED, AND EVEN JUST REORGANIZING IT, LET ALONE CHANGING SOME OF THOSE USES.

THAT'S ANOTHER USER FRIENDLY THING WE COULD DO.

ADDING SOME MISSING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. WE KNOW THERE'S A BIG LAPSE IN IT NOW AROUND OUTDOOR LIGHTING.

WE DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH TO ENFORCE AROUND OR REGULATE AROUND OUTDOOR LIGHTING.

OTHER THINGS ABOUT ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING SOME OTHER THINGS THAT WE, OTHER ZONING CODES THAT ARE MODERN HAVE IN THEM THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY ADDRESSING.

SO ADDING THOSE IN TO MAKE SURE WE'RE COVERING THE FULL RANGE OF THINGS THAT PEOPLE BRING TO US UPDATING OUR SIGN REGULATIONS.

YOU'VE PROBABLY HEARD OUR CITY ATTORNEY REFERENCE OUR SIGN CODE AND HOW IT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED.

THERE'VE BEEN A NUMBER OF LEGAL DECISIONS IN THE PAST 7 OR 8 YEARS FROM THE SUPREME COURT THAT IMPACT HOW CODES ARE INTERPRETED RELATING TO SIGNAGE, AND CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE BEEN GRADUALLY MAKING THOSE CHANGES.

WE HAVE DONE SOME OF IT KIND OF QUICK AND DIRTY, BUT THERE'S A CHANCE TO KIND OF GO INTO MORE DEPTH AND KIND OF REALLY MAKE THAT A NICE, CLEAN CODE. IN ADDITION, WE DON'T ADDRESS THINGS LIKE LED SIGNS AND YOU KNOW, MOVING SIGNS AND SOME OTHER THINGS THAT ARE MORE CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, WHICH A LOT OF CODES ARE NOW HAVING TO GO AND DO BECAUSE THAT WASN'T A THING WHEN THESE SIGN CODES WERE FIRST DRAFTED.

SO THAT LAST ONE SURPRISED ME. WE HAD AND THE ONLY REASON IT STICKS OUT IN MY BRAIN IS RIGHT AFTER I JOINED COUNCIL, WE HAD A PRETTY HEAVY DISCUSSION AROUND ELECTRONIC SIGNAGE.

IT WASN'T LIKE AN LED VERSUS OTHER TYPE THING.

AND I REMEMBER WE CAME DOWN AS A COUNCIL, NOT AS A PLANNING COMMISSION PRETTY HARD ON THE NO ELECTRONIC SIGNAGE KIND OF THING.

SO I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO GO LOOK THROUGH THE CODE OR ANYTHING.

I TAKE YOUR WORD AT IT THAT. YEAH. I THINK THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO BE CLEARER ABOUT WHAT WE ALLOW AND DON'T ALLOW.

I'M NOT SAYING WE HAVE TO ALLOW THEM, BUT WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR SO THAT QUESTIONS AREN'T RAISED.

PERFECT. MODERNIZING SOME OF OUR PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES, JUST THE WAY THAT WE TAKE IN APPLICATIONS, WHAT WE REQUIRE, WHERE WE KEEP THE LISTS OF WHAT WE REQUIRE.

A LOT OF OLD CODES, AS OURS DOES, HAS WITHIN THE CODE A VERY DETAILED LIST THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE THIS SHOWN, THIS UTILITY PLAN AT THIS SCALE. A LOT OF CITIES HAVE TAKEN THOSE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND TAKEN THEM OUT OF THE ZONING CODE AND REFERENCE A DESIGN MANUAL SO THAT WHEN YOU HAVE TO MAKE CHANGES TO WHAT YOUR REQUIREMENTS ARE, YOU CAN DO IT OUTSIDE OF A TEXT AMENDMENT, BUT THEN IT'S ALSO POSTED ONLINE. IT'S USER FRIENDLY AND JUST HAVING SOME CONSISTENCY BETWEEN ALL THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS THAT WE DO. SO CLEANING THAT UP TO MAKE THAT MORE CLEAR FOR, FOR PEOPLE. AND SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE USE TABLE THINGS, UPDATING OUR DEFINITIONS, THERE ARE SECTIONS OF CODE THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED THAT THE DEFINITIONS AREN'T IN OUR DEFINITION SECTION. THERE'S DEFINITIONS THERE THAT NO LONGER ARE RELEVANT TO PIECES OF OUR CODE. SO JUST CLEANING ALL THAT UP. AND THEN JUST FINALLY REORGANIZING IT FOR BETTER CLARITY IN TERMS OF HOW PEOPLE READ A CODE FROM FRONT TO BACK.

