[I. CALL TO ORDER]
          [00:00:11]
          27TH, 2026 MEETING OF THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION, JOINED HERE BY ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS EXCEPT FOR COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN, WHO IS AWAY THIS EVENING. WITH THAT, I 
          [III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
WOULD TAKE. WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS, CHANGES, ADDITIONS OR A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THAT. MOTION FOR APPROVAL? HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THAT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED THAT MOTION CARRIES. NEXT UP IS THE OPEN FORUM. THE OPEN FORUM IS A CHANCE FOR FOLKS TO TALK ABOUT ANY ITEM THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. SO IF THERE'S SOMETHING YOU WISH TO TALK WITH COMMISSION ABOUT, NOT ON THE AGENDA, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO COME TO THE PODIUM. SEEING NO ONE THOUGH, MOVING TOWARDS THE PODIUM, I WILL CLOSE THE OPEN FORUM. THERE IS NOTHING ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA, 
          [2. Case No. CD2026-022: Variance Request to Exterior Side Yard Setbacks to Construction a Single-Family Home at 3481 87th Street North (Staff Reviewer: Johnny Menhennet, 651-430-8822, jmenhennet@stillwatermn.gov)]
SO WE WILL START IN WITH OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. AND THE FIRST ONE THAT WE HAVE IS CD 2026-022, A VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 3481 87TH STREET NORTH. MR. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. WE'LL JUMP RIGHT INTO REGULATORY REVIEW. WE'RE IN THE NORTHWESTERN PART OF STILLWATER IN THE NOTTINGHAM VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT. THE ZONING DISTRICT IS TR TRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, THOUGH IT'S NOT SPECIFIED IN THE ZONING CODE. THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT LIMIT OR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT LIMITS LOT COVERAGE TO 35%. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S AT STAKE TODAY. WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT THE SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR A 3.59FT EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW HOME. SO THE LOT ON WHICH WE'RE CONSIDERING THIS EVENING IS CURRENTLY VACANT. IT'S ONE OF TWO VACANT LOTS REMAINING IN THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE LATE 20 TENS, PREDOMINANTLY, MORE THAN TWO THIRDS OF THE LOT IS UNBUILDABLE DUE TO THE DEVELOPMENT'S DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PONDS BEING ACCOMMODATED ON THE SOUTHERN TWO THIRDS OF THEIR LOT. SO THE DEVELOPABLE AREA OF THE LOT IS FUNCTIONALLY MUCH SMALLER THAN THAT OF PEER LOTS. THE HOME MEETS THE FRONT, REAR AND INTERIOR SIDE SETBACKS. IT NEEDS AN EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FROM 15FT TO 11.41FT, AND THE HOME IS OF MODEST SIZE. LOOKING FOR A TWO BEDROOM, A SINGLE FLOOR LIVING. 
          ORIENTATION. SO HERE'S OUR SITE MAP. NOTTINGHAM VILLAGE IS THIS CLUSTER OF HOMES HERE AND THIS LOT AND ITS SISTER LOT. JUST TO THE EAST ARE THE TWO THAT REMAIN TO BE DEVELOPED. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE AREA STORMWATER MITIGATION IS ACCOMMODATED TO THE WEST OF 87TH STREET, NORTH ACROSS THE STREET, AND THEN ADDITIONALLY IN ANOTHER STORMWATER POND ON THE SOUTH HERE. SO EVERYTHING NORTH OF THIS TREE LINE IS ALL THAT REMAINS DEVELOPABLE FOR THE SITE PLAN, WHEREAS THERE IS AN EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK OF 15FT IN THIS DISTRICT, THE CLOSEST POINT AT WHICH THE HOMES PROPOSAL ENCROACHES TOWARD 87TH STREET NORTH IS 11.41FT. THOUGH ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED WITH AN ENCROACHMENT OF THE PATIO INTO THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED BY STAFF, AND IT'S BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT THAT THAT WON'T BE PERMITTED, AND THEY HAVE SINCE MODIFIED THEIR PATIO DESIGN TO ACCOMMODATE THIS. NOW WE DO FIND THAT THIS MEETS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TEST FOR ANOTHER REASON, BEYOND THE FACT THAT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CREATES A SMALLER BUILDABLE LOT AREA, BUT ALSO DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL PLAT THAT CREATES THIS EXTERNAL SIDE SETBACK TO THE WEST OF 3481 87TH STREET, THIS STREET IS TO BE VACATED PER THE ORIGINAL PLAT, AND I ZOOMED IN ON THE DETAIL ON THE RIGHT HERE FOR YOU. STREET TO BE. 
          [00:05:04]
REMOVED IN FUTURE CONFIGURATION AS WELL AS SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED IN FUTURE CONFIGURATION. THE PROPOSAL, IF YOU CAN SEE ON THESE DOTTED LINES, IS FOR THE HOME TO THE WEST OF THE LOT UNDER CONSIDERATION. THAT STREET WILL BE CONVERTED INTO A DRIVEWAY BECAUSE AS IT STANDS, JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THIS IMAGE IS MCKUSICK ROAD, WHICH IS ALSO COUNTY ROAD 64, WHERE YOU SEE THIS FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION IN THE GHOST PLAT THAT WAS CREATED UPON PLAT APPROVAL. THIS TIES IN TO MACY WAY AT AN EXISTING INTERSECTION THAT IS MORE ESTABLISHED AND HAS HIGHER TRAFFIC VOLUME. SO THE COUNTY'S DESIRE IS TO CONSOLIDATE TRAFFIC ON ITS COUNTY ROAD AT ONE INTERSECTION, RATHER THAN TWO, THAT ARE OFFSET BY ONLY A FEW HOMES WIDTHS. SO GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL PLAT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT CALLS FOR OUR COMP PLAN CALLS FOR DENSER SUBDIVISION OF LOTS TO THE EAST. WHEN THESE. EVENTUATE, THIS HOME WILL NO LONGER BE AN EXTERIOR HOME. IT'LL BE INTERIOR WITH THE REMOVAL OF THIS ROAD, WHICH IS WHY STAFF FEELS THAT THE TEN FOOT SETBACK IS APPROPRIATE AND THE REASON FOR OUR SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE TO THIS PROPERTY NOT CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER, GIVEN THAT THE ROAD CREATING THAT 15 FOOT SETBACK IS NOT PLANNED FOR FUTURE MAINTENANCE. SO WITH THAT SAID, THERE ARE THREE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THE FIRST TWO ARE PRETTY BOILERPLATE, AND THE THIRD IS JUST MAKING CLEAR IN OUR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, THAT THE SETBACK BEING GRANTED IS TO 11.41FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, SO THAT IT'S SPELLED OUT THAT WE'RE NOT GRANTING IT ALL THE WAY TO THE TEN FOOT. THAT IS THE STANDARD, BUT WE'RE DOING WHAT IS ASKED FOR AND DEPICTED IN THE SITE PLAN. WITH THAT, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION PC2026-08 APPROVING AN EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE OF 11.41FT AT 3481 87TH STREET NORTH. I STAND FOR QUESTIONS. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I KNOW YOU JUST SAID IT, BUT I'M SORRY I WASN'T LISTENING CAREFULLY ENOUGH. SO IF THE STREET WASN'T THERE, THE STREET THAT IS TO BE. 
          VACATED. IF THAT WASN'T THERE, THEN THE SETBACK WOULD BE TEN FEET. IS THAT RIGHT, CHAIR? COMMISSIONERS? THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I GUESS WE'RE BETTING A LITTLE BIT HERE ON THE VACATION OF THE 87TH STREET PIECE. GIVE ME SOME ASSURANCE ON THAT A LITTLE BIT. ALL RIGHT, CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE KNOWN TO STAFF FOR THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST AT THIS TIME. HOWEVER, THIS PLAT, WHICH WAS APPROVED IN 2018, IS IN A DENSITY ZONE IN THE COMP PLAN THAT IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH CALLS FOR 1 TO 4.4 UNITS PER ACRE. TRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL IS A COMPATIBLE ZONING DISTRICT. IT'S. THIS PAST FALL, WE ALSO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST TO FACILITATE FOUR LOTS THAT MEET THAT DENSITY AS WELL. CURRENTLY, THE DISTRICT, THE ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST ARE AP AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION. BUT ANY FUTURE SUBDIVISION THAT WOULD OCCUR WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE SAME DENSITY MINIMUMS. SO WE EXPECT THAT THIS ROAD CONFIGURATION WOULD BE HARMONIOUS WITH A CONTINUATION OF DENSITY. AS IS SEEN HERE, THE WIDTH IS ANOTHER TWO PARCELS WHICH WOULD BE CONGRUENT WITH NOTTINGHAM VILLAGE. HOWEVER, WE'VE NOT RECEIVED A DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FROM THE EAST AT THAT TIME. 
          IT'S JUST BEEN THE COUNTY'S ASK THAT AT THE TIME IT REDEVELOPS 87TH STREET NORTH BE VACATED. 
          OKAY, BUT THE CONDITION THAT THE SOUTHERN PRONG OF 87TH BE VACATED IS BAKED INTO THE PLAT. 
          YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH TO. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. 
          PENDING FUTURE ROAD CONSTRUCTION. RIGHT? RIGHT. BUT IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAPPENS. THAT'S CORRECT. IT IS NOT A WE ARE NOT THROUGH APPROVING THIS VARIANCE REQUIRING THE VACATION OF THIS ROAD. OKAY. FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. WILL LOT TWO. THAT'S UNDEVELOPED. IT'S SISTER LOT NEXT TO IT HAVE THE SAME ISSUES. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. BOTH THESE LOTS ARE PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT BY THE SAME OWNER OR THE SAME FAMILY, BUT THE SITE PLAN THAT'S BEEN SHOWN TO STAFF FOR LOT TWO, IT'S ALSO A TWO LEVEL OR SORRY, A SINGLE LEVEL, TWO BEDROOM HOME THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY VARIANCE APPROVALS BECAUSE IT'S AN 
          [00:10:05]
INTERIOR LOT. IT DOESN'T HAVE THE EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK. AND IN THE TR DISTRICT, THE SIDE SETBACK IS FIVE FEET ON THE SIDE WITH THE GARAGE AND TEN FEET ON THE SIDE WITHOUT THE GARAGE. SO THAT WILL BE DEVELOPED WITH A FIVE FOOT AND A TEN FOOT SETBACK AS AN INTERIOR LOT. SO IT'LL BE BUILT ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE THE PLANS THAT WERE SHOWN TO YOU IN THE PACKET MATERIALS. BUT IT DOESN'T NEED A VARIANCE. THANK YOU. OKAY, JUST ONE MORE. 
          SECTION 1853 REQUIRES SITE LINES ON CORNER LOTS. ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH THE SITE LINES ON THIS? BOTH WAYS? CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, GIVEN THAT THIS IS PROPOSED TO BE AN INTERIOR LOT AND THAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO UNITS ACCESSED OFF OF THAT STUB OF 87TH STREET NORTH, THE TRAFFIC VOLUME AT THIS TIME DOES NOT MAKE US UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS HOME. IN ADDITION TO THAT, IT DOES MEET ALL FRONT SETBACK STANDARDS THAT EXIST TODAY WHENEVER TRAFFIC VOLUMES ARISE DUE TO DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST, THAT ROAD WILL BE VACATED ANYWAY, NEGATING THE NEED FOR SITE LINE CONSIDERATION. PERFECT. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? GREAT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. WITH THAT IS THE APPLICANT HERE. DO THEY HAVE ANYTHING THEY WISH TO ADD? I AM, SO DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WISH TO ADD? YOU DON'T NEED TO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO. BUT THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK AND WE WORK WITH YOU A LOT WITH MY DAD, A LOT THE BUILDERS. SO. BUT WE. WE NEED YOU TO COME FORWARD SO WE CAN GET IT, GET IT ON THE RECORD SO YOU CAN COME TO THE PODIUM. AND THEN GIVE US YOUR. THERE'S GOING TO BE A BUTTON ON THERE TO PRESS TO TURN IT GREEN. AND THEN IF WE CAN GET YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, SIR, MY NAME IS KELLY LUGER. I'M CURRENTLY LIVING IN STILLWATER AT MY PARENTS HOUSE AT 128 2050 THIRD STREET NORTH. I DID PURCHASE THIS LOT. MY SISTER PURCHASED THE ONE NEXT DOOR. WE'RE BOTH LOOKING TO BUILD OUR FAMILIES TO THE BUILDER. WE'VE WORKED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THEY'VE BEEN GREAT HELPING US THROUGH THE SETBACKS AND WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO, AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT FIT. WE'RE REALLY EXCITED TO BE HERE AND WE HOPE THIS WILL GET APPROVED. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? GREAT. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM, ANYONE AT ALL? SEEING NO ONE COMING FORWARD, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, WHAT DO WE THINK? I WOULD WANT A MOTION. A MOTION WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO DO TRYING TO FOLLOW YOUR RULES. I KNOW THEY'RE NOT MY RULES. SOME GUY NAMED ROBERT, SOME GUY, SOME GUY, SOME GUY NAMED ROBERT CAME UP WITH THEM. I WILL MOVE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR CD 2026 022. 
          WITH THE CONDITIONS AS PROPOSED BY STAFF. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND I CAN SECOND? OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THAT ITEM. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM. 
          WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS. SO WE AT LEAST I THINK THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT IS THAT BOTH OF THE YOU KNOW, I SEE IS VERY REASONABLE, BOTH OF THE REASONS THAT THEY KIND OF SAID FOR THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, FIRST OF ALL, OF THE STORMWATER IN THE BACK, YOU KNOW, UTILIZING A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE OF THE LOT TO BEGIN WITH. AND THE LIKELIHOOD THAT 87TH STREET AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE IS GOING TO BE REMOVED. WE WANT TO BUILD OUR STRUCTURES WHERE WE THINK THINGS SHOULD BE, NOT WHERE NECESSARILY EVEN WHERE THEY ARE NOW. AND SO I THINK THAT'S VERY REASONABLE TO THINK THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE AND PROBABLY EVEN A LITTLE MORE FILL THERE, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BECOME AN INTERIOR SIDE YARD. SO. BUT IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ARE WE READY TO JUST VOTE? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED THAT MOTION CARRIES. CONGRATULATIONS. THANKS. NEXT 
          [3. Case No. CD2026-025: Variance Request to Front Yard Setback Requirements to Construct a Detached Garage at 610 5th Street North (Staff Reviewer: Johnny Menhennet, 651-430-8822, jmenhennet@stillwatermn.gov)]
CASE. CD 2026-025. VARIANCE REQUEST FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AT 610 FIFTH STREET NORTH. AGAIN, MR. MEKHENNET, THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          AND JUST PRIOR TO THE DEPARTURE OF THE PAST, APPLICANTS FOR THE APPLICANTS OF ALL THREE VARIANCES BEING HEARD TONIGHT, I JUST WANT TO LET YOU ALL KNOW AT ONCE THAT THE VARIANCE 
          [00:15:06]
APPROVAL THAT YOU'VE RECEIVED, IF YOU ARE APPROVED THIS EVENING, IS GOOD FOR ONE YEAR. 
          IF WITHIN ONE YEAR YOU HAVE NOT FILED A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, THAT IS THAT IS ACCORDING TO THE PLANS APPROVED TONIGHT, YOU'LL LOSE THAT AUTHORITY THAT THE VARIANCE HAS GRANTED YOU AND YOU'LL NEED TO REAPPLY. SO MAKE SURE THAT YOU EITHER FILE FOR AN EXTENSION OR FILE A BUILDING PERMIT THAT MATCHES THESE PLANS WITHIN ONE YEAR. THANK YOU CHAIR, GREAT FOR THAT. YES. OKAY. SO NOW PRESENTATION ON 610. ALL RIGHT. HERE WE HAVE A NEW VARIANCE ASK. 
