is in the >> drawer. >> Oh, dancing. >> What do I like bang this on, though? >> It's just on that rock right there. >> All right.
All right. I will do I do this now? Okay. I will call the uh meeting to order for the Bayore Planning Commission on April 20th, 2026. Um a couple uh we'll say administrative notes. Uh the agenda has
been slight slightly modified uh tonight to remove the election of chairperson and approval of the previous meeting minutes due to a couple uh um lack of attendance by a couple commissioners tonight. Uh hopefully that won't change too much uh with the meeting tonight. And then um after the first p uh couple
public hearings, we're going to take a short break to do some technological switching. So uh just as a heads up with that. Uh all right. So the first item uh for business tonight is that we are uh administering the oath of office for our
two new uh members uh Bob Hyung and Hal Dear Rosa. Uh so if you would I think we stand up for this, right? Okay. >> Okay. So if you guys could uh raise your right hand and repeat after me. I, Hal,
and Bob >> I >> do solemnly swear >> do solemnly swear >> that I will support the Constitution >> that I will support the Constit Constitution >> of the United States >> of the United States >> and of the state of Minnesota >> and of the state of Minnesota
>> and faithfully discharge >> and faithfully faithfully discharge >> the duties of the office of planning commissioner >> the duties >> duties of the office of the planning commissioner >> of the city of Bport >> city of Bport >> in the county of Washington, >> county of Washington, >> and the state of Minnesota
>> in the state of Minnesota. >> To the best of my judgment and ability. >> To the best of my judgment and ability. >> So help me God. >> So help me God. >> Welcome, guys. Thank you. >> Y All right. We have a number of public hearings tonight. Uh the first public
hearing is to consider a final plat for Bay Haven at Bayport second edition development for new construction of 10 single family villas located at 4703 Stage Coach Trail submitted by property owner Pat Homes. Dan, will you please uh present the details of application,
please? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening to the planning commission um as soon as the PowerPoint comes up. Uh this is a good one to ease the two new commissioners into uh for the start of their tenure. Uh final plats are fairly straightforward process in terms of
planning commission review. Luke, can we have the PowerPoint presentation on the TV monitors? Thank you. >> There we go. >> So, the application, as the chair read, is from Pratt Holmes. So, in January of
this year, the city council approved a petition for annexation of property from Baytown Township to the city of Bayport. Approved amendments to the comprehensive plan reging the property for lowdensity residential use. approved a zoning map amendment to zone the property at PUD
planned unit development district which is basically a custom zoning district specific to this project. Uh and then approved a PUD development plan which is the site plan for the project and then the preliminary plat which is the initial layout of the subdivision. Uh the status of that application is the
annexation was approved by the state of Minnesota in April uh 7th uh just a few weeks ago. Once that happens, city staff will be able to submit the comprehensive plan amendment to Metropolitan Council. They have 60 days to review that application. And once that's received
back, then the city council can act on the final plat application that's before the planning commission tonight. Uh the final plat consists of 10 single family lots, which is the location of the homes, and then an outlot, which is an unbuildable parcel intended to be used as part of a city trail. Uh when the
planning commission is looking at applications for plaid approval, uh basically you're applying the standards that are adopted as part of the zoning ordinance and the subdivision ordinance to make sure that the project complies with those standards. Subdivisions are a two-step process and not that common in
Bayport actually. Um but the preliminary plat is the initial layout of the design, number of housing units, the layout of streets, etc. When the council acts to approve that, that's when the entitlement or the right of the developer to move forward is established. Uh the final plat is really
dotting the eyes and crossing the tees. So we have the final subdivision layout uh down to hundreds of an inch. Uh we have the construction plans for streets, utilities, and storm water. Uh and then we have a development contract that's put together by the city attorney's office outlining that the developer is
going to perform uh and construct all these public improvements and pay necessary fees uh and expenses to the city as part of that. So it's really a a very strict line that the planning commission has to review on a on a preliminary plat. It needs to be something that was either addressed at
the preliminary plat or made a condition of approval for it to come under review at this point. Um so the comprehensive plan amendment proposed the land added to the city would be guided to lowdensity residential development which consists of single family lots. Uh under the
requirements of the metropolitan council the city has to achieve a minimum density of seven units an acre between the all the undeveloped properties. So, in the planning report, there's an analysis showing how that is being met between 2020 and 2040 between the
Baytown development uh and potential redevelopment of some sites in uh downtown along uh Highway 95. So, that's really what the Metropolitan Council is looking at as part of their review to make sure that we're uh in terms of the city's long-term plan is consistent with
that of the Metropolitan Council. The PUD district that was established or again planned unit development, uh it sets forth the allowed uses of the properties as single family dwellings and then establishes lot standards. The main difference from what the city has in place for other zoning districts is
it allows 75 foot wide lots but less than the typical minimum area required for other properties. Again, that's necessary to meet the minimum density requirements established regionally. Uh then based on the home plans that Pratt Homes put together, there's specific setbacks that apply to the lots within
this development. Uh and what you're looking at is making sure that within these setbacks, each lot has a reasonable building envelope to accommodate that single family home. Uh surrounding the property you have inspiration third edition to the south which was established with approvals in
the early 2000s. Uh the Bay Haven first phase of development which is under construction to the north and then Barker's Alps Park to the east. Uh we also had noted as part of the review the connection between this development and the ISD 834 project where utilities were
being uh extended through uh the initial Bay Haven development to serve this project as well. So, the final plat again lays out in final form uh the subdivision of this property into the 10 lots and one outlot to be developed. Um the lot requirements I've touched on as
well as the setbacks. Um the right of way that's along the north side of these lots, Baytown Lane, the rightway for that was dedicated to the city with the approval of the Bay Haven subdivision. They did make a modification to the layout at the far east end where the two
streets come together. Basically putting in what's called an eyebrow or it looks like a partial culdeac. Uh that's necessary to in order to provide access to those two easternmost lots to the public street uh via private driveways. that also provides access to properties
that uh are further east of the public streets uh the Otto and Thompson properties that are uh still in rural character use but not part of the plat but have been annexed to the city. Uh the street in front of the project uh is your closest to stage coats. 42 ft wide,
transitions going um east of uh Bay Haven Trail down to 32 foot wide section which is a typical city street that allows enough space for parking on both sides plus uh through lane traffic. Uh because of the apartment use on the north side of the street, uh Baytown
Lane was designed with seven bumpout stalls along the side to further move those vehicles out. Uh, and those would be designated for short-term parking as part of the city council's action regarding the apartment development itself. Sidewalks were provided along the north side of Baytown Lane, uh,
extending through the plat. And then where that eyebrow street is, there's a trail section that is extended from there all the way into Barker's Elps Park connecting the development to Inspiration as well as u the city's overall trail system. They did provide a
landscaping plan, which I have on the next slide to review. uh engineer uh Herodi reviewed the proposed development in terms of the construction plans for the streets, utilities and storm water. Again, that was mostly reviewed as part of the Bay Haven project and found to be
acceptable uh with the slight amendments to provide connections to these lots as well as the eyebrow street. And again, his review memorandum was included in the uh packet you have this evening. Outlot A on the east side, there's a remnant piece that doesn't quite fit
with the buildable lots. It accommodates this trail quarter that extends to Barker's Elps Park. So, that will be deed to the city uh with the final plat approval so that it's maintained as part of that trail connection. When Bay Haven was established, the developer put forward a homeowners association to
provide for maintenance of the outdoor areas of each lot. There's also specific provisions detailing water usage for irrigation purposes etc. And also most of the woodland surrounding the property in the first edition is held as an outlot for preservation uh by the
homeowners association. And so what the developer will do as part of this project is incorporate these 10 lots as part of that overall homeowners association subject to the same requirements. Uh the final requirement is that when there's a subdivision of property, the city has the right to
require either dedication of land uh to the city or payment of a cash fee in lie of land uh that it can use for improvement of the park and trail system. Uh because the city is not acquiring property with this uh phase of development, uh that park dedication
requirement is recommended to be paid as a cash fee in lie of land and they do that at the time the development contract is executed uh and complete that process. Um the developer provided a landscape plan with the initial preliminary plat and PUD development plan for the
project. Um typically when you're dealing with single family lots, you're only looking at general landscaping throughout the project. So, you can see the shade trees along the uh street corridor. It's also worth noting, it's in your packet, but there was an extensive inventory of the existing
trees on the property uh taken and identifying which would be removed and which would be kept. Uh the developer is also going to the extra step of transplanting quite a few of the significant trees within the property to other locations uh for their long-term protection. Now, when we're talking
about screening requirements for uh residential development, it's not typically required that you would have to have screening between single family homes facing single family homes. Uh but along the south line of the plat, the developer did provide a burm that is up
to 9 ft high and I believe the developer indicated today averages about 7 ft in height. Uh they have trees planted on there uh including a mix of shade trees and evergreens. Uh the evergreens are at least 6 ft height measured to the base of the leader. Uh so those will provide
some screening between the homes here at uh Bay Haven second edition and Inspiration third edition so that uh they're not looking across that open space into each other's living rooms. So, city staff's review of the application as outlined in our report is that the project is consistent with the
comprehensive plan complies with the uh conditions of approval for the preliminary plat considered by the city council and we're recommending approval of the final plat subject to 18 conditions as listed. >> All right. Thank you, Dan. Um, I'd like
to open the public hearing and invite anyone wishing to comment to come forward to the podium and state your name and street address for the record. Uh, does anybody wish to come up and speak tonight? Seeing none, do I hear a motion to close the public hearing?