OUR SUBDIVISION CHAPTER HAS SOME SIMILAR THINGS.

THERE'S SOME MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS YOU USUALLY DON'T SEE. THOSE ARE ENGINEERING STAFF WORK WITH THOSE HAS TO DO WITH ROAD LAYOUTS, ROAD WIDTHS, SOME OF THE MORE TECHNICAL ASPECTS, MAKING SURE THOSE ARE ALL UP TO STANDARDS.

OUR ENGINEERING STAFF HAS SAID THEY'D LIKE TO SEE A FEW CHANGES THERE. CLARIFYING SOME PROCEDURES AROUND LOT SPLITS AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS.

A STATE STATUTE ALLOWS YOU TO DO A FEW THINGS.

THERE'S MAYBE SOME THINGS WE COULD INTRODUCE TO MAKE THAT PROCESS GO MORE SMOOTHLY. SIMILARLY, UPDATING OUR PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES FOR, FOR LOT MANIPULATION AND THEN OUR PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS AND OUR CITY ATTORNEY MADE SOME CHANGES IN 24.

BUT I'VE HEARD HER COMMENT. THERE'S A FEW MORE TWEAKS THAT WE COULD MAKE. JUST TO MAKE THAT MORE CLEAR. SO YOU KNOW, EACH ONE OF THESE IS A WHOLE KIND OF SUBTOPIC.

I DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO IT TOO MUCH, BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT THE RANGE OF THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT WE SEE AS ISSUES IN THE CURRENT CODE AND THAT WE CAN TACKLE AND IMPROVE.

AND THEN JUST FINALLY TO WRAP THIS UP, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF HOW WE ANTICIPATE KIND OF REORGANIZING, YOU SEE THE EXISTING LAYOUT, WHICH IS NOT GREAT IN TERMS OF USABILITY FOR STAFF.

I THINK WE'VE ALL HAD FRUSTRATIONS TRYING TO NAVIGATE IT.

AND SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS START TO KIND OF LAY OUT A MORE SENSIBLE WAY TO KIND OF ORGANIZE THE CODE.

WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, SUB SUB POINTS UNDER EACH OF THESE DIVISIONS. BUT HAVING WORKED ON A NUMBER OF ZONING CODES IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR FOR CITIES, I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD IDEA OF KIND OF BEST PRACTICES NOW AND HOW TO REORGANIZE OUR CODE THAT MAKE IT REALLY EASY TO USE.

[01:05:01]

SO THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT WE INTEND TO DO.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW, I THINK EVEN THE LAST TIME I SAID WE'LL WAIT WITH ZONING DISTRICTS UNTIL THE END.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO THAT. I THINK WE PROBABLY CAN'T FINALIZE IT UNTIL WE KIND OF GET FURTHER INTO THE COMP PLAN. BUT I THINK STARTING WITH THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS IS REALLY GOING TO BE KEY BECAUSE SO MUCH OF IT COMES OUT OF WHAT THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS LOOK LIKE.

SO I THINK WHEN WE COME BACK, IT'S PROBABLY A BIG AGENDA IN APRIL.

SO WE'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT A MAY MEETING WHERE WE START TALKING ABOUT ZONING DISTRICTS AND KIND OF TRYING TO PARE THOSE DOWN INTO A REASONABLE NUMBER AND ARRANGE THAT MAKES SENSE FOR FOR THE CITY. SO HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS OR GET AS DEEP INTO THIS OR STAY A HIGH LEVEL AS YOU WISH, BUT JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHERE WE'RE HEADING IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WELL, NO. I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE WORK.

I'M EXCITED FOR THIS. BUT TELL ME, THIS IS LIKE KIND OF A VERY BASIC QUESTION.

HOW DOES HOW DO YOU HOW DOES STAFF AND YOUR OFFICE VIEW LIKE THIS PROCESS LOOKING INSOFAR AS SOLICITING FEEDBACK OUTSIDE OF LIKE THE CITY ATTORNEY, ARE YOU GOING TO BE HAVING MEETINGS WITH LIKE THE CITY COUNCIL WITH ANY OUTSIDE CONSTITUENCIES? ARE ANY ARE THINGS GOING TO COME BEFORE US? YEAH, I GUESS YEAH, I THINK WE'LL DEFINITELY WORK FOR US.

