Oct 28, 2026 Planning Commission

[I. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:07]

28TH, 2026 MEETING OF THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION. ALL OF THE MEMBERS ARE PRESENT EXCEPT FOR COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN, AND WE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF BEING ABLE TO INTRODUCE OUR NEWEST MEMBER. JENNIFER WILLEY IS A NEW COMMISSIONER WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS EVENING. SO. SO WELCOME ABOARD. SO WITH THAT WE HAVE THE ROLL CALL. SO NEXT UP IS APPROVAL OF

[III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, THAT MOTION CARRIES. NOW IS THE TIME FOR OUR OPEN FORUM. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE IN THE COMMUNITY TO MAKE A PRESENTATION OF FIVE MINUTES OR LESS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ANY ITEM THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING. SO IF YOU HAVE AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA, NO NEED TO COME FORWARD NOW. BUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO BRING FORWARD TO THE COMMISSION, NOW'S THE TIME TO COME FORWARD. PLEASE COME FORWARD TO THE PODIUM. BUT SEEING NO ONE WISHING TO COMMENT DURING THE OPEN FORUM, WE WILL CLOSE THE

[2. Case No. CD2026-042: Zoning Text Amendment request to increase allowable accessory square footage on lots greater than 1,000 square feet in area]

AS IT STANDS, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE TR ZONE ARE LIMITED TO 500FT■!S, OR IF THE PRIMARY DWELLING DOES NOT HAVE A ATTACHED GARAGE, YOU GET A 700 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE.

THOSE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING IS KIND OF THEIR THEIR ROUGH SITE PLAN. IT WOULD BE A 1000 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE IN THIS CASE ON THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS OVER ON MCKUSICK. SO HERE WE CAN SEE ON THE LEFT IS THAT'S ALL OF THE TR ZONED PROPERTIES IN THE CITY. AND AS YOU CAN TELL, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE THOSE MUCH SMALLER RESIDENTIAL LOTS. ON THE RIGHT. WE'VE HIGHLIGHTED THE THREE THAT EXCEED THIS THRESHOLD THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED AS KIND OF A REASONABLE NUMBER TO GO WITH IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THIS TEXT AMENDMENT. THESE ARE ALL VASTLY IN EXCESS OF THE TYPICAL SIZE OF A TR ZONE PROPERTY, USUALLY ZONED THIS WAY, EITHER BECAUSE SOME OF THEM ARE RESERVES THAT AN HOA OWNS. SO NOT REALLY A HOUSE THERE ANYWAY, OR THIS PROPERTY IN PARTICULAR, WHICH USED TO HAVE THE AP AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION ZONING, IT'S BEEN SUBDIVIDED NOW IT'S, YOU KNOW, BEEN REZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. STAFF HAVE FOUND, WHILE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT THAT THIS PROPOSED THRESHOLD OF 50,000FT■!S, SOMETHING THAT WE CHOSE BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE BIT LARGER THAN, THAN AN ACRE. BUT OF COURSE, IT IS KIND OF ARBITRARY TO AN EXTENT. IT WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT WOULD BE OUT OF PLACE OR OVERWHELM THE AREA. IF YOU LOOK AT THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. I DON'T HAVE AN AERIAL PHOTO FOR YOU, UNFORTUNATELY, BUT IT IS SURROUNDED BY VERY SIMILARLY LARGE PARCELS THAT HAVE VERY SIMILAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. THAT WAS KIND OF PART OF THE APPLICANT'S PITCH, WAS THAT MY NEIGHBOR HAS A BIG DETACHED GARAGE. THEY HAVE THIS DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICT. IF THE IF THIS PROPERTY HAD THE AP DISTRICT IT USED TO HAVE, THEY COULD HAVE THE LARGEST GARAGE THAT THEY THAT THEY DESIRE. WHILE THEY RESPECT THEIR SETBACKS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE'S NOT THOSE SAME RESTRICTIONS ON THAT. SO WE KIND OF TRIED TO FIND A REASONABLE NUMBER THAT WOULD ALLOW THAT TO, TO FIT IN. SO THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THOSE SMALLER TR ZONED PARCELS WOULD NOT SUDDENLY BE OVERWHELMED BY A GIGANTIC GARAGE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THE BACK. SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING A ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT I'LL HAVE ON THE NEXT SLIDE THAT I CAN SHOW YOU TO SECTION 28-32, TWO OF THE CITY CODE, WHICH GOVERNS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE SECTION F FOR THE TR DISTRICT. AND WE THERE'S A COUPLE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS THAT DESIGNATE HOW BIG AN

[00:05:02]

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THE CITY IN THIS CASE WOULD BE THE APPLICANT. SO THERE ISN'T AN APPLICANT OR ANYTHING FURTHER FOR FOR AN APPLICANT.

THE HOMEOWNER HERE THEY HAVE DO THEY WISH TO ADD ANYTHING? OKAY. DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THEY ARE.

SO WITH THAT I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM. NOW IS THE TIME TO COME FORWARD FOR THAT. ANYONE WISHING TO TESTIFY ONE MORE TIME. ANYONE WISHING TO TESTIFY, SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS. WHAT DO WE THINK? IS THERE A ANY DISCUSSION OR MOTION? I'LL. I'LL MOVE JUST TO GET THE BALL ROLLING HERE THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL. APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE FOR THE TRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT WOULD ALLOW ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND GARAGES IN THAT. ON LOTS GREATER THAN 50,000FT■!S. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM. I'LL JUST NAME I'M A LITTLE BIT WORRIED ABOUT RULES FOR THREE PARCELS, AND THAT OUR GOAL IS TO NOT HAVE RULES FOR THREE PARCELS. EVEN WHEN. THIS IS A VERY. WHAT I WOULD PERSONALLY CONSIDER A VERY HARMLESS ASK. OKAY. AND I WAS THINKING ALL AFTERNOON ABOUT A DIFFERENT WAY TO DO IT. THAT WOULD NOT BE THAT. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM. SO I THINK FOR ME, THE ONE THING THAT I LOOK AT, ESPECIALLY WITH THESE LARGER PARCELS LIKE THIS, IS MAKING SURE THAT WE DON'T LOSE OPPORTUNITIES, THAT A 50,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT COULD BE DIVIDED INTO SEVERAL LOTS, POTENTIALLY. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE THE EASEMENTS FOR ACCESS POTENTIALLY OR SOME OF THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. BUT THAT'S KIND OF MY, YOU KNOW, WE, YOU KNOW, AND SO I'VE BEEN KIND OF GOING BACK AND FORTH, ROUND AND ROUND ON IN MY HEAD AS TO WHETHER WE CAN BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. BUT WHEN YOU PUT UP THAT GARAGE, THAT GARAGE NEEDS TO BE, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO TAKE AT LEAST AN INITIAL SORT OF LOOK AT HOW POTENTIALLY COULD BE SUBDIVIDED AND MAKE SURE THE GARAGE AT LEAST IS FULLY IN ONE OF THE POTENTIAL SUBDIVISION AREAS VERSUS, YOU KNOW, STRADDLING A LINE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S PROBABLY ASKING WAY TOO MUCH, BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE CONVERSATION WE'RE GOING TO HAVE LATER THIS EVENING ABOUT ABOUT DENSITY, YOU KNOW, CAN BE KIND OF INFORMATIVE ON SOME OF THAT AS WELL. HOW DO WE, YOU KNOW, WE MAY NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT

[00:10:05]

WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO IT AS A CITY, BUT HOW DO WE ENCOURAGE THOSE THINGS? AND WHILE YOUR CONCERN IS DULY NOTED, YOU KNOW, PARTICULARLY IN CONNECTION WITH, YOU KNOW, DENSITY DISCUSSIONS, I GUESS I WOULD NOTE, WELL, IF YOU HAVE THERE'S WE YOU CAN HAVE A GARAGE ON THIS LOT ANYWAY. AND WHILE MOST PEOPLE LIKE THEIR GARAGES CLOSE TO THEIR HOME, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT IT IN ANY PARTICULAR SPOT RIGHT NOW. AS LONG AS YOU KNOW YOU'RE MEETING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. SO YEAH, I THINK PEOPLE CAN DEVELOP THEIR LAND AS THEY. AS LONG AS YOU MEET, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICABLE ZONING CODES AND REGULATIONS, I THINK YOU CAN DEVELOP YOUR PROPERTY AS YOU WISH. YEAH, YEAH. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I CAME DOWN. I WASN'T ABLE TO REALLY COME UP WITH A GOOD WAY OF DOING THIS, BUT IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED. THAT CARRIES. WE HAVE NO UNFINISHED BUSINESS. SO UP NEXT IS NEW BUSINESS. AND THE FIRST ITEM.

[3. Appeal of Interpretation regarding accessory structures in the Cove Cottage Residential zoning district]

