This transcript appears to be from a **White Bear Lake City Council** meeting regarding a controversial redevelopment project at the intersection of **County Road E and Bel Air Avenue**. Based on the context, here is the formatted transcript with speaker identifications. *** **[00:00:00] Mr. Lindahl (Planning Director):** Uh, that one I think most people are familiar with is zoning. And zoning can be thought of as what you can do with the property today and is more detail; it includes height standards, parking standards, materials standards, landscaping standards. And then there's the comprehensive plan that I just mentioned, and that can be thought of as what you can do with the property in the future. So um, there is a state law that requires all the communities within the metropolitan area to have a comprehensive plan that looks out 30 years into the future, and we are required by that same state law—every community is—to update it every 10 years. And so that was done and wrapped up in 2020. Okay, and so the next step in implementing that zoning to iron out the difference between what the current zoning says and what the future land use plan says is to update the zoning code. And actually, we are in the process—we are actually in the process of starting that overall review and update of our zoning code, you know, in the third quarter of this year. Part one of the items on the consent agenda tonight was approval of the consultant agreement to help the city with that project. So, when we're in a situation where we are now, where we're in between—we had existing zoning that dates back from basically 2002, and then we have a new comprehensive plan that shows goals and policies and land uses for the future use of the property—now the city has to go through a process of squaring those things. We look at the current zoning, and we look at what that future land use map says, and we update the zoning. Because we're in this interim period where that whole exercise hasn't been completed yet, we look at the future land use map to guide us as to what's appropriate for redevelopments of the site. And so that's why we looked to the use and density standards in the neighborhood mixed-use future land use category and then match that with the closest existing zoning standards that we have, and that gets us the 16 to 34 units. **[00:02:15] Mayor:** Correct. Thank you. And then just one technical question for me—now from the audience—the resolutions in front of us, the ordinance, the zoning change reads: "and said premises hereby rezoned to R6 medium density residential with a planned unit development." So I don't understand the phrase "additional with a planned unit development." Can we just change the zoning of that property? This particular tonight, we have before us a planned unit development proposal for this particular property, but if we didn't have that—let's say we just wanted to do the rezoning piece—or is it a future thing that says we're going to rezone this R6 expecting or with a planned unit development in the future? How does that work? **[00:03:05] Mr. Lindahl (Planning Director):** Mayor, members of the council, you bring up a specific clarifying point. And so that language was specifically put into the ordinance to acknowledge the use of a PUD on this property. So it is sort of specific to tonight, yes. And if the council would choose to not necessarily link those things in text form, that's certainly a minor text change that the staff can adjust for you. **[00:03:35] Mayor:** Thank you. To Mr. Coffee on traffic and that: So we've had a gas station that hasn't been operating for 13 years, but before it became a defunct entity, there was a gas station for a couple decades. Do we have any sense of what the traffic used to be prior to it closing? **[00:03:55] Mr. Coffee (City Engineer/Traffic):** Members of the council, there are manuals up in my office that, based on land use, will tell you what the typical traffic is. I don't have that memorized off the top of my head. I can definitely get that for Council, but it was quite a bit higher than residential use. One thing to note is residential uses typically are pretty pointed; they're not as constant throughout the day. Typically, people leave for work in the morning or school or wherever they're going, and they'll filter back in in the evening, typically spread out over a period of time. So the noticeable traffic out of a residential area is fairly minor. You look at a gas station—the use is much higher, much more intense over a longer span of the day. So if you'd like, I can definitely get that number for Council. **[00:04:40] Mayor:** No, it's okay. I just wanted to clarify because that was my sense too, but I'm not the expert. In my head, I just think, okay, there's a gas station that's operating all day long during normal business hours. It might not have an entrance or an exit to Jansen, but it still is on Bel Air and County Road E. And so maybe this creates some additional safety for pedestrians and kids on bikes. When there was a gas station open—I've got two little kids—to me, that's much more unsafe, having people filling up and going to and from. I'm sorry for those in the audience who have their hands up; this isn't a conversation. We appreciate your testimony, but we're going to consult with the developer and those folks. Um, so I just want to get that straight in my head as far as how that was. Okay, Council, any other questions for staff or for the developer? **[00:05:40] Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Lindahl, could you also speak—you just spoke moments ago about the discrepancies, the different numbers that we use in between comp plan zoning, etc. Is it not also true that this is the first time that a "neighborhood mixed-use" designation has come into our conversation? My understanding and recollection is that the neighborhood mixed-use designation was created by and adopted by this Council—I'm not disputing that it is in our comp plan. There are five properties, I believe, in the entire city that have the neighborhood mixed-use designation. Four of them are on this intersection, and the fifth one is down at the Wildwood commercial center. I don't believe, to my recollection, that we've