YEAH, WE WILL DEFINITELY BE WORKING THROUGH EACH OF THESE TOPICS WITH WITH YOU AS PLANNING COMMISSION AND PROBABLY JUST KIND OF GIVING OCCASIONAL UPDATES TO THE COUNCIL ON WHERE WE ARE. HAVING DONE THIS WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE PUBLIC TENDS TO GET EXCITED ABOUT AT ALL.

SO THERE'S CERTAINLY BE DISCUSSIONS HERE AND WE'LL PROBABLY PUT IT IN A NEWSLETTER ARTICLE, LET PEOPLE KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING. ANYONE'S ALWAYS WELCOME TO COME AND LISTEN AND ASK QUESTIONS, BUT UNLESS THERE'S A BURNING TOPIC LIKE ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND WE NEED INPUT FROM THE BROADER PUBLIC BECAUSE WE WANT TO KNOW HOW THEY WANT TO SEE THEM INTRODUCED OR CHARGING STATIONS INTRODUCED. THERE MAY BE A SPECIFIC TOPIC OR TWO.

WE GO FOR A BROADER INPUT, BUT GENERALLY IT'S GOING TO BE HERE.

I THINK WHAT WE WILL DO IS PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, GET SOME INPUT, DRAFT SOME CODE, OR AT LEAST THE DIRECTION OF CODE, COME BACK, BOUNCE IT OFF YOU AND KIND OF HAVE AN ITERATIVE PROCESS.

YOU KNOW, SECTION BY SECTION BUILDING INTO A LARGER COMPLETE DOCUMENT.

CITY ATTORNEY WILL GO THROUGH IT. SHE'LL MAKE HER CHANGES, AND THEN WE'LL PUT IT UP FOR THE PUBLIC TO KIND OF REVIEW GIVE THEIR COMMENTS BEFORE BRINGING BACK A FINAL VERSION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT.

SO I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ZONING DISTRICTS DOWN FROM AN ALL TIME HIGH OF 26. BUT ULTIMATELY THEN AND MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO TALK TO CITY ATTORNEY, BUT ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES WILL BE REZONED.

SO THAT'S GOING TO BE QUITE THE BIG PROCESS, RIGHT? IT IS ALTHOUGH IT CAN BE DONE KIND OF IN ONE FELL SWOOP, YOU CAN KIND OF DO A MASS ANNOUNCEMENT AND KIND OF PUT THAT OUT AND DO IT ALL AT ONCE.

SO IT'S, IT'S, AND IT WON'T BE EVERY, BUT, YOU KNOW, AND A LOT OF THESE ZONING DISTRICTS ARE CREATED LITERALLY FOR 5 TO 10 PROPERTIES.

LIKE THOSE ARE THE ONLY PROPERTIES ZONED THAT ZONING DISTRICT.

SO WHILE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT GETTING RID OF A ZONING DISTRICT, IF IT'S TEN PROPERTIES, THAT'S NOT THAT MUCH NOTICING OR KIND OF YOU KNOW, CONVERSATION TO HAVE. SO THERE ARE A FEW DISTRICTS WHERE THERE ARE MORE PARCELS.

SO WE'LL HAVE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT MAKES SENSE, BUT I THINK THERE ARE AT LEAST A HANDFUL OF THEM WHERE YOU COULD GET RID OF THEM TODAY, AND NO ONE WOULD PROBABLY EVEN NOTICE. BUT THEY'LL GET A PUBLIC.

THEY WILL. YES, YES. THAT'S THE THING THAT WE GET TO DO IS THE PUBLIC HEARINGS HERE.

I DID PLAY WITH ONE OF THESE, JUST TO SORT OF PROVE TO MYSELF THAT IT COULD BE DONE.

AND I MAY BE SHOCKED, JASON, INTO ACTION BECAUSE I THINK I COPIED YOU ON THE EMAIL.

CHAIR DYBVIG. IF I CAN TAKE ONE OF THESE SMALL ONES AND PRETTY EASILY MOVE IT OVER THERE.

AND THERE WASN'T A LOT OF LIKE, THERE WAS A COUPLE LEFTOVER QUESTIONS WE NEEDED TO RESOLVE, BUT IT WASN'T AS HARD AS I THOUGHT. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.

AND I'M AN IDIOT. SO I'VE NEVER DO WE WANT A MOTION? TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT? NO. THANK YOU. YEAH, I DID, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST TIME LOOKING AT THE CITY OF STILLWATER AND HOW MANY ZONING DISTRICTS THERE WERE IN HERE, IT WAS KIND OF IT'S DAUNTING, BUT WHEN YOU GET INTO IT, IT'S, YOU KNOW, AND IT SEEMED IT SEEMED LIKE SOMEBODY THOUGHT IT WAS BETTER TO JUST MAKE NEW ZONING DISTRICTS RATHER THAN ENFORCE WHAT YOU CURRENTLY HAVE.