          WE'RE IN A MORE HISTORIC PART OF TOWN NOW. SO WE GET THE FUN ODDITIES OF HISTORIC STILLWATER COMING INTO PLAY. 610 FIFTH STREET NORTH. THIS IS AN EXISTING PROPERTY IN THE RB2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. THE LOT IS THE LOT OF RECORD. TODAY IS TWO HISTORICAL LOTS OF RECORD WHICH WILL COME INTO PLAY AS WE CONSIDER THIS FURTHER. SO FOR THE PROPOSED WORK. SORRY FOR THE SMALL FONT. HERE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE FOR THE PROPERTY WHERE THERE'S NO EXISTING GARAGE. THE CURRENT SETBACK PER CODE FOR GARAGES IS MINIMUM 30FT IN THE FRONT AND AT LEAST TEN FEET BEHIND THE LEADING EDGE OF THE HOME. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR A 20 FOOT SETBACK, A VARIANCE OF TEN FEET FROM THAT 30 FOOT STANDARD DUE TO THE NORTHWEST TO SOUTHEAST ANGLE OF THE STREET, EVEN IF IT WERE SET BACK 30FT FROM THE STREET AT ITS CLOSEST POINT, IT WOULD STILL BE IN FRONT OF THE HOME. DUE TO THAT ODD ORIENTATION. SO THE REASON FOR THIS STANDARD IN THE FIRST PLACE, THAT IT BE AT LEAST TEN FEET BEHIND THE EDGE OF THE HOME, WAS TO ENSURE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF GARAGES AND THEIR CAR ORIENTED NATURE DID NOT PREDOMINATE OR LOOM OVER OR TAKE FOCUS FROM THE HISTORICAL HOMES IN OUR DISTRICT. THE FACT THAT THIS IS BEING SITED ON ANOTHER LOT OF RECORD, IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT IT WOULD EVEN MEETING CODE, WOULD NOT BE BEHIND THE HOME, ARE SOME OF WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER THIS EVENING FOR THIS SITE MAP, I'M GOING TO ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT SO WE CAN. 
          THIS WILL MAKE MORE SENSE. THE EXISTING HOME IS ON THE ORIGINAL LOT OF RECORD HERE. AT ITS CLOSEST, IT'S 23FT FROM THE NEAREST CORNER TO THE STREET. HOWEVER, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS A DETACHED GARAGE ON THE SOUTHERN LOT OF RECORD. AND THIS LOT OR THIS HOME WOULD BE 20FT AT THE NEAREST POINT, TO THE RIGHT OF WAY. EVEN IF IT WERE SET BACK ANOTHER TEN FEET, IT WOULD STILL BE AHEAD OF THE HOME, BUT IT WOULD BE ZONING COMPLIANT BECAUSE IT'S 30FT BACK. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE SITE PLAN SHOWN TO US TODAY IS FOR A DETACHED STRUCTURE OF APPROXIMATELY 700FT■!S THAT WOUD SIT IN THE MIDST OF SOME OF THE MATURE TREES ON SITE. ONE OF THE APPLICANTS IN THEIR NARRATIVE, ONE OF THEIR STATED INTENTIONS IN ASKING FOR THIS VARIANCE IS THAT IF THEY WERE TO MEET CODE AND PUSH IT BACK FURTHER, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE MORE MATURE TREES ON THEIR LOT AND ADD MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FOR A DRIVEWAY TO SERVE A HOME THAT'S PUSHED 10 TO 13FT BACK. TO MEET OUR CODE, IT'S IN THE CITIES AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTS. INTEREST IN BOTH MY PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL OPINION TO NOT MANDATE EXTRA IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SPACE WHEN NOT REQUIRED TO ALLOW FOR MORE INFILTRATION ON SITE, BUT WE'LL SAVE THAT FOR OUR DISCUSSION. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION, THE SANBORN MAP PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT DOES SHOW UP BLOCK OR LOT 27 AND LOT 28 OF THIS ORIGINAL PLAT ON WHICH A BAPTIST CHURCH ONCE SAT. IT IS WITH THIS FRONT SETBACK OF THE ORIGINAL CHURCH IN MIND THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT THEIR DETACHED GARAGE TODAY. THAT SETBACK BEING 20FT. THE REASON. SO WE DO FIND THAT THIS MEETS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TEST. 
          WE FIND THAT THE PRESENCE OF A GARAGE IS A REASONABLE USE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND ON A LOT THAT DOES NOT HAVE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGES. THE PLIGHT OF THE LANDOWNER IS DUE TO 
          [00:20:03]
CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AND NOT CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER. THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THAT THIS IS AN HISTORIC LOT OF RECORD THAT DOES HAVE HISTORY OF STRUCTURES. WITH THESE SETBACKS, IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE ORIENTATION OF THE STREET IN A NON CARDINAL DIRECTION NEGATES THE ENTIRE DESIGN REVIEW COMPONENT OF THAT GARAGE SETBACK STANDARD, BEING FURTHER BEHIND THE HOUSE BECAUSE THEY CAN MEET THAT STANDARD WHILE STILL NOT SETTING THE GARAGE BEHIND THE HOME, AND THAT THIS WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT WE HAVE HERE, THE APPLICANT WILL CONSTRUCT THE GARAGE ACCORDING TO ALL PERTINENT BUILDING CODE STANDARDS. AS WE SEE IN ALL OF OUR THE MAJORITY OF OUR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. FURTHER, BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BE CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN IS TYPICAL FOR GARAGES. IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT IS STILL, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, NONCOMMITTAL ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE WILL BE LIVING SPACE ABOVE THE GARAGE. IT WILL BE A REQUIRED CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT HPC DESIGN APPROVAL BE SOUGHT. AND THAT WAY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER LIVING SPACE IS ADDED OR NOT, THE PRESENCE CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN IS TYPICAL FOR A GARAGE IS REVIEWED FOR ADEQUACY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. AND FINALLY, IF THE APPLICANT IS TO ADD LIVING SPACE IN THE FORM OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, THIS LOT IS OF REQUISITE SIZE WITHIN OUR ZONING CODE TO HAVE AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, BUT THOSE ARE ONLY PERMITTED VIA CUP, SO IT'S LIVING. ADDITIONS OF LIVING SPACE DO NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE A CUP, BUT IF IT'S A DWELLING UNIT, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO FOR A COE PERMIT. FOR THAT USE. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION PC2026-09 APPROVING A GARAGE SETBACK VARIANCE OF 20FT AT 610 FIFTH STREET NORTH, WHICH IS A TEN FOOT REDUCTION FROM CODE. OKAY. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ARE LOTS 27 AND 28 COMBINED FOR TAX PURPOSES? I GUESS BECAUSE MY CONCERN WOULD BE WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A FREESTANDING GARAGE SEPARATE SEPARATED FROM THE HOUSE. YES. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS ONE LOT OF RECORD TODAY. OKAY. THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE PROPERTY IS LOT 27 AND LOT 28 OF BLOCK, WHICHEVER IS IN THE RESOLUTION. SO IT'S ONE LOT. WE CONSIDER THIS ONE LOT. IT IS ONE LOT. IT'S THE SAME LOT THAT THE GARAGE WILL GO ON THE SAME LOT AS THE HOUSE. IF WE LOOK AT. SO THIS IS THE OUTLINE OF THE COMBINED LOT. THIS IS THE LOT OF RECORD. OKAY, OKAY. IT JUST THIS ONE LOT OF RECORD CONTAINS TWO HISTORICAL LOTS. THAT'S ALL I GOT THAT PART. OKAY. I KNOW FROM TIME TO TIME WE REQUIRE OUR APPLICANTS TO JOIN THEM. 
          AND I'M WONDERING WHETHER THE JOINDER HAD ALREADY OCCURRED. CHAIR. COMMISSIONERS. YES. IT HAS. THANK YOU. OKAY. MY SECOND QUESTION IS THAT ON ONE OF THE SITE PLANS, IT APPEARS TO SHOW TWO DRIVEWAYS. IT'S THAT IS THE STAMPED CONCRETE DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN. IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THIS WOULD REMAIN, THOUGH. WE CAN ADD A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THIS BE REMOVED. IF THAT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE COMMISSION, IS IT NOT A PUBLIC. YOU KNOW, A. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE MULTIPLE CURB CUTS ALONG ANY OF OUR STREETS, I THINK TO. YES, THERE IS NO CODE STANDARD PROHIBITING MULTIPLE CURB CUTS FOR A PROPERTY. WE ONLY LIMIT THE CURB CUT WIDTH, NOT THE NUMBER OF CURB CUTS. BUT WE ARE ABLE TO. ADD A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT. THAT THIS STAMPED CONCRETE. WE'VE DONE THAT ON OTHERS. YES. YEAH, WE'VE DONE THAT ON OTHERS. THAT IS THAT IS WITHIN OUR SINGLE THAT IS WITHIN OUR PURVIEW. MAY I ASK A RELATED QUESTION, PLEASE? I'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN 1853 ON THIS PACKET, THE LIMITS TO FRONT YARD PARKING ARE GOING TO BE FAIRLY RESTRICTIVE IF WE APPROVE THIS. HAS THAT BEEN NOTED FOR THE HOMEOWNER? THAT FRONT YARD PARKING IS NO LONGER PERMITTED IN 1853, AND I'M I'M WORRIED WE'RE GOING TO CREATE A CHALLENGE FOR THEM WITH FRONT PARKING ON THIS. GIVEN THE SMALL SIZE OF THE DRIVEWAY WE'RE APPROVING. THAT'S 1853. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT PART. 
          [00:25:08]
THAT'S OUR SECTION THAT DOES NUISANCE ORDINANCE AND SOME OTHER THINGS. YOU CAN PARK IN THE DRIVEWAY. YOU CAN'T PARK. YOU CAN'T PARK ON ANY AS GRASS AND IMPROVED SCAPING AND STUFF LIKE THAT. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS ON THAT ONE. WE DO NOT ALLOW YARD PARKING. THAT MEANS WE'RE NOT ALLOWING PARKING ON GRASS OR GRAVEL. BUT THE APPLICANT WILL STILL HAVE, IN ADDITION TO TWO STALLS IN THE GARAGE, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE REQUISITE SPACE FOR TWO ADDITIONAL OFF STREET PARKING SPACES IN THE DRIVEWAY. AT THE VERY CLOSEST POINT. THIS IS 20FT. A STANDARD PASSENGER VEHICLE IS 17FT LONG, AND AS IT GOES DOWN, THAT DRIVEWAY BECOMES EVEN LONGER. 
          SO IN ADDITION TO THE TWO INTERIOR SPACES, WE CAN ACCOMMODATE AN ADDITIONAL TWO VEHICLES ON THE LEGITIMATE DRIVEWAY PAD WITHOUT ENCROACHING INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY OR ONTO THE SIDEWALK. THANK YOU. GREAT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WONDERFUL. 
          I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU WISH TO ADD? OKAY, GREAT. OKAY, SO WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM, ANYONE AT ALL? SEEING NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          COMMISSIONERS, WHAT DO WE THINK ABOUT THIS ITEM? DO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS? I'M GOING TO ADVOCATE FOR A LITTLE DEBATE ON THIS ONE BEFORE WE GET TO EMOTION. OKAY. THIS IS AN INTERESTING ONE BECAUSE IT IT FEELS LIKE IT DOESN'T PASS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TEST WITH THE EXCEPTION OF IF WE HOLD THE LINE ON THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TEST, ALL OTHER OPTIONS ARE WAY WORSE. THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I. AND FOR ME, I SEE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AS BEING THE ODD FRONT, THE THE LOT LINE NOT BEING SQUARE. YEAH, THAT ENDS UP BEING THE. THE REAL PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN THIS IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT. YOUR SETBACK WOULD HAVE TO BE SO FAR IN ORDER TO GET TO THE. WE COULD WE COULD WE COULD FORCE THEM INTO THE SPIRIT OF THE RIGHT OR, YOU KNOW, TO THE LETTER OF THE ORDINANCE. BUT IT WOULD IT WOULD LOOK GOOFY OLD GROWTH TREES WITH A LOT MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, JUST TERRIBLE. AND THE THE HOMEOWNER DIDN'T CHOOSE TO SPEAK. SO I WOULD JUST NOTE FOR THE RECORD, SHOOT, I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. OH, ADUS. BIG FAN OF ADUS ON THERE, BUT THERE IS A LOT IN THE CODE ON THAT. SO JUST BE MINDFUL OF WORKING WITH THESE GUYS ON ADUS. YEAH. SO I AM WORRIED THAT THIS IS GOING IN FAVOR OF THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE VERSUS THE LETTER OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS NOT WHERE I WANT TO BE. AND I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL BETTER RELATED TO THE TREES OR OTHER FEATURES. RIGHT. WELL. I MEAN, AT THE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE WAY THAT I REALLY LOOK AT WHAT OUR JOB UP HERE TO TRY AND DO IS THAT WE TRY AND, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY COMES FORWARD WITH A SQUARE PEG AND WE TRY AND FIGURE OUT WHETHER IT'S ROUND ENOUGH TO FIT IN THE ROUND HOLE. THIS ISN'T COTTAGE GROVE. WE'VE GOT OLD WEIRD LOTS IN THIS PLACE. AND THAT'S THE THING IS THAT WE. AND THAT'S THE THING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE KIND OF THE WE'RE THE ONES THAT CAN KIND OF GO A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF THE. 
          YES. AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKING. THEY'RE SAYING WE CAN'T COMPLY WITH THE LETTER OF THE LAW. SO DOES THIS MATCH THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW? AND I THINK THAT THIS DEFINITELY DOES. YOU KNOW, IF NOTHING ELSE. THE OTHER THING THAT IT KIND OF DOES, WHAT I LOOK AT IS THAT PART OF WHAT YOU ALSO WANT TO HAVE IS YOU WANT TO HAVE A STREET FRONT, AND YOU WANT TO HAVE KIND OF BUILDINGS ON A RELATIVELY REGULAR SPACING. AND YES, THIS ISN'T GOING TO NECESSARILY BE A HOME, BUT IT IS GOING TO BE A PRESENCE ON THAT STREET FRONT AND KIND OF FILLING THAT IN A LITTLE BIT AS WELL, YOU KNOW, SO AND THAT'S APPROXIMATELY WHERE YOU LIKELY WOULD WANT TO HAVE A HOUSE IF THIS WERE TO BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, IF SOME FUTURE OWNER DECIDES TO SUBDIVIDE AND BUILD SOMETHING ELSE OR REHAB THAT GARAGE INTO SOMETHING ELSE, PUT IN A CHURCH THERE. YEAH, PUT A CHURCH BACK IN THERE. OR CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, IF I MAY ADD TO THAT POINT, IF THIS WERE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME INSTEAD OF A GARAGE WITH POTENTIAL LIVING SPACE OR ADU, THIS WOULD NOT NEED A VARIANCE BECAUSE 20FT IS THE SETBACK FOR A HOME IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT. IT'S JUST THAT IT'S NOT A PROPER DWELLING UNIT AS THE PRIMARY ON THIS LOT. I 
          [00:30:01]
HAVE A QUESTION AND I SHOULD HAVE ASKED IT OF STAFF. SO CAN YOU REMIND ME THE SCOPE OF HPC'S REVIEW OF THIS PARTICULAR DESIGN? BECAUSE PART OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING US TO HANG OUR HAT ON IS, OH, THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          BUT IF IT LOOKS LIKE A, YOU KNOW, A REGULAR OLD, YOU KNOW, 20, 26 TYPE GARAGE. THAT WOULD SEEM TO DEFEAT PART OF WHAT WE'RE DELIBERATING. SO I JUST CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT WHAT HPC. 