SOUNDS LIKE IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE THERE'S BEEN AN APPEAL IN FRONT OF YOU, AND MAYBE SOME OF YOU HAVE NOT HAD TO DEAL WITH THIS. SO I'LL JUST QUICKLY RECAP. THE CODE LAYS OUT DIFFERENT WAYS FOR PEOPLE TO APPEAL DECISIONS OF EITHER STAFF OR BODIES, DEPENDING ON ON WHO IT IS. AND ONE OF THE THINGS WHEN THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR INTERPRETING CODE FALLS ON THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF, AND IF THE APPLICANT IS NOT HAPPY WITH THAT, THEY CAN APPEAL. AND THE BODY THAT THEN RULES ON THAT IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ANOTHER. IN OTHER CASES, IF AN APPLICANT IS NOT HAPPY WITH THE RULING OF A PLANNING COMMISSION, THE APPEAL IS. THE COUNCIL. SO IN THIS CASE, STAFF MADE INTERPRETATION. THE APPLICANT IS APPEALING TO YOU AND YOU DO HAVE THE FINAL SAY IN THIS MATTER. SO JUST BIG PICTURE. THE QUESTION WE'RE ASKING ARE POOLS CONSIDERED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES? THAT'S THE BIG PICTURE QUESTION FOR YOU. THE BACKGROUND IS THERE WAS A HOMEOWNER WHO SUBMITTED A CONCEPT PLAN EARLIER THIS SUMMER FOR A BACK BACKYARD IN-GROUND POOL. IT'S WITHIN SETTLERS. GLEN ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR MACY WAY. I HAVE A MAP IN A SECOND. STAFF LOOKED AT THE CONCEPT PLAN, SAID SEEMS TO BE FINE, MEETS ALL THE SETBACKS. SUBSEQUENTLY, THEY CAME BACK WITH A FORMAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. BUILDING STAFF DID NOTICE ONE ONE SETBACK ISSUE BROUGHT IT TO TO ME AND LOOKING AT IT MORE DETAIL, WE REALIZED THERE'S SOME ZONING CODE LANGUAGE, WHICH SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT NO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE ALLOWED IN THE SETTLERS GLEN NEIGHBORHOOD. AND BASED ON HOW STAFF IS INTERPRETING SOME OF OUR DEFINITIONS, POOLS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. SO BASED ON THAT INTERPRETATION, STAFF FELT THEY WERE UNABLE TO APPROVE THAT POOL AND THAT BUILDING PERMIT DENIED IT. AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE APPLICANT THEN CAME FORWARD TO APPEAL THAT. AND THAT'S WHY IT'S IN FRONT OF YOU. SO JUST LOOKING AT THE CODE LANGUAGE, WHICH IS WHAT WHAT STAFF RELIES ON, WE HAVE TWO DEFINITIONS. THE FIRST ONE FOR ABOUT STRUCTURES. GENERALLY ANYTHING CONSTRUCTED OR ERECTED BY HUMANS WITH A COUPLE EXCEPTIONS, FENCES, WALLS AND CERTAIN LOW DECKS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES ARE THOSE SAME BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES, BUT SECONDARY TO THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON A LOT.

YOU KNOW, A VERY OBVIOUS ONE IS A DETACHED GARAGE OR A SHED CONSTRUCTED BY HUMANS, BUT BUT SECONDARY TO THE MAIN HOUSE ON THE LOT, THE SETTLERS GLEN IS ALL WITHIN THIS COVE COTTAGE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. AND AS YOU LOOK THROUGH THE CODE FOR THAT, THAT ZONING DESIGNATION, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A NOTE THAT SAYS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND GARAGE STANDARDS, SEE THE SUBSEQUENT PART OF CODE AND YOU JUMP TO THAT. AND IT'S PRETTY CLEAR HERE IN THE CCR DISTRICT, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE NOT ALLOWED. SO BASED ON STAFF'S INTERPRETATION THAT, WELL, A POOL IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING CONSTRUCTED BY HUMANS. IT'S SECONDARY TO THE PRINCIPAL HOME.

AND THE CODE SAYS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE NOT ALLOWED. IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO STAFF. WE DID SOME SOME RESEARCH TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND MAYBE HOW THIS CAME ABOUT. WE LOOKED BACK 2001 WHEN THE SETTLERS, GLEN PUD AND THE COTTAGE GROVE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT WAS CREATED.

UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE STAFF REPORT OR THE MINUTES FROM THOSE MEETINGS THAT SAY WHY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WERE EXCLUDED. WE THOUGHT MAYBE THAT MIGHT GIVE US A HINT. IS IT ABOUT VIEW SHED, WHICH MAY SUGGEST THINGS BUILT ABOVE THE GROUND? IS IT ABOUT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, WHICH THEN WOULD INCLUDE POOLS? IT DIDN'T REFERENCE THAT, SO IT REALLY WAS NOT MUCH HELP. WE DID TALK TO AND LOOK AT OUR BUILDING PERMITS AND TALK TO

[00:15:02]

FOOTNOTE IS THOSE HAVE ALL BEEN APPROVED IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, TWO OF THEM IN 2001 AND 1 IN 2003. SO IT'S A FAIRLY RECENT CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION, POTENTIALLY FOR. AND THAT MAY BE WHY THOSE WERE ALLOWED. OR THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER REASON. TALKING WITH THE HOA PRESIDENT JUST RECENTLY, THEY SAID THAT THEY MADE SOME CHANGES TO THEIR FENCE STANDARDS, AND THAT MAY HAVE LOOSENED UP BECAUSE POOLS HAVE TO HAVE FENCES AROUND THEM. AND SO BY CHANGING THE FENCE STANDARDS, MAYBE THAT'S WHAT ALLOWED SOME OF THESE POOLS TO GO IN. BUT JUST TO MAKE A NOTE TO THIS, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING COMMISSION NEVER WOULD HAVE SEEN THIS REQUEST BECAUSE IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVE BY. RIGHT. SO THAT'S HOW THOSE THREE GOT THROUGH WITHOUT KIND OF EVER RISING TO THE LEVEL OF PLANNING COMMISSION. WE DID LOOK AT THE HOA DOCUMENTS. THE HOA DECLARATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IS SILENT ON POOLS, DOES NOT MENTION THEM AT ALL, ALTHOUGH IT DOES MENTION SHEDS, GAZEBOS AND OTHER THINGS. THEY DO HAVE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES THAT THE PRESIDENT THOUGHT WERE PROBABLY ORIGINAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT. THEY DO COMMENT ON POOLS. THE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES ALLOW IN-GROUND POOLS AS LONG AS THERE'S PROPER SETBACKS AND FENCING, BUT EXPLICITLY EXCLUDE ABOVE GROUND POOL. SO BASED ON THAT DOCUMENT, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WAS SOME INTENTION TO ALLOW IN-GROUND POOLS. HOWEVER, CITY ATTORNEY WAS CLEAR TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY THE ZONING THE CITY HAS IN PLACE DICTATES WHAT IS ALLOWED AND NOT WHAT THE HOA WOULD WOULD LIKE TO ASSUME. SO HER ADVICE WAS, BRING IT IN FRONT OF YOU, LET'S TALK THROUGH IT, SEE WHAT MAKES SENSE, AND GO FROM THERE. JUST TO NOTE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SETTLERS, GLEN, ALL THOSE ORANGE PROPERTIES. THIS IS THE ONLY SPOT IN THE CITY THAT HAS THAT COVE COTTAGE RESIDENTIAL ZONING. SO, YOU KNOW, IF WHATEVER WE DETERMINE HERE IS REALLY RELATED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT SPECIFICALLY, IT WOULD NOT CARRY FORWARD INTO OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY. YOU KNOW, WE'RE ZOOMING IN ON, ON THE PART OF SETTLERS. GLEN, THE ONE, TWO, THREE, 4TH MAY SEE AWAY. THAT IS THE LOT THAT IS IN QUESTION. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE OFF ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE ONE OF THOSE. LET'S SEE IF I CAN DO THIS. THERE'S ONE OF THE POOLS THAT WAS APPROVED A FEW YEARS AGO. AND THEN LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR THIS LOT, YOU CAN SEE THE AREA IN RED WOULD BE THE POOL DECK AND THE POOL ITSELF. AND THAT REAR YARD. THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH THIS. IT'S JUST THERE'S A TEN FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT IN THE BACK. THE POOL DECK IS SITTING WITHIN. IT WOULD HAVE TO SHIFT, BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY DOABLE. SO THE APPLICANTS INDICATED IF WE CAN GET THE SETBACKS TO WORK, THEY WOULD STILL LIKE TO TO MOVE FORWARD. IF WE CAN REACH A SOLUTION HERE. ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT? THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU EITHER CONFIRM THE STAFF INTERPRETATION THAT POOLS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND THEREFORE THE CODE INDICATES THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT? OR DO YOU THINK STAFF ERRED AND WE COULD OVERTURN THAT INTERPRETATION, IN WHICH CASE A BUILDING PERMIT COULD GO AHEAD AND BE ISSUED ONCE THE SETBACK ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED? I THINK IN EITHER CASE IN THE CITY ATTORNEY SUGGESTED THIS AS WELL. WHATEVER WAY WE GO, THERE'S PROBABLY SOME WORK TO DO TO CLEAN UP CODE LANGUAGE, TO BE REALLY CLEAR FOR FUTURE STAFF, EXACTLY WHAT WE INTEND.

IF WE SAY POOLS ARE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED, WE COULD CERTAINLY COME BACK AND AMEND THE ZONING DISTRICT TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR IN-GROUND POOLS, MAYBE PUT SOME STANDARDS IN AROUND HOW MUCH LOT COVERAGE OR OTHER THINGS THAT MAYBE WOULD KIND OF MITIGATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS. ON THE OTHER HAND, EVEN IF WE SAID, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T THINK IT'S AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, IT SHOULD GO AHEAD AND GET A BUILDING PERMIT. WE STILL MAY WANT TO COME BACK AND CLARIFY THAT LANGUAGE IN THE CODE SO FUTURE STAFF DOESN'T RENDER THE SAME ISSUE. AND AGAIN, MAYBE ADD SOME STANDARDS EITHER AROUND HOW MUCH OF THE LOT IS COVERED. ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE COULD THINK OF? SO THAT IS THE QUESTION FOR YOU. IT'S KIND OF A TWOFOLD AGREE WITH INTERPRETATION OR NOT. AND THEN DEPENDING ON ON WHICH WAY YOU GO, IS THERE ANY DIRECTION TO STAFF TO KIND OF FOLLOW UP WITH SOME CODE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD HELP KIND OF CLARIFY GOING FORWARD? I'M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS. NOW WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR PROPOSAL, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY A DISCUSSION AND THEN A VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT. SO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. HAS THE ISSUE OF IMPERVIOUS SQUARE FOOTAGE COME INTO PLAY.

HERE IS AN ISSUE. IT IT IT OFTEN CASES IT WOULD THERE IS NO IMPERVIOUS LIMIT IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT THAT IS EXPLICIT. IT IS NOT IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY. SO THERE'S NOT THE DNR IMPOSED KIND OF 25%. ONE THING THAT I HAVE BEEN THINKING, AND I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND YET ANY RECORD OF IT, YOU CAN SEE WITH SETTLERS. GLEN, THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT OF PRESERVED OPEN SPACE AROUND THE PERIPHERY AS WELL AS IN THE CENTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT. AND IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THAT WHEN THIS WAS APPROVED, THERE WAS SOME ASSUMPTION, MAYBE UNDERSTANDING THAT IMPERVIOUS ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT WOULD NOT HAVE A LIMIT BECAUSE THERE WAS

[00:20:05]

WE'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SIMILAR TO KIND OF THE MILLBROOK AREA, WE'VE HAD THESE DISCUSSIONS. WE CAN'T FIND ANYTHING EXPLICIT, BUT THAT COULD BE ONE WAY TO KIND OF RATIONALIZE ALLOWING POOLS IN THE FUTURE. IF WE HAVE LOOKED AT SOME KIND OF OFFSET WITH THE PRESERVED OPEN SPACE.