RIGHT. WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT. IT HAS TO DO WITH SOME OF THE.

YEAH. INSTEAD OF JUST HAVING THOSE KIND OF OVERLAY THAT MODIFIES THE BASE DISTRICT, IT JUST CREATED A WHOLE NOTHER DISTRICT, RIGHT? SO YOU CAN REALLY KIND OF ROLL THOSE BACK UP AND JUST HAVE THESE ADDITIONAL RULES FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY.

AND THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR, YOU KNOW, 4 OR 5 OF THOSE DISTRICTS ALREADY.

ANY THOUGHT ON HOW THAT APPROACH PLAYS OUT WITH ALL THIS?

[01:10:03]

BECAUSE OF WHERE WE ARE IN THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, BUT THE LAST 2 OR 3 BIENNIUM WE'VE SEEN EVERY YEAR, THEM COME FORWARD WITH, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING FROM LET'S SCRAP THE CONCEPT OF ZONING AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE THE STATE.

ON DOWN TO SOME MORE NUANCED STUFF THAT'S IN THEIR.

PUDS IN PARTICULAR, SEEM TO GET A LOT OF ANGER AND FRUSTRATION FROM OUR FRIENDS IN SAINT PAUL.

YEAH, AND THAT'S STRANGE BECAUSE EVERY CITY USES THEM AND SOME USE THEM QUITE EXTENSIVELY.

AND IT'S A WAY TO GET DEVELOPMENT TO HAPPEN, MAYBE IN PLACES WHERE IT MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE HAPPEN OR IN TERMS OF A BETTER PRODUCT, BECAUSE YOU CAN MASTER PLAN. I THINK THE FRUSTRATION THAT OTHERS SEE IS THAT IT MAY BE USED AS A WAY TO EXCLUDE SOME TYPES OF HOUSING, AND SO THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE THE RUB IS. AND SO I DON'T THINK THEY'LL GO AWAY, BUT THERE MAYBE CONTINUE TO BE EFFORTS TO KIND OF LIMIT HOW, HOW MUCH CONTROL, HOW MUCH FLEXIBILITY THEY OFFER CITIES.

SO I THINK THIS, I THINK I SAW THE, THE THE LEAGUE'S NOTE THAT FOR THIS SESSION, IT SOUNDS LIKE THOSE EFFORTS HAVE KIND OF DIED, BUT I'M SURE WE'LL BE BACK NEXT YEAR OR THE YEAR AFTER.

SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO PROTECT OURSELVES WITH IT.

AGAIN, I'M ASKING TO LOOK INTO A CRYSTAL BALL THAT I DON'T THINK ANY OF US UNDERSTAND. BUT MY, MY SENSE IS STRONG ZONING IS PROBABLY OUR LAST LINE OF DEFENSE AT THIS POINT.

SO IT'S A DANGEROUS TIME. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? I'LL JUST SAY FIRST OF ALL, AGAIN, THANK YOU, STAFF FOR TAKING THIS ENDEAVOR. I KNOW IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT.

I THINK I'VE MENTIONED THIS IN A PREVIOUS MEETING.

I'M A BELIEVER IN KEEPING THAT SYSTEM AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE.

TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN, ALBEIT THERE WILL BE THESE HICCUPS THAT WE GO THROUGH DURING THE TRANSITION.

BUT I THINK IF WE CAN GO THROUGH THAT, THE BENEFITS IN THE LONG TERM VASTLY OUTWEIGH THE COSTS THAT WE WILL HIT IN THE FIRST 24 MONTHS OR WHATEVER IT TAKES TO MAKE THAT TRANSITION. TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN KEEP THAT AS PUBLIC AS POSSIBLE ON THE DECISIONS THAT ARE BEING MADE AND MAKE A REALLY GOOD RECORD, I THINK WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL.

YEAH. SO I GUESS THAT'S WHY I WAS MORE OF MY ASKING OF LIKE, IF THERE'S GOING TO BE GROUPS THINKING ABOUT THINGS VERSUS THINGS THAT CAN BE SAID IN A PUBLIC SPACE, I FEEL LIKE THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.