          RULES WOULD BE WITH RESPECT TO GARAGES IN THIS DISTRICT. SURE. THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION WOULD BE TASKED WITH ASSESSING THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE DESIGN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT'S DESIGN GUIDELINES, WHICH CALL FOR PRINCIPLES SUCH AS FOUR SIDED DESIGN, ENSURING THAT WINDOW TREATMENTS AND SIDING TREATMENTS ARE EQUALLY APPLIED TO ALL FOUR SIDES OF THE STRUCTURE, EVEN THOSE THAT ARE NON PUBLIC. IT WOULD ASK FOR MORE TRADITIONAL SIDING MATERIALS. THEY COULD REQUIRE OR REQUEST CERTAIN MASONRY ELEMENTS. A GABLED ROOF. THERE'S NOT BECAUSE THEIR DESIGN GUIDELINES AND NOT DESIGN STANDARDS. IT. WE CAN'T. WE CANNOT TELL THE APPLICANT THE WAY IN WHICH WE HOPE FOR THEM TO DESIGN THE GARAGE. BUT WE CAN SAY TO A PROPOSAL THAT'S SUBMITTED, THIS DOES NOT MEET THE INTENT OF THE GUIDELINES SET IN PLACE. AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, I WOULDN'T BE COMFORTABLE ASKING THAT. WE ALL GIVE THEM A DESIGN TEMPLATE FROM THE START. THE ONUS IS ON THE ARCHITECT OF THE GARAGE TO PREPARE A COMPLIANT DESIGN. WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES IN PLACE FROM THE OUTSET. SO USUALLY WE HAVE THE HPC HAS SEEN THINGS BEFORE IT COMES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IS THIS ON THE RADAR FOR THE HPC? THIS IS NOT YET. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED A BUILDING PERMIT, NOR HAVE THEY SUBMITTED A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS STRUCTURE. IT WILL BE RELAYED TO THE APPLICANT THAT. THAT WILL BE THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS. I DO AGREE WITH THE EARLIER COMMENTS ABOUT THE CONCERN THAT THIS MEETS THE SPIRIT, BUT NOT THE LETTER ON THAT. I ACTUALLY SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH THIS AND WERE THE SETBACK PERPENDICULAR OR TO THE ENTIRE LOT LINE AT THE 20FT, I WOULD BE LESS INCLINED TO EVEN ENTERTAIN IT. BUT BEING THAT THE ANGLE OF THE LOT IS SO SKEWED ON THAT, WHERE THE SOUTHERLY EDGE IS ABOUT 31FT SET BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, IT LENDS ITSELF TO BE LESS OF A NUISANCE. ONE OF MY MAJOR CONCERNS WAS LOOKING AT THAT THERE'S A SIDEWALK ON THAT SIDE. ONLY 20 FOOT SETBACK REALLY ISN'T ENOUGH ROOM FOR A CAR. 
          YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY, YOU KNOW, CARS JUST ALWAYS PARK, YOU KNOW, WITH THEIR TAILGATE KIND OF RIGHT IN THE WAY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A CONCERN. BUT JUST BECAUSE OF HOW IT'S SITUATED ON THAT, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE. YOU KNOW, DRIVING BY IT ACTUALLY WOULD PROBABLY MEET THE FLAVOR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS FAR AS THE SETBACKS. SO I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD STAND OUT OR CAUSE A NUISANCE. SO THAT'S MY IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR REASSURANCE, AS YOU SAID BEFORE, THAT WAS MY REASSURANCE ON THAT, YOU KNOW, AND ADD ON TO THAT SAVING SOME TREES LESS IMPERVIOUS, WE'D BE DOING LESS DAMAGE, YOU KNOW, PER SE, YOU KNOW, ALLOWING IT AS IS VERSUS GOING BY THE LETTER. THAT'S SOUNDING THAT'S SOUNDING REALLY CLOSE TO A MOTION. I'M JUST SUGGESTING. AND EITHER YOU COULD PICK THAT UP OR ANYONE ELSE UP HERE IN THE DAIS COULD MAYBE COULD WE TABLE THIS UNTIL HPC HAS HAD A CHANCE TO WEIGH IN? WE WANT HPC ON THIS BEFORE. YEP. CHAIR. COMMISSIONERS. ONE CHALLENGE WITH THAT IS THAT WE HAVE PASSED ALREADY THE TIMELINE BY WHICH THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT FOR. FOR JUNE 
          [00:35:08]
CONSIDERATION. SO WE'RE PUSHING THIS AT LEAST 60 DAYS OUT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION, PROVIDED THEY CAN HAVE ALL OF THEIR ARCHITECTURAL PLANS COMPLETED WITHIN THREE WEEKS TO MAKE JULY'S MEETING. SO I JUST WANT TO BE AWARE OF OUR REVIEW TIMELINE ON THIS PROJECT. IT'S FEASIBLE IF STAFF IS TO EXTEND THE 60 TO 120 DAYS NOTICE, BUT THERE'S NOT MUCH MORE ROOM BEYOND 120 DAYS. YES, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO AT SOONEST APPEAR BEFORE HPC JULY MEETING. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, I JUST WANTED TO ASK PROBE A LITTLE BIT MORE THE THE CONCERN AND WHY HAVING THE HPC WEIGH IN FIRST MIGHT MAKE YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE. 
          BECAUSE I GUESS THE. THE REQUIREMENT IS WHATEVER SUBMITTED HAS TO PASS THE HPC TO GET TO GET BUILT. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT THAT THEY CAN COME IN AND DO ANYTHING. THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH HPC. AND SO WHETHER THE HPC IS APPROVING THE DESIGN BEFORE OR AFTER, IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THAT. AND IF IF HPC IS APPROVING IT WITHOUT KNOWING EXACTLY WHERE IT SITS ON THE LOT, THAT MAY INFLUENCE THE DESIGN AND HOW THAT ACTUALLY LOOKS. SO IT'S KIND OF A CHICKEN AND EGG. ONE OF THEM HAS TO GO FIRST, BUT THEY CAN BE KIND OF VIEWED SOMEWHAT INDEPENDENTLY. YOU'RE PROVING THE LOCATION, BUT THE DESIGN HAS TO GO THROUGH THE HPC REGARDLESS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS. WELL, I UNDERSTAND AND I WAS ON HPC BEFORE, SO WE AND WHILE IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT, A LEGAL REQUIREMENT, I THINK IT HAS BEEN THE VERY STRONG PREFERENCE THAT HPC TAKES A LOOK AT THE DESIGN FIRST, KNOWING THAT, YOU KNOW, VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED. AND WE FREQUENTLY HAD THAT SITUATION. SO AS A HPC ALUMNI, YOU KNOW, I'M, YOU KNOW, CARRYING THE FLAG AND SAYING IT, IT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE AND PREFERENCE. I THINK THAT THESE MATTERS GO TO HPC FIRST. AND IN ADDITION, THIS APPLICATION WEIGHS PRETTY HEAVILY ON THE. HIS HISTORY OF THE AREA. I MEAN, I THINK IT WAS PRETTY DARN COOL THAT WE HAD THESE SANBORN MAPS TO TAKE A LOOK AT. AND I HAVE TO COMMEND THE APPLICANT FOR YOUR HISTORICAL RESEARCH. BUT I THINK THAT THAT IS AN ELEMENT THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER IS WHETHER THIS IS IN KEEPING WITH THE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TEST AS WELL. SO I, I THINK IT IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE THAT HPC TAKES A LOOK AT THE DESIGN FIRST. AND WITH THAT IN MIND, I AGAIN, I WOULD YOU MOVING TO TABLE, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE TABLE IT TO HPC ADEQUATE TIME TO TAKE A LOOK AND TELL US WHAT THEY THINK. OKAY WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND I WOULD SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION BEFORE US? I DEFINITELY RESPECT YOUR OPINION ON THE HPC. I THINK IT'S DEFINITELY A BENEFIT, YOU KNOW, TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, SETTING PRECEDENT AND FOLLOWING, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUS CONSTRUCTION AND ESTHETICS. HOWEVER, I, I DON'T THINK TABLING THIS AND HAVING IT GO IN FRONT OF THE HPC IS REALLY GOING TO PROVE A LOT OF BENEFITS TO THIS SITUATION. 
          LOOKING AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON DOING. AND PLUS, I SAY THAT MIGHT CAUSE SOME UNDUE STRAIN ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS. WE'RE ALREADY END OF MAY. NOW WE'RE LOOKING OUT. EVEN RIGHT NOW, THEY AREN'T GOING TO BREAK GROUND UNTIL JULY BY THE TIME ALL THE PERMITS ARE GOING TO GET DONE SO WELL, HE STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH HPC 100%. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT DELAYING THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS GOING TO BENEFIT IT, BECAUSE IT'S IT'S STILL GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL THE BUILDING CODES, CITY REQUIREMENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE GOING THROUGH. BUT I, I, AS YOU SAID, JASON, IT MIGHT BE THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT WE CAN AT LEAST GET THIS PROCESS GOING WITHOUT DELAYING CONSTRUCTION OF IT. JUST MY MY OPINION AND I TEND TO AGREE WITH THAT, WHICH IS YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT. MIKE'S NOT ON. THANK YOU. SORRY, EVERYONE. NOW YOU GET TO HEAR 
          [00:40:05]
MY BEAUTIFUL VOICE. SO I WOULD TEND TO AGREE THAT THE TIMING. I'M LESS CONCERNED ABOUT THE TIMING, BUT I AM IN AGREEMENT THAT HPC DOES HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE THIS WILL HAVE SUCH A DOMINANT FEATURE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A GARAGE VERSUS A RESIDENCE. AND SO IT JUST HAS A DIFFERENT ESTHETIC TO IT EXPECTATION. AND SO I AGREE THAT HPC DOES HAVE TO APPROVE IT, GIVEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I'M INDIFFERENT TO THE TIMING. SO WHETHER THEY APPROVE IT BEFORE WE APPROVE IT OR WHETHER THEY APPROVE IT AFTER OR DENY IT, IS THEIR THEIR INPUT WILL BE HAD. SO I'M INDIFFERENT ON THE TIMING OF IT. IN ADDITION TO THE HISTORY PIECE, WHY I SECOND THIS MOTION IS TO ME, IT'S ALSO UNDERSTANDING THE STRUCTURE THAT I REALLY APPRECIATE. STAFF'S POINT RELATED TO THE 20 FOOT SETBACK. IF IT WAS, YOU KNOW, MORE OF A STRUCTURE THAT WAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR A CHURCH VERSUS A TRADITIONAL GARAGE, AND JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION AND ABLE TO LIKE, FACTOR IN THOSE FACTORS. I'M REALLY STRUGGLING WITH THE VARIANCE PIECE AND THE, THE 30 FOOT REQUIRED PIECE. I KNOW WE COME UP HERE ALL THE TIME AND WE TALK ABOUT NOT HAVING AS MUCH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. AND I WANT TO GET THERE. I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS IS THIS IS A FAST SKATE ON THIN ICE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SO THE MOTION BEFORE US IS TO TABLE THIS ITEM. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING I, I, I, THOSE OPPOSED NAY, NAY. SO THAT MOTION DOES NOT CARRY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER. I DON'T HAVE TO VOTE, I. SO. THAT'S ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES OF BEING THE CHAIR. PARDON ME, CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, JUST FOR MY RECORD, MAY I TAKE DOWN. WOULD YOU MIND DOING A ROLL CALL OF THE VOTES THAT WERE HAD JUST SO I CAN WAIT SO OR SO. IT NEEDS TO BE CALLED FOR A DIVISION OR OR NEEDS TO BE CALLED. SOMEONE NEEDS TO REQUEST THAT BEFORE WE ACTUALLY DO IT. OKAY, NEVERMIND. THE CHAIR MAKES A RULING. TYPICALLY THE WAY THAT IT WORKS. 
          UNDER ROBERT'S RULES, THE CHAIR MAKES A RULING WHETHER IT PASSES OR NOT, AND I COULD HAVE RULED THE OTHER DIRECTION. SOMEBODY COULD HAVE CALLED ME ON MY BS AT THAT POINT AND SAID, I DON'T THINK SO. LET'S TAKE THE ROLL. AND WE WOULD HAVE TO EVERYBODY LEARN MORE HERE BY ACCIDENT THAN ELSEWHERE BY DESIGN. RIGHT? SO, YOU KNOW, SO IF SOMEONE, YOU KNOW, SO SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO CHALLENGE THE RULING OF THE CHAIR ON WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE A YOU WANT, YOU WANT, YOU WANT A ROLL CALL ON THAT. OKAY. OKAY. SO, OKAY, SO IF YOU CAN TAKE TAKE THE ROLE COMMISSIONER SWANSON. NAY, CHAIR DYBVIG NAY, VICE CHAIR STEINWALL I, COMMISSIONER NORTH NAY. COMMISSIONER JIMENEZ, I COUNCIL MEMBER. ODEBRECHT. NAY. OKAY. I'LL MAKE A TABLE. 
          BUT NOW WE NEED A MOTION FOR THE REST OF THE. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE THREE STATED. WHY CAN'T I FIND THAT WORD? CONDITIONS, CONDITIONS. THANK YOU. YEP. 
          THERE HAD BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SECOND CURB CUT AS WELL. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO CONSIDER IN YOUR MOTION OR. NO, NO, I THINK IT'S CLEAN. OKAY. I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND I WOULD ALSO SAY I RESPECT THE OPINION OF OF GETTING HPC. AND I, I WAS PERSUADED BY COMMISSIONER NORRIS, YOU KNOW, THE TIMING IS, IS OF LESS OF A CONCERN. THE ONLY THING I'D ADD TO THIS IS WHILE FASCINATING ABOUT THE SCANDINAVIAN BAPTIST CHURCH, AND I HAVE A NOTE HERE TO LOOK AT IT. I DO THINK THAT'S A BIT OF A RED HERRING INSIDE OF THIS. I DON'T THINK WE CAN MAKE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BASED ON A CHURCH. 
          WAS THERE ONCE SO. BUT WE DO NEED TO MAKE A FINDING ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO YEAH. DO YOU HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE? I CAN'T THINK OF ONE. WELL, I'M NOT BEING FRIENDLY ON. DO YOU HAVE AN UNFRIENDLY. THAT I CAN TAKE? HOWEVER, I DARN WELL PLEASE DO SO. NO, I THINK WHAT I THINK THE POINT THAT SHE'S TRYING TO MAKE IS MORE ALONG THE LINES OF THAT. THAT'S THE REASON TO GET THE HPC TO WEIGH IN FIRST IS TO SEE IF IT FITS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE OTHER ARGUMENT I MAKE IS WE DON'T HAVE TIME ON THE CLOCK. SO. YEP. SO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? SO FROM A VISUAL ESTHETIC WITH HPC ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION NOW THAT THERE'LL BE TWO IMPERVIOUS DRIVEWAYS. WELL WE'RE NOT REQUIRING EITHER ONE BE REMOVED. SO SO THAT MEANS THAT WE ARE 
          [00:45:04]
NOT ASKING THE HPC TO REVIEW THAT. WE ARE THEY'LL REVIEW THE DESIGN. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'LL REVIEW IT. AND I DON'T THINK AND I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE THE ABILITY OR POWER TO REMOVE TO HAVE THAT AS PART OF THEIR DESIGN REVIEW. FOR CLARITY OF THE COMMISSION, CAN I ASK FOR CLARITY ON THE LOT WIDTH MAXIMUM FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME? THE DRIVEWAY. 
          EXCUSE ME. THE DRIVEWAY WIDTH? YES, A CURB. THERE'S NO MAXIMUM ON A DRIVEWAY WIDTH, BUT THE WIDTH AT THE CURB MUST BE NO GREATER THAN 20FT. BEYOND THAT, SOME HOMES TAPER IT TO GET WIDER IF THEY HAVE A THREE CAR GARAGE, BUT AT THE STREET IT CAN'T BE MORE THAN 20. AND THE SITE PLAN THAT WE SEE HERE DOES NOT TAPER. SO. SO BY DEFINITION, IF THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD IT AS PLANNED, THE OTHER CURB CUT WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED. CORRECT? THAT IS NOT CORRECT. 
          YOU CAN HAVE MULTIPLE CURB CUTS WITH A MAX WIDTH OF 20FT, CUMULATIVE 20FT PER CURB INDIVIDUALLY. I'M SORRY, I MISUNDERSTOOD THAT. OKAY, SO IT'S NOT A TOTAL PER LOT. IT'S PER DRIVEWAY. THIS IS CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFICATION. IT CAN BE NARROWER. THIS IS THIS LIVES IN THE ENGINEERING PART OF THE CODE, NOT THE PLANNING PART. 