ever had a conversation about neighborhood mixed-use; we don't have any precedent applying any standards or numbers to that. Can you speak to that? What complications does that create, or what opportunities for other interpretations might that create? What's your take? **[00:06:50] Mr. Lindahl (Planning Director):** Mayor, members of the council, Councilmember Edberg is correct that only this intersection and then the Wildwood shopping center at Century and County Road E, just slightly to the east of this site, are designated as that neighborhood mixed-use classification. As I mentioned, the neighborhood mixed-use category/future land use category is part of the most recent version of the comprehensive plan that was adopted in 2020. And so I would agree that there has not been a proposal on these sites—on any of the neighborhood mixed-use sites—since this new land use classification has been adopted and incorporated into the comprehensive plan. **[00:07:40] Councilmember Hughes:** Sorry, what is the difference between R5 and R6? And what would that difference mean really here? Numbers, stormwater retention, streets, height of buildings? **[00:07:50] Mr. Lindahl (Planning Director):** Mayor, members of the council, the top chart shown here shows the different development standards within the R3 residential district, which is the surrounding residential neighborhood, and then the R5 and R6 districts, and then the current B3 district. Okay. And so these districts were selected to be in this comparison table because the R3 district is the surrounding residential area and the B3 district is the current zoning. And then we looked at again the future land use plan and the designation of neighborhood mixed-use, and that talks about apartments and townhomes. So if you look at the R5 and R4 zoning districts, they most closely—not exactly, but most closely—match the use and proposed density of that future land use category. The R4 district, for example, isn't included here because it only allows single and two/twin homes or duplexes, and so that doesn't meet the townhome or apartment use type of the neighborhood mixed-use district, so it wasn't considered. And you can see in these tables, many of the standards are virtually the same. As far as setbacks go, there's only a slight deviation in the R5 district, with it being 25 instead of 30. The rear setbacks across the board are 30 feet. The front yard setback, again, only has that slight difference between 30 and 25. And then the height limitation—maximum height limitation—is consistent throughout the zoning districts, with just basically the B3 being the one designating an actual story and one-foot higher limitation. **[00:09:40] Mayor:** Okay. Any other questions before we jump into some comments here? Does anybody want to hear from the developer before we put them off the hook? Okay, well, I'm gonna offer some of my thoughts then, trying to reconcile three different things. First, the fact that this is no doubt a blighted area, and I think everyone in this room can agree that this is far from the highest and best use of the land, right? It's an old dilapidated, rusty gas station. I should preface my comments by saying I spent a fair amount of time this afternoon walking the property, walking your neighborhood, kind of as if I live there. Again, with two little kids, if I lived right there, what would I want to see based on what the developer's plans are? So we have a blighted area; we all agree something needs to be done. Is it this project? Is it the next? I don't know. I will note for everyone in the room: it's not like we're beating down the door with developers that just have plan after plan and idea after idea. If we did, it wouldn't be 13 years. Which isn't to say that another developer can't come by, or this developer can't adapt their plans a little bit, tweak the plans a little bit. But we have to be realistic of the fact that cities don't and aren't supposed to be building and doing things for the private sector; the market wants to do that. I think that's something we should all keep a close eye on. These developers are saying this is what the market demands based on the feedback from what kind of housing residents want. One thing too is we have a private landowner, a developer, that bought the property with a certain intent to develop it. He's been working within our code and wants to get it rezoned, which is what's necessary to see this project through. And I will compliment the builder on working with the neighborhood. Clearly, there's some disagreement about what should go there, but I don't think anybody would disagree that this gentleman and his company have worked with the neighbors and tried to amend it and mold it in a way that would fit. I can tell you, putting my realtor hat on, that there probably are better ways to monetize that if we didn't care about what it looked like or what the neighbors wanted. You know, you can stick more units in there, the valuation goes up, and you can probably monetize it better. They haven't done that. So it's a long-winded comment of saying "thank you." I think the fact that it's three stories closest to the busiest area and tiers down to two stories as it gets into the residential area is clearly an indication that they're thinking about those things, and I appreciate that. The third thing—and this is in no particular order, but I do place a high premium value on the third thing—is hearing from the residents. It's your neighborhood; you live there. I don't; I live on the north side. If something was happening in my neighborhood, I'd want the Council to listen, and I think we've certainly done that. I can tell you we've debated this issue, and the Planning Commission grappled over it. There's no perfect solution. That's the problem here. No matter what goes in there, there's going to be a faction in the community that says, "Well, I don't want that." So I'm saying that to tell you that I'm hearing everything you're saying. I disagree with a few things. I will push back on things like, first and foremost, parking. I mean, I've got no problem with putting "no parking" signs all around that area if we need to, and I think we can enforce that. I don't see what the safety issue is, knowing