VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 10 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address.

[3. Case No. CD2026-010: Site Plan Review and CUP request at 1365 Curve Crest Boulevard for a Day Care – (Staff Reviewer: Jason Zimmerman, 651-430-8821, jzimmerman@stillwatermn.gov)]

THERE IS NOTHING ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA, SO WE WILL HOP INTO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING IS CASE CD 2020 6-010 SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CIP REQUESTS FOR 1365 CURVE CREST BOULEVARD FOR A DAYCARE, SAYS MR. ZIMMERMAN. BUT I'M ASSUMING WE HAVE MR. GOOTNICK. THAT IS CORRECT. THANK YOU CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. JUST A QUICK REVIEW. THE BACKGROUND HERE IS ABOUT APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE VACANT PARCEL IN OUR BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT AREA. AS A REMINDER, THE END OF 2025, EARLY 2026, THERE WAS A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT RELATED TO THIS PROJECT THAT DID ALLOW FOR THE DAYCARE OR CHILDCARE CENTER TO BE ALLOWED IN THIS DISTRICT PER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. JUST AN OVERVIEW OF THE AREA THE SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE AN ORTHODONTICS SITE, A WATER SOFTENING SUPPLIER, AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, AND A CHARTER OAKS TOWNHOMES. THE PROPOSED CAPACITY FOR THIS SPECIFIC SITE IS 120 CHILDREN. THE. THAT'S FULL ENROLLMENT AND THEN 20 STAFF MEMBERS MAXIMUM. AGAIN, TYPICAL OPERATIONS IN THIS INSTANCE WOULD LIKELY BE LOWER. THE SITE INCLUDES. AND I'M BOLDED THE 35 PARKING STALLS.

THAT IS A QUICK UPDATE AFTER CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT, AND I'LL GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER HERE. BUT WE HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION ABOUT THE PARKING ARRANGEMENT EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON AND YESTERDAY. AND FOR A 4400 SQUARE FOOT FENCE AND PLAY AREA ALONG WITH THE DAYCARE CENTER, THE REGULATORY REVIEW ON THIS CASE IS COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING CODE, AND THAT'S THE BUSINESS PARK INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE UNDERLYING LAND USE AND THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE WEST STILLWATER BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT. AND THAT'S A 1980S KIND OF PACKET OF HOW TO MOVE FORWARD WHEN WE ANNEX THIS AREA IN THE 80S. THERE'S ALSO A DEPARTMENT REVIEW BY OUR BUILDING STAFF, FIRE ENGINEERING, AND THEN MIDDLE SAINT CROIX IS REGULATORY PARTNER IN THIS. CONDITIONAL USE. PERMIT ANALYSIS IS FAIRLY SIMPLE IN THIS CASE. AGAIN IT IS ALLOWED VIA ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FROM THE END OF 2025. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH ZONING AND COMP PLAN CONDITIONS CAN MITIGATE IMPACTS WHERE WE DO HAVE A FEW CONDITIONS HERE AND NO NEW SENSOR DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE. IN THIS CASE, STAFF DOES FIND THAT THESE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. WHERE WE SPENT THE BULK OF OUR REVIEWS ON THE SITE PLAN ANALYSIS. SO ENSURING COMPLIANCE AND CONSISTENCY WITH OUR UNDERLYING ZONING ORDINANCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR BUILDING AND SITE STANDARDS, WE LOOK AT HEIGHT SETBACKS, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.

IN THIS CASE, ALL OF THESE HAVE BEEN MET FOR THE BUSINESS PARK INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. THE PARKING CIRCULATION AGAIN UPDATED PARKING. THERE WAS PREVIOUSLY 33 TOTAL STALLS. NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT 35 AND THE ACCESS IS VIA RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT ONTO CURVED CREST LOCATED RIGHT UP HERE. RATHER THAN CONNECTING TO THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO THE ORTHODONTICS BACK HERE, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN ENTRANCE ENGINEERING REQUIRED THAT BE RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT, RATHER THAN HAVE ANY MORE ADDITIONAL CROSS TRAFFIC FROM CURVED CREST. THE APPLICANT, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, COULD GET INTO THE LACK OF CONNECTION HERE. I BELIEVE THERE WAS, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THE OTHER LANDOWNER DIDN'T WANT A SHARED ACCESS AGREEMENT, SO THAT WAS

[00:05:02]

EXPLORED. BUT ULTIMATELY NOW IT WAS DECIDED. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL. THERE ARE 13 TREES BEING PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED, AND THIS IS ABOUT 34.33% D.B.H. THIS IS UNDER THE THRESHOLD, BUT THE APPLICANT IS STILL PROPOSING ON REPLACING 13 OF THOSE TREES. THERE WILL BE A SIX FOOT ORNAMENTAL FENCE THAT IS COMPLIANT AND CONSISTENT LIGHTING IS COMPLIANT. THE SIGNAGE IS THE ONLY OTHER ITEM THAT I WANTED TO NOTE THE PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN NOT ON THIS SITE PLAN, BUT ON ANOTHER IS LOCATED WITHIN 15FT OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND THAT WILL NEED TO BE UPDATED WHEN THEY MAKE THEIR SIGN PERMIT. THAT'S 15FT IS THE MINIMUM SETBACK, SO THEY'LL HAVE TO BRING IT TO AT LEAST 15. RIGHT NOW I BELIEVE IT'S AROUND 11, AND THEN IT'LL BE FULLY SERVED BY UTILITIES AND SPRINKLED THAT PARKING CLARIFICATION I WANTED TO COMMENT ON. THE APPLICANT IS PLANNING ON RELOCATING THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING, WHICH WAS RIGHT HERE. I THINK THIS DIAGRAM SHOWS A LITTLE BIT BETTER TO THIS AREA RIGHT HERE.

THE PARKING LOADING WILL BE WHERE THE ENTRANCE TO THE ACTUAL FACILITY IS. THERE'LL BE NO PARKING SIGNS THEY WILL HAVE. THAT'S WHERE YOU CAN HAVE ACCESSIBLE LOADING FOR THE CARS AS WELL AS CHILDREN GOING INTO THE FACILITY, THE RELOCATION OF THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING FROM THIS LOCATION TO HERE DOES GIVE THE OVERALL SITE TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING STALLS, WHICH DOES COMPLY WITH OUR ONE STALL PER EIGHT CHILDREN PLUS ONE STAFF MEMBER. WHICH BRINGS US UP TO ABOUT 33 REQUIRED SPACES. THEY ARE PROPOSING 35, TWO OF WHICH ARE ACCESSIBLE. THERE IS A PROPOSED CHANGE OF YOUR CONDITION. NUMBER FIVE, WHICH IS SITE PLAN, SHALL BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE CHANGE IN ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND THE ADDITION OF TWO ADDITIONAL STALLS. RIGHT NOW, CONDITION FIVE DOES NOT REITERATE THAT. SO THAT'S SOMETHING STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT YOU CHANGE. IF SHOULD YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS CASE, HERE IS THAT SITE PLAN. I HAVE A FEW OTHER IMAGES TOO, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT THIS IS THE OVERALL SHOWING THE RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT FROM CURVE CREST THE WHAT WILL NOW BE 17 PARKING STALLS HERE. THIS IS GOING TO BE LOCATED RIGHT THERE. THE FENCED IN AREA FOR THE PLAY AREA AS WELL AS THE ACTUAL FACILITY. THE ELEVATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THAT WEST STILLWATER BUSINESS PARK. THAT KIND OF GUIDES THE DESIGN VERY SIMPLY. JUST DOES NOT ALLOW SHEET METAL TO BE A SIDING. SO PRETTY EASY TO COMPLY WITH, DOES NOT NEED TO GO TO HPC. STAFF DOES FIND THAT THE THREE REQUIRED FINDINGS MENTIONED EARLIER FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ARE MET, IN THIS CASE, PRIMARILY ZONING CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS PROJECT DOES CONFORM TO BOTH OF THOSE. THERE ARE CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE INCLUDING THAT WE BELIEVE IDENTIFY MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND THE USE WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE AND THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS ARE OUTLINED. MY APOLOGIES. OUTLINED HERE. NUMBER FIVE, I HAVE STRUCK THE OLD LANGUAGE WITH THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IN BOLD UNDERNEATH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO REVIEW THAT. OTHERWISE, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS CASE. I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE IF THEY HAVE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM AS WELL. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY, GREAT. THANKS. THE APPLICANT WISH TO ADD ANYTHING. COME ON FORWARD. PRESS THE BUTTON ON THERE TO TURN IT GREEN AND NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. THERE YOU GO. YOU'RE ON. I THINK I GOT IT ALL RIGHT. MY NAME IS SEAN GRAHAM WITH INSIGHT REAL ESTATE.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TONIGHT. ADDRESS FOR THE OFFICE FOR THE FOR THE RECORD. YEAH. OKAY.

YEAH. OUR WE'RE BASED OUT OF WEST CHICAGO SUBURBS AT 1400 16TH STREET IN OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS. SO AGAIN, I'M A PROJECT MANAGER. INSIGHT IS A NATIONAL DEVELOPER, BOTH COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE. IN THE PAST FOUR YEARS OR SO, WE'VE BEEN PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON THE DAYCARE MARKET. JUST BECAUSE THERE'S SUCH A BOOMING DEMAND FOR DAYCARE.

SPECIFICALLY, IN THE PAST TWO YEARS, WE'VE BEEN FOCUSED IN STILLWATER. I ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THIS EXACT SITE MYSELF TWO YEARS AGO. UNFORTUNATELY, AT THAT TIME, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET THIS DEAL TO MOVE FORWARD. AS BEN KIND OF TOUCHED ON, CROSS ACCESS WAS THE PRIMARY ISSUE THAT KILLED THAT DEAL. SO WE'VE BEEN ACTIVELY SHOPPING OTHER SITES IN THE CITY, AND NOW WE'RE BACK AT OUR ORIGINAL PAD. SO I THINK BEN DID A GREAT JOB COVERING OUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS OR PROVIDE ANY MORE INFORMATION. SO WITH THAT I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER. THANK YOU AGAIN. GREAT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPER. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND WITH THAT WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU HAVE IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD. NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND TRY AND KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES. ANYONE WISHING TO COMMENT ON THIS ONE. SEEING NO ONE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, WHAT DO WE THINK? DO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS OR DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? I WANT TO JUST GET EVERYBODY'S TAKE ON. I MEAN, IT'S WE NEED DAYCARE AND I'M SURE THIS IS A GREAT FACILITY. I, WE KEEP PUTTING THINGS IN OUR BUSINESS PARK, INDUSTRIAL

[00:10:03]

AREA THAT ARE NOT TRADITIONAL BUSINESS PARK INDUSTRIAL. AND WE'RE STARTING TO SEE PROBLEMS POP UP FROM THEM WHEN PLACES WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IN THE BUSINESS PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA GO. RIGHT. I, I THINK, AND THIS IS, THIS IS A QUESTION THAT I KIND OF HAD KIND OF THE LAST TIME WE WERE RUNNING INTO SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS. I BASICALLY SAID, WHAT GETS PROHIBITED BY BEING TOO CLOSE? AND THE ONLY THING WE REALLY HAVE SETBACKS ON IS CANNABIS USES. YEAH. AND WE'RE SOON TO BE FULLY BUILT OUT ON THAT, I THINK. I THINK SO TOO. AND SO NOT THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE COGNIZANT OF THAT. AND I THINK IT ALSO NEEDS TO KIND OF BE THE OTHER DIRECTION AS WELL AS KIND OF A WARNING TO, TO THE DAYCARE CENTER THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE RIGHT NEXT TO AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP THAT WILL HAVE LOTS OF SMELLS AND LOUD NOISES AND OTHER THINGS THAT PEOPLE SOMETIMES OBJECT TO EXPOSING CHILDREN TO. YEAH. AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO TO THAT AUTOMOTIVE SHOP AND SAY, YOU CAN'T PAINT BETWEEN 8 A.M.