DO YOU BY CHANCE, HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FROM THE 2021 AND 2023 POOL APPROVALS? THE FIRST TWO FROM 2021 ARE FROM STAFF WHO ARE NO LONGER WITH THE CITY. ALL IT IS IS A SIGNATURE ON THE BOTTOM OF THE APPLICATION, SAYING PLANNING APPROVES AND THE ONE FROM 23. MR. GUTKNECHT APPROVED IT AND I TALKED TO HIM, HE SAID.

I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THEY WERE ALLOWED BECAUSE STAFF HAD APPROVED THEM. AND SO IT MET ALL THE SETBACKS AND SO I SIGNED OFF ON IT. SO THERE WAS NO MORE IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION, AT LEAST WITH CURRENT STAFF, TO KIND OF DELVE INTO THAT. AT SOME POINT BEFORE 2021, THERE WAS EITHER A CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OR MAYBE A CHANGE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE, MAYBE HAVING TO DO WITH WITH FENCES IN THE HOA THAT ALLOWED THAT TO MOVE FORWARD. BUT THAT'S ABOUT AS MUCH AS WE KNOW. OKAY, FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. COMMISSIONER, CAN YOU HELP ME HERE? IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACCESSORY USE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? YES. ACCESSORY USE IS SOMETHING LIKE A RESIDENTIAL USE OR RESIDENTIAL USE OR A COMMERCIAL USE. AND I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MIXED USE OR LET'S TALK ABOUT MAYBE AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. THE PRIMARY USE MAY BE INDUSTRIAL, BUT THEY MAY HAVE, YOU KNOW, LIKE A SMALL RETAIL AREA WHERE THEY'RE SELLING WHATEVER THEY ARE PRODUCING. SO THAT RETAIL USE WOULD BE SECONDARY OR ACCESSORY TO THE PRINCIPAL USE. THAT IS TYPICALLY NOT THE CASE FOR RESIDENTIAL PARCELS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HOME OCCUPATION WOULD BE A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A ACCESSORY USE OF, YOU KNOW, SOME KIND OF BUSINESS OCCUPATION WITHIN A PRINCIPAL USE, WHICH IS THE RESIDENTIAL. SO IN THIS CASE, I WOULD SAY THAT THE POOL IS IS THE USE IS LESS RELEVANT BECAUSE PART OF THAT RESIDENTIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. BUT IT'S AGAIN, PART OF AN INTERPRETATION, PART OF A STRUCTURE THAT IS THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. OKAY. FURTHER QUESTIONS. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. SO THIS ISN'T A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT WE WOULD PROBABLY LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE FROM THE APPLICANT. IF YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD AND LET US KNOW WHAT WHAT'S GOING ON. HI THERE. MY NAME IS MAX, OWNER OF BLAZER POOLS POOL CONTRACTOR. WE SIGNED UP DAN HERE, OUR CLIENT TO DO A SWIMMING POOL THIS YEAR. ANYTIME I START DOING DUE DILIGENCE FOR A POOL PROJECT, I ALWAYS REACH OUT TO THE CITY, ASK FOR A COPY OF THE SURVEY, GOT A COPY OF THE SURVEY, CAME UP WITH THIS SIMPLE 2T2D DESIGN. SUBMITTED THIS TO STAFF AT THE CITY OF STILLWATER. HAD APPROVAL IN WRITING ON SEPTEMBER SEPTEMBER 9TH FROM STAFF THAT APPROVED AND IT SAID IT'S COMPLIANT WITH THE SETBACKS AND LOCATION MEETS IT MEETS CODE. SO I GOT THE GREEN LIGHT ORDER MATERIALS, TENS AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN MATERIALS. AND THEN WE STARTED THE WHOLE PLANNING STAGE. THIS STAFF MEMBER IN PARTICULAR GOES ON VACATION OUT OF THE OFFICE, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IF HE WAS IN OFFICE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED, BUT OTHER STAFF MEMBERS STARTED TO LOOK INTO IT, AND THERE WAS OTHER SETBACK DILEMMAS. AND WE CAN 110% CHANGE AND MANIPULATE THIS AS WE ALREADY HAVE, AND FOLLOWED THE SETBACKS. I WAS TOLD THAT EVERYTHING'S A TEN FOOT SETBACK. CONCRETE CAN GO, THE POOL DECK CAN GO FIVE FEET INTO THAT SETBACK. IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE, WE'RE STILL WILLING TO CRITIQUE THIS AND MAKE THIS WORK. SO WE HAVE HOA APPROVAL AS WELL. EVERYTHING'S CODE COMPLIANT WITH THE FENCE, THE RIGHT HEIGHT, FOUR INCH IN IN DIAMETER. OBJECTS CAN'T FIT THROUGH SELF-CLOSING GATES.

IT'LL HAVE AN AUTOMATIC SAFETY POOL COVER WHICH CHECKS ALL THE BOXES FOR SAFETY. SO IN OUR EYES, IT'S A CODE COMPLIANT POOL. AS THERE'S THREE OTHER POOLS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE FIND IT, YOU KNOW, TOTALLY UNFAIR, QUITE FRANKLY, THAT DAN HERE CAN'T GET HIS POOL. SO IF WE NEED TO MANIPULATE THIS AND MOVE THE POOL AROUND A COUPLE FEET OR SO, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A NEW DESIGN THAT I CAN SHARE WITH JASON. I CAME A LITTLE BIT UNPREPARED. I DON'T HAVE A POWERPOINT OR ANYTHING, BUT THERE'S JUST BEEN SOME MISCOMMUNICATION WITH WITH STAFF AT THE CITY OF STILLWATER. WE GET THE GREEN LIGHT AND WE FIND OUT THERE'S SOME ERRORS IN

[00:25:03]

IT'S A SHELL. WE CRANE THESE IN IT'S CONCRETE POOL DECK. AND THERE'S NOT MUCH MORE, YOU KNOW, TO IT. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONERS, WHAT DO WE THINK ABOUT THIS? REMEMBER THAT THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY MAKING A DECISION ON THE POOL. IT'S MAKING A DECISION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US. WELL, FIRST, I'D JUST LIKE TO THANK STAFF FOR THE PRESENTATION.

THAT WAS VERY CLEARLY STATED, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I APPRECIATE THE THE HOMEOWNER ATTENDING KIND OF STATING THAT. AND I CERTAINLY EMPATHIZE FOR THE PLIGHT. I, YOU KNOW, FIRST AND FOREMOST, I BELIEVE THAT WE WERE ASKED TO ADDRESS WHETHER OR NOT STAFF HAD INTERPRETED THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CORRECTLY. MY INITIAL REACTION IS, I BELIEVE STAFF WAS NOT INCORRECT. I BELIEVE IT IS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THAT BEING SAID, WHEN WE STEP BACK, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT AND WE HAVE TO INTERPRET IT WELL, OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR AND NOT CRITICIZING HOW IT WAS STATED. THIS IS HOW IT'S STATED IN EVERY CITY, USA, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ENCAPSULATE EVERY SINGLE STRUCTURE, ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO BE EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT. IT'S JUST NOT NOT POSSIBLE. SO HOW I VIEW IT IS, IS BEING THAT IT IS KIND OF GRAY. WE'RE LOOKING FOR INTERPRETATION. SO I KIND OF STEP BACK AND LOOK AT, WELL, WHAT IS THE INTENT OF STATING THAT THERE SHALL BE NO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES? NOW, SOME OF THIS IS, YOU KNOW, PERCEPTION. YOU KNOW, I'M MAKING SOME ASSUMPTIONS HERE, BUT MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE INTENT OF NO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IS PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT IT, AS YOU STATED, SOMETHING BUILT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING WITH FOOTINGS, SOMETHING THAT HAS ELEVATION.

YOU KNOW, THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME THEY UTILIZE THAT TO ENSURE THAT THE ESTHETICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AREN'T AFFECTED. SIGHT LINES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AREN'T AFFECTED.

AND NOW AGAIN, THIS IS JUST MY ASCERTAIN OF THE SITUATION. SO IF I'M LOOKING AT THE INTENT OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. I, I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT A POOL WOULD NEGATIVELY AFFECT THAT INTENT ON THAT WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO BUT THERE AGAIN, I'M KIND OF CONTRADICTING MYSELF. I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY, YOU KNOW, ASSESSED IT CORRECTLY AS WRITTEN IN THE CODE, BUT THE INTENT MIGHT JUST BE FOR THE VERTICAL AND NOT NECESSARILY JUST FOR A POOL. NOW, OBVIOUSLY, THREE POOLS WERE BUILT IN THE, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NOW, JUST BECAUSE THEY WENT IN DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE HAVE TO APPROVE. IF THINGS WERE MISSED PRIOR JUST BY COMPLETELY, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF HIDDEN IN THE CODE A LITTLE BIT. NOW, I CAN APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, THAT IT WOULD JUST BE APPROVED BY THAT. BUT JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE APPROVED DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CONTINUE. SO, YOU KNOW, WE'VE KIND OF PRIDED OURSELVES ON THAT. YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE IT HAS DOESN'T MEAN IT ALWAYS SHOULD BE. SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A CHALLENGING SITUATION. BUT IN MY OPINION, LIKE I STATED BEFORE, I THINK THE CITY WAS CORRECT IN THEIR INITIAL INTERPRETATION THAT AS A STRUCTURE, BUT PERHAPS IT DOESN'T MEET THE INTENT OF THE RESTRICTION OF IT. THE INTENT IS POTENTIALLY MORE OF A VERTICAL STRUCTURE AND NOT A POOL. I WOULD BE MORE LENIENT ON SAYING MAYBE WE SHOULD REVISIT THAT TO CLARIFY THAT IN THAT MOVING FORWARD. BUT AS WE TALK ABOUT NO VERTICAL ON THIS, THERE WOULD BE A FENCE THEN AROUND THE POOL. AND I THINK THAT WAS POTENTIALLY AND THAT

[00:30:02]

SO THAT SOUNDS AN AWFUL LOT LIKE IT COULD BE. YOU'RE VERY CLOSE TO HAVING A MOTION. SO I AND WE CAN DO THIS IN TWO PARTS. WE CAN DO THAT, TAKE UP THE INITIAL PIECE FIRST AND THEN FIGURE OUT WHERE WE WANT TO GO WITH THE OKAY WITH THE OTHER. I THINK THE ONLY QUESTION BEFORE US IS, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT TO APPROVE OR ENDORSE OR TO. YEAH, WHETHER THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IS CORRECT IN THERE. SO I WOULD MOVE THAT. THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING CODE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WAS CORRECT, AND THAT A IN-GROUND POOL MEETS THE CITY'S DEFINITION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND IS THEREFORE PROHIBITED. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND AND WE HAVE A SECOND.