>> I move to close the public hearing. >> I second the motion. >> All right. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> All those opposed say nay. The motion carries. >> All right. At this time, uh, I'd like to
entertain further discussion or questions from the planning commission. >> I don't have any questions or comments right now. >> Okay. Um, I I did have a question um related to the tree preservation plan L001. Um, when out and about in the property,
I see that the trees have also been tagged with uh different color schemes. And I was just curious, I it it didn't necessarily say in the documents that I see, is there a color coding system or a way to know um beyond the map it what that color coding system is and how that determines
>> which trees you've identified for. >> Typically, the tagging will identify those to be preserved or those to be removed, possibly transplanted. I don't believe they go to the extent to identify species uh or size, but it's the significant trees over 6 in in diameter, four feet
off the ground that are to be preserved. >> I guess my question is the is the color coding of significance for the different >> Mr. Chair, perhaps uh the developer can answer. >> Yeah, >> go right ahead. Uh so Dwayne Sikage, Continuum
Development, working with Len on this development. Uh there's kind of been a history of different flagging going on out there for the majority is what not to cut down. The the actual color coding, I
wouldn't say there's a a system. The the important thing is when you see the silver tag nailed into the tree with a number on it, that's an inventory tree as part of the the forester inventory.
And as part of the effort to make sure they don't cut down trees we don't want them to cut down, we do flag them. But some we've flagged, some the contractors flagged, and some the tree removal companies flagged. So there they're I
wouldn't The answer is the coating the color coding doesn't really I it doesn't really Yeah. >> So the ribbons are just more to identify that they're next to the silver tags. >> And then there's also trees that are intermingled that'll be transplanted
with a 90in tree spade. So those are also flagged not to be cut down as well, even though they might be in the middle of other trees that that are either dying or will be cut down. Thank you. Any other questions?
>> Nope. >> Okay. >> Did you have any? >> I don't think I do, actually. Um, all right. Uh, do we hear any any motions for this agenda item?
>> Um, I move to recommend the city council approve the final plat for Bay Haven at Bayport second edition development for new construction of 10 single family villas located at 4703 stage coach Trail subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff.
>> I second the motion. >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. All right. Uh public hearing number two. Uh consider variances to
construct a substandard accessory structure boat house within the lower St. Croy River Bluffland and Shoreland Management and Floodplane Management District located at 317 Lake Street. Submitted by project representative Kate's Fine Homes. Dan, could you
present this application, please? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so the site location as stated 317 Lake Street South. Uh the comprehensive plan guides the property for lowdensity residential uses. Uh it is within the R1
or excuse me it's actually in the R2 uh single family urban zoning district. Um there are also other regulations that apply separate from the zoning ordinance including the lower St. Croy River bluff line and shoreland management district as well as the flood plane management
ordinance uh based on its proximity to the St. Croy River. Uh the area is generally developed along the St. Croy with single family homes to the north and south and then there's the marina immediately to the west of the property. Um this property has been before the
planning commission and city council previously in 2022. There was an application submitted for variance related to expansion of the existing single family home on the property. Uh in February of that year, the city council approved a variance by resolution 2303 allowing for a first
floor entrance to be constructed. Uh subsequently in March, they approved a variance allowing for uh improvements to the third story, bringing that forward to the building line closest to the St. Croy River. I included in that approval in March was a condition stating that this existing boat house on the property
needed to be removed. Uh the property owner appealed that decision to the city council uh arguing that it wasn't relevant to that application. Um the planning or excuse me the city council acting as the board of appeals did act
to remove that condition and there was discussion about uh the boat house as part of that. I think the important context for the planning commission this evening is that what was discussed as part of the uh variance in March of 2023 isn't relevant to the application
tonight. That boat house wasn't subject to that application at that time. Um it needed obviously to come forward independently for variances of its own to be reconstructed. uh the city council, even though they may have discussed it, they can't predetermine or
prejudice processing of the necessary variance applications that are before you tonight. So, uh the request tonight stands independent of any action taken prior by the city council. So, the proposal that the applicant has submitted, um, I'm just going to kind of
review what's being proposed and not necessarily go into the very specific details of the construction uh, in order to focus on the variance elements that are in front of the planning commission tonight. The the actual construction, the proposed buildings outlined in detail in the planning report. Um, but
there's an existing uh, 181 ft boat house on the property uh, located at the southeast corner of the site. Uh it's proposed to be demolished. It's set back approximately 8 ft from the side lot line. It is uh built within the bluff area along the St. Croy River and set
back approximately 49 ft from the river itself. What the property owner is proposing is to construct a new boat house in approximately the same but not the exact location. Uh it would be the same exact size as the existing structure. Um it would be set back 10 ft
from the side lot line. It would still be within the bluff area and it would still be approximately 49 feet from the ordinary high water level of the river. So the city code sections that apply to this action tonight include uh appendix
B uh which is the zoning ordinance. This is largely legislated by the city in terms of establishing allowed uses, general lot standards, etc. There's appendex C which is the lower St. Croy River Bluff line and shoreland management ordinance. These are
regulations enacted in accordance with Minnesota rules and the preservation uh ordinance that's in effect federally for the St. Croy River. This section of the ordinance, like most shorterland regulations, is adopted by the state. They mandate that the city adopt these
regulations and then administer the ordinance on behalf of the higher levels of government. Same applies with appendix E of the uh city code, which is the floodplane management ordinance for areas subject to 100-year floods. There are construction requirements and
specific use limitations established as part of the floodplane management program administered by the federal government that the city implements at the local level. So, in looking at the applications that are necessary to allow the removal of the existing boat house and construction
of a new boat house, there's three variances involved. uh one for encroachment into the 100 foot setback from the ordinary high water level uh encroachment and essentially building upon the bluff line uh for the St. Croy River and then also grading on slopes
that are greater than 12%. Now looking at the table or the chart to the uh right side of the text again it's this is the discretion level that the the planning commission has in evaluating requests. When you're when you're establishing the comprehensive
plan or the zoning ordinance you're legislating. You're establishing the standards that apply to development within the city. When you're looking at variances site plans or subdivisions you're applying those standards to a specific request. So you're acting in a judicial capacity. you apply those
conditions and determine how uh the project does or doesn't comply. What a variance is is saying, okay, there's standards established by the zoning ordinance that our proposal doesn't comply with. So, we would like an exception to the property. Um, the
reason it's at the lowest portion of that yellow section is that because it's the property owner or the requester is making a case to be uh considered differently than other properties within the same circumstances to be treated
differently. Uh, that runs contrary to the intent that zoning is established to provide equal and consistent treatment of all properties under certain under um the same circumstances. So the criteria is really that there's something unique about this property and the
circumstances involved with the request that warrant approval of an exception that wouldn't necessarily apply to any other property under the same circumstances. So it's a pretty high threshold to uh property owners need to meet in order to have a variance
approved as part of uh the request. So again, the um regulations that we're applying in this case all come from the lower St. Croy River Bluff line and shoreland management district. Uh the purpose is outlined in that section of the zoning ordinance or excuse me that
portion of the city code uh as to why this is adopted. And you can see it deals with designating land use districts, establishing lot requirements, establishing setbacks specific to the the river corridor uh and also kind of uh preserving the
natural characteristics of the area and the overall arching theme is preservation of the natural character of the area. Um, in this case, when you're dealing with setbacks, they generally are put in place to provide separation from uses between one another,
excuse me, or to maintain compatibility between uses. At their most basic level, they maintain, for example, the aesthetic streetscape for front yard setbacks and visibility along streets. Uh, sideyards, you're preserving air and light between properties. Uh, when
you're looking at these standards of the St. St. Croy Riverway Ordinance. All these standards are intended to move development away from the river itself. Um the overarching purpose of the St. Croy River Way ordinance is that someone in a boat is not seeing development.