AND 5 P.M. BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THEY'RE KIDS NEXT DOOR. WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. AND SO IT ALSO SO I THINK IT KIND OF GETS HAS TO BE A TWO WAY STREET ON THIS TYPE OF CONVERSATION. BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I HAD FOR THAT SAID, YOU'RE FORTUNATE BECAUSE THE GUY WHO RUNS THAT IS A FORMER BOY SCOUT LEADER WITH ME AND WONDERFUL WITH KIDS, AND I'M SURE WE'LL WORK WITH YOU IF YOU NEED TO, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE CAN HAVE A ROLE IN.

YEAH, YEAH. COME ON. YEP. JUST TO ADD A LITTLE FOOD FOR THOUGHT AS A REMINDER, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A FEW MONTHS. WE WERE THE APPLICANT THAT CAME IN AT THE END OF LAST YEAR FOR THAT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DAYCARES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. AS FAR AS BEING NEXT TO THE AUTOMOBILE CENTER, THAT'S NOT A HUGE CONCERN OF MINE. THERE'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT GRADE DROP OFF FROM OUR SITE TO THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, AND THE PLAYGROUND'S DOWN TO THE SOUTH. AND AS AN EAGLE SCOUT MYSELF, I APPRECIATE YOU BEING A SCOUT LEADER. SO. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THANKS. SO. YEAH. DO WE YEAH, I STILL I'M STILL A COUPLE MINDS ON IT. SO I'D LOVE TO GET YOUR GUYS THOUGHTS. WELL, I RECALL THAT WE DID DISCUSS THAT VERY ISSUE WHEN WE TOOK UP THE ZONING AMENDMENT. AND. CERTAINLY IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DISCUSS, ESPECIALLY AS WE MOVE FORWARD INTO THE COMP PLAN DISCUSSIONS COMING UP HERE THIS SUMMER. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT WE'RE NEARLY BUILT OUT IN THIS AREA. SO THE AS THEY SAY, THE HORSE MAY HAVE ALREADY LEFT THE BARN. YEAH. WE'RE PUTTING THEM ALL BY YOUR HOUSE. RIGHT. ANY, ANY, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM OR DO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS THAT FOLKS WOULD LIKE TO MAKE? I WOULD MOVE THIS ITEM, MOVE APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM. NO, IT'S A RECOMMENDATION, A RECOMMENDATION WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND THE CUP FOR THIS DAYCARE AT 1365 CURVE CREST BOULEVARD. CASE NUMBER C D 2026 010. AND WITH THE CONDITIONS AS DISPLAYED ON THE BOARD. SO A NEW UPDATED PARKING UPDATED. SO SITE NEW FIVE SHOULD BE. SITE PLAN SHALL BE UPDATED TO REFLECT CHANGE IN ACCESSIBLE PARKING LOCATIONS AND THE ADDITION OF TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING STALLS. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND AND WE HAVE 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. THANK

[4. Case No. CD2026-011 and Case No. CD2026-015: Zoning Map Amendment, A.P. Agricultural Preservation District to R.A. One Family Residential District and Preliminary Plat at 7979 Neal Ave N – (Staff Reviewer: Ben Gutknecht, 651-430-8818, bgutknecht@stillwatermn.gov)]

YOU. YEP. NEXT UP, OUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IS CD 2020 6-015A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AP AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT TO RA1 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 7979 NEAL AVENUE NORTH. MR. GUTKNECHT THANK YOU. CHAIR, THIS IS YOUR SECOND. THANK YOU FOR READING THAT OUT THERE FOR ME. I CAN JUMP RIGHT INTO THE BACKGROUND.

THIS IS AN EXISTING PARCEL AS YOU MENTIONED, ZONED A P. IT IS ABOUT 2.3 ACRES WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON IT TODAY. LOCATED OFF OF NEIL AVE. THE. THE UNDERLYING LAND USE IS GUIDED. LOW DENSITY FOR THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE REQUEST IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE

[00:15:05]

TRANSITION FROM RURAL HOUSING TO A MORE URBAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. ONE THING I DID WANT TO NOTE IS THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH CITY STAFF FOR A LITTLE OVER HALF A YEAR NOW ON THIS. THERE'S BEEN A FEW DIFFERENT RENDITIONS. ORIGINALLY WE WERE LOOKING AT FOUR LOTS AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THREE, AND YOU CAN EVEN SEE A LITTLE BIT OF A REMNANT OF THAT ON THE PLAT THAT WAS PROVIDED HERE, OR THE SURVEY THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE SURVEYOR. THE REQUEST ITSELF IS A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT. SO IT'S TWOFOLD. A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FROM AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION TO ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE THAT PARCEL INTO THREE ADDITIONAL TO THREE LOTS, TWO ADDITIONAL LOTS FROM THE EXISTING ONE. AND IT'S REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE IN OUR COMP PLAN AND OUR ZONING CHAPTER, AS WELL AS OUR SUBDIVISION CHAPTER, CHAPTER 26. IT'S IN COORDINATION WITH OUR CITY ENGINEERING, PUBLIC WORKS AND FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ANALYSIS, THE PROPOSAL ON THE RIGHT HERE. SO THIS PROPERTY IS 79. IT'S 7979. THAT'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

CURRENTLY IT IS THIS MORE GOLD YELLOW COLOR. SO THAT'S THE AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE. THE BEIGE IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING OR WHAT'S BEING SOUGHT FOR THE REZONING. THE THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH IS GUIDED DENSITY TO 1 TO 4.4 UNITS AN ACRE. IT ALIGNS WITH THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY.

IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR TRANSITIONAL LAND USE, AS THE AP DISTRICT, AS WRITTEN IN CODE, IS INTENDED TO BE THAT INTERIM ZONING FOR TRANSITIONAL USES AND NEW ZONING DISTRICTS. IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, PARTICULARLY TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND WITH THE WEST.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS MAP, THIS WAS THE LAST PARCEL IN THIS AREA THAT WAS STILL KIND OF A STANDALONE AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE PARCEL, AND IT SUPPORTS THAT ORDERLY RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FOR THIS AREA. SO STAFF'S GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT REQUEST FOR THAT MAP AMENDMENT. THE SECOND COMPONENT IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS. THIS SUBDIVISION CREATES THREE BUILDABLE RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THE DENSITY DOES REMAIN COMPLIANT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS. THAT 1 TO 4.4. ALL LOTS GENERALLY MEET THE RA DIMENSIONAL STANDARD. THERE IS ONE COMMENT ON THE LOT WIDTH FOR LOT TWO THAT I'D LIKE TO CALL OUT WHEN I BRING UP THE PLAT ITSELF. I'LL DISCUSS THAT IN GREATER DETAIL. ACCESS FOR LOTS ONE AND TWO WILL BE OFF OF NEIL AVE. LOT THREE WILL BE OFF OF WALNUT CREEK DRIVE VIA THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AND OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THIS AS WELL AND ENSURED ENSURED STAFF COMPLIANCE WITH THE DISTANCE FOR A FIRE TRUCK FOR THAT SUBDIVISION, OR I SHOULD SAY THAT STREET WHILE WALNUT CREEK DRIVE THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION IS ABOUT 30FT WIDE AND 207FT LONG, SO IT STRETCHES THE WIDTH OF THAT PARCEL OR THE EXISTING PARCEL. TODAY, THE ALL THREE PROPERTIES WILL BE CONNECTED TO UTILITIES, INCLUDING CITY SEWER AND WATER.

AND THIS IS A CONCEPT PLAN. SO I SHOULD MAKE THAT CLEAR. THERE ARE BUILDING PADS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY IN YOUR PACKET. THOSE ARE NOT HOMES THAT ARE SOLD RIGHT NOW OR BEING PROPOSED RIGHT NOW. THAT JUST SHOWS THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE BUILT ON THESE PROPOSED PARCELS.

SO FOLLOWING THAT CONCEPT PLAN, THERE'S LIMITED TREE REMOVAL OF ABOUT 26 OUT OF 201 TREES ON THE OVERALL 2.3 ACRE SITE, A TREE PROTECTION PLAN WHERE WE GET INTO THAT PERCENTAGE THRESHOLD WOULD BE REQUIRED UPON THE BUILDING STAGE. IF WHEN THOSE LOTS DEVELOP, HERE'S THE PROPOSED PLAT. SO AGAIN, THIS RIGHT HERE ON LOT ONE IS THE EXISTING HOUSE THAT IS THERE TODAY. THESE TWO ARE CONCEPT OR PROPOSED. SO THEY COULD LOOK A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. SHOULD THESE LOTS SELL. THE PROPOSED LOT FOR THAT WAS ORIGINALLY BROUGHT TO US.

NOT TO CONFUSE YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT HERE, BUT DUE TO THE ACCESS AND REQUIRED FRONTAGE WHICH IS RIGHT THERE FOR THIS PROPERTY, THEY COULD ONLY HAVE ONE LOT FOR THIS BACK LOT. THE COMMENT THAT I WANTED TO NOTE WAS ON LOT WIDTH. SO RIGHT NOW STAFF NOTES THAT LOT WIDTH FOR PROPOSED TWO IS MEASURED AT A COMBINED MIDPOINT OF THE PARCEL. SO THAT'S RIGHT HERE. LOT WIDTH IS REQUIRED AT 75FT. THEY'RE PROPOSING AT THAT COMBINED MIDPOINT 75.04. THERE IS ALSO A FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT OF 25FT IN THIS DISTRICT, A SEPARATE FROM LOT WIDTH. THEY DO MEET THAT FRONTAGE. SO THERE IS FRONTAGE FOR THIS PROPOSED LOT AT 20 AT 30FT. ACTUALLY CODE REQUIRES 25, SO THEY EXCEED THAT. THERE IS AMBIGUITY IN OUR CITY CODE ON HOW TO MEASURE LOT WIDTH. AND SO GIVEN THIS AMBIGUITY, STAFF WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT AND OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE INTERPRETATION IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A CLEAR DEFINITION OF THIS IS WHERE LOT WIDTH IS MEASURED OR HOW IT SHALL BE MEASURED. AND WE DO DEFINITELY RECOGNIZE THE SHORTCOMING. BUT WITH THAT AMBIGUITY, AMBIGUITY, STAFF, CITY ATTORNEY, AND APPLICANT ARE SATISFIED AND FIND THAT THIS MEASUREMENT IS APPROPRIATE.

THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS THAT REALLY MAKE ON THIS ONE. THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO BE RUNNING UTILITIES DOWN THE ROAD, DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY HERE. AND THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO SERVE THESE TWO PROPERTIES ONCE CONSTRUCTED. THAT'S HERE IN THE BACK THERE IS A GHOST PLAT.

SHOULD THIS PROPERTY OWNER TO THE EAST EVER SELL WHERE THERE WOULD BE THE REMAINDER OF THAT

[00:20:01]

RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATED AND THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION IS GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE SOUTHERN PART HERE, IN CASE THERE'S ANY SORT OF SUBDIVISION IN THIS AREA IN THE FUTURE. SO THEY'RE REALLY SETTING UP AND PROVIDING SOME NEEDED UTILITIES. AND RIGHT OF WAY, NOT EASEMENTS, RIGHT OF WAY, DEDICATION FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. THERE ARE NINE PROPOSED CONDITIONS. MOST OF THEM ARE CONTINGENT ON EACH OTHER. SO THE PLAT IS CONTINGENT ON THE LAND USE BEING AMENDED OR THE ZONING TEXT BEING AMENDED. ALSO THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. SO WE WILL NEED TO SEE A FINAL PLAT COMING THROUGH IN THE FUTURE. AND THERE ARE REQUIRED FEES THAT NEED TO BE PAID. PARKLAND AND A AR BEING THE PRIMARY ONES. WITH THAT, I'D SAY STAFF DOES RECOMMEND A MOTION TO RECOMMEND A CITY COUNCIL, BOTH THE APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AS WELL AS THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT. THE APPLICANT IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AND I STAND FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.

SEEING NONE IS THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYTHING THEY WISH TO ADD. SO COME FORWARD NOW. AND I THINK WE'VE COVERED MOST OF THEM WITH OKAY, HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, BUT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE STAFF PRESENTATION. OKAY, GREAT. THEY SAID THAT THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE STAFF PRESENTATION. WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM, NOW'S THE TIME TO COME FORWARD. COME UP TO THE TO THE PODIUM AND NAME AND ADDRESS. FOR THE RECORD, TRY AND KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES. PATRICK MARTIN I LIVE AT 1115 WALNUT CREEK DRIVE, SO I'M IN THE BACK SECTION THERE.

I'M THE LAST HOUSE. I'M NOT DIRECTLY NEXT TO THAT. THE THE MAP WE WERE GIVEN SHOWED FOUR LOTS ON, YOU KNOW, THAT BACK SECTION THAT WHAT THEY'RE SHOWING IS THREE WAS ACTUALLY LISTED AS TWO. SO IS THAT A CHANGE? MR. MR. GUTNIK, AS I MENTIONED, APOLOGIES IF THERE WAS INFORMATION THAT WAS SENT OUT OR SHARED THAT WAS INCORRECT. INITIALLY LATE LAST YEAR, THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR FOUR LOTS TOTAL, BUT IN THIS CASE THAT HAS BEEN UPDATED TO SIMPLY THREE, INCLUDING THE EXISTING DWELLING TODAY. SO THERE WOULD BE LOTS ONE, TWO AND THREE AND ALL RIGHT. THE OTHER THING IS YOU'RE MOVING OF THE EXTENSION OF THE STREET.

AND THE EXTENSION IS 217FT FROM WHERE IT ENDS AT THE PRESENT TIME. CORRECT. AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, WHAT'S WHAT'S THE IMPACT ON DOING THAT? IS THERE A TIMELINE FOR IT? IS IT GOING TO CHANGE THE GRADE BECAUSE IT'S AN INCLINE AT THE END OF THE CUL DE SAC, THE WATERSHEDS, TWO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS THERE, YOU KNOW, AND PART OF THAT INCLINE IS MY PROPERTY LINE.

JUST A MATTER OF WHAT DOES IT. AND IS THAT SOMETHING WE GET CHARGED FOR? OR HOW IS THE YARD ROAD EXTENSION AND THE FUNDING TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. SO JUST LOOKING AT THE LOOKING AT THE, THE MAP THAT WE HAVE HERE AND LOOKING AT THIS MAP THAT THAT'S THAT'S UP THERE, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S BASICALLY JUST A DRIVEWAY THAT'S GOING TO COME OFF THE END OF THE CUL DE SAC RIGHT NOW. SO THERE ISN'T GOING TO BE A BUILD OUT OF THE STREET. WE'RE JUST WE'RE JUST HOLDING, WE'RE JUST PUTTING IN AN EASEMENT SO THAT IN THE FUTURE, ESPECIALLY IF THE OTHER SIDE DECIDES THAT THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING BACK IN THERE AS WELL, WE WOULD HAVE THE THE CITY WOULD HAVE THE ACCESS AND BE ABLE TO BUILD THE STREET AT THAT TIME. BUT THERE ISN'T ANY SORT OF CURRENT PLAN TO BUILD WALNUT CREEK DRIVE ANY FURTHER. OKAY. IT WOULD BE A DRIVEWAY OFF THE END, RIGHT? FOR WHEN THAT WHEN THAT INITIAL HOUSE GETS BUILT, IF THAT INITIAL HOUSE GETS BUILT. OKAY. WELL, THAT YEAH, I GUESS I GUESS PART OF IT IS, IS THAT LOOKING AT IT AND KNOWING THAT TO THE EAST OF THAT IS ALSO JUST OWNED BY ONE PERSON FROM NEWBURY COURT.

RIGHT? SO. RIGHT. AND MY GUESS IS THAT IF THEY WERE TO COME TO TRY AND DO A SUBDIVISION THAT WE WOULD SAY WE NEED, WE NEED A RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT FOR YOUR SIDE. SO IT'S WIDE ENOUGH SO WE CAN BUILD A FULL STREET DOWN HERE AND ALLOW EVERYBODY GOOD ACCESS. YEAH. BECAUSE PART OF THE TREE LINE, RIGHT, MY PROPERTY RUNS INTO IT. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS. BUT AT THIS POINT THERE'S NO PLANS TO BUILD A STREET. OKAY. BECAUSE I'VE BEEN THERE SINCE THE I'M THE ORIGINAL OWNER ON THAT HOUSE. SO SINCE 89. OKAY. AND RIGHT. AND ORIGINALLY THEY MADE US SET OUR HOUSE BACK OUT OF LINE WITH EVERY OTHER HOUSE IN THE STREET BECAUSE THEY TOLD US IT WAS A

[00:25:02]

TEMPORARY CUL DE SAC. AND WHEN HE ARGUED THE POINT, THE VARIANCE SHOULD BE FOR US TO BE CLOSER INSTEAD OF FARTHER AWAY. SO YEAH, THEY'VE ALWAYS TALKED ABOUT A BEING A TEMPORARY CUL DE SAC, BUT WE'VE GOT PARKLAND, YOU GOT WETLANDS, EVERYTHING ELSE BACK IN THERE. SO YEAH, BUT THERE ARE NO CURRENT PLANS FOR AT THIS POINT FOR, FOR CONTINUING WALNUT CREEK, YOU KNOW, NO ACTIVE PLANS AND ONLY THAT ONE LOT WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE AT THAT POINT. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ACCESSIBLE BASICALLY BY A DRIVEWAY. I MEAN, RIGHT. THE PLANS ARE YET TO BE DETERMINED. BUT THAT'S THE THAT'S YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THE HOUSE SET. THEN YOU GO TO THE LOWER SECTION AND YOU KNOW, YEAH, THAT ONE, THAT POSSIBLE FUTURE LOT IT SAYS CORRECT. SO THEY COULD SPLIT THAT, BUT IT WOULD STILL NEED TO BE. YEAH. THAT WOULD STILL NEED TO BE DIVIDED. THAT'S ALL. ONE LOT ON THE BACKS. THE BACK PART IS ALL STILL ONE LOT. OKAY. BUT IT COULD BE SPLIT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE PROBABLY CLOSE TO THERE'D BE A LOT OF THERE'D BE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN FIRST. OKAY, A LOT OF OTHER DOMINOES TO FALL FIRST. ALL RIGHT. JUST CURIOUS. YEP. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. YEP.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO TESTIFY? COME ON.

SORRY IT TAKES ME SO LONG. NOT A PROBLEM. NO PROBLEM. TIME IS ALL WE HAVE. YOU HAVE NO MONEY. WE'RE JUST GOING TO KEEP TURNING UP THE HEAT IN HERE. MY NAME IS SUSAN AND I LIVE AT 7959 NEAL AVENUE NORTH. AND I JUST. I'M NOT VERY GOOD WITH MAPS, SO I WOULD JUST LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION IF I UNDERSTAND IT. CORRECT THAT THAT THE LOT THREE WHERE THAT HOUSE IS THAT COMES OFF THE CUL DE SAC, THAT WOULD BE ALL ONE LOT. IS THAT CORRECT? AT THIS POINT? THAT WOULD BE ALL ONE LOT THEY WOULD NEED TO THAT WOULD BE THE THE NEXT DOMINO THAT WOULD NEED TO FOLLOW. THEY'D NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET WALNUT CREEK DRIVE TO GO ALL THE WAY DOWN BECAUSE THEY NEED STREET ACCESS. AND THEN IF I READ THIS RIGHT, IS THERE A DRIVEWAY COMING IN OFF OF NEIL, THEN THAT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO LOT TWO. CORRECT. OKAY. AND THAT WOULD BE BETWEEN. TONY'S EXISTING PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBOR TO THE WHAT IS IT, 7969. RIGHT. CORRECT. YES. OKAY. SO OKAY, THAT THAT'S THE ACCESS TO LOT TWO. LOT THREE IS A DEAD ZONE RIGHT NOW. IT'S LANDLOCKED RIGHT NOW. WELL, LOT THREE, IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING BECAUSE YOU SEE THE BLUE LINES THROUGH THE MIDDLE, BUT THOSE ARE UTILITY EASEMENTS. SO THAT'S NOT REALLY A BARRIER OR A REAL LINE OF ANY SORT. OKAY. SO ALL OF THAT BACK PART IS KNOWN AS LOT THREE. SO THAT THE PROPOSED HOUSE IS ON LOT THREE, AND IT'S FED BY A DRIVEWAY THAT COMES OFF OF THE END OF WALNUT CREEK DRIVE. AND IT JUST SAYS A LONG BACKYARD RIGHT NOW. AND THEY WOULD JUST HAVE A VERY LONG BACKYARD. CORRECT. OKAY. I CAN RELATE TO THAT. AND I LOVE MY BACKYARD. OKAY, THAT THAT CLEARS IT UP. I THINK I JUST WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THE STREET AND IF THAT'S ALREADY APPROVED OR IS THAT PART OF THIS WHOLE THING? THAT'S PART OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TONIGHT IS WHETHER THIS MAKES SENSE TO DO THIS, TO DO THESE PARCELS. THIS WAY, IF THEY COMPLY WITH THE STATE, WITH CITY CODE, OKAY. BECAUSE IN MY LITTLE BRAIN, I WAS THINKING THAT THE ROAD MIGHT BE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF TONY, WHERE THE TREE LINE IS, BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. BUT YOU CLEARED IT UP. NOPE. THAT'S A DRIVEWAY SOON. WHERE? BETWEEN TONY AND AND SEVEN NINE, SIX, NINE, THERE'S A THERE'S TWO RED LINES AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PICTURE THERE. THAT'LL BE THE DRIVEWAY. YEAH. YEP. I JUST WAS THINKING THAT THE ROAD WAS GOING TO BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TONY TOWARDS THE NORTH. NORTH, NORTH.