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

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED. SO THAT MOTION CARRIES AND THE THE APPEAL IS DENIED. BUT I THINK WE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT DO WE THINK IS THE BEST WAY MOVING FORWARD. AND IN SOME WAYS I WOULD THINK THE CLEANEST WAY IS TO TAKE A LOOK AT KIND OF OTHER SIMILAR ZONING AREAS WHERE POOLS ARE ALLOWED AND WHAT ARE THEY KIND OF WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THAT? DO WE NEED TO EXTRACT OUT THE PIECE THAT SAYS ABSOLUTELY NO STRUCTURE, NO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES? OR DO WE COME UP WITH A LIST OF THESE ARE THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE ALLOWED? AND YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S THE. IS THE CCR DISTRICT THE ONLY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHERE THERE'S A FLAT OUT PROHIBITION ON ACCESSORY STRUCTURES? I HAVE NOT LOOKED AT ALL OF THEM. IT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT I KNOW OF OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. OKAY, SO BASICALLY THE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY ZONING AREAS ALLOW BOTH ALLOW ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, WHICH THEN WOULD ALLOW BASICALLY WOULD ALLOW POOLS. YES. OKAY. YEAH. SO MAYBE IT NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCUSSION AS TO WHAT ARE GOING TO BE THE OBJECTIONABLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. YOU KNOW, THEY MAYBE DON'T WANT THE SEARS LAWN SHEDS, BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT BE OTHER TYPES OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT. I MEAN, IT, IT GETS TO BE KIND OF I MEAN, YES, WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT. I THINK, AND I THINK AT THIS POINT, PLANNING COMMISSION CAN DIRECT ASK STAFF TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND WHAT YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD COME PORT WITH THE HOA'S RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE ALREADY KIND OF ACTING AS A MINI ZONING CODE THERE. AND

[00:35:03]

THEN WE'RE BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AGAIN. SO NO, THAT SUGGESTION SEEMS REASONABLE.

THIS IS A LITTLE OFF, BUT IS THE CCR COVE DISTRICT IS DOES THE HOA COVER THE WHOLE PIECE OR ARE THERE MULTIPLE HOAS? I MIGHT LOOK TO THE RESIDENT. I BELIEVE THERE'S ONE HOA FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY AREA. THERE'S ONE FOR THE TOWNHOMES TO THE WEST, AND THERE MAY EVEN BE ANOTHER ONE FOR THAT KIND OF LITTLE CLUSTER FURTHER OFF TO THE EAST, WHICH IS ZONED SLIGHTLY LOWER ZONE, SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. THEY'RE LIKE A COVE TOWNHOUSE AND A SOMETHING ELSE. SO I THINK THIS IS THE ONLY THERE'S ONE HOA FOR THE CCR, WHICH IS THE SETTLERS GLEN PLUS THE LITTLE BIT UP TO THE NORTH. SO LONG WAY OF ANSWERING, I THINK IS JUST ONE ASSOCIATION, IF I MAY. THIS IS THE ONLY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT DOES NOT ALLOW ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

OKAY. PERIOD. IF THAT ACTUALLY MAKES ME MORE CONCERNED AND I WOULD WANT MORE INFORMATION ON THE DISTRICT GENERALLY, IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DECIDED AS WHY WE SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT FOR THAT DISTRICT, IF WE WERE GOING TO AMEND IT TO THE EXTENT OBVIOUSLY IT'S AN OLD DISTRICT, BUT YOU KNOW, THAT MAKES ME A LITTLE MORE NERVOUS. WELL, AND I GUESS I GUESS YOU SAY MORE ABOUT THAT. I WHEN YOU HAVE A DISTRICT, SOMETIMES IN BROAD STROKES, DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS DISTRICT. AND THE DISTRICT HAS HOAS, WAS THERE DECISIONS MADE THAT SAID, WELL, THE HOAS WILL COVER X AND THEREFORE THE CITY DOESN'T NEED TO DO Y, AND A CONTROL ON THAT IS THAT THEY CAN'T HAVE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. IS THERE OR DO THEY HAVE PARTICULARLY NARROW ROADS? DO THEY HAVE PARTICULAR PIECES THAT MAKE. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE LANDSCAPE A LITTLE BIT BETTER. IS THIS ONE OF THOSE DISTRICTS WHERE THE CITY. FOR REASONS THAT ARE LOST IN THE MISTS OF TIME HERE, BUT THAT THE CITY TOOK THE PUD DOCUMENT AND AND ENACTED IT AS AN ORDINANCE. CORRECT? YEAH. RIGHT. YEAH. YOU KNOW, FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR ME, I'M LOOKING AT WE'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, SIMPLIFY OUR ZONING CODE. AND IF WE KIND OF HAVE THIS ONE LITTLE AREA THAT WE'RE GOING TO SAY, NO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, YOU KNOW, BUT THEN THE HOA ALSO HAS RULES SAYING NO STRUCTURES. DO WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE OUR RULE? OR CAN WE JUST DROP IT BACK TO THE HOA? THEN IT'S CLEANER AND EASIER IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO CHANGE THAT RULE. YOU KNOW, THEY REALLY THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY ELECT A NEW HOA BOARD AND, AND THEY CAN HAVE ALL THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT THEY WANT, YOU KNOW, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE STANDING IN THE WAY.

BUT, AND, AND IT SIMPLIFIES OUR ZONING CODE, WHICH I, WHICH I THINK IS A LAUDABLE GOAL AND ONE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO. I DO AGREE THAT IF YOU START OUT WITH KIND OF A MAKING IT MORE UNIFORM CITYWIDE CODE TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN AND IN A FINANCIAL AID DOES SOMETHING LAYERED ON TOP OF THAT, THAT'S SEPARATE. WE DON'T CONTROL THAT. THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. AND

[00:40:04]

AND JUST IF THERE'S A, THERE'S A BUTTON ON THERE THAT'S GOING TO TURN EVERYTHING GREEN. IF YOU PRESS IT. THERE YOU GO. SORRY, JUST CLARIFICATION WITH THE FENCE IS THE POOL THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PROBLEM OR IS IT THE FENCE BECAUSE THE FENCE IS BIGGER THAN 18IN? OR IS IT BOTH FENCES ARE EXCLUDED. THOSE ARE ALLOWED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN OUR CODE, RIGHT.

OUR CODE SAYS FENCES ARE NOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. AND SO THEY'RE THEY'RE FINE. THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED. SO THE POOL IS THE IS THE PROBLEM. OKAY. BUT FENCE GREATER THAN 18IN.

WELL, IT SAYS GREATER THAN 18IN. THAT WAS THE THAT'S THE FENCE WOULD BE A FOUR FOOT TALL. I MEAN MAYBE WE COULD GET A IS IT A IS IT A FOUR FOOT TALL MINIMUM? I BELIEVE BY BY BUILDING CODE. YEAH. FOR I THINK FOUR FOOT IS THE MINIMUM. YEAH. WHICH WHICH IS TYPICAL.

AND THEN I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION THEN LIKE WHAT ABOUT DECKS THAT ARE 18IN AND TALLER THAT ARE IN SETTLERS GLEN THAT ARE THAT ARE STANDING, IS THAT THE SAME ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THEN THAT COUNTS AGAINST THAT? IF IT IS ATTACHED, THEN IT'S NOT ACCESSORY. IT'S PART OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. IT WAS A FREESTANDING DECK OVER 18IN. THEN IT WOULD BE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. GOTCHA, GOTCHA. AND JUST TO KIND OF WRAP OUR HEADS AROUND THIS DENIED FOR THIS APPEAL, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU GUYS ARE WILLING TO REWRITE THE ORDINANCE AND KIND OF AMEND WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PUT IN THERE THAT COULD IN FAVOR, YOU KNOW, GO THROUGH WITH THIS POOL PROJECT IN THE FUTURE. CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH. GOTCHA. YEAH, I'M, I'M, I'M HOPEFUL. YEAH. I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING FOR YOU. WE PROBABLY HAVE LOST THIS CONSTRUCTION SEASON. BUT, YOU KNOW, YEAH, WE, WE JUST PUT OUR LAST POOL IN AND THIS WOULD BE FOR 2027. AND BUT YOU KNOW, WE GET A WE GET A LOT OF LEADS GENERATED THROUGH LIBERTY AND SETTLERS. GLENN REMINDS ME A LOT OF LIBERTY. AND I KNOW LIBERTY HAS AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DEAL WHERE A LOT OF PEOPLE ALREADY AT CAPPED AT 25% OR THEY'RE OVER. AND I KNOW STILL A LOT OF POOL BUILDERS THAT ARE PUTTING IN POOLS THERE BECAUSE THEY COME UP WITH SOME RAIN GARDEN OR HOW TO, YOU KNOW, WHERE TO AREA TO MITIGATE THE WATER AND WHATNOT. I NETWORK WITH ALL THE POOL BUILDERS IN TOWN, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE STILL BEING POOLS PUT IN, IN SETTLER OR IN LIBERTY. SO I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, WILLING TO REWRITE THE CODE, TAKE THIS MORE INTO DEPTH AND HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, NEXT YEAR WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE ON TO ON TO SOMETHING. YEAH. NO, GREAT. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH, YEAH. OKAY. AND WITH THAT,

[4. Comprehensive Plan Conversation – Land Use and Density]

[00:45:01]