They're seeing natural topography, natural vegetation, no apparent development. Um so when you're looking at a request for variance then one of the first foremost considerations needs to be whether the requested variance is
consistent with the intent of these regulations going forward. So looking at the existing boat house, um the applicant stated as part of their narrative and uh there were pictures involved with previous applications showing uh that the structure is
dilapitated uh basically in need of replacement due to safety concerns. What the St. Croy Riverway ordinance says is that uh the structure being located within setback from the ordinary high water level and upon a bluff um it's a non-conforming structure as would be
defined under the zoning ordinance. The provisions of the lower St. Croy Riverway ordinance have a very specific uh terminology and structure for regulating these uh calling them substandard structures. Uh this is set forth both in the zone or in the city
code as well as statute. Um and then once you you've identified this as a substandard structure because of its location not in compliance with these setback requirements, there's very specific language dealing with how it continues its use. Um in most cases
under a zoning ordinance, you have a right to continue the use as it existed when it was approved. Uh that includes maintenance, replacement. Uh if it's destroyed up to 100% of its value, if you apply for a permit within 180 days, you can rebuild it. The St. Croy
regulations are unique in that they state if this structure needs to be replaced, its replacement must be constructed to comply with the dimensional standards of the ordinance. The intent here is clearly to remove the non-conforming use from the shoreland area and move it to an area that
complies with uh the provisions of the the ordinance. So then obviously the proposal from the property owner is to reconstruct the building at its present location. Uh that triggers the criteria for variance
under the lower St. Croy management riverway ordinance. Again, these are specifically set forth in Minnesota rules. and then have been uh included as part of the uh city's city code. So the first one is that there's a hardship involved with uh the property that
compliance with the regulation would prevent u reasonable use. Um the development regulations for the lower sink croy apply to all properties equally. Uh the regulations are clear in that there's no provision made for any exceptions to the setback standards from
the ordinary high water level or uh from the bluff line that boatouses are not a contemplated use within the St. Croy Riverway corridor. Um the allowance for any type of detached accessory structure is subject to compliance with the uh
provisions of the ordinance. They're permitted provided you comply with the requirements. There's no right uh to an accessory structure. If you look at the property as it exists today, there's a single family home. Uh there's one detached accessory structure on the property today. Um that's a reasonable
use of the property. The ability to have a second one, it'd be nice to be able to have more storage space, etc. But in order to have that, you need to comply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Um, the other item that we point out is on the site plan and in the information provided by the applicant,
they don't demonstrate as to why uh an accessory building couldn't be built in compliance with the ordinance. Again, it may be more convenient to have it closer to the lake where you're storing this type of recreational equipment, but that's not what the ordinance allows. The ordinance doesn't deal with convenience. It deals with again the
intent to preserve the natural character of the corridor. The second is that the uh need for the variance isn't caused by the applicant themselves. Um so the existing boat house has been allowed to come become dilapitated over time. It wasn't
maintained properly uh if at all. So now it's at the point where it needs to be removed. Um the property is subject to the uh lower St. Croy Riverway ordinance which was put in place in 1977. So there has been no allowance for boat houses
for at least 50 years within this area. Um and again there are uh terms of looking at the actions of the property and there aren't what we see as any other examples of boat houses uh within Bayport not only just looking at Lake
Street but uh up and down the coastline of the or the shoreline of uh the St. Croy River. And then finally, again, we're lacking any documentation of limitations that would prohibit locating the structure in a way that complies with the zoning ordinance or the city code.
Um, third and fourth criterias basically deal with um again this idea that zoning is applied uniformly to all properties within the same district. Um that if a variance were granted here, would it alter the character of the locality?
also that um if it's approved here is this allowing a use that would be denied other properties under the same circumstance and again our conclusion is that the uniform application of the riverway ordinance is such that boatous aren't allowed uh there aren't boatous
along the St. Croy River within Bayport. Uh and that so these factors would in fact change the character of the area. Um and then finally that uh if this is approved in this case, what would be the basis for review applied to other
properties under the same circumstance uh for them to request exceptions to the setback requirements for both ordinary high water level and bluff lines. So, as wrapped up in the conclusion section of our report, uh the existing boat house is a substandard structure
that doesn't comply with the provisions of the St. Croy Riverway ordinance. Uh the applicant has stated that the building is dilapitated and is need in need of replacement. Uh the substandard structures as regulated by the St. Croy Riverway ordinance can only be removed
uh and replaced with a structure that complies with the provisions of the St. Croy Riverway ordinance and that the applicant hasn't demonstrated a need to reconstruct this building at this location versus a location that otherwise would comply with the city code. And then finally, just looking
specifically at issue of a variance. Um the action wouldn't be consistent with the intent to preserve the natural character of the St. Croy River corridor would be in conflict with the purpose of the riverway ordinance itself. um it would alter the existing character
of the area by allowing this property a boat house when others don't and again then simply looking at the precedence that is being established that others could request the same uh consideration going forward. Um so DNR staff provided their recommendations in their letter
dated April 10th. Uh you have the recommendation from city staff that the request be denied based on the findings outlined in our report of April 13th. Okay. Thank you, Dan. All right. Um, I would like to open the
public hearing and invite anyone wishing to comment to come forward to the podium. State your name and street address for the record. Anybody like to make a comment? Hello. >> Hello. >> Could you give your name and address
real quick here? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. I'm Nathan Jesperson. I'm the owner of the home that we're discussing today, 317 Lake Street here in Bayport. Um members of the commission, I'm going to read this here. I've got a statement.
Um, thank you for the time and consideration on this. Um, we appreciate the comments that uh both Mr. L um is it licked? Okay. >> And uh and also the statements from the DNR I think that were submitted. Um
>> I would like to briefly clarify a few points so that uh the factual record is complete with this. um because this is kind of an old like we've been uh this kind of goes back 3 years. So um I'll bring you up to speed a little bit. But
first regarding the the unique circumstances of the property, uh the DNR letter suggests that there's no unique physical conditions that exist. However, the property is constrained by the combination of the Sor River shoreline, the bluff line immediately adjacent to it, and steep
slopes exceeding 12%. These natural features significantly limit the buildable area between the bluff and the river. In addition, the boat house has existed in this location for approximately 70 years, predating that river riverway ordinance adopted in
1977. Um, these are inherent physical characteristics of the land and not conditions created by me. Um, second, uh, regarding the reasonable use of the property, uh, in the DNR letter, it assumes the request represents a new
development pattern. In reality, the proposal replaces a deteriorated and unsafe structure, uh, with a code compliant accessory structure of similar scale and function. Um, really, uh, almost exactly replicates what's there right now, uh, just newer, um, and, uh,
with more detail. And I'm sure that was shared in the file for you guys to see. Uh the use remains limited to storage consistent with riverfront properties and complies with flood plane and building code requirements. Um we've spent uh 2 years of working with the
city staff and engineers on this project. Um, and we knew that we had a challenge ahead of us, by the way, because um, when the city council uh, approved letting us keep the boat house, they also did discuss this idea of rebuilding. They really wanted us to
rebuild the boat house, not just leave the dilapitated boat house. So, um, they said, "Hey, if you can get this thing approved by by engineers and, uh, get it code compliant, then uh, we're going to approve this." Um and so the goal has
been to replace the structure responsibly without expanding the historical use of the site. Okay. And number three, uh regarding the character of locality, and these of course are, as you can see, I'm hitting all three of the um the items, the DNR suggests that
the structure in this location would alter the character of the ROA. However, a boat house has obviously existed in this location for roughly uh roughly 70 years. uh replacing the dilapitated structure with a well-designed and code compliant structure maintains that
historical character rather than altering it. Um in fact it improves the visual and environmental condition of the site compared with leaving the current structure in place. So we do all those things. Um I just want to note that these issues are not new. As I
mentioned before, they were discussed previously during the June 5th, 2023 city council meeting. Um, at that meeting, the city's uh legal council noted that the legal arguments on both sides were, in his words, thin soup. And
I just want to uh clarify that um, you know, the city hired a lawyer to to fight, of course, me and my lawyer, and we all came to the table. We all spent a lot of money. Uh, the city, of course, I had to pay for the city's lawyer to pay for to fight me. So, I kind of got
double hit on that one. Um and uh you know in in the end uh his words were thin soup both of them our our argument and their argument and that's fair. So meaning there was no clear legal mandate in either direction. Uh that discussion
recognized that applying the variance criteria ultimately does require the city's judgment based on the specific facts of the property. So it really doesn't solely rely on um you know just like what the DNR is saying and what uh what the city is saying here. It really
comes down to the planning commission in the city. Um since that meeting again we have spent the two years working with city staff planners um and engineers to refine this proposal and we really have worked hard to put together a a very sound structure. Um and you know in
short this request replaces an unsafe structure that has existed obviously here for generations. When people ask why do you need a boat house on the river? It's sort of like well this is the last boat house on the on the river you know. So there is something kind of um unique about that and that's that it
is kind of uh something historical and it's something of of beauty and I think people do appreciate that actually along with um you know things like trees and grass and you know I think this is all part of the riverway experience and having a big house there is I think uh
is is pretty cool frankly and that may not seem like enough but I think it is for a lot of people. Um, and you know, if you ask my neighbors who uh I think every one of my neighbors were at the June 5th meeting. Um, and uh, they all were were behind me on this. So, it's
not one of those things where my neighbors are upset about it. You're not going to have to deal with I don't I don't see anyone coming up to you saying, "Hey, I he you let him rebuild his boat house. Why you don't let me build a new boat house? There's no boat house there to rebuild." So, you don't have precedents to deal with. Um, so
long story short, um, for those reasons, we respectfully request that you approve this, um, here at the plan commission level. Do >> you have anything to add or >> By the way, this is Jennifer Case with Case Fine Homes and she's been uh, she's worked
super hard on this um, in the process to try to help figure this out. So, >> if you have questions, she'll be able to answer questions. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. All right. >> Uh, anybody else wishing to speak on the side today? >> Sure.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Phil, last time I was here, I had just gotten out of regions and I needed to show up because we were working on a uh
Anderson point topic that we had solved. A little tiny bee had stung me. So, they rev my I think they revi revived me. uh five times. >> Mhm. >> So, it's pretty dramatic. Anyway, I've lived down uh there for I don't know 26
years now. >> Sir, would you state your name and address? >> Phil St. 345 Lake Street. >> Thank you. >> And uh everything that Dan says is correct. There's a lot of rules, a lot of ordinances and all that for sure. The boat house does predate all of those and it is grandfathered in. But what isn't
hasn't been stated is uh that road down there was eight feet lower and so they had been trying for 50 to 60 years to raise it and I had moved in in 2000 and nobody trusted anybody and they couldn't get anybody to agree to it. I went
around all the homes. The city administrator had approached me and I went around all the homes, worked it out. Army Corps of Engineered, you know, DNR city 3 years. So, it was probably one of the biggest projects that the city had done. Raised the road 8 ft, got
everybody off the wells, got everybody off the uh sewer. Good thing. Flooding, you bet. So, the peninsula is this wide. The road was this high, the houses were
this high, the road goes up 8 ft. The usable space goes down. So those 12% uh numbers, >> they're not really applicable down there. Now, if you wanted to go down there and take a tour because with
regards to all of those rules that he have said, I think the first house has 17 variances from those rules when we did this project. Other houses have 13 variances. Other houses have 12 variances.