NOPE. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CURRENT PLAN. OKAY. IT CLEARED IT UP FOR ME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GREAT. YEP. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM? JO 1135 WALNUT CREEK DRIVE, STILLWATER. I GUESS WHAT THE QUESTION IS, IS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS OUT OF THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY LOT TWO. I MEAN, WEDGING SOMETHING IN LIKE A JIGSAW PUZZLE JUST TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, USE UP THE LAND. IT'S I MEAN, WE, THE HOUSES GENERALLY THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT ALONG THE, THE NEIL AVENUE HAVE BEEN SIDE BY SIDE, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'VE MADE LAND CHANGES,

[00:30:06]

WE HAVEN'T DONE THIS BEFORE AND I DON'T KNOW, IT'S YOU KNOW, WE, WE TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ESTHETICS A LITTLE BIT IN OUR CITY AND HOW THINGS LOOK, I DON'T I DON'T SEE THAT LOOKING PARTICULARLY PLEASANT. AND I, YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, WE WOULD CONSIDER BE CONCERNED ABOUT OUR HOUSING VALUES IN THE AREA. IF THAT CHANGES WITH THE ESTHETICS OF IT, YOU KNOW, AND THAT I GUESS THAT'S THE FIRST COMMENT I'D LIKE TO MAKE. IT SEEMS LIKE A JIGSAW PUZZLE. I MEAN, I CAN UNDER I'M NOT REALLY NECESSARILY HAPPY WITH LOT THREE BEING THERE, BUT I DON'T LIKE I MEAN, LOT TWO IS, IS, IS QUESTIONABLE. I FIND THAT AS BEING KIND OF A, EVEN THOUGH IT PROBABLY WON'T SEE IT, IT SEEMS LIKE AN EYESORE AND NOT IN IN HABIT WITH THE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I KNOW THAT THERE'S A PLAN TO KEEP THE TREES. THERE ARE OWLS IN THERE AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT MAKES. I MEAN, I'M SURE NOT PROTECTED OWLS, BUT JUST TO KEEP THAT IN MIND THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH YOU KNOW THIS THE LOT ONE. PERSON THERE HAVE HAS MOVED THERE RECENTLY. THEY HAVE BRIGHT LIGHTS IN THEIR AREA JUST SHINING ALL THE TIME. IT'S LIGHT POLLUTION IN THAT AREA. NO ONE ELSE ON NEIL HAS THAT. I KNOW IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY GO INTO THE FULL DECISION, BUT IT IS A IT IS POSSIBLY AN ISSUE FOR THE NEW RESIDENTS. FOR WHAT? FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, WE DO HAVE A NUISANCE ORDINANCE AROUND ALL NIGHT LIGHTING THAT MIGHT APPLY IN THIS. SO YEAH, IT MIGHT BE A SEPARATE ISSUE. WE CAN. WELL, YEAH, BECAUSE THE THE PEOPLE WHO OWNED IT BEFORE THE AURÉLIE'S DID NOT HAVE MUCH LIGHT THERE. AND SINCE THEY MOVED IN, THEY HAVE BRIGHT SPOTLIGHTS, YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THE NEIL PEOPLE FEEL, BUT IT'S, IT IS, IT DOES LEAK OVER. SO I THINK I'LL RESERVE MY COMMENTS FOR THAT.

THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE. YEAH. COME ON FORWARD. HELLO TERRY NUTKINS. I LIVE AT 1110 WALNUT CREEK DRIVE, RIGHT AT THE VERY END ACROSS FROM MARTIN'S. MY QUESTION WAS PRETTY MUCH ANSWERED EARLIER ABOUT THE ACCESS OFF OF THE CUL DE SAC. BUT IN THE FUTURE, IF THAT ROAD WERE TO GO THROUGH MY DRIVEWAY, IF THEY WOULD, I WOULD ASSUME THEY WOULD STRAIGHTEN OUT. THE CUL DE SAC WOULD BE STRAIGHT. BUT MY DRIVEWAY IS IN PART OF THE CUL DE SAC, SO I WOULD HAVE TO EXTEND MY DRIVEWAY OUT ABOUT TEN FEET. AND MY QUESTION IS, WHOSE COST WOULD THAT BE? I, I MEAN, THAT'S SPECULATING ON PLANS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN MADE YET. SO I DON'T THAT WOULD BE SPECULATING ON PLANS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN MADE YET. RIGHT.

AND I WE'RE NOT REALLY ABLE TO DO THAT. I DON'T KNOW, OKAY. BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ROAD IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. OKAY? WE'RE NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO PUTTING IN A ROAD. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT 20 YEARS FROM NOW, WHEN SOMEBODY DOES WANT TO DO THAT, THAT WE'RE PREPARED TO BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THERE AREN'T ANY PLANS THAT ARE THAT ADVANCED TO BE ABLE TO SAY WHERE THE WHERE THE CURBS ARE GOING TO BE AT THAT POINT. YEAH, IT'S A VERY PRIME LOT. I MEAN, TO ME, IT SEEMED LIKE IT WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE AROUND FOR LONG THAT WOULD BE SOUGHT AFTER. BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF IF YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY THAT COST WOULD BE, IF THERE WAS OTHER PROJECTS SIMILAR TO THAT, AS THE DEVELOPER RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT COST, OR I JUST KIND OF THAT I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM, ANYONE AT ALL? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, WHAT DO WE THINK ABOUT THIS? SOMEBODY'S GOT TO HAVE SOME COMMENTS. COMPOSITION. YEAH. FORCING CONVERSATION. SO WE HAVE TWO PIECES HERE. YEP.

WELL, TO GET THE CONVERSATION GOING, I'LL MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT WE APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR 7979 11 NORTH REZONING THE PROPERTY.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY. IS THERE A SECOND? I WOULD SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? I GUESS FOR ME, PART OF MY HESITANCY ON THIS IS THAT IT APPEARS WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS THEY'RE TRYING TO GET MAYBE SOME GREATER DENSITY, AND MAYBE RATHER THAN TRYING TO SHOEHORN A LOT IN

[00:35:07]

LIKE THIS, GOING TO A HIGHER DENSITY, HIGHER DENSITY ZONING WOULD BE A BETTER WAY TO HANDLE IT. YOU COULD DO A DUPLEX, THEN DO A AND DO SEPARATE HOMES ON DIFFERENT PARTS OF THAT PARCEL.

AND I KNOW WE SHOULDN'T BE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, BE LEGISLATING FROM THE DAIS, RIGHT. BUT MOVING AWAY FROM ONE FAMILY TO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. RIGHT? YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WITH A LOT THAT SIZE. YOU KNOW, THAT'S A, THAT'S A WAY OVERSIZE LOT IT IS. AND SO TRYING TO GET GREATER DENSITY ON THERE, I DON'T THINK. AND THIS WOULD BE A QUESTION THEN I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE ASKED STAFF THIS MAYBE EARLIER. ARE WE HITTING THE DENSITY LEVELS THAT ARE, THAT ARE THAT ARE REQUIRED? CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, THIS PROPOSAL DOES COMPLY WITH THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF. AND THIS IS THE LAND USE OF LOW DENSITY WHERE WE SEE OUR DUPLEXES AND OUR HIGHER DENSITY, SUCH AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND CITY HALL THAT IS LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY. SO THAT WOULD BE DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, YOU COULD SEE A CONFLICT IN THE UNDERLYING LAND USE. AND THEN IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO SEEK TO REZONE IT, A DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICT THAT WOULD JUST PLAYING THIS OUT, THAT WOULD BE A HIGHER DENSITY THAT WOULD LIKELY LEAD INTO SPOT ZONING. SO WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED HERE TODAY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA AROUND IT, THE UNDERLYING LAND USE, AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED RA SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT. IT'S ALSO CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMP PLAN. CORRECT? CORRECT. CORRECT.

OKAY. AND THAT'S WHERE I'M HAVING TROUBLE IS IT'S IT'S VERY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE GUIDED. BUT I DO AGREE WITH THE GENTLEMAN WHO SAYS THAT THIS IS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I DON'T LIKE WHERE IT'S GOING, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO END UP HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT EXTENDING WALNUT INTO THIS AT SOME POINT. BUT I CAN'T ARGUE THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON THE PAGE. AND THIS CONFORMS WITH WHAT WE'VE ASKED THEM TO. THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE I'M AT, AND WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH. I ALL BUT GUARANTEE THAT SOMETIME IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, THERE WILL BE A VARIANCE REQUEST, OH, 100% FOR FOR A BUILDING ON LOT TWO. OH, BECAUSE IT'S NOT BIG ENOUGH OR NOT WIDE ENOUGH OR IT'S NOT FOR A GINORMOUS HOUSE, RIGHT? YEP.

AT THE SAME TIME, WE WOULD HAVE PROBABLY VERY GOOD LEGAL STANDING TO SAY NO TO ANY SET VARIANCE ALONG THOSE LINES, JUST BECAUSE THAT WOULD THEN BE A SOMETHING THAT WAS CAUSED BY THE, BY THE OWNER. I AGREE IT'S NOT A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. THAT BEING SAID, I AGREE ON ALL POINTS. AND YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY THE OPTICS OF IT, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE CONFIGURATION OF IT, YOU KNOW, ISN'T, YOU KNOW, NECESSARILY WHAT WE STRIVE FOR, YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST KIND OF AMPLIFIES THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING AND ZONING AS WE CONTINUE TO DEVELOP THE CITY.

HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, THESE EXCEPTIONS TO IT, WHICH, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY I CONSIDER INFILL THAT WE'VE LOOK AT IT, YOU KNOW, FROM TIME TO TIME FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF IT, THE CONFIGURATION, YES, YOU KNOW, ISN'T NECESSARILY OPTIMAL FOR HOW WE LIKE NEIGHBORHOODS BEING DEVELOPED. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BACK PROPERTY LINE OF, OF LOT TWO, IT'S 83FT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT'S A LOT LARGER THAN SOME EXISTING NEW NEIGHBORHOODS ARE. AND THAT'S THE PINCH POINT. SO IT DEFINITELY AT FIRST BLUSH, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY LOOKS LIKE WE'RE CRAMMING IT IN THERE. BUT THERE'S I FEEL THAT THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF DEVELOPABLE SPACE AS FAR AS THE HOUSE ITSELF AND THE OPTIONS THAT THEY CAN DO THERE. SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM A, A FOOTPRINT STANDPOINT, I THINK THERE'S SOME DEFINITE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT SOME SOME NICE HOMES IN THAT FOOTPRINT CONFIGURATION. IT YOU KNOW, IT DOES TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE EXISTING TREES THAT ARE IN THE AREA AND WILDLIFE, YOU KNOW, AND FILL THAT IN WITHOUT WIPING IT OUT. YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THEY COMMENTED ON THE PRESERVATION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE TREES, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, WHICH IS DEFINITELY IMPORTANT TO ME. YOU KNOW, HAD WE NOT HAD THAT, I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY TAKE A DIFFERENT TONE TO IT. BUT I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE THE ESTHETICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'S A PRETTY GOOD ARGUMENT. SO THE MOTION BEFORE US IS RECOMMENDATION ON THE REZONING.

IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REZONING SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, I AND THOSE OPPOSED, WHICH THEN LEAVES THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY. I WOULD MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND TO

[00:40:05]

THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT BE APPROVED WITH THE CONDITIONS STATED.

OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS PART OF IT? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED. THAT MOTION CARRIES AS WELL. SO OKAY, WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE

[5. Case No. CD2026-012: Variance to Front Setback and Lot Coverage Requirements to Construct a Four-Season Porch at 125 Sherburne St N in the R.B. Two Family Residential District – (Staff Reviewer: Johnny Menhennet, 651-430-8822, jmenhennet@stillwatermn.gov)]

ON TO CASE 2020 6-012 VARIANCE TO FRONT YARD SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR SEASON PORCH AT 125 SHERBOURNE STREET NORTH. MR. MENHENNITT. AND IF YOU GUYS WANT TO LEAVE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HURT OUR FEELINGS, I PROMISE. WE WE KNOW THIS IS BORING. I WAS THINKING ABOUT WEARING A SWEATER WHEN I CAME. I WAS TRYING TO PITCH A RETRACTING ROOF, BUT NOBODY'S NOBODY'S COME ALONG WITH DOING THAT. SO I MOTIONED TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE THERMOSTAT. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS THIS EVENING WITH CASE 012, WE ARE REVISITING A VARIANCE TO FRONT SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A COVERED PORCH AND DECK AT 125 SHERBURN STREET NORTH. THIS WAS APPROVED IN THE CURRENT FORM IN NOVEMBER OR OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER OF 2021, AS CASE 2020 1-058. AND THE APPLICANTS I DO BELIEVE ARE HERE THIS EVENING, BUT THEY DID NOT CONSTRUCT THIS REPLACEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED AND THE VARIANCE APPROVAL LAPSED. SO THEY'RE REAPPLYING NOW THAT THEY HAVE FOUND THEMSELVES READY TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED ADDITION. SO OUR REGULATORY REVIEW WERE IN THE RB OR RB TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. FORGIVE THAT. RB TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. WE'RE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. AND AS I MENTIONED, PER CASE 2020 1-58, THESE SAME TWO VARIANCES WERE APPROVED. THE PROPOSED WORK IS THE ADDITION TO THE HOME OF A COVERED PORCH AND DECK. UP UNTIL 2024, THERE WAS A STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT COVERED PORCH. THIS WAS USED TO JUSTIFY THE APPROVAL OF THE REPLACEMENT PORCH, THOUGH IT WAS REMOVED WITHOUT REPLACEMENT IN 2024 BY THE APPLICANTS AND OWNERS. IT WAS CLEAR AT THE TIME THAT THE PORCH WAS NOT FUNCTIONING IN THE MANNER THAT IT SHOULD, BOTH IN SIZE AND IN ITS STRUCTURAL SUFFICIENCY, AND THAT'S WHY THIS MORE FUNCTIONAL REPLACEMENT WAS APPROVED. THE APPLICANTS HAVE ALWAYS INTENDED TO REPLACE THE PORCH, AND THEY'RE JUST GETTING TO IT. IN 2026, THE FRONT SETBACK WILL BE 12.3FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS A VARIANCE OF 7.7FT FROM THE 20 FOOT CODE STANDARD. THE SIDE SETBACK IS LAWFUL NON-CONFORMING AS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS NEAR TO THE EXTERIOR SIDE PROPERTY LINE. BUT THE EXPANSION OF THE PREVIOUS FOOTPRINT OF THE PORCH INTO WHAT'S PROPOSED TODAY WILL NOT EXACERBATE THAT NONCONFORMITY. SO NO ISSUES WITH THE SIDE SETBACK AND THE LOT COVERAGE WILL BE JUST OVER 38% STRUCTURED. THE STANDARD IS 35%. THE TOTAL COVERAGE IS STILL WELL UNDER THAT 50% CAP.

ONE THING TO NOTE IS THAT WHEN THIS WAS APPROVED FOR THAT 38.30, ABOUT 38.5FT OR PERCENT LOT COVERAGE STANDARD AT THE TIME, THE REQUIREMENT WAS 25% PER CODE UPDATES ADOPTED THIS WINTER. IT'S NOW 35%. SO THE OVERALL LOT COVERAGE ASK IS NOW ONLY ABOUT 3.5% FOR THAT STRUCTURED LIMIT, RATHER THAN THE 13.5 THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED AT FIRST GO AROUND FOR OUR SITE MAP, WE ARE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SHERBURNE AND RICE. THE PROPOSAL THAT YOU HAVE, YOU CAN SEE THE OLD FOOTPRINT ON THIS SURVEY FROM 2019. THE ADDITION THAT PROTRUDES FROM THE HOUSE HERE WITH ITS STEPS, IS WHAT WAS REMOVED IN 2024, AND THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT IS FLUSH WITH THE EXISTING SIDE WALLS OF THE HOME AND JUST A LITTLE BIT SHY

[00:45:05]

OF MATCHING THAT OF THE NORTH SIDE. AGAIN, NOT EVEN JUST MATCHING, BUT NOT EXACERBATING THAT ENCROACHMENT TOWARD THE PROPERTY LINE AND RIGHT OF WAY ON RICE. THE STRUCTURE WILL BE 12.3FT FROM THE FRONT. AND AGAIN, THIS THIS WAS NOT MENTIONED YET, THOUGH IT IS IN THE REPORT THAT THIS IS A SUBSTANDARD LOT. THE LOT SIZE MINIMUM IN THIS DISTRICT IS 7500FT■!S. AND AS CAN BE SEEN, THE LOT IS 5445FT■!S. SO A FULL 2000FT■!S UNDER A STANDARD LOT, IF IT WERE TO BE CREATED TODAY IN THIS DISTRICT, HERE IS AN ELEVATION. AND HERE ARE SIDE ELEVATIONS AND RENDERINGS SHOWING THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD ADD THAT COVERED FOUR SEASON PORCH FROM THE EXISTING HOME. THIS IS FROM THE SOUTH AND THIS IS FROM THE EXTERIOR SIDE, THE NORTH. THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE THAT PLANS SHALL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THOSE ON FILE WITH CASE NUMBER C, D 2020 6.-012, AND THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT THE IMPROVEMENTS ACCORDING TO ALL PERTINENT BUILDING CODE STANDARDS. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT YOU MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION C 2020 6-04, GRANTING A 7.7FT VARIANCE TO FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND 3.5% STRUCTURED LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE IN THE RB2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT THE REQUEST IS NOT CHANGED FROM THE PAST LAPSED APPROVAL. THE APPLICANTS ARE REAPPLYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN PULL BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE SAME PROJECT, APPROVED FOUR AND A HALF YEARS AGO. AS TO WHETHER IT WHOLLY MEETS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TEST IN THE WAY THAT WE HAVE GONE ABOUT EVALUATING IT IN UNDER THIS STAFF'S TENURE, WE'RE NOT WHOLLY SURE IT'S ALL THE WAY THERE, BUT AT THE TIME OF VARIANCE APPROVAL, IT SEEMED TO BE JUDGED PREDOMINANTLY UPON REASONABLENESS OF THE REQUEST AND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PAST ACTION. WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL TODAY. SO WITH THAT, I STAND FOR QUESTIONS. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE THIS EVENING IF THEY'D LIKE TO SPEAK. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU. THE APPLICANTS HAVE ANYTHING THEY WISH TO ADD. I THINK YOU DID A GREAT JOB. SO WE'VE GOT VERY GOOD STAFF. WE JUST HAVE. SO I DO WANT TO SAY THEN WE'RE GOING TO NEED YOU TO COME FORWARD AND NAME A NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I DO WANT TO SAY THE REASON WE HAD TO NAME AN ADDRESS YOU'RE ON. YEAH, YOU WERE ON. YOU JUST NEED TO GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. NOW YOU TURN YOURSELF OFF AGAIN. THERE YOU GO. NOW YOU'RE ON. I'M A BLOND. SORRY.

NAME A NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. ALL RIGHT. MY NAME IS SANDY DOBSON. AND WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED? YEAH. AND. AND THE ADDRESS AGAIN, ONE, TWO, FIVE SHERMAN STREET, NORTH. AND THE REASON WHY WE TORE DOWN THAT THING THAT WAS IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE BEFORE IT WAS TEARING AWAY FROM THE HOUSE AND COLLAPSING IN. AND WE HAVE KIDS AND WE HAD TO TAKE IT DOWN. SO BUT WE DIDN'T DO ANY BUILDING. WE LEFT IT THE WAY IT WAS. BUT THAT'S I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT'S WHY WE HAD TO TAKE IT DOWN. OKAY, GREAT. SO THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU. THAT'S GREAT. YEP. WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE HERE WISHING TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM, ANYONE AT ALL? SEEING NO ONE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH THE STATED CONDITIONS. AND YEAH, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. MOTION WITH THE WITH THE STATED CONDITIONS. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. OH, THAT WAS A THAT WAS A CLOSE ONE. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THAT ONE TO NORTH. I WAS THERE ORIGINALLY. SO I REMEMBER THIS CASE. THE CHALLENGE WE HAVE IS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO SAY NO TO THESE. BECAUSE WE'VE KIND OF REMOVED THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. AND I THINK WE'RE ALL KIND OF SEEING THE SAME THING WITH THIS. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S RIDICULOUS TO KIND OF GET INTO A FIT OVER SOMETHING LIKE THIS. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO SAY, NO, PLEASE GET IT DONE WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD OR WORK WITH STAFF IN THE FUTURE ON IT. BUT YEAH, THAT'S HIS CALL, NOT MINE. YEAH. IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK, BACK FORWARD AGAIN AND I, AND I TOTALLY GET IT. I'M NOT TRYING TO BEAT YOU GUYS UP. I JUST DON'T WANT YOU TO RUN INTO HAVE TO SAY MY NAME AGAIN. NO YOU DON'T. OKAY. YEAH. THE REASON WE DIDN'T DO IT IN THAT TIME THING, BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD THAT THE VARIANCE WE HAD, ONCE IT WAS APPROVED, IT WAS APPROVED FOR LIFE. SO WE THOUGHT WE HAD TIME. AND THEN LIFE KIND OF HAPPENED. MY MOM PASSED AWAY, YOU KNOW, STUFF HAPPENED. SO NOW WE'RE LIKE, OH,

[00:50:01]

LET'S DO IT. AND HE WENT TO GO GET A PERMIT AND FOUND OUT, NO, IT'S GONE. YOU KNOW, THE TIME LAPSE, WE'RE LIKE, WHAT? SO THAT'S WHY OKAY, BECAUSE WE MISUNDERSTOOD OR SOMETHING. SO OKAY. ALL RIGHT. GREAT. THANK YOU AGAIN. IS OUR PROCESS COVERED THAT NOW? THANK YOU.

OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION IN FRONT OF US. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS CASE 2020 6-018A VARIANCE TO SET YARD

[6. Case No. CD2026-018: Variance to Front Setback Requirements in the R.C.M. (Medium Density Multi Family) District for Construction of a Garage Addition at 1050 Orleans St W – (Staff Reviewer: Johnny Menhennet, 651-430-8822, jmenhennet@stillwatermn.gov)]

SETBACK REQUIREMENT IN THE R C M MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT 1050 ORLEANS STREET WEST. MR. MOHAMMED THANK YOU. CHAIR. WE HAVE ANOTHER VARIANCE BEFORE US AGAIN TO TWO STANDARDS. THESE ARE THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE EXPANSION AT A DUPLEX LOCATED AT 1050 ORLEANS STREET WEST.

THIS IS IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND THERE ARE NO OTHER REGULATORY OVERLAYS, NO DESIGN REVIEW REQUIRED WITHIN THIS DISTRICT. THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL GARAGE STALLS IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING GARAGE.

FIVE GARAGE STALLS ARE PROPOSED IN LIEU OF THE FOUR THAT ARE PRESENT, TWO FOR EACH UNIT IN GARAGE TODAY. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES THE REGRADING OF THE DRIVEWAY AND LOT AS TO AMELIORATE. WHAT WE'LL GO OVER IS THE STATED PREDOMINANT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WITH THE LOT. THE NEW GARAGE WILL SIT TWO FEET BELOW THE EXISTING GRADE SO THAT THE SLOPE IS MORE MANAGEABLE FOR THE EXISTING. THE RESIDENTS OF THE HOME. THEY ARE. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING FRONT RELIEF. FRONT SETBACK RELIEF. CURRENTLY, THE. PER THE SURVEY SUBMITTED, THE EXISTING FRONT SETBACK IS 38.5FT TO THE PROPERTY LINE. EVEN THOUGH IT'S CLOSER TO 50FT, JUST SHY OF 50FT TO THE ACTUAL SIDEWALK. BUT THEY'RE SEEKING. IF 25 FOOT IMPROVEMENT. SO THE SETBACK WOULD GO UP TO 13.5FT, WHEREAS THE REQUIREMENT IN THE RC DISTRICT IS 35. AND THEN THE SIDE SETBACK RELIEF IS ALSO BEING REQUESTED FROM 10FT TO 8FT, WHERE 20FT IS THE REQUIREMENT. THE TO BE CLEAR, THE EXISTING TEN FOOT SETBACK BOTH ON THE WEST AND EAST, IS AN EXISTING LAWFUL NONCONFORMITY. THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH THE WAY THAT THAT EXISTING SIDE SETBACK IS. ORDERED. TODAY FOR OUR SITE MAP, WE'RE LOCATED ON ORLEANS STREET WEST, JUST TO THE WEST OF GREELEY STREET SOUTH AND JUST TO THE NORTH OF OUR BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT. THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST ARE ZONED R A, BUT THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL PARCELS IN THIS VICINITY ARE ZONED R, C, M, CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING OF THIS DUPLEX. FOR THE SITE PLAN, YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING HOUSE AND DUPLEX. THE GARAGE ADDITION AS IT WOULD SIT IN FRONT OF THE UNITS. THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY WITHIN THE SIDEWALK, ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY SPACE AND THE STREET.

HOWEVER, AS I NOTED, THE PROPERTY LINE IS NOT AT THE EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK AS IT IS IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. IT'S APPROXIMATELY AT THIS DASHED ORANGE LINE I'VE ADDED TO THE MATERIALS THAT WERE IN YOUR PACKET. SO IT'S WITH THIS ORANGE LINE IN MIND THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT FRONT SETBACK OF 13.5FT FROM THE EXISTING 38.5. SO GOING INTO THE PREDOMINANT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, WHICH IS HOW WE ARE ADDRESSING THESE VARIANCES, THIS THERE WAS A CITY PROJECT IN 2023 THAT EXTENDED A CITY SIDEWALK THROUGH THIS DRIVEWAY THAT PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN REMOVED NEARLY TWO DECADES AGO, BEFORE THE CURRENT TENURE OF OWNERSHIP OF THE OWNER AND APPLICANT. SO TO COMPLY WITH AN ADA PROJECT, THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE MANY MATERIALS SHOWING THAT WHERE THERE'S THIS SOIL REMOVED WAS THE OLD SLOPE OF THE DRIVEWAY. AND NOW, DUE TO THE REGRADING OF THE DRIVEWAY TO ACCOMMODATE A FLAT ADA ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALK, A LARGE CHUNK OF THE SOIL WAS DISTURBED AND REMOVED, WHICH MADE THE

[00:55:02]

SLOPE A DIFFICULTY IN THAT THE TENANT WAS HAVING TROUBLE WITH BOTH THE STEEPNESS AS WELL AS VEHICLE ACCESS. DUE TO THIS CITY PROJECT IN 2023. HERE A LITTLE ZOOMED OUT. YOU CAN SEE THE OLD DRIVEWAY AS WELL AS THE CITY'S IMPROVEMENT WHEN THEY CAME IN AND PAVED AND REGRADED TO MATCH BETTER THE SLOPE THAT HAD BEEN IN PLACE. THIS IS A RENDERING OF THAT STRUCTURE AS IT WOULD SIT IN FRONT OF THE HOME. WHEN WE GET TO OUR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TEST, THOUGH, STAFF IS OF THE OPINION THAT THIS CASE DOES NOT MERIT A VARIANCE BECAUSE WHEREAS THE PROPERTY OWNER PROPOSES TO USE THE LAND IN A REASONABLE MANNER, THIS IS PARTIALLY DUBIOUS IN THAT THERE ARE TWO EXISTING GARAGE UNIT GARAGE STALLS FOR EACH OF THE PARCEL, OR FOR EACH OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND FIVE ARE PROPOSED IN LIEU OF THE FOR TODAY, WHILE THE EXISTING GARAGE SPACE IS STILL TO BE THERE. IF THAT AMOUNT OF GARAGE SPACE IS NECESSARY FOR EACH UNIT OR REASONABLE IS. IT'S NOT THAT IT'S NOT FOUND AS A STANDARD, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT OBVIOUS TO STAFF THAT THE PLIGHT OF THE LANDOWNER IS DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY, AND THEY'RE NOT CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER. I'LL GET MORE INTO THAT IN JUST A MOMENT. BUT STAFF DOESN'T BELIEVE THIS HAS BEEN MET AND THE VARIANCE, IF GRANTED, WILL NOT ALTER. THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ALSO QUESTIONABLE IN THAT WHILE EVERY HOME IS SHOULD CERTAINLY BE ENTITLED TO GARAGE SPACE THAT IS SAFE AND ACCESSIBLE TO ACCESS SHOULD THEY WANT IT. A 13.5FT SETBACK FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE IS MUCH CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN IS FOUND IN SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, WHICH IS WHY IT GETS INTO THAT QUESTION OF THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. STAFF. COULDN'T SAY THAT THIS WAS THIS CONDITION WAS MET. NOW, GOING INTO THE TIMELINE, THERE WAS IN CONVERSATIONS WITH CITY STAFF FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, PARTICULARLY ASSISTANT ENGINEER ABDULLAH, THERE HAD BEEN A PREVIOUS SIDEWALK AT THIS GRADE IN THIS LOCATION UNTIL 2006, WHEN AN OWNER. PRIOR TO THE CURRENT APPLICANT, DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE CITY DOESN'T REQUIRE DRIVEWAY PERMITS WHILE THEY IMPROVED THEIR OWN DRIVEWAY, THEY REMOVED THE CITY'S IMPROVED SIDEWALK THROUGH THIS LOT AND REGRADED IT TO MAKE THE FLAT SLOPE OR NOT FLAT SLOPE, BUT EVEN SLOPE THAT THE CURRENT OWNER IS NOT USED TO AT OR HAD BEEN USED TO PRIOR TO 2023, PER RECORDS THAT WE FOUND ON THIS PROPERTY. THE CURRENT OWNER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2016, AT WHICH POINT THAT SLOPE AND THE CONDITION OF THE DRIVEWAY HAD BEEN IN PLACE FOR TEN YEARS ALREADY. SO IT'S VERY LIKELY THAT THE CURRENT OWNER AND APPLICANT HAD NO IDEA THAT THE SIDEWALK HAD BEEN THERE PRIOR TO IT'S REMOVAL AT THE. PER A PROJECT THAT WAS UNPERMITTED AND COMPLETED TEN YEARS PRIOR TO HIS OWNERSHIP. SO THE CITY REINSTALLED THE SIDEWALK FOR ADA COMPLIANCE IN 2023 AND REGRADED APPROXIMATELY THE FIRST FOUR FEET OF THE DRIVEWAY, GOING UP ONLY ABOUT FOUR FEET. AND THAT LED TO A REALLY SIGNIFICANT SLOPE, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, WHEN THE REST OF THE DRIVEWAY STILL MAINTAINED THE PROFILE AS HAD BEEN THERE UP UNTIL ITS IMPROVEMENT. SO THERE WAS A REALLY SHARP SLOPE AT THIS POINT. BUT PER CONVERSATIONS AGAIN WITH THE ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER. THE THE CITY REALIZING THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AT ITS EXPENSE, CAME IN AND THEN WENT FROM FOUR FEET TO APPROXIMATELY 12FT THAT IT REGRADED THE APPLICANT'S DRIVEWAY TO BE ABLE TO BETTER MANAGE THAT CHANGE OF SLOPE TO THE SIDEWALK. AND SO THE CITY DID THAT IT IN CONVERSATION WITH AND IN AN ATTEMPT TO SATISFY THE HOMEOWNER. IT'S. IN 2026, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO REMEDY THE CONTINUED INSUFFICIENCY OF THE SLOPE AND THE WAY IN WHICH THE APPLICANT HOPES TO DO THIS IS BY LOWERING THE GRADE OF THE WHOLE DRIVEWAY TO BE ABLE TO PLACE A FLAT, ACCESSIBLE 4 OR 5 STALL GARAGE IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING GARAGE,

[01:00:04]

UNIT OR GARAGE. YES, IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING GARAGES ON THE LOWER FLOOR. THIS DOES HAVE A TANDEM BENEFIT OF HELPING THE APPLICANT DEAL WITH SOME DRAINAGE CONCERNS THAT ARE PRESENT FROM THE IRREGULAR ROOF FORM, AND THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK TO THAT IF HE SO CHOOSES.