AND ONE THING I KNOW WE'VE DONE IN OTHER CODES, WHEN YOU START TO GO IN AND MAKE RECOMMENDED CHANGES, KEEPING KIND OF THAT, THAT CHANGE LIST OF LIKE, HERE'S WHAT IT IS, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING IT SHOULD BE CHANGED TO.

SO AT THE END, SOMEONE CAN KIND OF RUN DOWN SECTION BY SECTION AND SEE WHAT WAS MODIFIED.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S CERTAIN TOPICS MIGHT JUMP OUT AT THEM RATHER THAN JUST GIVING THEM A 40 PAGE DOCUMENT AND SAYING, GOOD LUCK COMPARING BEFORE AND AFTER, BUT REALLY KEEPING THAT DETAILED LIST OF WHERE WE'RE MAKING CHANGES AND JUSTIFYING WHY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS? GREAT. THANK YOU.

THANKS SO MUCH. GLAD TO. GLAD TO SEE THIS MOVING.

MOVING FORWARD. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA ARE THE STAFF UPDATES.

[5. Parks Master Plan Update – please visit and review]

I'M ASSUMING YOU JUST WANT US TO READ THAT. YEAH, IF PEOPLE HAVEN'T HAVEN'T NOTICED, I THINK IT'S BEEN PUBLICIZED A BIT.

OUR ENGINEERING PUBLIC WORKS AND PARK STAFF HAVE BEEN WORKING TO DEVELOP A MASTER PLAN FOR OUR WHOLE PARK SYSTEM.

THERE'S A DRAFT DOCUMENT THAT IS NOW OUT ONLINE.

YOU CAN FIND IT. GO, GO TO THE CITY WEBSITE AND IT'S A DRAFT WHERE YOU CAN GO IN AND PEOPLE CAN POST COMMENTS AND YOU CAN ADD YOUR COMMENTS OR COMMENT ON OTHER PEOPLE'S NOTES. AND IT'S JUST A WAY TO KIND OF COLLECTIVELY GET A BUNCH OF INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC THAT THEN THE CONSULTANT AND STAFF CAN TAKE BACK AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS BEFORE ROLLING OUT A FINAL PLAN. I DON'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD HOW MUCH TIME IS LEFT ON THAT.

IT'S GETTING DOWN TO THE LAST FEW WEEKS FOR PUBLIC INPUT.

SO IF YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT AND YOU WANT TO IF YOU CAN'T FIND IT, LET STAFF KNOW.

WE CAN POINT YOU TO IT, BUT IT'S A, IT'S A QUITE EXTENSIVE DOCUMENT.

IT TAKES ALL THE PARKS BOTH KIND OF THE MORE PROGRAMED AS WELL AS THE NATURAL AREAS IN THE CITY AND GIVES KIND OF A ASSESSMENT OF THEIR CONDITION.

AND THEN WHAT KIND OF IMPROVEMENTS MIGHT NEED TO BE DONE.

SHORT, MEDIUM, LONG TERM RELATIVE COSTS. SO IT'S REALLY LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR US FOR THE NEXT 20 PLUS YEARS.

OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. WE WILL ENDEAVOR TO DO THAT.

AND THEN ITEM NUMBER SIX, THE ANNUAL BOARD AND COMMISSION TRAINING REMINDER.

[6. Annual Board and Commission Training Reminder]

JOHNNY. MAY 7TH. OKAY. LAST YEAR, DID I GO LAST YEAR? YEAH, YEAH. SO I'M NOT GOING TO GO THIS YEAR.

[01:15:03]

OUR CITY ATTORNEY WILL BE GIVING THE PRESENTATION, AND THERE'S SOME SPECIAL ATTENTION PAID TO PLANNING COMMISSION ASIDE FROM COMMISSIONS GENERALLY, BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE SPECIAL AND DO SPECIAL THINGS. SO YEAH, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

IT'S NOT THAT WE CAN GET INTO MORE LEGAL TROUBLE THAN SOME OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS. WE'RE SPECIAL.

WE ARE. YEAH. WE'LL GO WITH WE'LL GO WITH SPECIAL ON THAT.

SO YEAH, SO JUST A REMINDER, IF YOU DIDN'T GO LAST YEAR, YOU NEED TO GO THIS YEAR.

AND SEEING AND THEN THERE IS A EMAIL ADDRESS TO RSVP TO IF YOU'RE PLANNING TO ATTEND SO THEY CAN BE PREPARED FOR YOU, FOR YOU TO BE THERE. AND, AND YEAH, THEY YEAH.

IT'S GOOD. YEAH. SO USUALLY PRETTY GOOD TREATS.

SO SEEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 816.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.