          HOWEVER, IF THIS IS OF CONCERN TO THE COMMISSION, I'M CERTAIN THAT WE CAN WORK A CONDITION IN THERE TO APPEASE. THAT'S FINE. MY APOLOGIES. DIFFERENT CITIES DO IT DIFFERENTLY. I JUST NEEDED AN UPDATE ON THAT. THANK YOU. WELL, I ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? YES. I THINK THAT WHILE IT'S NOT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, IT IS, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE RECONSIDER THE SECOND CURB CUT. WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST WITH OTHER APPLICANTS. AND I THINK WE SHOULD BE CONSISTENT. I DON'T THINK THAT TWO DRIVEWAYS ARE NECESSARILY NEEDED OR WARRANTED HERE. AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONSISTENCY, I THINK WE SHOULD. MAKE A AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THE NORTHERLY DRIVEWAY CURB CUT BE ELIMINATED. OKAY. MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION? WELL, I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU IF YOU WERE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. WELL, IT WAS IT WAS OVERTLY STATED AS NOT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. SO I JUST TRYING TO ACKNOWLEDGE CAN I CAN I MAKE ONE SUGGESTION? MY DEFINITION OF WHAT IT IS, IS THAT IT'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. BUT YES, CAN WE HEAR FROM THE HOMEOWNER AND SEE IF THIS IS AN ISSUE FOR THE HOMEOWNER? IF THIS ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR A HOMEOWNER, THIS BECOMES SUPER EASY. IF I COULD PRESS THE BUTTON AND TURN IT GREEN AND THEN NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE FOR THE RECORD, MARTIN 610 FIFTH STREET NORTH, STILLWATER. YES, THE PLAN IS TO REMOVE THAT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY. AND WE ACTUALLY HAD A CURB CUT NORTH OF THE HOUSE TO, TO INITIALLY PROPOSE A GARAGE BEHIND WHERE THE HISTORIC CARRIAGE HOUSE WAS. BUT THAT WAS TRICKY TO GET INTO THE GARAGE IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE CAR BECAUSE OF SETBACK RULES THERE, AS WELL AS HUGE DRIVEWAY. SO PLAN IS TO REMOVE THAT STAMPED CONCRETE DRIVEWAY. PROBABLY WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR US TO BE ABLE TO PARK OUR CAR OFF THE STREET. BUT THEN ONCE THE CONSTRUCTION JOB IS DONE, REMOVE IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. GREAT. THANKS. IF I CAN RESTATE, I THINK WHERE WE'RE AT IS A CONDITION TO REMOVE THE STAMPED DRIVEWAY AFTER CONSTRUCTION. 
          WITH THE CURB CUT GOING AWAY. NEXT TIME WE DO THE STREET REPAIR. EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT? OKAY, OKAY. SO THAT IS THE CURRENT MOTION BEFORE US. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? ONE LAST THING. I THINK IT'S ALREADY A CONDITION, BUT IF WE CAN JUST ASK THAT THE STAFF, WHEN PRESENTING TO HPC, TALK THROUGH THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD, THAT OUR APPROVAL WAS NOT JUST IT JUST KIND OF TALK THAT THROUGH BECAUSE AGAIN, THE SEQUENCE IS A LITTLE BIT UNUSUAL. AND SO WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T COME IN WITH ANY ASSUMPTIONS OF WHAT OUR THOUGHTS WERE. OKAY. THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO JUST THROW OUT THERE, THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY DIRECTLY TOWARDS THIS ITEM, BUT, YOU KNOW, AS WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR ZONING CODE, I THINK IT DOES MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO SUGGEST THAT A VARIANCE APPLICATION IS NOT COMPLETE UNTIL HPC APPROVAL HAS BEEN OBTAINED. YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT TRYING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT WAY OUR CLOCK DOESN'T START UNTIL HPC IS HAS GOTTEN HAS GOTTEN THEIR CHANCE TO WEIGH IN. THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. SO THAT WOULD JUST BE A 
          [00:50:09]
RECOMMENDATION FOR STAFF. I THINK. I THINK THEY'RE AWARE. SO BUT SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THIS ITEM, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. 
          THOSE OPPOSED THAT MOTION CARRIES. CONGRATULATIONS. THAT WAS MORE FUN THAN IT SHOULD 
          [4. Case No. CD2026-027: Variance Request to Front Yard Setback Requirements to Construct an Attached Garage at 2202 Boom Road North (Staff Reviewer: Johnny Menhennet, 651-430-8822, jmenhennet@stillwatermn.gov)]
HAVE BEEN. IT WAS. NEXT UP. CASE CD 2026 027 VARIANCE REQUEST TO A FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE AT 2202 BOOM ROAD NORTH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. OUR LAST VARIANCE OF THE EVENING IS BEFORE US. THIS ONE IS TO THE FRONT SETBACK FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW GARAGE AND LIVING SPACE. THIS IS IN THE RA1 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. AND IT'S IN THE SAINT CROIX RIVER OVERLAY DISTRICT. BUT THERE ARE NO DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS OR DISTRICTS THAT THIS PROPERTY IS BEHOLDEN TO. 
          THE EXISTING HOME DOES NOT HAVE ANY GARAGE. IT'S SANDWICHED BETWEEN BOOM ROAD AND A SIGNIFICANT BLUFF. THE CURRENT SETBACK IS SUBSTANDARD. 30FT IS REQUIRED, 18.4FT EXISTS TODAY AND 16.4 IS BEING REQUESTED. SO THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE OF TWO FEET TO THE EXISTING SETBACK IN THIS DISTRICT. THE SITE CHALLENGES INCLUDE WORKING AROUND AN EXISTING SEPTIC FIELD AND STEEP SLOPES TO THE WEST, SANDWICHING AVAILABLE SPACE BETWEEN THE BLUFF AND THE ROAD. SO HERE WE CAN SEE BOOM ROAD JUST TO THE WEST OF HIGHWAY 95, IN THE VERY NORTHEASTERNMOST CORNER OF STILLWATER, AND OUR HOME IS SITUATED AT A DIAGONAL TO THE ROAD. AS IT STANDS TODAY, THIS SITE PLAN. IF YOU COULD SEE THE 18.4FT TO THIS FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAT FRONTS BOOM ROAD IS TO THE CORNER OF THE HOME. AS DEPICTED HERE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO GET TWO FEET CLOSER WITH A TAPERED ENTRY INTO A GARAGE THAT THEN ALLOWS FOR PARKING SPACE, IN ADDITION TO A WORKSHOP, WITH A SECOND LEVEL BEING BUILT ATOP THAT CONTAINS SOME LIVING SPACE HIGHLIGHTED BY THE APPLICANT AS A KITCHEN. SO THE CHALLENGES THAT ARE BEFORE US IN THIS ASK ARE THE FACT THAT. IN ORDER TO NOT ENCROACH FURTHER THAN THE HOME TODAY DOES INTO AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT SLOPE, AS CAN BE REPRESENTED BY CONTOURS, AS WELL AS TO ACCOMMODATE THE SEPTIC DRAIN FIELD THAT EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY. THERE IS NOT MUCH AVAILABLE ROOM TO WORK WITH HERE, SO THE APPLICANT HAS DONE WHAT THEY COULD. THIS APPLICANT WORKED WITH BEN PRIOR TO HIS FAMILY LEAVE FOR OVER SIX WEEKS, REFINING THE DESIGN AND BRINGING ABOUT THE PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE TODAY. THIS WAS BEN'S BELIEF THAT IT'S THE MOST WORKABLE SOLUTION GIVEN THE ODD CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT AND THE WAY IN WHICH THE HOME IS ALREADY SITUATED, NOT EITHER. SITUATED DIAGONALLY TOWARD THE STREET, THE GARAGE DOOR, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WILL BE THIS CLOSEST POINT TO THE ROAD, THOUGH IF I'M INCORRECT IN. THE APPLICANT HAS WANTS TO CORRECT ME WHEN IT'S DUE. IT MAY BE ON THE EASTERN SIDE. THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ARE THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY ARE THAT THERE'S A SEPTIC DRAIN FIELD THAT REQUIRES THAT A DRIVEWAY THAT CONNECTS INTO THE GARAGE THAT LOOPS AROUND TO ACCESS FROM THE SIDE WOULD CROSS OVER THE DRAIN FIELD, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO ACCESS A MORE TRADITIONAL SIDE LOADING GARAGE. IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT PUSHING IT FURTHER BACK AGAINST THE HOME, AGAINST THE BLUFF WOULD BE UNSOUND AND WOULD MAKE THE ACQUISITION OF A GRADING PERMIT LIKELY WHOLLY INFEASIBLE FROM OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE LENGTHY. I DON'T INTEND TO READ THESE ALL OUT LOUD TO YOU, BUT THEY REQUIRE THAT EVERYTHING THAT RELATES TO THE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND SEPTIC FIELD BE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY, WHICH REGULATES THESE ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS, AS WELL AS THE FACT 
          [00:55:03]
THAT BROWNS CREEK WATERSHED APPROVE THE DESIGN PRIOR TO ACQUISITION OF BUILDING PERMITS AS WELL. BEYOND THAT, THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT ARE RECOMMENDED REQUIRE THAT PROPER PERMITS BE APPROVED BY THE CITY BUILDING AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS, THAT BEING A GRADING PERMIT FOR WORK DONE IN PROXIMITY TO SLOPE. WITH THAT, I WILL TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS. OH, THE MOTION TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION PC2026-07 APPROVING A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE OF 16.4FT AT 2202 BOOM ROAD NORTH, WHICH IS A TWO FOOT REDUCTION FROM EXISTING CONDITIONS. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? JUST ONE QUESTION. SO I KNOW WE HAVE A SLOPE ORDINANCE THAT HAS COME BEFORE US FROM TIME TO TIME. 
          DOES THIS PROPOSED ADDITION. TO WHAT EXTENT, IF AT ALL, DOES THIS PROPOSED ADDITION IMPACT THE THE SLOPE ORDINANCE AND OUR REQUIREMENTS UNDER THAT ORDINANCE? GREAT. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS FOR THE QUESTION. THE SLOPE ORDINANCE PROHIBITS CONSTRUCTION ATOP A BLUFF WITHIN 30FT OF THAT BLUFF LINE, AND IT REQUIRES ANYTHING AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT BLUFF LINE OF A SLOPE GREATER THAN 24%, WHICH THIS IS GREATER THAN 24% UP HERE, MUST RECEIVE A GRADING PERMIT AND MUST PROVE SOIL STABILITY. SO IN ORDER TO GET A GRADING PERMIT TO WORK WITHIN PROXIMITY OF 30FT OF THE BOTTOM OF THAT BLUFF, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO PROVE SOIL SUITABILITY WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO GET THE GRADING PERMIT TO GET THE BUILDING PERMIT. OKAY, SO HENCE THE CONDITION AS YOU JUST SPELLED IT OUT. YES. THE. WHY IS IT MY SPOT? I'M OKAY. CONDITION SEVEN AND EIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT CONDITION TWO. YES. SORRY. CAN YOU KIND OF EXPLAIN WHAT, LIKE WOULD BE A MINOR DESIGN MODIFICATION THAT WOULDN'T REQUIRE IT TO COME BACK HERE OR TO ANOTHER PLACE? YES, I WILL ATTEMPT TO DO SO. FOR THE RECORD, THIS RESOLUTION AND STAFF REPORT WERE WRITTEN BY BEN PRIOR TO HIS DEPARTURE. AND PLUS, JOHNNY JUST CAME UP WITH THE SLOW THING OFF THE TOP OF HIS HEAD. CAN WE JUST A DESIGN MODIFICATION THAT IS MINOR WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT MODIFIES THE. WIDTH OF THE STRUCTURE, BUT DOES NOT EXCEED THE APPROVED SETBACK, OR IF THE APPROVED. IF THE APPLICANT CHOOSES TO SHIFT THE ORIENTATION OF THE GARAGE DOOR FROM ONE SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE TO ANOTHER. BUT THE MASSING OF THE BUILDING DOES NOT CHANGE, THESE WOULD BE MINOR. ADDITIONALLY, IF THE APPLICANT CHOOSES TO BUILD THE SINGLE LEVEL AS APPROVED BUT OPTS NOT TO BUILD THE KITCHEN SPACE ON THE SECOND FLOOR ABOVE, THAT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD RETURN TO YOU ALL WITH. 
          THANK YOU. ANYTHING THAT SEEKS TO INCREASE THE SETBACK TO A DISTANCE GREATER THAN WHAT YOU HAVE ALL APPROVED WOULD RETURN FOR AN ADDITIONAL REVIEW. OKAY. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? GREAT. THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYTHING THEY WISH TO ADD? YES. WHY DON'T YOU COME ON. 
          COME ON. FORWARD TO THE TO THE DAIS. HE'S GOING TO FIND A BUTTON ON THERE TO PRESS TO TURN IT GREEN. AND THEN IF I CAN GET YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. WILLIAM DUPREE, 2202 BROOM ROAD, STILLWATER. YEAH, I'VE I'VE HAD SEVEN TRIPS TO CORNERSTONE LANDSCAPING TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THIS THREE, THREE ATTEMPTS WITH A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO PULL THIS OFF. IT'S BEEN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. AND ONE POINT THAT ISN'T KIND OF BEING BROUGHT UP HERE, BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS INTEGRATE. I'M ONLY LOOKING FOR TWO FEET AT THE WIDEST POINT IN A WEDGE TO 17FT, WHERE IT DIMINISHES TO ZERO. SO IT'S LITERALLY JUST THIS. I NEED 
          [01:00:01]
THAT TRIANGLE THERE BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO GET SO MY PEAK. I NEED THIS COMPLICATED, BUT THERE'S A STAIRS THAT NEEDS TO GO IN HERE. THIS IS A KEG ROOM. THIS USED TO BE A GARDENER BAR. 
          AND I'M GOING TO SORRY. I, I KNOW YOU WANT TO TRY AND POINT OUT ON THE, ON THE ON THE PICTURE, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO GET YOU ON THE MICROPHONE BECAUSE IT'S BEING RECORDED. 
          OKAY. YEAH. BUT ANYWAY. MR. JOHNNY MAYBE HAS A RED BUTTON IS A LASER POINTER. OH, OKAY. 
          OKAY. YEAH. SO, SO RIGHT. IF I GET A STEADY HAND THERE, I'M TRYING TO GET THIS LITTLE TRIANGLE RIGHT. THERE IS ALL I'M REALLY LOOKING FOR BECAUSE THE SPACING BETWEEN MY WINDOWS AND THE EXISTING HOUSE, I'VE GOT THREE WINDOWS HERE AND A FRONT DOOR I'M TRYING TO DO IS GET THREE WINDOWS HERE WITH THE FRONT DOOR BEING CENTERED. AND THEN I GET MY GARAGE DOOR OVER HERE WITH A SERVICE DOOR. AND THERE'S SYMMETRY TO THAT PLACE BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S, I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT'S HISTORIC, BUT IT'S A 30S HOME. IT'S GOT HISTORY IN STILLWATER. IT USED TO BE A PUB AND IT'S GOT A STONE LOT OF STONEWORK IN THE FRONT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE EVER SEEN THE LITTLE COTTAGE LOOKING HOUSE BACK THERE, BUT I'M TRYING TO INTEGRATE ALL THAT TOGETHER. SO I NEEDED THAT EXTRA TWO FEET JUST IN THAT LITTLE CORNER TO GET MY WINDOW SPACING EQUAL. SO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WILL LOOK THE SAME ALL THE WAY ACROSS. OKAY, SO IS THIS A SPEAKEASY AT SOME POINT? YEAH IT WAS. THAT'S COOL. YEAH. SO THAT'S A AND THE EASIEST SOLUTION TO THIS WHOLE THING WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST TO TEAR THIS. THIS IS A KEG ROOM, BUT IT'S I DON'T WANT TO TEAR IT OUT OF THERE. IT'S LIKE A BIG GIANT BUNKER WHERE THEY USED TO KEEP THE KEGS BURIED. IS THAT LIKE A AND FORGIVE ME, I'M JUST AT THIS POINT, I'M JUST FEEDING MY INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY. BUT IS THAT LIKE A IN GROUND THING SO THAT THEY COULD HIDE IT OR IT'S IT'S ATTACHED TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE. SO I THINK IT WAS IT'S OBVIOUS TO SEE, BUT IT'S JUST THIS CONCRETE BUNKER STICKING ON TO THE BASEMENT OF THE HOUSE. 
          BRANT PETERSON RUNS THE WASHINGTON COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY, AND I'M SURE HE WOULD BE FASCINATED AND MORE THAN WILLING TO COME OUT AND TAKE PICTURES AND HELP YOU WITH DOCUMENTATION ON THAT. THAT'D BE COOL. YEAH. REACH OUT TO ME. I'M THE ONLY LARRY ON COUNCIL, SO I'M EASY TO FIND. OKAY. IF YOU WANT A CONNECTION, I'D BE HAPPY TO. I WOULD, BECAUSE THIS GRANT THE ORIGINAL GRANTS ON STOPPED BY WHEN I WAS WORKING ON IT ONE DAY AND GAVE ME THE WHOLE HISTORY OF IT, AND THAT'S. I LOVE THAT I KNEW SO MUCH ABOUT IT. SO THAT'S COOL. YEAH. 