LIKE, DO ANY OF THESE FEEL STILL RESONATE WITH YOU? AND IF YOU COULD JUST SHOUT OUT EITHER 1 OR 2 THAT DO, OR IF THEY DON'T AT ALL, THEN. I THINK THE HEALTHY BALANCE OF LAND USE IS, YOU KNOW. I THINK IT'S VERY MUCH RELEVANT. AND. IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT PROBABLY A WIDE OAK PARK HEIGHTS IS. WE HEAR THAT A LOT. YEAH. AND 36. I THINK WHEN WHEN TOWNEES SAY THAT THEY MEAN NOT WOODBERRY. RIGHT. YEAH. I THINK THAT'S THAT'S MORE WHAT THAT CONVERSATION IS. YEAH. RIGHT. SO YEAH, THE GREENBELTS IN THE WESTERN AND NORTHERN PORTIONS OF THE CITY I THINK ARE. WELL, I MEAN THAT WORKS UNTIL WE DECIDE THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER PLACES THAT GET ANNEXED. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE HAVING CONVERSATIONS AT ALL WITH STILLWATER TOWNSHIP OR NOT. I DOUBT IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE, ISN'T IT? YEAH, YEAH. WELL, AND I THINK THE QUALITY DESIGN, INFILL DEVELOPMENTS KIND OF GO HAND IN HAND WITH A HEALTHY BALANCE OF LAND USES. AS FAR AS THE FORESIGHT THAT YOU WERE REFERENCING, RIGHT? YEAH. SO, SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS THEY MOST DO RESONATE. THERE MIGHT BE SOME ADDITIONAL UPDATES AND THERE WILL BE. SO THIS AGAIN, WON'T BE YOUR ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE LAND USE GOALS. SO THE NEXT QUESTION IS HOW DO YOU FEEL IF THE CITY HAS PROGRESSED TOWARDS THESE GOALS? MAYBE ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 5, ONE BEING NOT PROGRESS AND FIVE BEING HAVE PROGRESSED. WELL, I THINK FOR NUMBERS ONE AND TWO WE'VE BEEN PRETTY GOOD.

I THINK WE'VE LARGELY BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON THOSE. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? YEAH, THERE HASN'T BEEN MUCH THAT'S BEEN DONE WITH THE GREENBELTS THAT WE KIND OF HAVE. AND WHAT DO YOU DEFINE AS GREENBELTS IN THIS COMMUNITY? THAT'S I THINK WELL, THAT'S PART OF IT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT THE YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S IT'S WIDER ACCESS ALONG THE EDGE OF THE HIGHWAYS KIND OF IS PART OF WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALL THE, THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE CITY IS ALSO KIND OF WHERE WE HAVE A LOT MORE OF THE A PAP STUFF, BUT ALSO A LOT OF THE HOUSING THAT IS THAT IS UP IN THAT AREA ON MUCH LARGER LOTS. SOME OF OUR, YOU KNOW, BIG LOT AREAS ARE, ARE KIND OF THERE WITH RESPECT TO NUMBER THREE, I THINK WE SHOULD.

REWRITE IT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT A GREENBELT IS. AND SECONDLY, IF THE INTENT WAS THAT AS WE BUILD OUT THE CITY TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST, ARE WE SAYING WE WANT MORE TRAILS, YOU KNOW, OR ARE WE SAYING THESE ARE THE AREAS WHERE WE WANT LIKE SETTLERS?

[00:50:04]

YOU KNOW, THERE WAS SMALL AMOUNT OF AREA THAT WAS SET ASIDE FOR GREEN SPACE AND NATURAL SETTINGS. SO I THINK THREE AND FOUR, UNFORTUNATELY. YOU KNOW, WE MAY NOT WITH, AS I SAID, NUMBER THREE, I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT. NUMBER FOUR, I THINK IS PERHAPS IN SOMEWHAT IN CONFLICT WITH A ANOTHER GOAL TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, A DENSER HOUSING.

THANK YOU FOR SHARING THOSE COMMENTS. SO THAT LEADS ME INTO MY LAST QUESTION FOR THIS TOPIC IS, ARE THERE ANY TOPICS MISSING FROM THESE GOALS? I THINK JUST OUR, YOU KNOW, QUICK PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, AS WE AS WE WRITE GOALS AND OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE GOALS, THEY TRY TO, YOU KNOW, HIT ON DIFFERENT ASPECTS ABOUT LAND USE AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO THEM. SO IF THERE'S NEW THINGS LIKE YOU GUYS HAVE IDENTIFIED IN THREE AND FOUR THAT COULD BE REWRITTEN, WHAT ARE THOSE TOPICS? THESE ARE KIND OF, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT WORD ARE, RIGHT WORD IS, BUT LIKE BOUGIE GOALS, LIKE THERE'S NO LIKE ABILITY TO LIKE, ADD IN THAT THIS IS A COMMUNITY FOR EVERYBODY AND THAT WE'RE PRESERVING THAT. LIKE IF YOU READ THESE, LIKE QUALITY DESIGN MAY INCLUDE AFFORDABILITY, YOU KNOW, BUT HEALTHY BALANCE IN LAND USE DOESN'T CALL OUT, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT LOSING RESIDENTS. AND THE, THE INFILL DEVELOPMENTS ALMOST READS MORE LIKE COMMERCIAL THAN IT READS COMMUNITY BASED. SO I THINK TO ME, WHAT'S MISSING IS MAKING SURE THAT WE MAINTAIN COMMUNITY AND NOT JUST STRUCTURES. HELPFUL PERSPECTIVE. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? WELL, NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW, I MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY ABOUT RESIDENTIAL AND THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT KINDS OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. AND THE IDEA BEING WE NEED TO HIT THESE MET COUNCIL GOALS AND WHAT, SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE? ET CETERA. ET CETERA. SO I THINK A TOPIC THAT MIGHT BE MISSING FROM THIS LAUNDRY LIST IS, YOU KNOW, IS, YOU KNOW, ENCOURAGE DENSER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

I WOULD ARGUE ALSO A VARIETY OF DENSER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. YEAH. THINKING OF THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS THAT GAVE ME HEARTBURN WAS HOW MUCH IT VARIED FROM OUR CODE AND THAT WE WERE PUTTING ON PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH HOA TO TAKE CARE OF, AS OPPOSED TO CITY, JUST BECAUSE WE WERE SAYING DENSITY CONTROLLED. AND THAT'S APPROPRIATE SOMETIMES, AND IT CAUSES PROBLEMS THAT OUR COMMUNITY HOLDS IN OTHER TIMES.

BUT. THESE ARE. THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR THOUGHTS. THESE ARE REALLY THESE ARE VERY HELPFUL AS WE START THINKING ABOUT REFINING THESE GOALS. AND ONE POINT I'D LIKE TO MAKE TO YOUR COMMENT, COMMISSIONER THOMAS. OH I'M SORRY. OKAY. WE ARE WORKING ON THE VISIONING WITH ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SO BLENDING THE COMMUNITY ASPECTS WITH THE VISIONING ASPECTS AND THE LAND USE GOALS IS SOMETHING WE ARE LOOKING TOWARD DOING. SO I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS.

ALL RIGHT. SO MOVING AHEAD, THESE ARE THE CURRENT LAND USE CATEGORIES THAT ARE RESIDENTIAL

[00:55:03]

HOWEVER THEY NEED TO TRANSLATE INTO THE ZONING CODE AND LOOK AT THE ZONING DISTRICTS SO THAT THEY MATCH AND WILL BE ASSESSED AFTER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS. SO THIS IS JUST TO DEMONSTRATE HOW IT ALL KIND OF FLOWS TOGETHER. AND AS YOU GUYS WORK ON THE WORK THROUGH THE CODE AND STUFF, THAT'S JUST SOMETHING WE ALSO THINK ABOUT. SO THIS IS A MAP FROM THE LAND USE CHAPTER THAT SHOWS THE LAND USE CHANGE AREAS. AND AS YOU SEE AREAS A E AND PART OF D SO AND DOWNTOWN, SO A, D AND E IN DOWNTOWN SOME SITES HAVE DEVELOPED, BUT THERE IS STILL QUITE LARGE AMOUNTS OF AREA THAT ARE STILL PENDING TO BE DEVELOPED AND WILL LIKELY THIS MAP WILL LIKELY CHANGE SO THAT NEW AREAS MIGHT BE IDENTIFIED AS CHANGE AREAS. AND THAT WILL BE SOMETHING WE WILL FURTHER JEFF WILL FURTHER TALK ABOUT LATER IN THE PRESENTATION. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS TALKING ABOUT THE CURRENT. SO THIS MAP, THE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE CATEGORIES WITH THE. NET DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE. AND IF YOU CAN SEE THE HIGHWAY DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS NOT THERE IS NO IDENTIFIED DEVELOPABLE LAND. SO THAT MEANS THERE'S NO LIKE NEW LAND GUIDED FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. EVERYTHING IN THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS WHAT IS EXISTING. SO THAT IS AGAIN ANOTHER THING TO THINK ABOUT AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS ON HOW TO, YOU KNOW, ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING TYPES AND PROVIDE ACCESS TO

[01:00:09]

AND YOU TALKED ABOUT LAND USE WITH STAFF, I THINK BACK IN MAY AT A HIGH LEVEL. SO WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT DENSITY TONIGHT, WHICH IS WHICH WOULD BE HANDLED MAINLY IN THE LAND USE CHAPTER.