THERE IS AN IRREGULAR ROOF FORM THAT CONTRIBUTES TO A LARGE AMOUNT OF WATER FALLING ON ONE PART OF THE DRIVEWAY. HOWEVER, STAFF IS OF THE BELIEF THAT THAT COULD BE HANDLED THROUGH OTHER MEANS OF IMPROVEMENT TO THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS GUTTERS. ANYWAY, THE REASON THAT THE PLIGHT OF THE LANDOWNER IS DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AND THAT ARE NOT CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER, IS THAT IF THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE DRIVEWAY SLOPE SUCH THAT VEHICLE ACCESS WAS DIFFICULT EITHER IN WINTER MONTHS OR WITH ACCESSIBLE VEHICLES FOR THE TENANT THAT HAS MOBILITY ISSUES IN ON THAT PROPERTY, WE BELIEVE THE TIME TO ADDRESS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AT THE TIME WHEN THE CITY CAME IN AND REGRADED THIS, RATHER THAN ASKING FOR VARIANCE SETBACKS FOR A GARAGE AT THIS POINT. SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT STAFF FEELS THAT THE PLIGHT OF THE LANDOWNER TEST HAS NOT BEEN MET. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, STAFF HAVE NOT PROVIDED RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN YOUR VARIANCE OR IN THE RESOLUTION BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION CONTAINS FINDINGS OF DENIAL. THOSE FINDINGS ARE PRESENT IN YOUR PACKET, BUT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS A MOTION TO ADOPT FINDINGS OF DENIAL PRESENT IN RESOLUTION C 2020 605. DENYING A 21.5FT FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AT 1050 ORLEANS STREET WEST. I STAND FOR QUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND HAVE ANYTHING THAT THEY WISH TO ADD.

COME ON FORWARD AND PRESS THE PRESS THE BUTTON. TURN THE BUTTONS GREEN. YEP. AND NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. VERY GOOD. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS TOM GRIMM. I RESIDE AT 1050 ORLEANS STREET WEST. YEAH. I MEAN, WE HAVE A. JOHNNY PUT OUT EVERYTHING PRETTY WELL THERE. BUT AGAIN TOO, IT'S. YEAH, THE CITY DID COME BY LIKE 2 OR 2 YEARS AGO. AND THEY DID, YOU KNOW, RIP UP THE STREET AND DID AN UPGRADE TO IT, BUT THEY REALLY DIDN'T UPGRADE MY ENTRANCE TO MY HOUSE. IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT, YOU KNOW, OVER THE PAST TWO WINTERS WITH EVEN THE TENANT HAS TO WAIT OUTSIDE WHEN I GET HOME TO TO SHOVEL THE TO SHOVEL THE DRIVEWAY SO THEY, THEY CAN GET IN THEIR SPACE OR INTO THE PROPERTY. I'VE EVEN HAD A BOBCAT EVEN THIS PAST WINTER GO UP THERE AND TRY TO TAKE OFF THE SNOW. HE COULDN'T EVEN GET UP THE GRADE. SO IT IS DIFFICULT ANY WAY YOU LOOK AT IT, TIME LAPSE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT HAPPENED OVER THE OVER THE OVER THAT OVER THE SUMMER AND THEN INTO INTO THE FALL. WE KIND OF WENT BACK AND FORTH TRYING TO GET THAT GRADE WORKED OUT, BUT I JUST DIDN'T REALLY COME TO ANY RESOLUTION TO IT AGAIN TOO. IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE AGAIN, WE HAVE TO PAY OUR BILLS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. BUT AGAIN, TOO, IT WAS A, A $10,000 HIT FOR ME FOR THE CITY TO COME THROUGH AND PUT A NEW STREET IN THERE FOR ME. SO I MEAN, I HAD TO KIND OF WAIT TILL THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO TO GET SOME MORE FUNDS SO THEY CAN GO BACK AND ADDRESS WHAT WAS REALLY GOING ON THERE. AND AS, AS JENNY MENTIONED, THERE WERE A COUPLE ISSUES GOING ON THERE, NOT JUST THE GRADE, BUT ALSO MAYBE LOOKING AT DRAINAGE AND STUFF LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, LOOKED AT THE GUTTER SYSTEMS. BUT AGAIN, YOUR TWO STORIES UP AND THEN EVERYTHING COMES TO A VALLEY TO A POINT AND IT FUNNELS INTO ONE AREA. AND THEN FROM THE ROOF, I'M, YOU CAN ALWAYS PUT LIKE HEATED GUTTERS UP THERE AND STUFF LIKE THAT, BUT I'M REALLY FEARFUL OF PUTTING GUTTER SYSTEM UP THERE JUST BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO DAM UP OR JAM UP. AND YOU CAN HAVE ICE DAMS AND EVERYTHING ELSE LIKE THAT. THEN THE OTHER ISSUE IS MAYBE EVEN ESTHETICS. THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THESE LITTLE THINGS THAT ADDRESS THE WHOLE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE, BECAUSE YOU GOT TWO STORIES AGO. YOU HAVE THESE LONG, LONG PIPES HANGING DOWN THE SIDES OF THE HOUSE LIKE THAT AND ACROSS THE TOP, TOP ROW OF THE HOUSE TOO. SO MAYBE ESTHETICS MIGHT BE A HINDRANCE TO GET A POSE OF GOING TO THE GARAGE SYSTEM. BUT I GUESS THAT'S IT. I GUESS I'M JUST BASICALLY CONCERNED ABOUT MY, MY SAFETY AND THE SAFETY OF MY TENANTS ENTERING AND LEAVING THE ENTERING AND LEAVING THE RESIDENCE. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MAY I ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF? SURE. I JUST I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE THIS BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOUR GRADE IS SO HEAVY THAT YOU COULDN'T GET A BOBCAT TO MOVE THE SNOW, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE TAKEN A LOOK AT IT AND FELT LIKE IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FLAT. AND I'M LOOKING AT THE GOOGLE STREET VIEW HERE, AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT A BOBCAT COULD OVERCOME. I MEAN, IT LOOKS EFFECTIVELY FLAT. SO WHO'S RIGHT? CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. IT

[01:05:07]

IS OF THE OPINION OF OUR ENGINEERING STAFF THAT THE SLOPE, WHILE STEEPER THAN PREFERABLE, IS ADEQUATE. OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. ARE YOU CONTINUING TO TALK TO THE CITY OR HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS? THAT'S BASICALLY A COMBINATION.

NOW, I THINK THIS IS WHAT WE'VE WHAT WE'VE KIND OF COME TO. SO IT'S A HEARING WITH THE WITH THE BOARD. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEXT STEP IS IF THERE IS A NEXT STEP. SO. OKAY, SO THE ANSWER IS. THAT YOU'RE NOT CHIT CHATTING WITH THE CITY ENGINEERING STAFF ANY LONGER.

NO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS IS OR WHAT'S, WHAT'S NEXT. I THOUGHT WE'D HAVE A HEARING THERE AND THEN MAYBE IT MIGHT SOMETHING MIGHT COME OUT OF IT THAT WE SHOULD WE CAN DISCUSS FURTHER. OR IF IT WAS JUST GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, A, A DISCONTINUATION OF ANY CONVERSATION AND, AND THAT'S IT. AND I CAN GO AHEAD AND DO SOMETHING ELSE. OKAY. REDIRECT MY, MY, MY ENERGY SOMEPLACE ELSE. I HAVE TO, I WANTED TO TELL YOU THAT WE GET LOTS OF APPLICATIONS HERE, BUT YOURS WAS VERY COMPLETE WITH LOTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS. AND IT WAS CLEAR TO ME YOU'D TAKEN THIS APPLICATION VERY SERIOUSLY. SO THANK YOU AGAIN TOO. I MEAN, WHEN THEY CAME WITH THE DRIVEWAY, I MEAN, LIKE, LIKE, LIKE JOHNNY WAS MENTIONING, THEY CAME BY 2 OR 3 TIMES, YOU KNOW, THEY PUT IT BACK THREE FEET, THEN FIVE FEET, THEN 8 OR 12, WHATEVER IT ENDED UP BEING. SO, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE TRYING TO GET IT, ACCOMMODATING IT. AND BUT AGAIN, TOO, IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE ONE THING I, I'M KIND OF UPSET ABOUT IS, YOU KNOW, THEY KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM. WHY DIDN'T THEY COME TO ME? AND WE COULD RESOLVE THIS RIGHT THEN AND THERE. YOU KNOW, THEY PUT A NEW STREET, I PUT A NEW DRIVEWAY, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ALL RESOLVED AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. BUT NOW WE GOT TO GO BACK AND TEAR UP STUFF AND PUT STUFF, OTHER STUFF DOWN. AND IT COULD HAVE ALL BEEN RESOLVED AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO GO BACK AND FORTH THREE TIMES TO GET THAT, YOU KNOW, REPAVE IT.

UNFORTUNATELY, I KNOW THAT HAPPENS. AND YOU CAN'T ALWAYS. KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO BE HAPPENING WHEN YOU WHEN YOU START DIGGING UP STREETS AND STUFF. SO. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE HERE WISHING TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM, SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, WHAT DO WE THINK? I THINK WE NEED TO SEPARATE THE STREET IMPROVEMENT ISSUE FROM THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TEST, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WAS WORKED AND RESOLVED. AND FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, THE GRADE SEEMS VERY REASONABLE. SO I'M STRUGGLING TO FIND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. AND IF I FOUND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, IT'S A PROPORTIONALITY THING WHERE I THINK THE ONLY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY YOU COULD FIND IS WATER. SO IF I WENT WITH THAT, MY ANSWER WOULD BE GUTTERS TO START, NOT A BRAND NEW GARAGE THAT'S OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE COMMUNITY.

SO I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS ONE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? DO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS? I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER. FIRST TIME EVER. THAT'S NOT TRUE LARRY. YEAH, YEAH. STRIKE THAT FROM THE RECORD. I GIVE UP. ALL RIGHT. SHE'S NOT GOING TO AGREE WITH YOU ANY LONGER. I DESERVE THAT.

YEAH, I THINK SO. SO I, I ALSO AM STRUGGLING WITH HOW THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TEST MIGHT BE MET IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. AND ALSO IN ADDITION, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE IMPROVEMENT, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DROVE OVER THERE YESTERDAY. IT WOULD BE A VERY BIG ADDITION TO THE HOUSE THAT WOULD ENCROACH SIGNIFICANTLY INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. SO WITH THOSE COMMENTS IN MIND, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE DENY THE REQUESTED VARIANCES TO THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR THE GARAGE ADDITION AT 1050 ORLEANS STREET WEST. WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? YEAH. PROPERTY OWNERS. YEAH.