          SO GREAT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, FINDING OUT MORE ABOUT THE KEG ROOMS. YEAH. SO MANY. NOTHING RELATED TO THIS. OKAY, GREAT. THANKS. WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO TESTIFY, PLEASE COME FORWARD. BUT SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          COMMISSIONERS, WHAT DO WE THINK? DO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS? I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE FOR A LITTLE BIT OF DEBATE, BECAUSE I THINK WE GET TO BETTER DECISIONS. AND FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, CITY ATTORNEY LAND HAS SAID WE'RE OKAY WITH BENDING THAT A LITTLE BIT. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF RED HERRINGS IN THIS ONE. I'M REALLY PLEASED WITH THE SEPTIC FIELD THING, BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN SAY THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY RESTS ON THAT. AS COOL AS THE KEG ROOM IS, I DON'T THINK IT PRESENTS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, NOR DOES THE SIZE OF THE TRUCK, NOR ICE, NOR. SOME OF THE VIEWS AND AND OTHER PIECES THAT WERE IN THERE DO NOT. AND THAT IS NOT A, A SLIGHT OR ANYTHING. WE ARE HERE AS A QUASI JUDICIAL BODY, AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LIKE MAKE THIS CALL ON IT. SO I, I, I THINK I'M GOOD WITH THIS JUST BASED ON THE SEPTIC FIELD ALONE. AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BRING THE OTHER PIECES INTO IT OTHER THAN JUST THE TOPOGRAPHY IS AWFUL IN THAT AREA, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE SEPTIC THERE. WE'VE GOT VERY FEW HOMES ON SEPTIC, BUT OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HAS ASSURED ME THAT WE WOULD BANKRUPT MISTER DUPREE AND ALL OF HIS NEIGHBORS IF WE TRY TO GET RUNNING WATER AND SEWER. 
          YEAH. EXTENDED SEWER IN THERE. SO. SO YEAH. AND I MEAN, THE OTHER PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, OF COURSE, IS THE VERY STEEP SLOPE ON THE PROPERTY TO. YEAH. SO I, YEAH, I AGREE THAT A KEG ROOM IS NOT A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. ANY, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR DO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS. I MADE 
          [01:05:08]
THE LAST MOTION. WELL ALL RIGHT, I'LL MOVE IT. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE. I CAN'T I LOST THE NUMBER HERE BECAUSE I WASN'T GOOD. WE APPROVE CASE NUMBER CD2026-027. A VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE FRONT YARD. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE AT 2202 BOOM ROAD NORTH. WITH ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, WHICH ARE NUMEROUS AS AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND AND WE HAVE A 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. GOOD LUCK. 
          [5. Case No. CD2026-023: Zoning Map Amendment at 1675 Market Drive – Business Park - Commercial to Park, Recreation, or Open Space (Staff Reviewer: Jason Zimmerman, 651-430-8821, jzimmerman@stillwatermn.gov)]
NEXT UP IS A CD 2026 023 A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AT 1675 MARKET DRIVE. BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL TO PARK, RECREATION OR OPEN SPACE. MR. ZIMMERMAN. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS FOR THE NEXT PRESENTATION, BUT TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET STUFF UP. SO I DON'T NEED TO LOOK AT THE SCREEN YET. YOU WILL RECALL, I THINK, TWO, TWO CASES THAT CAME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OVER THE LAST YEAR, PLUS RELATED TO THIS PROPERTY. ONE WAS ABOUT EXPANSION OF A PARKING LOT BY THE REC CENTER, AND THE SECOND ONE HAD TO DO WITH A PROPOSAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CANNABIS RETAIL IN THIS LOCATION. AND BOTH OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS KIND OF INVOLVED THE ZONING OF THIS PROPERTY. 
          AND WE PROCEEDED AS IF WITH CERTAINTY THAT IT WAS ZONED PARK RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE. 
          AS WE GOT INTO SOME ADDITIONAL LEGAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OWNERS OF THE PROPOSED CANNABIS, WE WERE ASKED TO KIND OF GO BACK AND SHOW THEM WHERE THE ZONING HAD BEEN CHANGED AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST, AND EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE BEEN SPENDING, I THINK, A GOOD 20 YEARS OR SO LOOKING AT THIS AND TREATING IT AS IF PARK RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ZONING, THE COMP PLAN CALLS IT OUT. IT'S INCLUDED. AS PART OF THAT COMP PLAN, WE WERE UNABLE TO FIND THE SPECIFIC ORDINANCE THAT OFFICIALLY DID THAT. MUCH TO OUR BENEFIT. THE THE, THE JUDGE IN THIS CASE DETERMINED THAT WAS SUFFICIENT. BUT OUR CITY ATTORNEY SAID, JUST TO BE SAFE, COULD WE GO AND KIND OF REAFFIRM THAT THE ZONING IS IN FACT, PARK RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE AND NOT THE BUSINESS PARK COMMERCIAL THAT IT WAS MANY YEARS AGO. SO IT IS NOT BEING ASKED BY ANYONE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY. THIS IS CITY STAFF AT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S RECOMMENDATION, LOCKING THIS IN AND MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. AND SO WE ARE BRINGING FORWARD AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP. BUT REALLY, IT IS A REQUEST TO KIND OF CONFIRM THAT THE ZONING AT THIS LOCATION IS PARK RECREATION, OPEN SPACE. AND THEN IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SITE GOING FORWARD, WE WILL ALL BE ON THE SAME PAGE. AND I SHOULD NOTE, THERE ARE TWO PROPERTIES. THERE'S BOTH THE PROPERTY WITH THE DOME AND THE PARKING LOT. 
          AND THEN TO THE WEST, THERE'S THE SECOND LOT, WHICH HAS THE OPEN SPACE AND THE THE MAIN PARKING LOT. SO THOSE ARE THE PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. STAFF BELIEVES, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TREATING IT THIS WAY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. AND EVERYONE'S ASSUMPTION UP TO THIS POINT HAS BEEN THAT IS ZONED THIS WAY. WE WOULD RECOMMEND GOING AHEAD AND MAKING THAT EXTRA SPECIALLY CONFIRMED AND APPROVING THIS MAP AMENDMENT. HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, WITH THAT I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. BUT SEEING NO ONE COMING FORWARD, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, WHAT DO WE THINK ABOUT THIS ITEM? DO WE HAVE IS THERE A MOTION OR IS THERE A DISCUSSION OF SOME SORT? OR. I WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO MAKE A MOTION. 
          WELL, I'M JUST LOST AS TO WHAT WE'RE. IF YOU WANT TO APPROVE IT OR DENY IT. YEAH. THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO COUNCIL. YES I WOULD, I RECOMMEND YOURSELF. I THINK I'M ALSO THE APPLICANT. I COULD BE WRONG. MAYBE THE APPLICANT AS WELL. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 
          [01:10:01]
CASE NUMBER CD2026-24 DOT COMPREHENSIVE. NO 023023. DAMN IT. SEE, I COMPLETELY OFF ON THIS. I'M JUST GOING TO STOP THERE. OKAY? FOR THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AT 1675 MARKET DRIVE. 
          THANK YOU. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND AND WE HAVE A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM. I WOULD JUST NOTE I HAVE READ THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS ON THIS, AND I WAS SURPRISED THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, CITY ATTORNEY LAND SAID NOT ONLY WAS IT EXTREMELY FAVORABLE TO US, IT WAS KIND OF AND IT READS THIS WAY KIND OF A DUH. IT'S A PARK TYPE OF THING. IT IS ACTUALLY PRECEDENT SETTING, AND IT'S GOING TO HELP A LOT OF CITIES WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, NAVIGATE THIS CANNABIS PARK THING. SO THIS WAS AN EXCRUCIATING ONE. I THINK CERTAINLY FOR YOU GUYS, FOR US AS A PLANNING COMMISSION AND AS CITY COUNCIL, IT WAS MUDDY AT TIMES, AND I THINK WE GOT TO THE RIGHT SPOT. AND I THINK THAT'S WORTH CELEBRATING BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS A IT WAS A TOUGH ONE WITH A LOT OF CHARGED EMOTIONS ON EITHER SIDE. 
          AND FOR THE THE JUDGE TO LAND ON. NOPE. YOU GOT THIS ONE RIGHT. AND OTHER CITIES SHOULD, YOU KNOW, TAKE NOTE THAT IF YOU HAVE SOME PAPERWORK, A LOT OF LINE WITH IT, BUT YOU'RE USING IT AS A PARK. IT LOOKS LIKE A PARK. IT SMELLS LIKE A PARK. IT'S A PARK. WHICH JUDGE DID THAT? OH. I'VE GOT IT HERE. SO I CAN SEND IT TO YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? SO FOR ME, THE ONE BIG CONCERN THAT I HAVE ABOUT THIS, AND IT KIND OF GOES ACTUALLY KIND OF COUNTER TO WHAT WE WERE HEARING FROM COMMISSIONER ODEBRECHT HERE JUST A MOMENT AGO, IS THAT THIS IS A SPACE, BUT IT IS NOT OVERSEEN BY THE PARK BOARD. AND THE ONLY REASON THAT I THINK THAT THAT IS IMPORTANT OR THAT'S REASON, YOU KNOW, AND THE REASON THAT I THINK THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO TAKE A LOOK AT IS THAT THIS PARK RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ZONING IS EXTREMELY PERMISSIVE WITH ALL THE SETBACKS, WITH ALL THE IMPERVIOUSNESS AND ALL OF THAT AND THE WAY THAT WE ALL CAN GET COMFORTABLE WITH ALLOWING THAT IS THAT WE THEN HAVE THE PARK BOARD WHO IS TAKING A LOOK. THEIR JOB IS TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE GREATER GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY. AND IS THE USE OF THIS LAND THE GREATER GOOD, TO PAVE IT ALL OVER AND PUT PARKING SPOTS ALL OVER IT? AND WE JUST HAD LITERALLY HAD THAT DISCUSSION A YEAR AGO ABOUT THIS. AND THE PARK BOARD HADN'T WEIGHED IN ON IT, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT OVERSEEN BY THE CITY'S PARK BOARD. AND SO I THINK AS WE UPDATE THE MASTER PLAN AND POTENTIALLY ZONING CODE, OR FIGURE OUT WHERE BEST TO WHERE BEST TO STACK THIS, BUT ANY PROPERTY THAT IS ZONED IN THIS SPECIFIC ZONING CODE, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CONNECTION WITH THE PARK BOARD GETTING A SAY IN, ESPECIALLY EXTERIOR CHANGES. BUT YOU KNOW, IF IT'S CITY FUNDS THAT ARE BEING ENCUMBERED TO, YOU KNOW, FOR ANY PROJECT, REALLY, IT'S KIND OF A, THAT SHOULD BE WAY TO GET, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ALL ENTERTAINMENT DOLLARS, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, YOU KNOW, AND SO WE SHOULD WEIGH THIS AGAINST ALL THE OTHER PARK NEEDS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. AND SO I THINK THAT FOR ME IS THE BIG IS THE BIG THING HERE. YOU KNOW, I'M I GUESS I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. IF WE CAN KIND OF GET AN UNDERSTANDING THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE MASTER PLAN, THAT ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO BE ZONED THIS PARK AND OPEN SPACE SHOULD BE UNDER THE PURVIEW IN SOME MANNER OF THE PARK BOARD. IF I WERE TO SAY THAT, I'M PRETTY SURE MY CHAIRMAN WOULD SAY, IS THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? IS THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO YOUR TO, TO, TO THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT WE WOULD BE VERY AMENABLE TO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT LIKE THAT. OKAY. WONDERFUL. SO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? I THINK YOU'VE MADE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. JUST TO BE CLEAR, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET IT IN THERE. OKAY? OKAY. YES WE HAVE. YEAH. SO THAT WOULD BE THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT THE ANY PARKS PARKS REC DECIDE MAKES A DECISION ON PROS NEEDS TO HAVE PROS. YOU KNOW, ANY PROPERTY THAT IS ZONED PROS NEEDS TO HAVE THE PARK BOARD HAVING A SAY IN IN CHANGES AND WHAT GOES INTO THAT. YEAH. YEAH THAT'S A POINT WELL TAKEN. AND IT'S GOING TO INVOLVE SOME FUTURE FIGURING OUT WHERE THAT FITS. BUT I THINK IT'S THE MOVEMENT IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. 
          AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE. OKAY, GREAT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM. SEEING NONE. ALL 
          [01:15:08]
THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE AYE. THOSE OPPOSED THAT MOTION CARRIES. YAY. AND 
          [6. Case No. CD2026-024: Comprehensive Plan Amendment of the Anderson Parcel (Staff Reviewer: Jason Zimmerman, 651-430-8821, jzimmerman@stillwatermn.gov)]
OUR FINAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE EVENING IS CASE 2026--02 FOR THE COMP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT OF THE ANDERSON PARCEL. MR. ZIMMERMAN, THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. 
          FORGIVE ME. I CAN'T REMEMBER IF LAST YEAR THE PLANNING COMMISSION WEIGHED IN ON THE ANNEXATION OF THE ANDERSON PARCEL OR IF THAT JUST WENT TO COUNCIL. BUT LAST YEAR, ABOUT THIS TIME, A LITTLE BIT LATER, THE PARCEL THAT WAS IN STILLWATER TOWNSHIP, JUST TO THE WEST OF CENTRAL COMMONS, WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS AND IS NOW PART OF THE CITY. WE HAVE REACHED THE POINT WHERE THERE'S UTILITY WORK BEING DONE DOWN THERE, AND THE COUNTY ROAD FRONTAGE ROAD IS BEING EXTENDED, AND IN ORDER TO GET THE UTILITIES IN, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ROAD AND NOT HAVE TO RIP UP THE ROAD LATER, THEY'RE ASKING THAT WE EXPAND THE UTILITIES TO SERVE THE SERVICE. THIS PARCEL THAT TRIGGERS THE NEED TO EXPAND THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA, WHICH IS BASICALLY WHERE SEWER AND WATER ARE SERVICED. THIS IS PART OF THE CITY BUT IS NOT YET INCLUDED IN THAT AREA. AND INCLUDING THAT WITHIN THE LINE IS A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT. SO WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT IS A REVIEW OF THE EXACT SAME KIND OF COMP PLAN AMENDMENT THAT WAS DONE BACK WHEN CENTRAL COMMONS WAS ANNEXED AND THEN BROUGHT INTO THE MUSA. IT'S THE SAME THING FOR THE SMALLER TRIANGULAR PARCEL JUST ADJACENT TO IT. IT'S NOT AS EASY AS SAYING WE JUST WANT TO EXPAND THE LINE AND BRING THAT IN, BECAUSE IT MEANS MODIFYING YOUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP, UPDATING SOME OF THE ACRES, THE DIFFERENT LAND USES WITHIN THE COMP PLAN, TALKING ABOUT PROJECTED GROWTH AND HOW THAT MIGHT IMPACT IT, BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE ADDING SOME JOBS AND POTENTIAL HOUSING, LOOKING AT THE IMPACTS ON YOUR TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ZONES, ALL THESE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING INTO AS WE UPDATE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, THIS CAN'T WAIT UNTIL WE DO THAT. WE'RE JUST GOING TO LOOK AT JUST THIS ONE LITTLE PARCEL AND ADDRESS IT NOW. SO THERE ARE ACTUALLY SIX DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS TO THE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, A COUPLE TABLES, A COUPLE MAPS, ALL LAID OUT IN YOUR IN IN YOUR MEMO. I'LL WALK THROUGH THEM QUICKLY. I'LL JUST NOTE ON THE LAST 1 OR 2 WE DID, I DID CATCH AN ERROR BEFORE THIS MEETING. SO I HAVE THAT UP IN THE BOARD AND I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH IT. 