My house was within the 100 foot. The 100 foot mark was on the other side of the river. All of the houses down there can't fit. You couldn't build it. Right? If you were to go back in time and uh apply
those rules when these homes, there wouldn't be any homes there. Nor would there be $150,000 per year in revenue that comes in to the the city budget. So the simple fact of the matter is all of the rules were adjusted and it was
agreed on because I worked three years on this with everybody before we started construction. It was agreed on that because they are substandard lots they weren't going to try to do any clawbacks on right or try to reset the standards.
Now, you can pull the records. They're there. And that particular boat house, and he's Nate's right. There isn't anybody that's disagreeing with it. It is kind of nostalgic. Sarah generated the pictures for it. I mean, it's 1960s. There's kids running around. I mean, it
was kind of it's nostalgic. So, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. And as for the comment with regards to you can't see the homes. Well, the city built a building right out
uh that you can see for miles, right? The boat house, trim the trees, still water, big parks, ignore all of the rules. If you drive up and down the river now, I attended a meeting a while back because people are trimming the
trees right and left. I mean it's they're especially in Wisconsin they used to be a lot tighter than us. So as much and I tried to I attended a meeting uh light pollution when I got here there
was almost no houses on the other side and the birds would come through thousands of them at night and they'd land in the trees but there's so much light pollution now it's disrupted all that. So, I like the outdoors.
My uncle helped bring in the watershed act. I attended a meeting on Saturday because of the whole mining issue up north. It's uh the million acres of the Boundary Waters and the big big issue. Local people want it, jobs. Everybody
else doesn't want it. So, pretty big outdoors guy. But dad was a field biology major. Uh, but I really don't see any reason why this thing shouldn't go in. It's uh not obtrusive. It's not going to stand out.
If you drive them down a river now, it's radically different than when I moved in. And it's it is a nice thing. And legally, to quite honestly, uh I think if it went to court, because it does predate all of those roles, I don't
think you'd win. Moving it might be questionable. Uh but uh since they're trying to improve the setback on one of the rules, it really it's not a big thing. So that's my two cents on it. I
don't want to talk too much cuz it's uh all talk anyway. >> All right. Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> Yep. Chair, commission members. Um, I just
wanted to say hi. My name is Ricky Hoffman. I live guess I'm I'm with the DNR, but I guess my personal address for the record is 35717 Oasis Road in Lindstöm, Minnesota. Um, I am not probably a familiar face for most of you. Um, Dan Scolin is the area
hydraologist that covers Washington and Ramsey counties. So, he would normally be the person here um, representing the DNR. um he he had some family stuff come up that made him unable to to to be here. Um so I'm standing in in in his place. Uh I'm not here to rehash the
letter that we sent on the 10th. Um it was in your packets. If there are questions about that or anything in there, I'm happy to respond to those. Um but yeah, I I work out of central office. Um I support Dan Scullan. Um I am land use planner in background. Um
that's what I did before I came to the DNR. Um, and I guess I'll leave you with I appreciate the DNR appreciates your consideration. Um, we rely on local governments from Taylor's Falls all the way down to the confluence to deliberate
over these types of issues and um, uphold your local zoning standards to protect the riverway, our only federally designated wild and scenic river. Um, so anyway, yeah, that's that's what I have. If you have any questions, happy to happy to answer them. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay.
>> Anybody else? >> All right. Um, I will move to close the public hearing. >> Um, I'll second the motion. >> All right. Uh, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I.
>> All those opposed? Motion carries. All right. like to entertain some further discussion or questions by the planning commission. I'm sure there are many. I guess maybe I'll kick it off uh with some question. I'm not exactly sure who
I'm addressing this to on the up here, but um so the gentleman that just spoke uh before the the DNR person, uh he was mentioning the city of Bayport putting up a structure in the the park somewhat recently, we'll say, within the last 50
years. And of course, you know, Still Water has buildings all the way up to essentially the the river more or less and that kind of thing. Um could you kind of elaborate or whoever may be the right person to elaborate on why those kind of things are allowed when you know this kind of thing is not
essentially. >> Mr. Chair, so uh city staff can elaborate on the city park project but with respect to the issue of variances having been approved previously um again it was indicated that they applied to the houses being constructed. So the the
criteria for a reasonable use is establishing there certain uses permitted by the ordinance. Single families being the primary example in this area. Um if the standards of the lower St. Croy Riverway ordinance would prohibit construction of a home on the
property that could be construed as a taking. Um and so the city needs to accommodate that construction to allow that reasonable use of a permitted principal use of the property. We're dealing with an accessory structure. The need for an accessory structure is
incidental to the principal use. It's not a requirement for a reasonable use of the property. There already is one detached accessory building. I I'd liken it to say, you know, on my property, I'd love to have a 5,000t poleb barn for all of my property, but or on all my block,
but I can't fit it on my property within the rules. Well, I can't go get a variance to have that big of structure. It's out of character. it doesn't comply with the intent of the applicable regulation. So, in that sense, there's a distinction to be made here from the
other variances that were approved for the single family lots related to the principal use versus an accessory use. Okay. >> Uh, city staff can talk about the approval process for the park project. >> U, Mr. Chair, I I would have been more prepared if that question would have
come up, so I apologize. Um uh to the best of my knowledge uh the building was built in the 70s I think 71 it was just a basic concrete block structure in the park and in 2007 and 8 um as part of the master planning process for Lakeside
Park. That building was remodeled but it was in existence for a lot of years prior to that. the footprint hasn't changed and it's right at although it doesn't meet the setbacks from the ordinary high water mark, it is above the uh regulatory or just at the
regulatory flood protection elevation, meaning it's very rare that it would ever be susceptible to flooding. >> Okay. >> Hope that helps. >> Mr. Chair, >> yeah, >> when planner Taylor said the building was remodeled, was the main structure maintained and then just
>> correct? It was a concrete block building with very little windows way up high and so it was mostly a cosmetic remodel. There was no change in the footprint or the concrete block foundation. >> So, Mr. Chair, to that point, the the structure didn't comply with the
ordinance the same way this boat house doesn't comply. Both would be defined as substandard structures under the Lower St. Croy River Ordinance. The Lower St. Croy River ordinance has a really unique provision that says if you're going to replace a structure, if it's dilapitated to the point that it's presenting safety
concerns and you got to tear it down and start over, it specifically says you have no legacy rights to that location and you need to reconstruct it in a location that complies with the ordinance. Again, that's different than regulation to non-conforming structures under just general zoning statute. But
it's the specific regulation unique to the St. Qu Riverway corridor that is legally based on state rules that says this is what the property owner must do. >> Okay. The other thing I would add to uh Mr. Chair is that
you know often times when we get into these various discuss variance discussions the the response is well look at this property and look at that property and look at this third property. And the reality is you have to take the facts and
circumstances of the particular subject property and apply those facts and circumstances against the statutory requirement. Right? So, while it's interesting sometimes to think about how other buildings and other structures may
have come to be located where they're at, it's really not relevant because what's relevant is what are the facts and circumstances related to the subject property and then how do those specific facts and circumstances apply to the statutory thresholds and requirements
that you have to meet uh in order to have your your variance granted. So, uh, I would just cautious that the the commission against looking at other properties and really focus the efforts on on this particular subject property and the various different regulations
uh, that Mr. Lick and Planner Taylor have have talked about because those are really the the regulatory or that's really the regulatory framework that applies to this particular property. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Any questions? Any questions?
Yeah. Um, and I don't know who to direct this to, so I will put it out into the ether and see respond. Um, it it was mentioned before that or I guess my question along the lines it could be a two-part, but you know, can a structure of the same size fit within the existing
property within all the all all the things that we've been discussing? In other words, if this structure was located at a different place, would it have been able to fit in there? and if not does that change anything related to the policies or laws or procedures um in that regard?