SO AS FAR AS THE MET COUNCIL'S REQUIREMENT, MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE AND DENSITY, THERE'S ABOUT SIX PAGES OF A CHECKLIST OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS. THAT SOUNDS LONG, BUT THE THE CHECKLIST INCLUDES DESCRIPTIONS OF EACH OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS SO THAT THEY'RE EASIER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ACTUALLY ARE. BUT THESE ARE THE TYPES OF REQUIREMENTS THAT EACH CITY IN THE METRO AREA NEEDS TO INCLUDE IN THEIR LAND USE CHAPTER. WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS MAINLY TONIGHT ON TWO, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN, A LITTLE BIT ON SEVEN, BUT JUST GO OVER KIND OF SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND TALK ABOUT DIRECTIONS THAT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN. SO THE FIRST THING IS THE LAND USE CATEGORIES OR FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES. ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY HAVE IN THERE IS FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES WITHIN THE MUSA THAT ANY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORY THAT ALLOWS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ALSO ALLOWS ANOTHER HOUSING TYPE TO TRY TO EXPAND THE HOUSING OPTIONS ALLOWED IN CITIES. AND SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, I MEAN, AS A FIRM, WE'RE DEALING WITH WITH A LOT OF CITIES, ESPECIALLY WITH UPDATING THEIR ZONING CODES, A LOT OF CITIES ARE DOING THIS ANYWAY. SO THEY'VE KIND OF GOTTEN AHEAD OF THEIR COMP PLANS IN SOME CASES. SO EXAMPLES OF WHAT THAT COULD BE ARE ADUS ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES OR APARTMENTS. AND THEN FOR MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORIES. THIS ISN'T NEW, BUT IT'S SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT YOU MUST IDENTIFY THE PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL ALLOWED IN THOSE DISTRICTS. SO I THINK IT MIGHT BE IN HERE, BUT IN THE HIGHWAY MIXED USE, I THINK IT'S AT 50%. IT CAN BE RESIDENTIAL. AND I KNOW FOR THE HIGHWAY 36 CORRIDOR, THERE WAS WORK DONE TO LOOK AT WHAT THE PERCENTAGE WOULD BE THERE ALSO, WHICH I THINK WAS MAYBE LESS BECAUSE THAT'S A MAIN COMMERCIAL FOCUS FOR THE CITY AS WELL. HEY JEFF, CAN I JUST STEP IN JUST TO CLARIFY THAT FIRST POINT, SAYING THAT ANY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORY THAT THAT INVOLVES SINGLE FAMILY HAS TO ALLOW A SECOND. CURRENTLY, OUR ZONING DOESN'T DO THAT. OUR RA DISTRICT, WHICH IS A GOOD SWATH OF THE MIDDLE, DOESN'T ALLOW ADUS AS THIS LAND USE. AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY ZONING GETS UPDATED. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ALLOW A SECOND TYPE OF HOUSING THERE. IT MAY BE A TWO USE, IT MAY BE DUPLEXES, BUT WE CANNOT GET AWAY WITH SINGLE FAMILY ONLY ZONING AFTER THIS NEXT CYCLE. SO THAT'S A BIG CHANGE ACROSS THE METRO AREA. IT'LL BECOME EFFECTIVE WITH THE COMP PLAN. AND THEN IT'S USUALLY LIKE SIX MONTHS TO UPDATE YOUR ZONING TO UP TO NINE MONTHS, NINE MONTHS. SO I MEAN, HOW DEPENDING ON HOW QUICKLY YOU DO IT, YOU KNOW, 20, 30, 20, 31, I MEAN, THIS IS GOING TO BE IN PLACE THROUGHOUT THE METRO AREA. SO I MEAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY ACCOMMODATE IT, BUT IT REQUIRES THAT KIND OF PLANNING. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? AND HAVING YOUR STANDARDS FOR ADUS OR DUPLEXES OR WHATEVER WE MIGHT WANT TO ALLOW. AS FAR AS DENSITY PLANNING. SO FOR COMMUNITIES DESIGNATED AS

[01:05:02]

AND THAT'S WHERE STILLWATER'S DESIGNATION IS RIGHT NOW. THE THE MINIMUM AVERAGE. THIS IS A MOUTHFUL. THE MINIMUM AVERAGE NET RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OR RESIDENTIAL NET DENSITY IS SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPABLE LAND. SO IT'S NOT IT'S NOT THAT STILLWATER'S MINIMUM DENSITY HAS TO RISE UP TO SEVEN UNITS. IT'S JUST THE LAND THAT'S GOING TO ACCOMMODATE GROWTH OR REDEVELOP ON AVERAGE NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE. SO, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S SOME HIGH DENSITY. THAT'S WHY ONE OF THE REASONS WE BROUGHT UP THAT OTHER POINT OF THERE'S NO LAND RIGHT NOW GUIDED FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THAT ISN'T ALREADY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SO IF YOU GUIDE SOME LAND FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, THAT'S GOING TO RAISE THAT AVERAGE REALLY QUICKLY. SO THERE CAN DEFINITELY BE GROWTH OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN STILLWATER. IT'S JUST THE AVERAGE ACROSS THAT THOSE GROWTH AREAS HAS TO BE AT LEAST SEVEN. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? NET DENSITY DOES NOT INCLUDE WETLANDS, WATER BODIES, PUBLIC PARKS AND TRAILS. ALL THE THINGS THERE. SO YOU CAN STILL HAVE GREEN SPACE. AND YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S NET DENSITY, NOT GROSS. AND THEN CALCULATE IT'S CALCULATED ACROSS ALL LAND USE CATEGORIES, WHICH I WAS JUST EXPLAINING. AND. YEAH, OKAY. I THINK I'VE SAID ALL THAT. IT INCLUDES BOTH UNDEVELOPED AND REDEVELOPMENT. YEP. ALIGNMENT BETWEEN LAND USE CATEGORIES AND ZONING DISTRICT. JASON WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS AS WELL, BUT. THE ONE OF THE THINGS WE SHOWED ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE WAS THERE WAS DENSITY RANGES WITH MINIMUMS AND MAXIMUMS, AND THEN IT WOULD SAY COULD GO HIGHER WITH A PUD. OUR, OUR THOUGHT ON THAT IS THAT'S PROBABLY NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE IN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. BECAUSE IF, IF YOUR ZONING DISTRICTS ARE GOING TO ALIGN WITH YOUR COMP PLAN LAND USES AND YOU SAY THE, THE MAXIMUM DENSITY IS THIS, BUT THEN THE PUD COMES IN TWICE AS HIGH AS THAT. THAT'S NOT GOING TO THAT'S NOT GOING TO ALIGN. SO MOSTLY WELL, DENSITY IS NOT REALLY IN YOUR ZONING DISTRICTS TODAY. IT'S WHAT WE SHOWED UP THERE WAS CALCULATED FROM YOUR MINIMUM LOT SIZE. SO SOME CITIES HAVE DENSITY NUMBERS IN THEIR ZONING DISTRICTS AND THEIR COMP PLANS. SO THEY RUN INTO PROBLEMS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ALIGNED.

YOU DON'T HAVE THAT ISSUE, ALTHOUGH IT CAN HAPPEN IF YOU CALCULATE IT THAT WAY. BUT IN GENERAL, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU DON'T ALLOW PUDS TO GO HIGHER THAN WHAT'S IN THE COMP PLAN. YOU COULD YOU COULD USE A PUD TO GO HIGHER THAT THAN THE DENSITY OR LOT SIZES ALLOWED IN ZONING DISTRICT. THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, BUT YOU WOULD WANT TO ALIGN ANY ZONING TO WHAT'S IN THE COMP PLAN. ULTIMATELY, THE MET COUNCIL IS NOT GOING TO ACCEPT A PLAN THAT ALLOWS YOU TO GO HIGHER THAN THE DENSITY THAT YOU'RE SUBMITTING BECAUSE THEY'RE THEY'RE CALCULATING ALL THEIR SEWER SYSTEMS AND EVERYTHING ON A MAXIMUM CAPACITY. AND IF YOU SAY, WELL, BUT BY PUD, WE COULD DOUBLE THAT, THAT WILL THROW OFF THEIR SYSTEM. SO IN THEORY, THEY SHOULD BE CATCHING THAT AND NOT ALLOWING YOU TO GO HIGHER THAN YOUR MAXIMUM DENSITY. SO IT'S SOMETHING IN OUR CODE THAT WE HAVEN'T REALLY TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF, BUT ALSO WOULD NOT EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE IN THERE GOING FORWARD. ISN'T THAT THE PURPOSE OF A PUD? YOU CAN HAVE IT IN YOUR ZONING AND SAY YOU CAN HAVE CERTAIN THINGS BY RIGHT IN A PUD CAN GO ABOVE IT, BUT IT STILL HAS TO BE INCLUDED IN YOUR COMP PLAN. YOUR COMP PLAN IS ULTIMATELY WHAT THE MET COUNCIL IS LOOKING AT FOR THEIR SYSTEMS. SO SAY YOU WENT UP TO 100 UNITS AN ACRE IN YOUR LAND USE PLAN, BUT IN YOUR ZONING, IT MAY SAY YOU CAN DO 50 BY RIGHT, AND YOU COULD GET UP TO 100 WITH PUD. SO YOU HAVE SOME THRESHOLDS, BUT ULTIMATELY YOU CAN'T GO ABOVE WHAT YOUR COMP PLAN IS SAYING THROUGH SOME OTHER MECHANISM, BECAUSE MET COUNCIL NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO CALCULATE REGIONALLY. CAN OUR SEWER SYSTEM HANDLE IT? CAN OUR ROADS HANDLE IT? SO IT'S A NUANCE, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT OUR CODE WILL CLEAN UP. YEAH. SO THE MET COUNCIL FOCUSES ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS, NOT THE ZONING. AND SO WE'RE EXTRAPOLATING THE PUD ISSUE FROM THE FACT THAT THE THE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS CALL OUT THAT DENSITY BONUSES MUST FIT THE COMP PLAN. SO A PUD IN A WAY IS KIND OF LIKE A DENSITY BONUS. BUT OTHER CITIES HAVE DENSITY BONUSES THAT THEY ALLOW TO GO ABOVE THE ZONING DISTRICTS. HIGHEST DENSITY. AND

[01:10:07]

ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS GROWTH STAGING PLAN. SO THE EACH PLAN HAS TO PROVIDE A TABLE THAT IDENTIFIES NET DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE FOR EACH LAND USE CATEGORY. AND YOU HAVE TO DO THAT FOR EACH DECADE. AND THEN YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE AS PART OF THAT FUTURE LAND USES ACREAGES DENSITY RANGES, AND THEN THE NUMBER OF UNITS BY DECADE. AND THAT SHOULD SHOW IT FOR BOTH UNDEVELOPED LAND. YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOW REDEVELOPMENT LAND UNLESS YOU'RE USING THAT LAND TO MEET THE GOALS, WHICH IN THE CURRENT PLAN YOU DID OR THE CITY DID.