          BUT BUT THE REST IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. WE'RE GOING TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND SAY THIS PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE DESIGNATED AS HIGHWAY MIXED USE, WHICH IS WHAT IT WAS ZONED WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED. THE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS A TABLE OF ALL THE DIFFERENT LAND USE CATEGORIES AND HOW MANY ACRES. BECAUSE WE'RE ADDING SOME LAND, WE'RE AMENDING A COUPLE OF THOSE THE RIGHT OF WAY, THE MIXED USE AND SOME WATER SLASH WETLANDS AND ADDING SOME MORE ACRES TO THOSE. SO THAT'S JUST ADDING CARRYING THAT THROUGH BECAUSE WE'RE ADDING MORE LAND AND GIVING IT A DESIGNATION THAT COMES WITH SOME POTENTIAL FUTURE GROWTH IN TERMS OF, IN THIS CASE, BOTH HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT. BECAUSE IT'S A MIXED USE DISTRICT, WE'RE TAKING THE SAME LOGIC OF WHEN THE CENTRAL COMMONS WAS WAS KIND OF BUILT OUT AND ADJUSTING OUR NUMBERS TO SAY HOW MANY NEW HOUSING UNITS MIGHT THIS INCORPORATE AND HOW MANY JOBS MIGHT THIS CAPTURE THE IN YOUR MEMO, THE THE HOUSING ONE WAS RIGHT ON. BUT THERE WAS AN ERROR IN CALCULATING THE THE JOB NUMBERS. SO I'M GOING TO SHIFT YOUR ATTENTION HERE TO THE SCREEN. YOU CAN SEE THIS TALKING ABOUT HOW MANY ACRES SUBTRACTING FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND WETLANDS. YOU GET TO NET ACRES. THE SPLIT IN OUR HIGHWAY MIXED USE IS ABOUT 30% RESIDENTIAL, 70% EMPLOYMENT. SO WE SPLIT OUT THOSE ACRES. AND THEN WE DO THE CALCULATIONS BASED ON THE DENSITIES AND THE ASSUMPTIONS AROUND JOBS PER SQUARE FOOT. WHEN YOU GO THROUGH ALL OF THAT, WE'RE BASICALLY GOING TO ADD BETWEEN 40 AND 84 HOUSING UNITS OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS, AND ANYWHERE FROM 86 TO 172, 72 JOBS OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS. SO PRETTY MINOR INCREASE IN HOUSING UNITS AND JOBS IS KIND OF WHAT'S PROJECTED. BUT YOU HAVE TO GET IT INTO THE CALCULATIONS AND HAVE IT IN THE CODE. AND THEN FINALLY, RIGHT BELOW THAT, THE WHOLE CITY, THE WHOLE METRO AREA IS DIVIDED UP INTO THESE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ZONES, WHICH EACH PART OF THE CITY, HOW MANY TRIPS ARE BEING GENERATED IN AND OUT OF THIS AREA BASED ON IS IT A RESIDENTIAL USE? IS IT A EMPLOYMENT USE? AND BECAUSE WE'RE ADDING RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND AND JOBS, THERE ARE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ZONE 2355, WHICH IS THIS CORNER OF THE CITY. WE JUST HAVE TO SHOW THAT WE ARE ADEQUATELY ACCOMMODATING THOSE ADDITIONAL 86 OR 172 JOBS AND UP TO 84 HOUSEHOLDS. THAT TRANSLATES AT ABOUT 184 PEOPLE IF WE USE THE SAME PEOPLE PER HOUSEHOLD, WHICH IS 2.2, WHICH IS IN THE CURRENT COMP PLAN. SO ALL THAT IS TO SAY, WE ARE ACCOMMODATING THIS, I THINK ROUGHLY NET 11 DEVELOPABLE ACRES OR SO, BRINGING IT INTO THE CITY, ALLOWING SEWER TO BE EXPANDED 
          [01:20:03]
SO THAT IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS WE COULD POTENTIALLY ADD SOME EMPLOYMENT THROUGH SOME COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, POTENTIALLY HAVE SOME MORE HOUSING TO COMPLEMENT THE HOUSING THAT WILL BE GOING IN ON CENTRAL COMMONS. WE DID DO NOTIFICATION ONLY TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT NOTICES GO OUT TO ALL THE ADJACENT COMMUNITIES AS WELL AS MNDOT, BROWNS CREEK, ETC. SO FAR, WE'VE RECEIVED NO COMMENTS OR CONCERNS FROM ANY OF THOSE. WE'RE ASKING YOU TO LOOK AT THIS TONIGHT AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO BRING IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THEN IT WOULD, IF THEY APPROVE IT AS WELL, IT WOULD GO TO THE MET COUNCIL TO HAVE THEIR EVALUATION, AND THEN THAT WOULD BECOME AN OFFICIAL AMENDMENT TO THE COMP PLAN, JUST TO BE KIND OF REEVALUATED IN ANOTHER YEAR OR SO WHEN WE DO THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. SO HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS AND TALK THROUGH THIS. AGAIN, THE SAME PROCESS WE USE FOR CENTRAL COMMONS, JUST ON A MUCH SMALLER SCALE IN THIS CASE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. SO THE MENTION OF CENTRAL COMMONS BROUGHT IN A FLASHBACK BACK TO ME. MY VERY FIRST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. YES, I REMEMBER THAT. YES. GOOD HEAVENS. AND STILL I'M HERE. SO BUT WHAT I REMEMBER, ONE OF THE THINGS I REMEMBER IS THAT THERE WAS A PRETTY EXTENSIVE EAW FOR CENTRAL COMMONS. DID YOU GUYS HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT? EAW? DO WE NEED TO TWEAK IT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THIS ADDITIONAL PARCEL? MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE DO NOT THAT INCORPORATED THAT QUITE LARGE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THIS IS AT A SMALLER SCALE. IT DOES NOT IMPACT THAT THAT PREVIOUS REVIEW. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. SEEING NONE, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND IF ANYONE WISHES TO TESTIFY, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO COME FORWARD. BUT SEEING NO ONE COMING FORWARD, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          COMMISSIONERS, WHAT DO WE THINK? AND IT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO. I'M PRO SEWER AND WATER. GOOD TO HEAR. YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMEBODY DEBATE THAT. COULD SOMEBODY TAKE THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT? I DON'T KNOW HOW TO RESPOND. SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? SURE. I MOVED THAT WE RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT OF THE ANDERSON PARCEL. THIS ALL RELATES TO CASE NUMBER 2026 024. WITH ALL OF THE CONDITIONS STATED AND THE EXCELLENT PRESENTATION. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND I WOULD. SECOND, WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. 
          AYE. THOSE OPPOSED THAT MOTION CARRIES GREAT. NO OTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE US, BUT WE DO 
          [7. Comprehensive Plan Conversation – Future Land Use Map]
HAVE SOME NEW BUSINESS. ONE IS THE COMP PLAN CONVERSATION FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THANK YOU, CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT AS WE RAMP UP FOR THE COMP PLAN UPDATE, TAKING SOME TIME TO KIND OF TALK THROUGH SOME CONCEPTS AND KIND OF GET EVERYONE UP TO SPEED. 
          ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PIECES OF STARTING THE COMP PLAN UPDATE IS TO TALK ABOUT LAND USE, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO WRESTLE WITH REALLY BECOMES THE FOUNDATIONAL PIECE FOR A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE. SO I WANTED TO JUST INTRODUCE IT TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN FAMILIAR WITH COMP PLANS, OR WHAT A FUTURE LAND USE MAP DOES, AND KIND OF GETS YOU THINKING ABOUT IT AS MUCH DISCUSSION AS YOU WANT TO TAKE TIME FOR TONIGHT. OBVIOUSLY, WE'LL BE DOING THIS AS PART OF THE UPDATE PROCESS, BUT THIS IS TO KIND OF WHET YOUR APPETITE. SO A LAND USE MAP IS DIFFERENT FROM A ZONING MAP ALTHOUGH THEY ARE RELATED. SO LAND USE MAP SHOWS THE DESIRED TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT OR USES ACROSS THE CITY. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY REFLECT WHAT'S ON THE GROUND THERE TODAY, BUT WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE OR HOPE TO SEE IN THE FUTURE AS YOUR COMMUNITIES MORE DEVELOPED. THOSE MAY IN FACT BE WHAT'S THERE, BUT YOU STILL HAVE DEVELOPING AREAS. YOU'RE KIND OF GUIDING IT. IT'S ALSO CALLED A GUIDING LAND USE TO SAY, HERE'S WHAT WE LIKE IT TO BE. WE'RE GOING TO THEN WHENE DEVELOPMENT OCCURS, IT WILL BE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THAT. WE HAVE THIS IS OUR CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE PLAN MAP FROM OUR CURRENT COMP PLAN WITH A COUPLE ADDITIONS. YOU KNOW, WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT THE ANDERSON PARCEL, YOU KNOW, GETS WRAPPED IN, IN SOME OF THE THE CHANGES DOWN HERE ON CURVE CREST, WHICH THE MET COUNCIL HAS SIGNED OFF ON, WILL BE WRAPPED IN. BUT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, AS OF THIS POINT IN THE YEAR, THIS IS WHAT OUR LAND USE MAP LOOKS LIKE. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE THE LIST OF CATEGORIES ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. THEY'RE VERY SIMILAR TO 
          [01:25:04]
OUR ZONING, BUT THERE'S FEWER OF THEM AND THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT MORE GENERALIZED. WHEN WE ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS THAT IS THAT WE UPDATE THIS. AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LAND USE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FROM THE MET COUNCIL FOR THE COMP PLAN KIND OF FALLS INTO THREE CATEGORIES OR THREE AREAS. WE HAVE TO WE TALK ABOUT LAND USE, ACCOMMODATE FUTURE GROWTH FORECASTS, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT. THEY DIVIDE UP HOW MANY PEOPLE, HOMES AND JOBS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN ACROSS THE METRO AREA BASED ON THEIR FORECAST. AND EACH CITY HAS TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE. SO OUR LAND USE PLAN HAS TO CAPTURE THAT. AND THEY HAVE TO BE, YOU KNOW, ALLOCATED TO THE RIGHT TAGS. THEY HAVE TO HAVE TO SHOW THAT WE CAN SUPPLY WATER AND SEWER TO THOSE, AND THEY HAVE TO MEET SOME OF OUR MINIMUM. THE MET COUNCIL'S MINIMUM EXPECTATIONS, OUR LAND USE CHAPTER, OUR LAND USE SECTION ALSO HAS TO SHOW THE EXISTING LAND USE. THAT IS WHAT IS THERE TODAY. IF YOU GENERALIZED THE USES, THEY MAY NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY'RE ZONED. THERE MAY BE NON-CONFORMING, BUT WHAT ARE IS EACH PROPERTY USED FOR TODAY? WE PROVIDE A MAP AND THEN DO A TABLE TO BREAK OUT ALL THE DIFFERENT ACRES. AND THEN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW IS THAT FUTURE LAND USE, AND WE HAVE TO PROVIDE A MAP SHOWING HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THAT, THOSE GROWTH NUMBERS. AND THEN AS YOU DEVELOP THE PLAN, HOW THAT CARRIES OVER TO DEALING WITH WASTEWATER, WATER RESOURCES, HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION, BECAUSE THERE'S THE RIPPLE EFFECTS OF ALL THOSE AREAS DEVELOPING. WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT EACH LAND USE CATEGORY THAT WAS IN THAT LEGEND, DESCRIBE IT, AND THEN TALK ABOUT, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S RESIDENTIAL, WHAT ARE THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM MAXIMUM DENSITIES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH? BECAUSE WE HAVE TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE MET COUNCIL AND THEN AGAIN, PROVIDE THAT TABLE BROKEN UP BY USES IN CONTRAST TO WHAT'S THERE TODAY, WHAT WE ANTICIPATE IT TO BE UNDER THAT FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIO. SO IT'S A LOT. THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO. JUST TO REMIND YOU, THESE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT. THIS. THIS COMES OUT OF WHAT THE MET COUNCIL HAS SENT OUT TO TO EACH COMMUNITY. THESE ARE FOR STILLWATER. WE'RE ROUGHLY ABOUT WHERE THE 2030 NUMBERS ARE. WE WILL BE WITHIN A YEAR OR TWO, BUT THAT'S ROUGHLY OUR BENCHMARK OF WHERE WE SHOULD BE ABOUT TODAY WITH POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS AND EMPLOYMENT. AND WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITIONAL THOUSAND PEOPLE OR 700 HOUSEHOLDS ET-CETERA BY 2040. 
          AND THEN GETTING TO THE, YOU KNOW, 1500 HOUSEHOLDS BY 2050. SO PART OF THE EXERCISE IN TALKING ABOUT FUTURE LAND USE IS IF WE KNOW WE HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS MANY PEOPLE, WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GO? AND WE HAVE TO HAVE THE LAND GUIDED AT DENSITIES THAT WILL ACCOMMODATE THIS THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO SHOW, TO PROVE TO THEM THAT WE CAN WE CAN CAPTURE THAT GROWTH THAT THEY ARE KIND OF ALLOCATING TO US. IT DOESN'T MEAN IT NECESSARILY WILL HAPPEN, BUT WE HAVE TO SHOW AND PROVE OUT THAT WE CAN ACCOMMODATE, AND WE'RE MAKING PLANS TO CAPTURE IT. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE MET COUNCIL DOES EVERY, EVERY UPDATE CYCLE IS THEY GIVE A, THEY KIND OF GO AROUND ALL THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMMUNITIES AND THEY GIVE THEM A DESIGNATION. IT MIGHT BE INNER CITY, URBAN CORE, DEVELOPING SUBURB, WHATEVER. 
          AND THEN ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, THEY GIVE IT A DENSITY TARGET. SO STILLWATER IS DESIGNATED A SUBURBAN DESIGNATION, VERY SIMILAR TO OAKDALE VADNAIS HEIGHTS, SOME OF THE OTHERS. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE DEFINITION THAT THEY HAVE IN THEIR IN THEIR DOCUMENT BASICALLY SAYS, YOU'RE STILL GROWING A LITTLE BIT. YOU PROBABLY HAVE AN ESTABLISHED DOWNTOWN, BUT THERE'S STILL ROOM TO KIND OF INTENSIFY AROUND THAT. THE KEY THING HERE IS THAT WHAT THEY SAY IS IF THIS IS YOUR DESIGNATION, EACH DESIGNATION HAS A MINIMUM DENSITY AT WHICH VACANT LAND MUST DEVELOP. AND FOR THE SUBURBAN DESIGNATION, ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT HAPPENS HAS A MINIMUM OF SEVEN UNITS AN ACRE. SO ANYTHING THAT IS STILL VACANT HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED. BY THE TIME WE GO AND ADOPT, THIS PLAN HAS TO DEVELOP AT AT LEAST THAT DENSITY. FOR REFERENCE, THE BRIXTON PROJECT, THE TOWNHOME PROJECT THAT WENT THROUGH THAT WAS ABOUT 7.4 UNITS AN ACRE. SO THAT'S THE MINIMUM DENSITY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR ANYTHING THAT IS STILL LEFT UNDEVELOPED. WHEN THIS NEW PLAN GOES TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE MET COUNCIL. WE HAVE SOME ABILITY TO KIND OF I THINK, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, WITH THE MIXED USE AREA, KIND OF MAYBE SHIFT SOME DENSITY, MAYBE PULL IT AWAY FROM ONE AREA TO LEAVE THAT A LITTLE BIT LESS DENSE. AS LONG AS WE'RE COMPENSATING BY MAKING IT MORE DENSE SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO MAYBE YOU HAVE MORE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS HERE, BUT YOU'RE PUTTING SOME MULTIFAMILY UNITS IN OVER HERE AND YOU'RE STILL GETTING THAT SEVEN UNITS AN ACRE. SO THAT IS PART OF OUR CHALLENGE. THE NUMBER AT THE LAST CYCLE WAS LOWER. I THINK IT WAS FIVE UNITS PER ACRE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO AS THE METRO AREA IS GROWING, WE'RE BEING ASKED TO KIND OF ACCOMMODATE AND WHERE THERE IS STILL ROOM TO KIND OF PACK PEOPLE IN A LITTLE MORE TIGHTLY, DOING OUR SHARE OF THE OVERALL GROWTH ACROSS THE METRO AREA. 
          ALSO, JUST POINTING OUT THAT OUR OUR FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES EVOLVE OVER TIME. 
          THE ONES THAT WERE IN THE 2020 PLAN, YOU CAN SEE THOSE ON THE LEFT, MAYBE MORE ORIENTED 
          [01:30:01]
TOWARDS SPECIFIC HOUSING TYPES IN SOME OF THESE CATEGORIES. AS WE SHIFTED TO THE 2030 PLAN, WHICH WAS APPROVED IN 2010, WE SHIFTED MORE TO KIND OF TALKING ABOUT DENSITIES OF HOUSING RATHER THAN HOUSING TYPES. WE ADDED A COUPLE CATEGORIES. AND THEN IN THE 2040 COMP PLAN, YOU CAN SEE WE ADDED A COUPLE MORE. THAT'S WHEN WE ADDED THAT HIGHWAY MIXED USE CATEGORY. 