>> Um Mr. Chair um so your the first part of your question is we don't know uh whether a conforming structure could be built at another location that meets all the applicable requirements. It's not addressed in the applicant's information or in their plans. Um if it can't be
done um why can't it be done? Is it because it would cost more to build it there or because it's not convenient? Those aren't the criteria for approval of a variance? And then it gets back to the reasonable use question again. We're talking about an accessory structure. Is
this necessary for reasonable use of the property? That's those are questions for the planning commission. Do you have any other questions? >> No. >> Okay. >> Oh, I don't. Okay. >> Um,
yeah, I appreciate the the background with this complex uh area along the riverway and whatnot. uh you know it kind of adds a layer of complexity, bureaucracy, etc. Especially with the the state uh ordinances and
even a federal something in there as well. Um so yeah, appreciate uh appreciate the clarity on um exactly what we're talking about here. Um, I
would say that I although I kind of agree with the the uh, you know, nobody's ever the the neighbors are are happy. The homeowner would be a great, you
know, addition to the homeowner or it could to clean up the we'll say the blight for lack of a better term of, you know, the the boat the dapidity of the boat house. um with this um I just with the you know the state and federal you
know kind of overlays onto this property that we're talking about that are administered through the city's ordinance I'm not sure how I you know with those rules that this can you know be approved for variance
with that being how everybody's laid things out um as much as I think I would wanted to, but I think as a planning commission, we have to kind of see what the facts are before us and uh and uh
act accordingly. So, um I will make a motion to um I move to adopt the proposed findings as presented in the April 13th, 2026 planning report and recommend the city council deny variances to construct a
detached accessory structure new boat house within the lower St. Corey River Bluffland and Shoreland Management and Flood Plane Management District located at 317 Lake Street. I'll second the motion. All right.
All right. Um all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All those opposed. Motion carries. All right. With that uh we are going to take a fivem minute break uh to make
some swaps with the technology here and we'll reconvene at just a little bit after 7 o'clock. Okay, let's uh reconvene the planning commission meeting. So, the third item on the uh third public hearing tonight is to consider a variance to allow
expansion of existing parking lot located at 146 Fth Avenue North submitted by property owner Anderson Incorporation. Sarah, could you please present those details? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, the project area is located at the intersection of Main Street and Fifth Avenue North on
the periphery of the Anderson Corporation's main campus. Use of the comp use of the compact area is intense with the existing building located less than 5t from the front property line accompanied by off- streetet parking in the front and the rear. The building has
been vacant for the last 25 years and increasing in disrepair. Due to its proximity to Anderson's new hire and talent acquisition facility located to the east, the building is proposed to be demolished and the area repurposed for additional and more accessible off- streetet parking for employees and
visitors. To meet parking stall and drive aisle dimensions required by the zoning code, Anderson is requesting a variance to allow the new parking lot to be constructed at a similar setback to the existing building. The parking on the right ofway will be restored facade
complementing adjacent boulevards in the surrounding neighborhood. A retaining wall and fence will be installed along the south portion of the lot to create an appropriate grade as well as a screen and buffer from surrounding residential properties. A new stairwell will also be provided to direct employees and
visitors to the new hire talent acquisition facility. State statute cites that variances may be granted when it is established that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance which are outlined on this slide. This
language establishes the criteria by which the planning commission is to consider the variance application. If the variance is determined to be met if the variance criteria is determined to be met, a request for the variance should be granted. As outlined in the staff report, the
proposed parking lot expansion is reasonable to create safer, more efficient off- streetet parking for Anderson employees and visitors. Like many other commercial and industrial properties in the city, the existing building does not comply with current setback requirements. However, it should
be noted that these circumstances were not created by the land owner and were in existence prior to adoption of the zoning code. Finally, the additional off- streetet parking is of the same character of the existing adjacent parking lot and will be less noticeable than the existing
building. Right of landscaping and buffering will be more compatible in character with the surrounding residential properties. Excuse me. Uh for these reasons, staff finds that the criteria for the variance have been met and therefore is recommending
approval with the conditions as stated in the staff report. For the record, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 ft of this property and published in the Stillwater Gazette. Uh, no comments were received. Based on the findings in the
staff report, the planning committee's asked to provide a recommendation to the city council on the application. At this time, staffer, excuse me, staff recommends opening the public hearing. Following the public hearing, staff and the applicants would be happy to answer any questions.
>> Okay. Thank you, Sarah. Let's go. All right. I would like to open the public hearing and invite anyone wishing to comment to come forward to the podium and state your name and street address for the record. Anybody like to speak tonight? Hello, I'm Joe Reading, 1625th Avenue
North. And if you look really close, I think you can see my roof. I live immediately to the west of Squirrel House. That the first structure there on the left um is full of
squirrels. >> That that's all it gets used for as far as I can tell. >> Um I'm glad they're leaving those three structures there because that shields our whole neighborhood from sound. The
problem is this is the last step where any of us are going to know before those three structures come down. Um I discussed it with city staff and they can walk in the door, get a destruction permit, walk out the door and start knocking it down.
I'll only know when I notice there's a bulldozer in my backyard. Um there's also a very large change that isn't reflected in any of the written document. It's only on the
picture and I think it's significant. Um you have these two pages oops in your packet. Um, if you look at the original,
that is a fairly narrow driveway. It's currently signed one way. So, there's a do not enter sign facing the parking lot. I know it should say do not exit, but
it's Anderson, so I'm not too surprised. Um, it also doesn't get obeyed. I saw a pickup truck coming out there at shift change. My concern is they're getting their two-way driveway,
which will dump not only this parking lot, but all of the linked parking lots. They only have one exit out on a 95 and the whole thing turns into its slowly
moving parking lot. And if you give them a back door, they will drive 40 miles an hour through town if they can. Um, and that's what we're giving them permission to do because it's in the drawing. It's not in any of the text. Um, the last
thing I would like to state is that public parking that they're talking about, you know, existing and street side AW parking, that's not AW parking. That's public parking which they have
signed the living daylights out of since Lampbert moved out and it paid twice. I don't know if they talked to the city about that at all, but that ship disappeared someplace in the '9s when
that stopped being a retail facility. Um, and they can talk all they want about to our parking and visitors and whatnot. Those are full-time employees parking on the street and in those spots because
they're all carrying lunch bags. Just about every one of them has got a lunch bag. They're there 8 to 10 hours. Um, the last item I want to mention is we have had the north side curb
in my block painted yellow. I hope that when the boulevard is restored, I hope that curb is painted yellow as well. It's not designated anywhere, whether that's parallel parking or or what it
becomes. Um, with the cars parked on the south side of that street, you can just barely get the 30 mph cars flying like this. Um, just barely miss each other. Um, if you put parking both sides, it's just not
going to work. So I think there's some good things here. I think it needs to be adjusted before it gets adopted. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> U Mr. >> Questions,
>> Mr. Chair, I would like to note that Anderson does have U representatives here. So we'll let the next person go and then I think they can address um some of those parking questions or concerns. We had talked about that at length in our staff application meeting before it came to the planning commission. So, >> okay. Thank you.
>> Hello, my name is Katie Hill. I live on 213 Fifth Avenue North. I'm just one block up from where they're talking about. It's weird being on this side. Normally, I'm on that side. Sorry. Um, I do have some things that maybe you guys would want to hear before you vote. On
average, there is 14 cars parked on the street in the two-hour parking that are all Anderson windows full-time employees not there for two hours for their little, you know, maybe if they're going to get their picture taken. On average,
out of those 14 cars, nine of them don't move for 10 hours. They block fire hydrants, people's driveways, people's sidewalks. They park all the way up to the curb where you would you um where the
interchange or inner you know I don't even know what to say where you can't see cars coming or going. Um you can go in to their parking lot on fifth or on Fourth Avenue and see that it's about
half to 34s full where there's plenty of parking that all of those employees could go to. cops do go and ticket them. Maybe for two days someone doesn't park there. Besides that, they're right back in their parking. So, I would also like
to have the two-hour parking signs changed to either no Anderson employee parking or resident parking only cuz it is hard for like my house doesn't have a driveway. We have a two-car garage. We have three cars. We don't have a
driveway. So, when we come and park after school 2:00 hour, there is no parking spots for us. Uh, when we get things delivered where my husband has packages delivered for work all the time, the postman can't get to our sidewalk cuz someone's parked in front
of it. So, I just want to make sure everyone knows that before. And I think this new would be great cuz that building is pretty ugly. But and I like the grass that it's going to have, but I also maybe having some rules about I I don't
know what they can do, but changing signs at least instead of getting the two-hour parking, have something a no Anderson parking or resident parking only on the streets, not in their parking lot, obviously. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you.