BECAUSE HIGHWAY 36 CORRIDOR WAS A BIG PART OF ACHIEVING THE GROWTH GOALS IN 20 FOR THE 2040 PLAN, AND THEN THE GROWTH STAGING PLAN MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF SEWER GROWTH THAT'S IN THE SANITARY SEWER PLAN. AND THAT GETS VERY DETAILED. SO WE WORK WITH ENGINEERING ON THAT. AND THEN JUST THIS ISN'T MEANT TO BE READABLE. THIS IS A TABLE THAT'S IN YOUR CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND WHAT IT DOES IS THIS IS WHERE WE DO ALL THE CALCULATIONS OF NET DEVELOPABLE ACRES. PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL. SO FOR INSTANCE, IN THE HIGHWAY 36 CORRIDOR, 30% IS INTENDED TO BE RESIDENTIAL OF THAT OF THAT LAND USE. AND SO THE ACRES, INSTEAD OF BEING 137 ACRES, ARE REALLY 41 ACRES. THAT COULD BE RESIDENTIAL. AND THEN IT'S JUST CALCULATING OUT BASED ON MINIMUM MAXIMUM DENSITY, HOW MANY UNITS BY DECADE COULD BE ACCOMMODATED IN EACH OF THOSE AREAS. THE OUTCOME OF ALL THESE TABLES IS WE GET TO THAT GROWTH THAT THE MET COUNCIL GAVE US LAST YEAR, THOSE FORECASTS. SO ONCE YOU ADD UP ALL THE GROWTH AND ALL THESE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, YOU GET TO THIS MUCH INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL, THE CAPACITY TO INCREASE BY THIS MANY UNITS. AND IN THEORY, THAT HAS TO MATCH THE TABLE THAT THEY GAVE US TO SAY, YOU'RE GOING TO GROW BY THIS MANY PEOPLE, THIS MANY HOUSES. AND THEN SIMILARLY, THERE'S A TABLE IN YOUR CURRENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYMENT. AND SO THAT GOES OVER ALSO HAS NET DEVELOPABLE ACRES, BUT THEN IT TRANSLATES IT INTO SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED. IT LOOKS AT FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR EACH OF THOSE LAND USE CATEGORIES, EMPLOYEES PER SQUARE FOOT, ALL OF THAT JUST TO CALCULATE HOW MANY JOBS COULD BE DEVELOPED ON THE LAND THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR, WHETHER IT'S UNDEVELOPED OR REDEVELOPMENT. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE'RE HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THOSE.

THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE FOR YOU ARE FIRST ONE IS WHAT AREAS DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT BETWEEN NOW AND 2050? AND I THINK THAT'S MORE ABOUT REDEVELOPMENT AREAS, THE UNDEVELOPED AREAS THAT HAVEN'T DEVELOPED SINCE THE LAST PLAN ARE MAINLY ALONG MANNING. I THINK THERE'S 2 OR 3 OF THOSE LEFT. HIGHWAY 36 CORRIDOR, WHICH IS REDEVELOPMENT. AND THEN THE THE THE OTHER ONE WAS THE, THE CURRENT HOSPITAL SITE THAT WAS IN THERE. AND THEN DOWNTOWN THERE WAS SIX SITES OR THERE ARE SIX SITES IN THE CURRENT PLAN. AND IN TALKING TO STAFF, I THINK BASICALLY THREE OF THOSE ARE OFF THE TABLE OR HAVE REDEVELOPED. SO THERE'S THREE THAT ARE LEFT DOWN THERE. SO JUST INTERESTED IF YOU HAVE OTHER THOUGHTS BETWEEN NOW AND 2050. SO 20, 25 YEARS FROM NOW, OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY THAT YOU THINK MIGHT BE CONSIDERED FOR REDEVELOPMENT? I KNOW THAT'S NOT AN EASY QUESTION BECAUSE CAN I ASK WHAT THE THREE DOWNTOWN THAT ARE REMAINING ARE? WHAT'S THAT? CAN I ASK WHAT THE THREE DOWNTOWN THAT ARE REMAINING? YEAH, I THINK JASON, YOU PROBABLY KNOW THOSE LOT 14, LOT 15 THOSE ARE TWO THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AND THEN THE LAND USE LOT. ARE WE.

[01:15:12]

SO I KNOW MY UNDERSTANDING BASED ON CONVERSATION IS THAT WHEN WE CHOSE THAT AS A HIGH DENSITY AREA, IT WAS BECAUSE WE WERE REALLY WORRIED THAT ALL THESE BIG BOX PLACES WERE GOING TO CLOSE. THAT MAKES SENSE. KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW NOW AND HOW IT'S BEEN DEVELOPED, IS THERE BEEN ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT REALISTICALLY IS GOING TO HAPPEN THERE? WELL, I WELL, AS PART OF UPDATING THE COMP PLAN, AND I'M SURE JASON'S TALKED ABOUT THIS, BUT THE FIRST STEP WILL BE TO LOOK AT THE HIGHWAY 36 CORRIDOR AS A SMALL AREA PLAN AND TALK THROUGH THAT. SO OKAY. IS IT AS IT REDEVELOPS. HOW COULD IT REDEVELOP TO INCLUDE HOUSING AND OTHER USES? I MEAN, JUST LOOKING AT SOME OF THE USES THAT ARE THERE, I THINK THERE'S A HIGH LIKELIHOOD, ESPECIALLY IF WE REZONE IT TO CREATE MORE POTENTIAL VALUE. SOME OF THOSE BUSINESSES, THOSE LANDOWNERS WILL SELL AND THERE WILL BE REDEVELOPMENT. PART OF THAT SMALL AREA PLAN IS A MARKET STUDY TO KIND OF GET A HANDLE ON IT. BUT AS AN EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, A BUILDING SUPPLY YARD IN THE MIDDLE OF A DEVELOPED AREA IS NOT THAT COMMON ANYMORE.

TYPICALLY, THOSE MOVE TO THE OUTSIDE. IF THAT SITE HAD THE POTENTIAL TO DEVELOP AT A MUCH HIGHER VALUE, YOU COULD SEE THEM DECIDING TO MOVE SELLING. AND SUDDENLY THAT'S A HUGE SITE THAT WOULD BE OPEN FOR REDEVELOPMENT. NOT THAT WE ARE REQUIRING ANYONE TO SELL AND MOVE, BUT THE ZONING WOULD SET THE STAGE AND MAYBE INCENTIVIZE THOSE USES THAT MAY FIND IT, YOU KNOW, TO THEIR BENEFIT TO RELOCATE TO TO DO THAT. AND THEN OUR PLAN WOULD KIND OF HELP DICTATE WHAT THE FEEL AND LOOK OF WHAT WOULD REPLACE IT WOULD BE, WHICH IS WHERE WE REALLY HAVE A LOT OF CONTROL. THAT WOULD BE REALLY COOL. IT'S, I THINK IF WE'RE ABLE TO LIKE, LOOK AT IT, IT'S JUST STARTING TO LOOK LIKE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY. SO YEAH, SO PART OF IT WOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS, PART OF IT WOULD BE TO LOOK AT THE STREET NETWORK TOO, BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S SET UP NOW, IT DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF STREETS. IT HAS MOSTLY DRIVEWAYS AND A FRONTAGE ROAD. BUT IF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LIVE THERE AND IT WAS GOING TO BE A MIXED USES, YOU'D HAVE MORE STREET CONNECTIONS AND NICER STREETS. I CAN THROW IN THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD ON THIS, BECAUSE AS WE'RE LOOKING AT A WASHINGTON AVENUE AND WHERE TO, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE SEEN THE BARRIERS GO UP THERE, WHICH I THINK IS WORKING PRETTY WELL.

WE HAD A WORKING SESSION WHERE WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE RESTRUCTURE THOSE STREETS A LITTLE BIT, SOME OF THOSE HOTELS AND OTHERS THAT ARE PROBABLY RIPE FOR REDEVELOPMENT.

WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO INCREASE THE VALUE OF THEM BY PUTTING SOME MORE FRONTAGE ROAD IN FRONT OF THEM. SO WE'RE GOING SLOW ON THAT FOR A REASON. YEAH. NO, I THINK THAT'S THAT'S GREAT.

SO ANY ANY OTHER AREAS THAT YOU THINK THE PLAN SHOULD LOOK AT. FOR GROWTH OR REDEVELOPMENT.

THE ONE THAT I ALWAYS THINK ABOUT IS KIND OF THE AND IT MAY BE IT'S TOO SMALL OF AN AREA TO BE REALLY THINKING ABOUT, BUT IT'S THE AREA THAT'S KIND OF NORTH OF THE CURIO DANCE STUDIO.

LIFT BRIDGE WAS GOING TO DO SOMETHING IN THERE, AND THAT NEVER MATERIALIZED. AND SO IT'S STILL KIND OF THE WEEK BEFORE COVID HIT, RIGHT? YEAH. AMAZING. YEAH. NO, NO, NO, NO, I'M NOT, I'M NOT, I'M NOT BLAMING THEM. BUT IT IS, YOU KNOW, BUT IT DEFINITELY IS ONE OF THOSE, YOU KNOW, IS THERE A BETTER AND HIGHER USE OF THIS AREA? THE ANSWER IS PROBABLY, BUT HOW DO WE CRACK THAT NUT? MEANWHILE I WALK MY DOGS. YEAH. YEAH. SORRY. THAT'S THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING IT THERE. THAT'S WHY WE PUT THE PASS WELL THERE. THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. SO YEAH. AND I THINK ONE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES IS THE HIGHWAY 36 CORRIDOR TODAY ON THE MAP, WHICH OH YEAH, I COULD DO THAT. WE DO HAVE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. IS THE THE HATCHED RED AREA. AND I THINK

[01:20:07]

I DON'T THINK WE CAN COUNT IT TOWARDS OUR OFFICIAL NUMBERS UNLESS THERE'S AN ACTUAL AGREEMENT IN PLACE. BUT IT WOULD NOT HURT IF THERE'S CERTAIN TARGETED AREAS TO SAY, LET'S PLAY OUT WHAT THIS COULD LOOK LIKE IF WE GOT, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE TO GUIDE IT SOMEDAY FOR THIS USE, WE COULD SEE KIND OF WHAT KIND OF CAPACITY WE WOULD HAVE IF WE DID THAT IN A COUPLE KEY LOCATIONS. DO YOU SEE THOSE AS POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT AREAS? WELL, THAT OAK PARK HEIGHTS AREA IS IF I'VE GOT MY COORDINATES RIGHT. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, SOME OF THAT'S FOR SALE AND IT'S UNDERDEVELOPED. IT'S A BIG PARKING LOT BY THE MMT. YEAH.