          THAT IS WHEN WE KIND OF WE ADDED A VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE KIND OF MINOR AREA WHERE WE DON'T EVERYTHING'S ON SEPTIC. AND IT WOULD BE KIND OF COST PROHIBITIVE TO COME IN THERE AND PUT SEWER AND WATER THROUGH. SO WE HAD TO GET SPECIAL APPROVAL FROM THE MET COUNCIL TO ALLOW THAT TO REMAIN AS LOW DENSITY AS IT IS. BUT THESE ARE THE CATEGORIES FROM THE LAST COMP PLAN. WE'LL HAVE TO REVISIT THOSE FOR THE THE 2050 PLAN. DO THESE STILL MAKE SENSE? DO WE WANT TO TWEAK ANY DO WE NEED TO ADD ANY OR KIND OF CONSOLIDATE ANY. AND THEN GO THROUGH AND DEFINE BASED ON THOSE NEW DENSITY REQUIREMENTS, WHAT SOME OF THESE MEAN? SO WHAT, WHAT I WANTED TO DO WAS JUST INTRODUCE YOU TO THE MAP. 
          AND ONE THING THAT I HAVE FOUND HELPFUL GOING THROUGH THIS CYCLE LAST TIME IS TO GET YOU AS A COMMISSION, STARTING TO THINK ABOUT IF THIS IS WHAT OUR OUR MAP LOOKS LIKE FROM THE LAST COMP PLAN. ARE THERE ANY AREAS IN HERE WHERE WE THINK A IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE CHANGED? IT'S NOT IT'S NOT KIND OF WHERE WE SEE STILLWATER GOING OR WE ANTICIPATE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR CHANGE AND KIND OF GET AHEAD OF THAT AND KIND OF START TO, TO IDENTIFY MAYBE HOT SPOTS ON THE MAP WHERE WE MIGHT WANT TO BE CHANGING SOME OF THESE LAND USE OR PREEMPTIVELY KIND OF GUIDING IT. WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO INTENSIFY, AT LEAST IN SOME AREAS. YOU CAN SEE AS THE MAP, YOU KNOW, THE MORE DENSE DOWNTOWN, AND THEN YOU GET KIND OF A LOWER DENSITY, THAT KIND OF PALE YELLOW ACROSS THE MIDDLE AND THEN INTENSIFYING AGAIN ALONG MANNING, WHERE YOU HAVE TRANSPORTATION, YOU HAVE TRAILS AND THINGS. THAT'S BEEN THE GENERAL PATTERN. I THINK WE'VE ALL TALKED ABOUT THE HIGHWAY 36 CORRIDOR AND THAT MIXED USE AREA. THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO CAPTURE AS REDEVELOPMENT HAPPENS, SOME MORE DENSITY THERE, AND MAYBE THAT RELIEVES SOME PRESSURE IN OTHER PLACES WHERE IT MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE LOWER DENSITY. IF WE'RE CAPTURING THOSE, THOSE UNITS AND PUTTING HOUSEHOLDS THERE IN SOME APARTMENT BUILDINGS, THERE'S SOME BENEFITS TO DOING THAT. 
          BUT GETTING THE CONVERSATION GOING AND WHETHER IT'S TONIGHT OR DOWN THE ROAD, I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE TO BE WRESTLING WITH. AND IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN PRETTY EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS, AT LEAST GETTING A DRAFT MAP BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE KIND OF FLOWS, FLOWS OUT OF THAT. SO NOT KNOWING HOW FAMILIAR PEOPLE ARE WITH LAND USE OR KIND OF WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE WANTING TO GET IN FRONT OF YOU. HAPPY TO HAVE AS MUCH DISCUSSION TONIGHT AS YOU WANTED TO OR ANSWER QUESTIONS, BUT KNOW THAT YOU'LL BE SEEING THIS AGAIN AS, AS WE GET INTO THE COMP PLAN UPDATE PROCESS, I'LL PAUSE THERE AND SEE IF PEOPLE HAVE THOUGHTS COMMENTS, WHAT DO WE HAVE FOR QUESTIONS COMMENTS THOUGHTS. I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO BE A MAJOR FOCUS OF YOURS, BUT THAT HIGHWAY MIXED USE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE HAD THE MORATORIUM A COUPLE YEARS AGO THAT GOT EVERYBODY UPSET. I THINK WE SORT OF FELL BACKWARDS INTO A MUCH BETTER SOLUTION FOR THAT. AND I KNOW WE JUST GOT A BUNCH OF MONEY FOR WASHINGTON AVENUE, AND WE'VE ALL KIND OF BEEN PUTTING OUR HEADS TOGETHER ON. THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT IS THAT. DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON HOW WE TIGHTEN THE DEFINITION OF THAT TO SORT OF. 
          AS I IT'S JUST IT'S, IT'S SUCH A QUAGMIRE FOR ME. EVERY TIME I THINK ABOUT IT, I WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO UNWIND IT. SO I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A SUGGESTION. COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER COMMISSIONER, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE KIND OF THE. BECAUSE IT'S SO BROAD AND ALLOWS SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS IN THIS KIND OF LIKE 30% RESIDENTIAL, 70% COMMERCIAL. BUT IT'S REALLY HARD TO PIN DOWN WHERE THAT WOULD HAPPEN. IS THAT KIND OF IN WASHINGTON COUNTY WAS USING IT FOR THEIR PURPOSES. AND WE SAW SOME CHALLENGES COMING OUT OF THAT. I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE GOT TO WHERE WE NEEDED TO GET TO, BUT IT CREATED A THAT WAS AN EARLY. SO ALTHOUGH AT THE SAME TIME, MY UNDERSTANDING IS NOTHING HAS REALLY BEEN OTHER THAN THE THE COMMENTS, THERE'S NOTHING HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS THE HIGHWAY MIXED USE. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. BUT WE HAVEN'T DONE THE ZONING UPDATE. YEAH, WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY DONE ANYTHING WITH IT. RIGHT. AND SO, I MEAN, THE PROBLEMS THAT WE POTENTIALLY WERE HAVING BEFORE WOULD HAVE BEEN FROM, YOU KNOW, WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE UNDERLYING ZONING CODE ALREADY? BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE, I THINK THE INTENTION ON THAT WAS VERY MUCH KIND OF A WE, YOU KNOW, HONESTLY PROBABLY ALL STEMMED FROM. HERBERGER'S THAT. HERBERGER'S WHEN THAT LAST PLAN WAS BEING DONE, HERBERGER'S HAD JUST CLOSED. AND SO IT WAS A, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THESE BIG BOXES? YOU HAVE MORE HISTORY ON THIS THAN I DO. YEAH, BUT I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE MACROECONOMIC MOVEMENT 
          [01:35:01]
OF HOTELS TOWARDS THE WATERFRONT WAS PUTTING PRESSURE ON THE HOTELS IN WHAT WE'VE GOT FOR HIGHWAY MIXED USE. AND THAT THAT WAS SOME OF THE THINKING TO GO INTO IT. I DON'T THINK THAT THOSE WOULD REDEVELOP INTO RESIDENTIAL. I, I HONESTLY DON'T THINK IT WAS THE HOTELS THAT WAS REALLY THE THING. I THINK IT WAS MORE THE. YEAH, IT'S THE BIG BOXES. AND I THINK THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, AND AT THAT TIME WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT THIS LIKE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE'S THIS BRAND NEW WEBSITE CALLED AMAZON THAT'S JUST STARTING OUT HERE AND SEEMS TO BE CATCHING ON. AND SO HOW MUCH LONGER ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TARGET THAT BEZOS GUY'S GOING PLACES? YEAH. OR TARGET OR CUB FOODS OR SOME OF THESE MAY, YOU KNOW, OR THEY WON'T NEED AS MUCH SPACE AS THEY HAVE. AND, YOU KNOW, THEN WHAT DO WE DO WITH THESE MONSTER SITES, WITH THESE MONSTER BOXES? HOW DOES THAT GET REDEVELOPED? AND COULD THAT BE THE TYPE OF THING THAT WE COULD PUT IN SOME MIXED USE THAT WE COULD HAVE PEOPLE LIVING CLOSER POTENTIALLY TO THESE? NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU GOT PEOPLE WHO CAN WALK TO CUB FOODS VERSUS HAVING TO ALWAYS DRIVE. DOES THAT GIVE THEM A BIGGER AND EASIER, YOU KNOW, IT DOES FEEL LIKE OUR BEST OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE WALKABLE CITY IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE GET SOME MORE RESIDENTIAL THERE WITH THAT SORT OF FIRST FLOOR COMMERCIAL KIND OF THAT WAS AND THAT WAS, I THINK THE REAL THING. I DON'T I MY REMEMBRANCE OF THAT CONVERSATION WAS THAT IT WAS VERY IT WAS NOT THE HOTEL, THE THE HOTELS ALONG THE EDGE REALLY DIDN'T COME UP. IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE BIG BOXES THAT TRACKS BECAUSE I WAS CONSULTING AT A BIG BOX AT THE TIME, AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FOOTPRINT. YEP. SO, SO I THINK IN THAT, AND THAT WAS THE INTENTION. IT'S KIND OF LIKE WE DON'T KNOW WHERE BIG BOXES ARE GOING. SO LET'S GIVE THEM, LET'S GIVE THIS WHOLE AREA AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY AS POSSIBLE. THAT ALSO THEN ENDED UP BEING THE DENSITY THAT ALLOWED US TO, YOU KNOW, FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PIECE OF THIS, IT GAVE US THE DENSITY TO, TO MEET OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOAL. HELPFUL. HISTORICALLY, I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE ARE IN A SITUATION NOW WHERE WE'VE GOT TO TALK ABOUT THOSE HOTELS BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE SUFFERING. THEY'RE VERY WELL COULD BE. YEP. SO AND TO GO BACK TO YOUR POINT ABOUT HOW DO WE PUT MORE DEFINITION TO THAT, THE SMALL AREA PLAN, WHICH WE'VE APPLIED FOR A GRANT TO DO IS EXACTLY THAT, YOU KNOW, TAKING THIS BROADER MIXED USE. OKAY. BUT WHERE DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO CONCENTRATE THE HOUSING? WHERE DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO CONCENTRATE THE, THE PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES, WHAT KIND OF TRAIL CONNECTIONS AND THEN START TO KIND OF WE HAVE A MARKET STUDY INCLUDED IN THAT TO SHOW WHERE MIGHT THERE BE SOME SOFT SPOTS IN THE MARKET AND THE USES ALONG THAT. THAT MIGHT BE THE KIND OF CATALYST PROJECTS THAT COULD KIND OF START TO MAKE THAT TOWN CENTER HAPPEN. I THINK COMING OUT OF THIS, WE'LL HAVE NOT JUST A GENERAL LAND USE, BUT A MORE SPECIFIC KIND OF SUBAREA PLAN WITH MAYBE SOME DESIGN GUIDELINES OR TAILORED ZONING TO REALLY THEN START TO, AS DEVELOPMENT STARTS TO HAPPEN, FORCE IT INTO WHATEVER VISION WE AS A, AS A CITY AGREE MAKES THE MOST SENSE THERE. SO IT'LL GO FROM THIS VERY BROAD MIXED USE TO VERY SPECIFIC, NOT QUITE LOT BY LOT, BUT MAYBE BLOCK BY BLOCK, KIND OF HOW THAT SHOULD BE LAID OUT. SO YOU MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT JOHNNY CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT WE CAN PUT HIM ON THE SPOT WITH RELATED TO DIFFERENT BLUFF ORDINANCES AND STUFF. DO YOU KNOW IF THE MONEY WE GOT FOR WASHINGTON AVENUE HAS TIMELINE ASSOCIATED WITH IT THAT WE'VE GOT TO FALL TO? BECAUSE IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THAT PLAN AND THAT PLAN, WE'VE REALLY GOT AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO KIND OF BRING SOME EXTERNAL MONEY TOGETHER AND PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT'S, I DON'T KNOW, ON THE TIMING OF THAT. I KNOW THEY I THINK AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING NEXT WEEK, WE'RE GOING TO GET AN UPDATE ON THAT. SO WE'LL HAVE AN ANSWER THEN. BUT IT'S VERY MUCH PART OF OUR INTENTION TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT HOW THIS AREA DEVELOPS IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL OF THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NECESSARY AND MAKING THOSE FIT SEAMLESSLY, AS WELL AS OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE, WHETHER IT'S SIDEWALKS, WATER, STORMWATER PONDS, ALL THOSE THINGS HAVE TO FIT TOGETHER SO THAT IT'S ALL PART OF THAT, THAT COORDINATED EFFORT. I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS MNDOT OR. MET COUNCIL, BUT I REMEMBER SOMEBODY COMING TO US AND SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO BE THE ONLY TRAFFIC LIGHT BETWEEN MINNEAPOLIS AND RICHFIELD, SOMEPLACE OUT WEST, DEEP IN WISCONSIN. DO WE KNOW WHAT THEIR INTENTION IS WITH THAT? AND WE'VE BATTLED OUR FRIENDS ACROSS 36 SEVERAL TIMES, ACCORDING TO COUNCIL MEMBER POLLINA, ON THIS TOPIC. AND I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR INTENTION IS AND IF WE CAN GET TOGETHER ON IT. YEAH, I DON'T KNOW. ANY UPDATES. I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION FOR NEXT WEEK WHEN THE ENGINEERS PRESENT, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS. I'VE HEARD THE SAME THING, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO THE LONG TERM PLAN SEEMS TO BE GETTING RID OF STOPLIGHTS AND MOVING TRAFFIC THROUGH. AND SO HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? AND WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION TO SO I, I COME TO THIS SPACE WITH LIKE A HYPER FOCUS ON AFFORDABILITY. SO IT'S HELPFUL TO HAVE MAPS LIKE THIS THAT SHOW DENSITY AND THEY SHOW LIKE ZONING AS FAR AS THAT, BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR PLANNING 
          [01:40:05]
PURPOSES AS OPPOSED TO BEING LIKE, WELL, I GUESS WE COULD USE MORE DARK BROWN OVER HERE TO HAVE AN OVERLAY RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION AND POTENTIALLY DIFFERENT LOCAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES. I THINK THAT IT'S, IT'S HELPFUL TO HAVE THINGS, YOU KNOW, ON MANNING, IF YOU HAVE A CAR, BUT WALKING ON MANNING, EVEN ON THAT SIDE ROAD, IS PRETTY FAR AWAY FROM A LOT OF DIFFERENT PLACES OUTSIDE OF THE NEW HOSPITAL THAT'S GOING IN THERE. AND SO I THINK THAT FOR WHEN YOU'RE SOLICITING OPINIONS, THAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL TO SEE FOR PEOPLE. THE OTHER PIECE IS WHAT COMPANION PIECES WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH IT, IF ANY, WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL. ARE WE GOING TO HAVE AN INCLUSIVE ZONING PIECE TO IT? ARE THERE GOING TO BE OTHER PIECES OF THAT THAT ARE GOING TO BE ORDINANCE RELATED? WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW WHEN PLANNING THE LAND USE. AND I KNOW THAT IT'S LAYERS WITHIN LAYERS, BUT THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL AS OPPOSED TO JUST THIS ONE LAYER. YEAH, YEAH. IF I COULD SPEAK FOR A SECOND TO YOUR CONCERN ABOUT SOME OF OUR NEWER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BEING LESS ACCESSIBLE, PRETTY SOON WE'LL BE CONVENING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE WITH A COLLECTION OF COMMISSION MEMBERS AND RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS OWNERS AROUND THE CITY. AND WHAT THEY'LL DO WITH THE COUNCIL IS ADOPT A SET OF VALUES THAT THE CITY HAS EARLIER ON IN THE PROCESS TO HELP WITH THAT. AND IF ONE OF THE STATED VALUES IS INCREASING WALKABILITY, WHAT THAT'S GOING TO TELL US AS PLANNERS TO DO IS TO STOP DENSIFYING ALONG. MANNING, LEAVE THAT TO BE AND INCORPORATE MORE MEDIUM AND HIGHER DENSITIES INTO ESTABLISHED AREAS NEAR EXISTING EMPLOYMENT CENTERS IN THE CITY. IF OUR VALUE IS NEW, SINGLE FAMILY HOME OWNERSHIP ON OUR REMAINING AG PARCELS, THEN THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING TO SEE IT. BUT IF OUR VALUE IS NOT NEW SINGLE FAMILY OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES, BUT IS RATHER WHERE DO WE HAVE FOOD ACCESS IN THE CITY AND HOW CAN WE DENSIFY AROUND GROCERY STORES OR SOMETHING THEN THAT THAT WILL CONTINUE TO BE A PIECE OF THE CONVERSATION? YEAH. AND I THINK THAT ABSOLUTELY MAKES SENSE. AND I THINK THAT THAT'S THERE'S A GOOD PLACE FOR THAT. BUT PART OF IT IS OBVIOUSLY MET COUNCIL IS GOING TO HAVE A DENSITY REQUIREMENT. AND AS I'VE SAID HERE BEFORE, DENSITY AND AFFORDABILITY ARE NOT THE SAME THING, RIGHT? LIKE YOU CAN HAVE $700,000 TOWNHOUSES AND THAT DOES MEET YOUR DENSITY REQUIREMENT AND HAS EMPTY HOUSES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. SO I GUESS THOSE ARE THE DIFFERENT PIECES, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH. SO AT THE RISK OF, I GUESS I HAVE TWO OBSERVATIONS. ONE IS JUST TO REPEAT, I THINK WHAT WE'VE LONG TALKED ABOUT WAS THAT THE HIGHWAY 36 CORRIDOR REMAINS AN OPPORTUNITY, AND I HOPE WE CAN CONSIDER IT AS SUCH AND TO, TO CONTINUE TO BE AWARE OF THAT, AS, OF COURSE, ALONG THE RIVER. 