All right. Anderson representatives. >> Uh David Ripley. I'm representing Anderson at the 146 Fifth Avenue. So Joe, Katie, I both you guys 100% accurate about the street parking. I I don't think we're dising that at all. Right. Um let me start Joe real quick
with the whole two-way. We we knew that was going to create some sort of hesitation, right? Um, I know it wasn't in and glad to give you a copy too because there's a little more involved drawings as far as two-way parking lot. There's intent there that the two-way
exit um enter only enter like you said current state into the Lamperts area. We have that existing uh parking spots behind Lamperts. Right now, the two-way is only for that parking area there. Now, now I say that because within our packets, we're going to address that by
signage. You're going to close that off with barriers. I'm sorry. >> Not not barriers, but one of two things. >> Anderson employees don't read. >> Yeah. I Hey, I I can even do it at all. It >> It's always a challenge. Um
>> you got spikes that if they go the wrong way, they puncture the tires. That might work. >> No, I I honestly I can 100 100% relate. I work in the facilities group. I I do. >> There will be people coming from halfway across that big parking lot. so they can
race down Fifth Avenue and maybe get to the bar one person closer than somebody who goes the other way. >> Here's what I can promise you though, and this is all honestly, and I'll make sure this checks out, right? Between not only the design as far as, like you said, signage and line striping on
asphalt is one thing, but I've been a part of this company for 15 years now, right? I understand the difficulty we have with making sure people are buying. Um, here's the big thing. We have 247 security staff. >> That's mostly who's parking there
>> in in the >> No one else is working in the middle of the night. Fifth Avenue parking >> that clears out at 2:00 a.m. and it's full by 5. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> We have commitment from our security staff to And this goes back to the
>> break themselves tickets. No, this goes back to the the influx of um employees from the south door lock which I'm thinking you're saying if there's a double the concern there is go through >> there is commitment by our security team
to be 100% enforceful for that and we know you know talking is talking right you have my commitment we will make sure that isn't and Joe I think we've talked before too and in other instances we appreciate you guys around there I'll even I'll hand out my number It's
something that I will 100% enforce on our end um to ensure the last thing we want and I'm sure the city wants to is to have you know 400 plus employees rushing onto a city street. We won't we don't want that just as much to everything. The background for that why we want to do that just to give you guys
a little context is we have new hires coming around. The whole push for this as Sarah outlined in her initial um kind of description is we have new hires um plus perspective hires coming to our lot are and I don't know if you could pull
that up Sarah real quick on the back side the whole the proximity of the parking lot to the it was in my initial packet that I submitted >> I don't have it handy this is kind of the best I can do >> okay so if I'm pointing off some of
railroad tracks here Right. Our new hire orientation building is actually across the street. Must admit it's one of the worst spots you can have it. We have people walking across our property all that we understand. >> I was hired in that office in 1983. It's been there a long time.
>> It really has. Yes. Um the point of the matter is we're trying to find localized parking that gets them closer to that because right now they're either parking in the door plant which is if you're not from here, you don't realize the campus. it's hard to get there. So, most of them
are coming from the south lot or they're coming on the street parking, which I think is a lot of the issues, not only Anderson. And I'll, like I said, I fully admit I've seen enough of my colleagues walking on the street there. It's it's something I think that's something that we're willing to work with the city and we've always been that way with you
guys, but we're telling them taking them. We're telling, you know, the city officials taking them. I'm all for having that discussion as far as additional signage outside. I don't want to speak for the city of Bayport in the and the planning team is additional
signage um or Anderson signage. Whatever we can do to help help out on that front, I'm 100% on board that. Like I said, I think we've been pretty forthcoming and helping you guys figure that out. Um on our end, like I said, between ticketing, indoor additional signage, um I think that's definitely
something that we need to take into effect. >> This may sound off topic, but it's not. Do you still allow smoking somewhere in the plant? Nope. Not on the planet. >> Okay. That's part of your problem because I've noticed I'm old so I get up in the middle of the night and it's not
unusual to see a glowing coal in the overnight cars. >> So, we have designated smoking shelters throughout our throughout our property that >> they should get to before they get to their car on >> Yes. Yes. Um
that's the two-way aspect of it. Just going back to that, like I said, 100% forceable on our end to make sure we don't have an influx of people. Um, the proximity, why we wanted that two-way is one thing, allowing those new hires. So, once again, it's people that
don't know our campus, right? If we kept that an exit only right now, they're getting lost going to the door plant and getting off on Highway 95. >> They're getting lost on Fifth Avenue. They pull off from the curb and they do
a fivepoint turn so they can drive back up the road that just came down because they don't know that we have blocks. >> Yeah. >> Cuz we don't build blocks anymore. >> Yeah. >> We build spaghetti. >> They have troubles. >> Yeah. So they just assume they have to turn around in the middle of the street.
So I understand that part of the two-way. >> Yeah. >> But >> wait in in that design. I just want to make sure um you know we've been we've been talking about this for some time whether or not we were going to rebuild the building to some degree or utilize
it. It's a long time coming like Sarah kind of outlined and I think aesthetically right I think um a lot of thoughtfulness not only from the Anderson side of things and the benefits that we're going to get out of from the additional parking but just from the aesthetics from the local community and residents. Um, I think it's a win for
everyone at that point along with 100% I'm working. I'm with you guys on the street parking. I mean, that's the intent. A lot of our like I said, prospective new hires because they don't know where to park. They don't want to park on the south. Then this will retrieve that. Uh, along with that, working with the city, um, from signage,
ticketing, like I said, we we are 100% on board partnering with you guys to see what we >> So, is there anything in the detailed plan about painting that curb? Um I I wouldn't look. So technically it's uh you're talking the new curb as far as where the
>> new curve where the new that would be a city detail. I am you know as part of and even in the outline um we're taking whole financial responsibilities even the the new rideway and the and the turf ads and the curbs. I'm all for I don't
want to speak for obviously the p planning commission and the the rest of city bay. Um I'm all ears if there's stuff from painting uh curb lines. I think that's probably something that has to come from the city. >> Commission commissioner chair. >> Yeah. So from a city standpoint, we
actually kind of discussed this every once in a while there is you know an 18-wheeler that will go down that road and having cars parked in that location will render that pretty much so stopped right there. So yes, the intent would be
to put um B12 curb there, so unsurmountable, and then also to paint it yellow just for circumstances like that. >> Okay, David, I have a question for you. So when you get farther to the north of
where we're not allowing two-way traffic, how wide does that drive aisle get in that location? Let me see if we >> And are they far north? Is that angle parking in that location?
>> Um, it is not. So I think just and we have a couple copies of the You're talking here, right? So no, this is this is straight in. So that's really the extent of it. >> Yeah. >> Where once again, we've got the signage plus the the arrow striping plus our our
security enforcement which we will we will hone in on. >> All right. >> Well, well, I think uh we'll probably have some more discussion and potentially other questions for you, but let's >> Yeah, absolutely. >> We if we don't mind, let's uh see if
there's anybody else who wants to >> talk tonight about this item and then we'll >> All right. Thank you. >> Anybody else wish to make a comment? Okay. One one sec. That's Oh, wait. Sorry. Were you going to move to close the hearing? Okay. Sorry. I thought you
were going to just go for it. >> Awesome. I move to close the public hearing. >> I'll second it. >> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All those opposed? >> Motion carries. Thank you. Sorry, I was getting ahead of myself there. All right. At this time, I'd like to
entertain further discussion or questions from the plan commission. >> Uh my my first question, and maybe I missed it in here, is how many additional spots are we creating? But >> yeah, >> great question. Um, we have 18
additional spots. Okay, with those 18, 8 to 10, we're still working with our talent acquisition group. 8 to 10 dedicated to once again the new hire um kind of then these will be assigned spots via signage for new hire orientation folks only. >> Okay.
>> But 18 total. >> And how many are you taking off the street? Like the the >> the boulevard we had eight I do believe total >> 10 >> 10 >> 10 is it 10? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> So So driving patterns seem to be a big topic here. just flow and in and out and and uh you know I I'm a little ignorant of of it but I understand the problems. Um
and so just working through that and how to deter incentivize whatever getting people to park in the spots. If the corporate lots got spots, why aren't they parking there? Is that is that being researched or
>> Yeah, it's something. So that's an ongoing discussion point through our whole campus that like I said I've been doing this 15 years. It's always a challenge. It's always something that we're actively working through our security teams, our facilities groups, our maintenance groups. Um we're always
finding ways to hopefully be better at that. A lot of it is just behavior stuff which once again we're um we have an on-site security team that's 247 there. there's initiatives in play not only for just a staffing requirement of that group but making sure they're fully
aware of how I'll say our employees should be abiding by the traffic signals um which even in this and like I said the details not on here just your traffic pattern question about the actual physical parking um it's through signage and and on asphalt striping
which we have a plan plan in here um with our construction drawing set Okay. >> Um I'm I'm assuming and I know the response, but I just want to check on the north side of the building that's going down there's an what I think is an
HVAC unit and a kiosk. And is that I mean it looks in the new drawings they're gone, but I just want to confirm that that's part of the >> Yeah. So the AL speak to the HVAC equipment. So all that HVAC equipment you see is all designated for the old Lamperts building, right? So that would be part of the demo phase if it that all
goes away. There's also on the back side um it's called an employee shield sail shack. So it's literally just a little nice house essentially. I think it's like 6x6 or 8 by8 um that is dedicated towards um the the adjacent buildings and
between uh Joe's property and where we're talking right now, the buildings that aren't being put up. So that's a combination of maintenance, task work, storage type area. We also have our employee sales area. So it's overstock of windows and such that that they offer back to employees at a discounted um
rate. Is that employee sales shack is where that gentleman who runs that entire process actually sits that gets relocated about 60 ft to the north within this same existing parking lot area. And we do that just to make sure
our new kind of layout of the proposed new parking layout can abide by that. >> Thank you. And once again, we have a lot detailed drawings more than happy to share share with anyone at that point. >> Yeah. And um thank you for answering one
of the questions I had related to like this the idea behind it is for the new employee orientation and hiring and the type of people that will be parking there. Um, I was I was just curious as well, and I know that the parking lot would be on your side, the sidewalk would be the city, but just by way of
accessibility, um, for somebody not able to use the stairs that will they be able to park and then get their way to the building based on the sidewalk, does that fit all the criteria? >> Are you talking handicap or ADA side of things? Yeah, great question. um
something that we discussed in depth with with Matt and Sarah and kind of our initial um plan review set. So, we're actually dedicating two additional handicap stalls on the other side of our property of the train tracks actually proximity-wise closer to the new hire.