IT'S JUST IT'S IT'S NOTHING THERE, RIGHT. YEAH, I AGREE. ON THE OTHER HAND, OAK PARK HEIGHTS IS WORKING ON THEIR PLAN. MAYBE THEY HAVE GRAND VISIONS FOR WHAT COULD HAPPEN THERE. SO THAT'S PART OF THAT, YOU KNOW, EVENTUAL CONVERSATION WITH ADJACENT CITIES. I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW FOR THE SMALL. YEAH, THAT IS A REQUIREMENT. WHEN YOU GET YOUR PLAN DONE, A DRAFT, YOU SHARE IT WITH YOUR ADJACENT COMMUNITIES. I ALWAYS ADVOCATE WE SHOULD BE SHARING WHILE WE'RE DEVELOPING IT, NOT ONLY WHEN IT'S FINISHED. SO WE'LL BE DOING THAT WITH SOME, AT LEAST WITH OAK PARK HEIGHTS BECAUSE THEY'RE MORE DEVELOPED.

DEFINITELY HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS. AND TO THE DEGREE THAT GREENBELTS IS CREATING SOME JUNIOR MARTIAL ARTS PEOPLE, THE THE BORDER WITH OAK PARK HEIGHTS IS MUCH MORE OF A CONCERN THAN THE SOUTHERN OR WESTERN ONE. YEAH. A COUPLE OF OTHER QUESTIONS. SO THE SECOND ONE IS, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT UPDATING THE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES TO CLARIFY THE HOUSING TYPES. SO THAT LISTS OF CURRENT CATEGORIES THAT KENDRA WAS TALKING ABOUT, SEVERAL OF THEM DIDN'T IDENTIFY HOUSING TYPES. AND WE HAD THE CONVERSATION ABOUT HOUSING TYPES, WHICH WAS PRETTY ROBUST THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE OR TWO TIMES AGO. AND SO ONE THING WE'VE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR IS THAT THOSE LAND USE CATEGORIES ARE MORE EXPLICIT ABOUT HOUSING OPTIONS. AND WHAT ARE THOSE OPTIONS. IT MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO UPDATE YOUR ZONING CODE IF THE COMP PLAN CONVERSATIONS ALREADY TALKED THROUGH THAT STUFF.

OTHERWISE, ZONING CAN GET PRETTY TRICKY BECAUSE IT'S SO DETAILED AND COMPLEX. THAT

[01:25:08]

YES. YEAH. MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS. YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S, IF THERE'S A WAY OF KIND OF INTEGRATING THAT IN THAT WE THINK, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, IT HAS KIND OF, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT LIST, 80 USE AND ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEXES ARE ALL KIND OF THREE WAYS OF BASICALLY SAYING THE SAME THING THAT WE THINK THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW TWO STRUCTURES OR, YOU KNOW, TWO DIFFERENT FAMILIES TO LIVE ON THE SAME LOT. YEAH, YEAH. YOU KNOW, AND WE FOUND SOME, WE'VE WORKED ON, YOU KNOW, A NUMBER OF CODES, SOME, SOME ZONING CODES ALLOW TWO UNITS A LONG TIME AGO EVERYWHERE. AND THEN THEY WENT AWAY FROM IT. SOME STILL DO. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST IT'S NOT PREDICTABLE WHERE IT HAPPENS. BUT THE LAST QUESTION IS WHAT TYPE OF UPDATES TO THE DENSITY RANGES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. SO YOU'VE BROUGHT UP YOU'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT DENSITY. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE BEEN HAVING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT WITH THE ZONING DISTRICTS. BUT THE ZONING LET'S SEE IF I CAN GO BACK TO THESE. WE TALKED ABOUT THE PUD AND ZONING NUMBERS ARE NOT INTUITIVE, I WOULD SAY, BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE LIKE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CAPPING AT 25 IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO GET YOU A VERY DENSE BUILDING OR A TALL BUILDING. NOT THAT YOU WANT TALL BUILDINGS, BUT I MEAN, FOR ME, A VERY GENERAL RULE WOULD BE 30 UNITS PER ACRE IS PROBABLY THREE STORIES, 40 UNITS PER ACRE, FOUR STORIES. THAT'S VERY, VERY GENERAL. THEY CAN BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THAT. BUT BUT AT 25 UNITS PER ACRE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW A VERY TALL BUILDING. SO IF A DEVELOPER WANTS TO BUILD AN APARTMENT BUILDING, 25 UNITS IS NOT GOING TO DO IT WELL. AND THAT WAS MY AND I ALMOST ASKED THIS QUESTION WHEN THIS SLIDE CAME UP THE FIRST TIME, WAS KIND OF. SO THESE NUMBERS HERE ARE WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN PLACE AND WHAT IS STILL WATERS STANDARDS. IS THERE KIND OF A, YOU KNOW, NATIONAL STANDARD OR A, YOU KNOW, YEAH. I MEAN, WE WE'RE IT'S EASY FOR US TO RECOMMEND NUMBERS. SO MEDIUM DENSITY CAPPING AT 14.5. ONE EXAMPLE IS WE WORKED WITH THE CITY AND THEY, THEY ALLOWED TRIPLEXES THREE UNITS ON ALL OF THEIR LOTS. IT'S NOT MINNEAPOLIS. I KNOW EVERYBODY'S HEARD ABOUT MINNEAPOLIS, BUT ANOTHER CITY DID THAT. AND JUST BY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU REDUCE LOT SIZES SOMEWHAT AND THEN YOU ALLOW TRIPLEXES THAT CAN GO UP TO 18 UNITS PER ACRE. SO THEY WERE UPDATING THE ZONING CODE. AND WHEN THEY DISCOVERED THAT, OR WE DISCOVERED THAT, THEY ACTUALLY AMENDED THEIR COMP PLAN TO SAY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL COULD GO UP TO 18 UNITS. NOW, YOU COULD HAVE DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS, AND ALL THOSE DISTRICTS DON'T GO UP TO 18 UNITS. BUT IT'S KIND OF REDEFINING WHAT LOW DENSITY IS BASED ON WHAT ACTUALLY WOULD FIT ON A LOT. IF YOU ALLOW MORE THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO ONE THING I WOULD ADD HERE IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE A HILLY CITY AND, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL, I THINK, TO, NOT TO NOT BLOCK VIEWS. AND IF AND AGAIN, THIS IS ANOTHER COMPLICATION, RIGHT? SO WE HAVE THE LAYERS OF THE VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS. BUT IF WE INCREASE THE DENSITY, DOES THAT MEAN THAT WHEN WE UPDATE THE ZONING CODE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SAY, OH YEAH, FOUR STORIES. FIVE STORIES ARE GOING TO BE OKAY. BUT THEN I THINK THAT GETS INTO THE ISSUE OF PEOPLE'S VIEWSHEDS BEING COMPROMISED. YEAH. IT'S SO AS FAR AS HEIGHT, MEDIUM DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL. AND, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING GENERALLY DOESN'T HAVE TO BE MORE THAN THREE STORIES, WHICH THAT SEEMS LIKE IT MIGHT BE TALLER, BUT, YOU KNOW, A LOT

[01:30:02]

WE GET WE GET INTO THOSE FIGHTS TOO, ABOUT HOW HIGH, HOW HIGH BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN CAN BE. BUT REMEMBER THOSE FIGHTS. YEAH, BUT YOU HAVE I THINK YOU HAVE A WHOLE HEIGHTS DISTRICT OVER.

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. SO SO A LOT OF FUN MATH THERE. IT SOUNDS LIKE. SO THAT'S IT FOR OUR QUESTIONS. UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR OTHER THOUGHTS YOU WANT TO ADD TO THE DENSITY DISCUSSION. I GUESS I'LL JUST ADD THAT AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAND USE MAP WITH ALL THE DENSITY IMPLICATIONS REALLY IS NECESSARY. FIRST STEP FOR REALLY DEVELOPING ALL THE OTHER TECHNICAL. IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE HOUSING CHAPTER OR THE SANITARY SEWER PLAN OR THE TRANSPORTATION ALL THOSE FEED OFF OF, WHERE ARE WE GOING TO EXPECT THE PEOPLE IN THE JOBS TO BE BASED ON OUR LAND USE PLANNING? SO THAT'S WHY THIS FIRST STEP REALLY, YOU KNOW, LEADS TO EVERYTHING ELSE. ALL RIGHT. WELL, GREAT. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE IT. SO BACK TO THE AGENDA. NEXT UP IS OUR COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT. COUNCIL MEMBER ALBRECHT. MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T HAVE A REPORT TODAY, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS FOLKS HAVE. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR COUNCIL LIAISON? IT'S FUNNY TO SEE YOU SITTING DOWN THERE. IT'S KIND OF FUN TO BE DOWN HERE. IT'S A VERY UNINQUISITIVE GROUP, APPARENTLY, THIS EVENING. SO. OKAY, WELL, YOU CAN CATCH HIM AFTERWARDS AS WELL. THAT

[6. Staff Updates]

IT'S INTERESTING. IT'S PRETTY INTERESTING. AND IT REALLY PRETTY CONSTRUCTIVE TOO, FOR

[01:35:01]

AND THEN JULIE JUST POINTED OUT, WE DID GO TO THE STATE PLANNING CONFERENCE LAST WEEK. BEN MADE A SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND WE DID A PANEL DISCUSSION ABOUT SHORT TERM RENTALS WITH STAFF FROM STILLWATER, DULUTH AND ROCHESTER. SO THREE DIFFERENT KIND OF DESTINATION CITIES FOR DIFFERENT REASONS AND JUST TALKED ABOUT DIFFERENT SHORT TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS. IT WAS A REALLY GOOD CONVERSATION. WE TALKED ABOUT EV CHARGERS AND DATA CENTERS. SO. EXCUSE ME.

YEAH. COULD I GET ACCESS TO THE DROP BOX? YEAH. I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT IT, BUT WE'LL WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT. OKAY. YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE ACCESS. ACCESS. YEAH.

JENNIFER'S GOING TO NEED THAT AS WELL. YEAH. I DON'T EITHER. SO WE'LL FIGURE THAT OUT. THE PUBLIC STUFF. SO IT'S BEEN GREAT. OKAY. OKAY. WELL SEEING NOTHING ELSE BEFORE THE THE COMMISSION WE ARE ADJOURNED AT

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.