REAL BRIEFLY. YEAH. YEAH, I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSION AND STUFF LIKE WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT

[01:10:05]

STEP? OR MAYBE JUST GIVE ME A CALL AND WE CAN TAKE CARE OF IT FROM THERE. BUT YEAH, THE, THE ONE THING IS TOO IS, YOU KNOW, GO BIG OR GO HOME. YOU KNOW, IT WAS, IT WAS AN OPTION. EVERY GUY, EVERY GUY NEEDS A GARAGE. SO I WAS GOING TO SAY, WELL, WHY NOT JUST MAKE AN EXTENSION OUT THERE, TAKE ALL THE WATER AWAY. I GET A NEW DRIVEWAY AND EVERYTHING'S KIND OF KIND OF NEAT. SO YEAH, YOU KNOW, SO I MEAN, THERE ARE OTHER RESOLUTIONS AND STUFF. THEY MAY NOT BE WHAT I WANT OR THINK IS REALLY COOL, BUT YOU KNOW, IT IS WHAT WE GOT TO WORK WITH. SO BUT I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING SO REASONABLE. AND THIS IS WHY WE LOVE THIS TOWN. SO THANK YOU. YEAH. I HAVE TWO THINGS. THE FIRST FOR THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS FOR YOUR TIME. IF YOU CHOOSE, IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE FINDINGS THAT THE COMMISSION MAKES THIS EVENING AND CHOOSE TO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL, I WILL WORK WITH YOU TO APPEAL. YOU HAVE TEN DAYS FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO FILE YOUR APPEAL WITH THE WITH CITY STAFF, IN WHICH CASE THE COUNCIL WILL RULE ON WHETHER OR NOT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE THEIR JUDGMENT IN ERROR. I'M ALSO HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU PERSONALLY, OUTSIDE OF AN APPEAL PROCESS, TO CONNECT YOU WITH OUR CURRENT CITY ENGINEERING STAFF TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT THE CITY CAN HELP AMELIORATE THE UNSUITABILITY OF THE CURRENT DRIVEWAY. AND THEN TO THE COMMISSION, JUST BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE MOTION BY STEINWALL, SECONDED BY SWANSON, THE MOTION WAS TO DENY THE VARIANCES. AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE ALL THINKING THE SAME THING, BUT I JUST WANTED TO REMIND US THAT THE VARIANCE OR THE RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU HAS FINDINGS OF DENIAL. SO WE WANT TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF DENIAL. OKAY. YEP. I MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS THAT I MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT WE THAT ACCEPTABLE THAT WE. YES. YEAH. THE FINDINGS ARE THE PROPERTY WOULD DECREASE ITS FRONT SETBACK FROM 49 TO 40 9.5 TO 24.5 IN A DISTRICT WHERE THE FRONT SETBACK STANDARD IS 35FT, THE PROPERTY WOULD DECREASE ITS SIDE SETBACKS FROM 10FT TO 8FT.

IN A DISTRICT WHERE THE SIDE SETBACK STANDARD IS 20FT, AND THE THIRD FINDING IS THAT THE APPLICANT, TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, HAS NOT PURSUED OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO REMEDY THE DIFFICULTY EXPERIENCED AT THAT COULD SATISFY THE ADVERSE CONDITIONS ON SITE. YEAH. YOU KNOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW, FURTHER AND FURTHER WE WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TEST, AS OUTLINED IN STATE STATUTE, HAS NOT BEEN MET AND THAT THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WOULD BE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHAT DO YOU THINK, COMMISSIONER SWANSON? THAT WORKS. OKAY, OKAY.

WE'RE BACK. WE'RE WE'RE BACK TO RIGHT BEFORE TAKING THE VOTE. ANY FURTHER ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. THOSE OPPOSED. THAT MOTION CARRIES. SO THAT'S FOR THAT WAS FOR BOTH THE VARIANCE AND THE SETBACKS, THE VARIANCES FOR BOTH SETBACKS. OKAY. YEP. OKAY. YEP. WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON THEN TO OUR FINAL

[7. Case No. CD2026-020: Variance to Ordinary High Watermark (OHW) and Bluffline Setback for Parking and Trail Improvements in the St. Croix River Overlay District– (Staff Reviewer: Johnny Menhennet, 651-430-8822, jmenhennet@stillwatermn.gov)]

PUBLIC HEARING OF THE EVENING. 2020 6-020 VARIANCE TO THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK AND BLUFF LINE. SETBACK FOR PARKING AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SAINT CROIX RIVER OVERLAY DISTRICT. MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS, THE. THIS PROJECT IS FOR TWO RELATED PARKING IMPROVEMENTS ON ONE PARCEL LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF DOWNTOWN. PARKING IMPROVEMENTS BOTH FOR DOWNTOWN ACCESS AS WELL AS PARKING IMPROVEMENTS MEANT TO SATISFY PARKING DEMAND THAT MAY BE INCURRED BY THE FUTURE ADDITION OF PUBLIC COURTESY. DOCKS TO AN AREA KNOWN AS BRIDGEVIEW. THIS IS CITY OWNED LAND UNADDRESSED, WHICH IS WHY IT'S BEEN REFERRED TO BY ITS ID NUMBER, AND IT'S IN THE SAINT CROIX RIVER OVERLAY DISTRICT. AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE WATERSHED DISTRICT HERE IS THE MIDDLE SAINT CROIX. AND THE WHOLE REASON FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS A DIFFERENCE IN INTERPRETATION OF STRUCTURE BETWEEN THE WATERSHED DISTRICT AND THE CITY. THE CITY HAS ADOPTED STRUCTURED SETBACKS OF 40FT FROM SLOPE OF GREATER THAN 12%, AS WELL AS 100FT FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE IN THE

[01:15:01]

SAINT CROIX RIVER OVERLAY DISTRICT. THERE ARE NO STRUCTURES PROPOSED WITHIN ANY OF THOSE SETBACKS BY THE CITY'S DEFINITION, AND THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.

HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF BEING A GOOD PARTNER WITH THE WATERSHED DISTRICT, THEY WERE ASKED TO WEIGH IN ON THIS PROPOSAL. THEY HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IN THAT ANY PAVED CONSTRUCTION IS A STRUCTURE, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE SEEKING A STRUCTURED SETBACK FROM THEM. SO THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSTRUCTION OF TWO PARKING LOTS TO SUPPLEMENT ACCESS TO FUTURE PUBLIC DOCKS AND EXPAND PARKING OPTIONS NEAR TO DOWNTOWN. THIS IS ON EXISTING PUBLIC LAND, AND THE CITY IS THE GOVERNING AGENCY THAT APPROVES OF VARIANCES WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETBACKS IN THIS WATERSHED. SO FOR OUR SITE MAP HERE, WE ARE LOCATED TO THE EAST OF HIGHWAY 95, SANDWICHED BETWEEN THERE AND THE RIVER. NOW WE HAVE TWO PROJECTS, THE NORTHERLY OF THEM WHICH ARE YES, THE SOUTHERLY OF THEM. SORRY. THE LIFT STATION. THIS IS THE ONE PROVIDING THE ACCESS TO THE FUTURE PUBLIC COURTESY DOCKS THAT ARE GOING TO BE ADDED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS TEAM TO FACILITATE GREATER BOATING ACCESS TO VISITORS IN STILLWATER. THIS IS JUST BARELY. THE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS THEMSELVES ARE 39.56FT FROM THE SLOPE AND OVER 100FT FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK, SO WE'RE ONLY LOOKING FOR ABOUT A 0.34FT VARIANCE. ASK TO SLOPE FOR THESE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS. HOWEVER, THIS ADA ACCESSIBLE TRAIL DOWN TO THE PUBLIC COURTESY DOCKS IS REQUIRED. IF THE CITY IS TO BUILD THOSE COURTESY DOCKS, WE AREN'T ABLE TO BUILD THEM WITHOUT AN ADA ACCESS. AND AGAIN, AS THIS IS A PAVED IMPROVEMENT, THE WATERSHED DISTRICT HAS ASKED THAT WE SEEK A VARIANCE AND THIS ADA TRAIL WILL BE 11FT FROM THE HIGH WATER MARK AND ONLY 3.93FT FROM THE SLOPE. SO THAT'S THE VARIANCE THERE. AND THEN THIS IS DIFFICULT TO SEE AT THE MOMENT. BUT I'M GOING TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS ARE MORE OR LESS IN THE AREA THAT I'M HIGHLIGHTING. AVOIDING ALL OF THE VEGETATIVE SCREENING FROM THE RIVER. NOW, IF WE GO TO THE BRIDGEVIEW SITE, WHICH IS TO THE NORTH, AND THIS IS THE ONE MEANT TO FACILITATE GREATER ACCESS TO PARKING NEAR TO OUR DOWNTOWN, WE CAN SEE ON HERE THAT THIS IS IN A FLAT AREA, RELATIVELY. RELATIVELY IMMUNE FROM THE DISTANCE TO SLOPE. IN FACT, THE BRIDGEVIEW SITE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SLOPE SETBACK. INSTEAD, WE'RE ABOUT 74FT AT OUR CLOSEST TO THE HIGH WATER MARK, SO WE'RE SEEKING ONLY AT THIS SITE, THOUGH STILL ON THE PROPERTY LINE OR THE SAME PROPERTY WE'RE SEEKING. THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER SETBACK. NOW, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS AERIAL, THE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS ARE GOING TO GO IN AN EXISTING DIRT LOT THAT IS JUST TO BE PAVED. SO THIS IS AN AREA WITHOUT VEGETATION. AND THE REASON THAT IT CANNOT BE MOVED FURTHER TOWARD THE WEST TO GET OUTSIDE OF THAT 100FT FROM HIGH WATER MARK IS BECAUSE IT'S TO THE ENGINEERING TECH'S KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS AN UNDERGROUND STREAM THAT RUNS TO THE WEST OF THE PROPOSED PARKING. AND SO THERE'S SOME EXISTING POTENTIAL WETLAND AND MARSHLAND IN BETWEEN THE SLOPE LEADING DOWN FROM THE EMBANKMENT, FROM HIGHWAY 95 TO THE EAST OF THAT SLOPE, AND THE WEST OF THE PARKING IMPROVEMENT IS MARSHLAND THAT THE CITY DOES NOT WISH TO IMPEDE ON. SO AGAIN, HERE'S THAT AREA. YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S VEGETATED TO THE WEST, VEGETATED TO THE EAST, AND THE PARKING IMPROVEMENT IS MEANT TO LIE IN THE MIDDLE. NOW, AS THE CITY IS ABLE TO JUSTIFY THESE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, WE BELIEVE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER PROPOSES TO USE THE LAND IN A REASONABLE MANNER. THAT MANNER BEING GREATER PUBLIC ACCESS TO OUR DOWNTOWN AND OUR WATER. IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE ACCESS, THE ADA ACCESS THAT REQUIRES THE SLOPE AND HIGH WATER SETBACKS IS REQUIRED BY LAW. THE CIRCUMSTANCE IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY. ARE THE REQUIRED ADA ACCESS AND THE FACT THAT WE CAN'T GET CLOSER TO HIGHWAY 95 AT THE BRIDGEVIEW SITE DUE TO WETLANDS THAT MAY BE PRESENT IN AS PART OF AN UNDERGROUND STREAM, AND THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT TO BE ALTERED IN THAT ONE IS ALREADY AN UNPAVED LOT AND THE OTHER. NEITHER OF THESE LIE CLOSE TO