We have three spots there existing right now. We did everything we could to get handicap stalls in this prospected new layout. Um we we had it all figured out with ramps and everything, but we didn't take into consideration until after the fact is actually crossing the railroad tracks.
>> That was going to be my next question. >> Um it ends up being the easiest thing >> non- handicap compliant. So, um, we after we did a lot of planning and design and engineering work, we kind of backtracked off of that and we are dedicating two additional spots up
towards our main campus up closer to the actual new hire orientation to take care of the ADA compliant side. >> Okay, great. >> Be some sign up there. >> Yep. Yep. Yep. >> And, um, similar to what was mentioned earlier, I I I haven't been familiar.
I'm not down there if shift changes at present. Is Anderson feel like they're maxed out on parking? Like is there ever a time where it's all filled up or is it just what I've been hearing more of convenience for some to >> Yeah, I mean it's behavior stuff. Um like you mentioned I think everyone
because shift change is where a lot of the commotion and um I'll say congestion happens just because naturally it's the overlapping of people coming in grabbing the spots. Now, we're actively working with that too to try to stagger those more to kind of give some reprieve to,
you know, not only people outside our property, whether it's on the 95 or city streets or anything like that. That's one of the initiatives that we're working with our operations team as well. But yeah, shift change is really the one I outside of shift change um it
feels pretty comfortable as far as um an overall parking but I mean that's seasonal and it's depending on business and depending on summer health and interns. I mean we have an influx of people typically in the summertime. Um that does obviously create more capacity
in our parking but really outside of shift change all the information we have for available parking stalls is not an issue. >> Thank you. >> Do you have any question? >> Uh just one question. Uh train traffic. How much how many trains are coming in
out of there a day? >> Yeah. Um so we did a study on that. So most of it is going through XL, right? I think they're down to like three a week, right? >> I think we we were looking at working with a separate project on our north end
lot and things of that nature that required um um traffic studies and train traffic was part of that. I believe it was three I don't know remember >> the guy living next door to the tracks. There's three coal trains and one plastics train. >> Okay.
>> Don't know better or not. >> And they're all going to Excel. Uh three the plastic one would be our so we are we are a customer of UP u but Joe's point is it's plastic resin that we get for some of our >> All right. Sure.
>> Did you have a question? >> Yeah I do actually. Thank you. Um so I guess uh just a question on the two-way versus one way. So right now that it's exit only out of that parking
or is it enter only? uh enter only into the existing parking area or behind the lamps area that we also have. >> So the Yes. >> Yeah. next to the maintenance buildings or whatever. That's enter only. >> Correct. Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. Um does that carry all the
way through? I think maybe somebody was asking or like does that carry all the way through kind of through the parking lot? So like the 2-way doesn't like carry through the entire parking lot. >> Yeah. Correct. >> Future state. Yes. So through and once again Joe I'm more than happy to share
this with you too um where you're referring to >> here is so here's our new proposed two-way coming in here right the intention is for the new hire employees to come out and that only plus the remaining stalls we have just >> once and this is outdated so this
actually this arrow is only here so really past this point plus signage that we're going to initially do up here I think the the concern is that south door plant that we have 300 plus property installed right um along with any of the residents there we don't want them
funneling down utilizing this >> so this is actually one way traffic only this way or they have to go out to 95 at that point which will be through site signage striping along with our security >> okay >> uh we'll be managing that
>> okay yeah thank you for that I yeah just >> just for my knowledge I guess Um the the graphic that's on the screen right now, it's kind of the say the rendering of of the area here. It's showing the boulevard areas not having
any street trees. Uh is that something I would like to see more street trees, but I was just wondering if that's intentional or if that perhaps city staff can >> weigh in on. >> Mr. Sure. We didn't we didn't even
necessarily think about both of our trees in that location. Um I suppose we would be open to it. >> I we would be open to it. I think the turf was something that we discussed initially amongst the design team plus um plus with Matt and Sarah. Um to
Matt's point um never came up in sure >> topics of conversations but more than happy to revisit that if that's something you >> it could obviously you know a new tree is not going to provide much you know screening and whatnot but eventually when that grows up it yeah would be probably a good neighborhood benefit
>> for that um >> which and I know it was called out just real quick touching on the screening of the fencing too you have that fence um that's going to wrap around on that new retaining wall okay yeah thank you for Um,
so, uh, what is the setback for this property that they're asking? Like if they met the rules, what would the setback be for this? >> Mr. Chair, the, uh, required setback is 10 ft. >> 10 feet. And they're asking or asking for 5T, which is where the existing building is right now. >> Correct.
>> Okay. Is that new retain? I'm guessing that's a new retaining wall along Fifth. And uh is that the city's responsibility in the future or is that Anderson's responsibility? >> Mr. Chair, that would be Anderson's responsibility. >> Yes.
>> And I will mention the the new turf. Um we've committed to >> maintaining that as well. Um and if the trees become in the discussions, we'll we'll make sure that um that's part of our maintenance task as well.
>> Okay. And uh so if if we enforced the 10 feet uh that would not allow you to do the angle parking up next to that new retaining wall. Correct. So that you
probably could get a couple spaces of like parallel parking but not the five angle ones that you're showing. >> Correct. It would it would impede on our our design and the intent to maximize the amount of parking stalls we can have up there for one of two things. The new hire, right? Then obviously just city
street parking reprieve off of there. So yes, it not having that um that variance which once again that retaining wall proposal is right at the foundation proposal not asking for more within the confines of the existing Lambert's building. Um if we weren't able to do
that, it would it would affect our design. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um and the last question I had was related to the like the resident parking only uh
comment that was made. I know that in other places I've uh worked in that that's that's been something that's come up. Uh, and it the city sometimes has a hard time enforcing that or like you'd have to
kind of create a district or something like that for residential parking. Is that true? Is that something the city would be interested in doing? >> Mr. Chair, I parking is an issue in this area as acknowledged by Anderson Corporation. Um, a lot of our discussion in those
preliminary meetings was regarding the on street parking. Um, I think working with Anderson we can and through some education and behavioral changes hopefully address that. Um, I'd like the opportunity to uh revisit this topic with the applicants prior to the council
okay meeting and hopefully identify some um improvements that could address some of those. And ultimately if it needs to be no parking on you know for that whole block I mean we will work to address that and and anderson has stated they are committed. So
>> yeah, >> I'm I'm happy this project has come about because it gives us an opportunity to work on some of those improvements and incorporate those into the project. So >> and also that's something that you guys as the as city staff could look at into the future if say this was constructed,
>> we're seeing an issue, we can always address some signing things in the future and that kind of thing too. So along those lines, what I'm hearing from the discussion is that um in your motion, you should include direct directing staff to work with um Anderson Corporation to identify some solutions
to address the concerns um and include those in the resolution for city council consideration as well as the the boulevard trees um identifying locations and the appropriate amount. So okay, >> if you'd like to include those in the motion, that would be appropriate. >> Okay. Before I do that, does anybody have
>> I have one last question about uh just Yeah. snow removal. >> Yeah. >> What's the strategy on snow removal for all this? >> Yep. Uh great question. So, no different than what our plan is currently for everything. So, this is something we know that we can't stage andor push
anywhere. So, we will actually haul offsite. So, that that's the intent which we do up there existing. So, all that parking stalls that are behind that, it's all hauled off. >> Okay. >> Very quick. Okay.
>> Okay. Uh I guess uh >> Oh, I can I can make a motion. Question. No, I can I can make the motion. >> Go ahead. >> I move to recommend the city council approve a variance allow expansion of an existing parking lot located at 1465th
Avenue North subject to the findings and facts and conditions of approval recommended by staff and direct staff to work with Anderson Corporation on issues and questions raised during this hearing. I second the motion. >> Does that satisfy what you're looking
for for the motion or would you like to be more specific? >> Mr. Chair, I would offer a friendly amendment motion to include the Boulevard trees if that is so desired by the commission. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I was anticipating that. >> I was anticipating that along with I was
starting to name all the things, but I was including that along with anything that was brought up during this piece. Thanks for the clarification. If that's your intent, then yes, >> noted. >> Okay, you >> I second the motion. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All those opposed?
Motion carries. All right. Number four, consider an interim use permit to operate a multi-tenant office co-working space located at 563th Avenue North, Unit One. Submitted by property owners Joe Pacic
and Nate Johnson. Sorry. Hope I said that name correctly. >> All right, Sarah, would you present the details of the application, please? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the applicants for their patience this evening. >> Um, I don't, but I
>> um the property contains an existing office building consisting of two separate units. Unit one was formally owned by Dwight Cumins of Cummins Law Office, operating as a law firm with multiple lawyers and legal assistants. Unit two is owned by Brad Nelson, which operates Bay Dental and will continue as
a dental office. The applicants recently purchased unit one of the property with the intent of operating an uh engineering consulting firm in one of the office spaces with the potential of subleasasing the remaining office space to individual professionals, remote workers, or local startup businesses.
Office use is a permitted use in the B2 central business zoning district. However, the property does not comply with the minimum lot requirements or design and performance standards to accommodate multiple individual businesses. Mainly, we're talking off- streetet parking.