          ALONG WITH THAT. AND I'VE ASKED THIS QUESTION BEFORE. SO YOU GET TO REEDUCATE ME BECAUSE I KEEP FORGETTING WHERE DO WE ADDRESS VERTICAL GROWTH IN TERMS OF ANY STANDARDS OR LIMITATIONS? IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS AND HOW MANY STORIES? HOW MANY? YEAH. CORRECT. YEAH. SO WE CAN DEFINITELY BUILD SOME OF THAT INTO. SO FOR EXAMPLE, SAY YOU WANTED YOUR, YOUR HIGHWAY MIXED USE TO ALLOW FIVE STORY BUILDINGS. I THINK IN THE COMP PLAN, WE TALKED PRETTY GENERALLY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE DISTRICT, THIS IS THE TYPE WHERE YOU MIGHT SEE MULTI-STORY BUILDINGS FROM 3 TO 6 STORIES. IT'S IN THE ZONING, WHICH WOULD THEN FOLLOW. YOU'D ACTUALLY PUT THAT INTO CODE. ACTUALLY, THE MET COUNCIL REQUIRES ONCE YOU ADOPT YOUR LAND USE PLAN, I THINK IT'S WITHIN NINE MONTHS. YOUR ZONING CODE HAS TO MATCH. AND SO YOU HAVE TO BE INCORPORATING THE THINGS THAT YOUR COMPLIANCE IS YOU'RE GOING TO DO AND GET IT INTO THE ZONING CODE WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS. IF THEY'RE KIND OF HOLDING ZONES THAT ARE NOT QUITE READY TO DEVELOP, BUT THE COMP PLAN WILL BE REALLY GOOD ABOUT GIVING DIRECTION BASED ON ALL THE COMMUNITY INPUT, WE'RE GOING TO GET TO SAY THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO GET BUILDINGS OF THIS SIZE, OF THIS HEIGHT, AND THEN WE WILL FOLLOW WITH ZONING, WHICH WILL HAVE TO MATCH THAT. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S THIS CRITICAL PIECE OF HAVING THAT COMMUNITY VISION CONVERSATION. AND WE'RE GOING TO START DOING ENGAGEMENT THIS SUMMER TO SOLICIT FROM PEOPLE, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SEE? DO YOU LIKE A, DO YOU LIKE B WHAT? AND THEN AS WE KIND OF COALESCE AROUND THAT, THAT WILL LEAD TO THINGS LIKE, WHAT IS THIS LAND USE ENTAIL? AND THEN EVENTUALLY, WHAT ARE THE ZONING REGULATIONS LOCK IN SO THAT WHEN SOMEONE COMES TO DEVELOP, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT. FOR ME, AS WE LOOK AT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE OTHER RELATIVELY NEW DISTRICTS THAT WE HAVE IN HERE IS A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL. AND PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE DID WITH THAT WAS GO BACK AFTER THE FACT AND FIND 
          [01:45:04]
THE COMMERCIAL NODES THAT WE ALREADY HAD. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN LENS OR, YOU KNOW, GRUNDHOFER, I GUESS NOW, YOU KNOW, WE TOOK A LOOK AT THAT CORNER AND SAID, OH YEAH, WE GOT COMMERCIAL THERE. RIGHT. AND WE PLOPPED DOWN THE, WE PLOPPED DOWN THE DESIGNATION, I THINK SO. SO I GUESS IN SOME WAYS, MY QUESTION KIND OF IS AS WE'RE DOING THIS TYPE OF FUTURE LAND, LAND USE PLANNING, CAN WE DO A TYPE OF THING WHERE WE'RE LIKE, ACTUALLY WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS A COMMERCIAL NODE THAT'S WITHIN A FIVE MINUTE WALK OF, YOU KNOW, THIS DENSITY LEVEL OF, YOU KNOW, OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE, YOU KNOW, THAT WE CAN, WE CAN JUST, BUT WE COULD PROACTIVELY PLOP DOWN A, THIS SHOULD BE A COMMERCIAL. THIS LOOKS LIKE A GOOD PLACE FOR A COMMERCIAL NODE. YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. AND AGAIN, IT STEMS, IF YOU'RE, IF YOUR, YOUR GOAL OR YOUR VALUE IS HAVING WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN, YOU KNOW, TEN MINUTES OF A COMMERCIAL NODE. IF THAT'S PART OF YOUR KIND OF ADOPTED VISION FOR THE CITY, THEN YOU MOVE TO THE LAND USE MAP AND YOU FIGURE OUT, OKAY, WHERE DO THOSE GO? AND THEN EVENTUALLY, YOU KNOW, THE ZONING COMES ALONG AND THEN YOU'RE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE THROUGH REGULATION TO ACTUALLY BUILD THAT OR GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY. YOU'LL ALWAYS HAVE THAT TRADE OFF. I'M SURE YOU CAN THINK OF IT ALREADY. OH, I WANT WALKABLE WITHIN MY FIVE MINUTES OF MY HOUSE, BUT NOT THE LOT NEXT DOOR. I DON'T WANT THAT TO TURN INTO A DELI. I WANT THAT TO REMAIN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO THAT'LL BE SOME OF THOSE DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE. IF WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO DO IT, WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY PICK THE RIGHT PLACES AND DO IT AND, YOU KNOW, STICK UP FOR WHAT WE AS A COMMUNITY AGREE IS IMPORTANT, EVEN THOUGH INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS WILL PROBABLY NOT LIKE IT. BUT THAT'S PART OF THIS TRADE OFF OF THE THE GREATER GOOD. BUT YES, THAT I'VE NOTICED HOW MANY OR HOW FEW NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS THERE ARE ON THIS MAP AND IN THE ZONING. THOSE ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT SURVIVED AS NON-CONFORMING USES. RIGHT? RIGHT. SO YES, THAT'S DEFINITELY AGAIN, THAT COMES OUT OF WHAT DO WE WANT TO SEE? AND IF IT'S WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS WITH COMMERCIAL NEARBY, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DEFINITELY BUILD INTO THAT, THAT PLAN. OKAY. AND I, AND I GUESS FOR ME, YOU KNOW, WE'VE DONE A FAIRLY, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE DONE A FAIRLY GOOD JOB OF HAVING A DECENT AMOUNT OF DENSITY ALONG. OUR MANNING OVER THERE, BUT THERE STILL ARE A FEW GAPS IN THAT THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO DO. I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION THEN GETS TO BE THESE DEFINITIONS THEN OF WHAT IS MEDIUM DENSITY? WHAT IS HIGH DENSITY? THOSE TYPES OF THINGS? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE DEFINE HERE, OR IS THAT KIND OF A THERE'S A STANDARD OUT THERE? AND. NO, IT'LL BE UP TO US TO DEFINE. I THINK WE'LL START WITH WHAT THEY ARE TODAY, AND THEN WE'LL LOOK AT KIND OF WHAT THE MET COUNCIL TELLING US. 
          OUR BOTTOM LINE IS. AND THEN WE'LL LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO SHIFT THOSE BANDS A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE EACH ONE OF THESE COMES WITH A MINIMUM AND A MAXIMUM, AND THEY SHOULD ROUGHLY ALIGN WITH WHAT'S THERE TODAY, BUT THEN ALSO KIND OF PUSH PEOPLE A LITTLE BIT FORWARD. SO WE'LL COME UP AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT AND PROPOSE SOME THINGS. AND WE CAN ALL WRESTLE WITH WHAT THOSE ARE BECAUSE THAT WOULD. YEAH, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS FIGURING OUT HOW TO, YOU KNOW, HOW FAR DO WE RATCHET THOSE UP? YEAH. DO YOU SEE ANY ANNEXATION OPPORTUNITIES? I CAN'T IMAGINE ANY THAT DON'T CROSS A BOUNDARY OR SOMETHING. I MEAN, THIS AREA UP HERE, I THINK IS THE ONE THAT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR A WHILE AS AN OPPORTUNITY. ONCE THE THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE READY. BUT THAT'S PRETTY FAR REMOVED FROM MOST OF THE OTHER KIND OF MORE ACTIVE PLACES. IT'LL PROBABLY BE, YOU KNOW, SOME MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOMES OR SOMETHING IS WOULD PROBABLY MAKE SENSE. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALWAYS THE BIG QUESTION, SHOULD WE JUST TAKE OVER OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND KIND OF BRING THAT IN? BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S WE ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME CANNONS HERE ON THE FOURTH. SO, I MEAN, THERE ARE SOME LITTLE GAPS DOWN HERE, RIGHT? THESE LITTLE I WAS GOING TO SAY, DOES STILLWATER TOWNSHIP HAVE ANYTHING ON THE SOUTH SIDE? STILL NOT ANY MORE. I THINK THIS ANDERSON PARCEL IS THE LAST ONE ALL THE WAY UP TO THE NORTH. YEAH, YEAH. EASILY ONE OF THE WEIRDEST THINGS ABOUT THIS JOB WAS WE CAN JUST PRETTY MUCH WITHOUT THE TOWNSHIP'S PERMISSION. WE JUST GRAB, WHICH IS NUTS. ALL RIGHT. I CLAIM THIS LAND FOR STILLWATER. YEP. ANY. MAYBE WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE PUNCHY. BUT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMENTS? DID YOU GET WHAT YOU NEEDED? I THINK IT'S A GOOD START. INTRODUCTION. 
          GETTING SOME INTRO, SOME THINKING GOING. AND WE'LL BE OBVIOUSLY COMING BACK TO THIS AS WE START THE PROCESS. OKAY. CAN I ADD A MINOR? HOW DRAFT IS THIS? YEAH. I'M SORRY, YOUR MICROPHONE IS OFF TO THANK YOU. HOW WHAT KIND OF DRAFT VERSION IS THIS? ONLY BECAUSE THE LEGEND. JUST DOUBLE CHECK THIS. YEAH. THIS IS THIS IS FROM THE OLD PLAN. SO YEAH, THIS IS THE OLD PLAN. AND WE CAN MODIFY I MEAN, WE CAN KEEP THE EXACT SAME ONE IF WE WANTED. I DON'T THINK WE'LL BE ABLE TO GIVEN WE HAVE TO IDENTIFY A BIT. BUT YEAH, WE CAN TAKE THIS ANY DIRECTION WE WANT. SO THIS IS JUST A STARTING POINT FOR REFERENCE. OKAY, GREAT. THANK 
          [8. Appointment of Chair and Vice Chair]
          [01:50:11]
YOU. AND NOW THAT WE'VE REACHED SILLY TIME, IT'S TIME TO CONTEMPLATE APPOINTMENT OF A CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OF THE OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE NEXT YEAR. HERE'S THAT. THE THE, THE TWO MEMBERS WHO WERE THE INCUMBENTS WERE REAPPOINTED TO THE COMMISSION AS MYSELF AND COMMISSIONER STEINWALD. AND SO. WE NOW NEED A NEW CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR THE COMMISSION FOR THE UPCOMING YEAR. I GUESS WE DON'T NEED A NEW ONE. WE NEED TO APPOINT. WHO IS GOING TO BE THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR FOR THE UPCOMING YEAR. ARE THERE ANY NOMINATIONS AND WE COULD DO IT AS A SLATE. WE CAN DO IT INDIVIDUALLY, HOWEVER YOU'D LIKE TO DO IT. ARE OUR CURRENT CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR INTERESTED IN STAYING AS CURRENT CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR WOULD BE WILLING TO STAY IF FORCED INTO IT? YES. ARE THERE OTHERS WHO ARE INTERESTED? YEAH, I GUESS THAT'S THE MAYBE THE BETTER QUESTION. WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANGE FOR, I KNOW, THREE, FOUR YEARS. IT'S BEEN SEVERAL YEARS. YOU'RE IN GOOD SHAPE. AND DO WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING TO HOFFMAN WHILE HE'S NOT HERE? OH. DON'T MISS ME. I'M LISTENING. SO. SO I WAS GOING TO SAY WE NEED A WE NEED A MOTION OF SOME SORT. SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MAINTAIN OUR CURRENT CHAIR AND CO-CHAIR. OF THE OF THE COMMISSION. THANK YOU. YEAH. OF WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. I SECOND THE NOMINATIONS OF OUR CURRENT CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING. SEEING SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, AYE. THOSE OPPOSED THAT MOTION CARRIES AND SEE. DO WE HAVE ANY STAFF UPDATES OF ANY SORT. TWO TWO QUICK THINGS 
          [IX. FYI – STAFF UPDATES]
FIRST, LETTING YOU KNOW WE DON'T HAVE ANY FORMAL APPLICATIONS FOR OUR JUNE MEETING. STRANGELY ENOUGH, WE COULD CERTAINLY TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE EVERYONE HAVE THE NIGHT OFF, OR WE COULD TALK MORE COMP PLAN STUFF. WE COULD DO A SESSION ON HOUSING. 
          THAT'S GOING TO BE THE OTHER KIND OF BIG TOPIC, ALONG WITH LAND USE OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU THINK WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING AT A TIME WHERE WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE SITTING OUT HERE IN PUBLIC HEARINGS AND HAVE SOME PRESSURE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE RIGHT NOW. BUT MY INCLINATION HAD BEEN TO TALK ABOUT HOUSING, ASSUMING THERE WERE GOING TO BE A COUPLE OTHER THINGS ON THE AGENDA, BUT WITHOUT THAT, WE DON'T HAVE TO MEET, BUT PEOPLE CAN RESPOND TO THAT OR LET ME KNOW LATER. WE DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE AT THIS MOMENT. THAT WAS THAT WAS ONE THING. AND THEN JOHNNY. SECOND STAFF UPDATE. I'VE ACCEPTED A JOB WITH A DIFFERENT CITY, AND THIS IS MY LAST MEETING WITH YOU. YOU JUST LEARNED ABOUT OUR SLOPES. I, I, THIS WILL BE MY LAST MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF STILLWATER. DID WE REALLY? NO, I WAS NOT LOOKING FOR ANOTHER JOB. I WASN'T APPLYING ELSEWHERE, BUT WHO'S THE LUCKY CITY? YOU. IT'S THE CITY OF MOUND IN THE WEST METRO. OH, WOW. OKAY. WOW. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO FOREST LAKE, WE WERE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION. WE'RE GONNA HAVE A CONVERSATION. SO I'LL, I, MY TEAM IS KNOWN FOR ALMOST A MONTH AT THIS POINT, BUT MY LAST DAY WILL BE A WEEK FROM FRIDAY. OH. SO CONGRATULATIONS. YOU WILL. ARE YOU DONE SUCH A WONDERFUL JOB. THANK YOU. YEAH. 
          ARE YOU INTERESTED IN JOINING US AT A LOCAL ESTABLISHMENT AFTER THIS MEETING? AND SO WE CAN DROWN OUR SORROWS A LITTLE? I CAN CERTAINLY DO SO. OKAY? OKAY. WELL, WITH THAT NEWS, I SEE NO OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COM
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.