The applicants have acknowledged the lack of non-conformity and are therefore requesting the city to consider an interim use permit to allow a multi-tenant co-working environment. Excuse me. As proposed, the applicants would sublet
seven existing offices within unit one to individual professionals such as legal, engineering, administration uh with a maximum building occupancy of 15 persons. Tenants would generally remain on site in half day or full day increments as opposed to retail or
clinic use which typically generates uh turnover uh traffic every 30 to 60 minutes for clients and patrons. Uh general business hours of operation be would be weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. And two off- streetet parking
stalls do technically exist behind the property for use by unit 1 and two. However, um tenant and visitor parking will be limited mostly to on street as I noted along Fifth Avenue North and adjacent fourth and fifth street north.
Interim use permit is typically granted for a temporary period and allows a basis for the city to determine whether a use is appropriate for the site. It should be noted that the city council did convene a workshop this past December to discuss the potential for multi-tenant use of unit one and express
support for an interim permit. As proposed, the permit would be issued for a period of one year. Uh staff is recommending approval with the conditions as stated in the staff report. Uh for the record, the notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 ft and
published in the Stillwater Gazette. Tonight, the planning commission has asked to provide a recommendation to the city council on the application. And um staff recommends opening the public hearing and uh the applicants are here and we'd be happy to answer any questions.
>> Okay. Thank you, Sarah. I would like to open the public hearing and invite anyone wishing a comment to come forward to the podium. State their name and history address for the record. >> Well, comment. Hey, thanks for having us here. Try to make this somewhat quick and so everybody get on with their nights. Um, we bought the property.
We're really looking forward to a spot in Bayport. It's a nice town and um, I grew up in Still Water. It's a very touristy town, so I was really happy to find a nice quiet spot on a nice little Bayport street here. Um, I was looking for about two years. I was working at
home. I couldn't find anything that was small enough to lease. And I know there's many other people within the city of Bport that are looking for or that are in sim similar situations looking to get out of their house and just find some place to work. Um, we bought the property hoping that we'd be
able to subleasase the parts that we can use. I'm as of right now I operate a engineering architectural engineering company. Um we were based in Bose Montana. Uh we now have an office in Bayport which is fantastic and um I
don't I just don't have enough employees yet. We need more business. Eventually, we might need more and maybe take up the whole space, but for now, we need to try to make this place make financial sense so that we can continue to repair it, support it, keep the area thriving down
there on North Fifth Avenue. Um, we're hoping to work with the city, make sure this works for everybody. Obviously, we know there's not a parking situation. We thank the city and Sarah and Mike and Matt for uh working with us to figure out our condo situation and
our parking variance that we've already kind of dealt with. Um basically now we're just looking for some to get through this uncertainty of who we can allow to be in there. We've had multiple tenants come approach us anywhere from barbers to salons,
acupuncturists. like we I every time I have to be pretty open with them, be like, I don't know if the city's going to let us do that. I apologize. So, we really we're hoping we can get somebody in there that can help the area thrive and we can really just
provide something for smaller businesses to get going and maybe they grow, maybe they move into someplace else in the city. Um, yeah, we applied for the intern permit just so we can try to alleviate some of that uncertainty and move forward. That's all I got. >> Thank you.
>> Thanks. >> I don't see anybody else here that might be interested in speaking. So, I will move to close the public hearing. >> I'll second the motion. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All opposed. Motion carries.
All right. Uh, at this time I would like to entertain further discussion from the planning commission. So I the question did come up um for for each applicant does the city have to approve the types of businesses or are we allowing the individuals there
to decide who occupies the space? >> Mr. Chair, Commissioner um we have gone over this with the applicants and I think we've uh created a outline of those administrative legal engineering office type businesses. um we will work
closely with them when they have tenants uh turn over and make sure that they're consistent with the approvals that surround the intramuse permit, but that would not be involve planning commissioner or city council approval. That would be handled administratively by staff with the applicant.
>> Great. Thank you. And then um the it's there's recommendation that the interim use for one year. What what are some steps prior to that year being up that would look if this were to continue? would this be coming through this process again or what what what would that look like and how soon would it
need to be prior to that year being up? >> Mr. your commissioner. Um we have had a couple of other projects um actually the immediate neighbor um which is uh Lenny's garage. They went through a similar process and about 3 months prior
to the expiration of the one year we sat down and had a meeting to discuss how things were going um on both sides from the neighborhood and from the applicant standpoint and the city standpoint. Um if everything is going well, there would be a formal process through the planning
commission and council again to extend that and um depending upon those outcomes and the performance of that that could be another year, it could be two years, five years, you know, indefinitely. Um but this interim permit allows that kind of on a trial basis. um
parking. I mean, thankfully, Fifth Avenue has exploded with businesses and is vibrant and um we're fortunate to have all the restaurants and great businesses there, but it also opposes a parking issue. And I think that's the biggest concern, respecting those existing businesses that have challenges
with the parking and then adding potential more tenants and users to that corridor. So, we want to be mindful of that. >> Thank you. Those are the questions. Go ahead. Uh, I only have a one question. Uh, Joe. >> Yeah.
>> Um, we talked about the types of businesses. I heard legal, engineering, administrative types, but then I also heard what I consider to be like barbers or acupunctures. I mean, that that would create more flow, more traffic, right?
>> Yep. So, uh, >> well, so the property area has history of being a legal firm, so there already was turnover of clients pretty consistently there, and they had quite a few people crammed in that building. They're actually using the White Pines building across the street, too. Um, I
mean, we we kind of rushed through on this permit to throw it in as office and professional. I mean, I' I'd be open to expanding that a little and being able to be a little more flexible so that we can provide what what the community
members actually want. Like I don't I don't know who's going to approach me next week and ask who can be in there and every time I got to go to the city and it takes months, we end up having problems and they're they're gone when we never get anybody. So, I'm a little concerned about the whole process and
just getting through it. But, um, we're like I said, we're open to working with the city and we want to make this work. So, >> okay. >> Is that Sorry, did that answer your question? >> Yeah. Yep. Yep. I understand. >> Uh Sarah, Matt, to that point, is is
there like a list of permitted uh like uses for what what we're say interim using or is it kind of a case by case basis? >> Mr. Chair, the uh B2 central business
zoning district has a list of permitted uses, a list of conditional uses which require a special permit. Interim use is kind of a broad category. Um as part of our discussions, he mentioned there was a barber, hair stylist interested. Um as
staff, we felt that that would be a great use as the sole tenant and occupant, you know, operating that way. this situation that is being proposed is relatively low impact and that will give us an opportunity to again try the
interim use permit to see how that's working with the existing surrounding businesses. If Joe and Nathan come back to us in, you know, 3 months from now and say we can't get anybody to rent any of the spaces, I think we can revisit that conversation. Uh there are building
codes and fire codes that also factor into that. Uh for offices, it's kind of just a general um code baseline. Once you get into, you know, plumbing for hairing, sinks, and some of those issues, um accessibility some somewhat
kicks in. So, there are other standards. Uh we're trying to make use of the building as is and maximize um that use at this time. >> Okay. Thank you for that answer. Um, I'll just say, uh, you don't know this about me, but I am the owner of a startup engineering company, and this
kind of space would, I think, be >> really great for my business at some point in the future. And >> not not saying this about your approving this tonight, but I think just generally, you know, a flexible, more flexible type spaces in in our area, I
think, is a good thing. Um and I think that um you know providing you know people who are working closer to the businesses downtown and stuff like that is probably also a net benefit for for businesses downtown. So, um I will make the motion
to approve uh the inter sorry I will move to recommend the city council approve an interim use permit to operate a multi-tenant office co-working space located 563th Avenue North unit one subject to the findings of fact and conditions of approval
recommended by staff. >> Second a motion. >> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Thanks, guys. >> Thank you. >> All right. Our final public hearing
tonight, consider amending uh appendix B zoning of the Bayport city code ordinances related to signage and security measures for cannabis and hemp businesses. Sarah, will you present this item, please? >> U Mr. Mr. Chair, over the past two years, the city has adopted various
ordinances related to cannabis and hemp businesses, mostly to comply with state law. Uh, recently staff discovered that the content related to signage and security that was originally included in one of the draft ordinances was inadvertently omitted in a replacement
ordinance. So, it was it's more of a housekeeping oversight issue. Uh we recognized this when the cannabis business across the street had made application for their sign permit. Um they do comply with the proposed language in the ordinance. So it's not
like we're adopting something specific to prevent him from um installing the signage that he wants. Um so I just wanted to note that for the record. Uh but as a result of the oversight, staff is requesting the ordinance be amended to reinstate those omitted provisions um
as outlined in the draft ordinance in your packet. >> Okay. Uh I would like to open the public hearing and invite anyone wishing to comment to come forward to the podium. State their name and street address for the record.
Anybody? >> I move to close the public hearing. >> All right. Second. All right. Allo All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All those oppose. Motion carries. Any further discussion or questions?
I think it's straightforward myself, but >> All right. I move to recommend the city council approve an amendment to appendix B, zoning of the Bayport city code of ordinances related to signage and security measures for cannabis and hemp businesses. I second the motion. All right.
All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed. Motion carries. >> Uh we have no old business or new business. Uh no general information tonight that I know of. Um
open forum. Uh do we have anybody that's speak of the open forum? Okay. All right. Uh so that concludes the business on tonight's agenda. Do I hear a motion to adjurnn the meeting? >> I move to adjourn the meeting.
>> Second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All opposed. Motion carries. Thanks, guys.