what the history of the gas station was. I say this as a parent with two little kids—one's pretty good at riding the bike, the other one's struggling—but they're out there on the road intermixing with cars. To be honest, I don't know how many kids are going to go up that big steep hill, but I don't see that as an issue because, as our city engineer said, when it's residential, it's sort of a cluster in the morning and a cluster in the evening. A busy gas station, to me, presents a much greater safety issue. And even though we haven't had it for 13 years, that neighborhood did have that commercial enterprise on that corner for a number of years. So now it's up to this Council to figure out what should we do. I can tell you, nobody just wants to shove this down your throat and say we don't care, we know best. That's not the case. But we are getting some serious pushback from other residents that are demanding a different form of housing. My personal preference: I'm not a big apartment guy, especially the big ones. But I look at this project and I say, well, this isn't a huge apartment complex, right? It's dense relative to the surrounding area, there's no question, but it's not four stories; there's not 200 residents there. It's relatively small. I think if they're going to be market rate, they're probably going to be kind of high-end apartments. We didn't get into what the numbers would be, but it's far from low income; these are going to be nice apartments. So, those are the things that I'm kicking around in my head, and to me, this project doesn't look too bad. Is it ideal? Maybe not, but I don't know what would be. And again, putting my realtor hat on, I'm thinking: what else could go there? That's really the big question that I'm struggling with. Okay, if not this, then what? I don't know. Four townhomes? I don't know if you can monetize that. I don't know. It's less traffic. Is there an appetite? Is there a builder that wants to do that? Is it going to take 30 years for that to happen? And then we've got to look at this gas station longer. So those are the things that we're trying to balance out. So the easiest thing for me to do would be to sit here in front of a crowd that clearly doesn't want it and say, "I'm with you, let's deny it, let's move on." I'm not there. I hear everything you're saying, but I think there's a way to make this work. I think there's a way to manage it through parking, through ordinance enforcement, whatever it is. And I think the developers have whittled it down to something that can work. So as the non-voting guy on the council, those are my thoughts. But it's ultimately the other five people sitting up here that are going to make the decision. But you know, candidly, that's where I stand on this. But I do thank all of you for your concerns and testimony, and I'll bring it to the Council for what your thoughts are. **[00:15:30] Councilmember Hughes:** Um, I guess I have a question for the rest of my council members. Would this be worth splitting into two conversations? One would be what should it be zoned as, and the second one is whether or not we want a PUD on that site. **[00:15:45] Councilmember Jones:** Valid question from Councilmember Hughes. I'm almost looking at it as: they're almost one and the same. Yeah, one is not going to come without the other. And I'll elaborate on what you say as far as, after 15 years, what has the market brought us? We've seen two apartments on any of the properties except for Bean Company, which is exactly what a lot of those folks said back when—one ice cream shop? Well, you got one, are you supporting it? So just to answer your question, Councilmember Hughes, here's how I see it: I think they're one and the same for purposes of tonight. And then if there's a conversation number two about, "Okay, let's go back to the drawing board and figure out: is it B5, is it something else, or R5, is R6 something else?" To me, that's a question for another day. I see these two as linked, but I can be convinced otherwise. **[00:16:40] Mr. Lindahl (Planning Director):** Mayor, members of the council, I would echo the mayor's comments with just a little bit more detail. We do have an application before the council tonight. It is in two parts, and the rezoning needs to be addressed first. If the rezoning application—if the council can't get behind the rezoning application—then the PUD application really falls apart without the underlying zoning. So while you certainly can and should look at them as two pieces, specifically tonight you have two specific applications before you. First reading for the rezoning—that is an ordinance text amendment. So tonight we are having the first reading of the ordinance that is in your packet, and then the PUD is separate. The second reading and consideration for adoption of the ordinance text amendment will be at the upcoming meeting. And if a PUD were to be approved tonight, and then in the second meeting in May the ordinance were not to be adopted, that PUD is null and void. **[00:17:45] Councilmember Hughes:** And I suppose my purpose of asking that, in some ways, is because I think some of this is going to be a conversation that's going to happen no matter what comes on that site. There's going to be more parking, there's going to be a stormwater issue, there are going to be issues that are going to have to be dealt with. And how much of them are because of this particular proposal, and how much of them are because of *any* proposal? I was just wondering if it was worth separating those. **[00:18:15] Councilmember Jones:** I'll get my litany out of the way for the Council. For the residents: I understand where you're coming from. And I want to point out first what came up was this "neighborhood mixed-use" thing as something new. No, it's not new. As a matter of fact, you have three developments all along County Road D and Bel Air that already exist with exactly what this corner is bringing: single-family homes, apartments, townhomes, businesses. It is 120 and County Road D; it is the northwest corner of the intersection we're talking about; it is Bel Air and County Road D. Townhomes, apartments, businesses, single-family homes abutting. This is nothing new to our community. Nothing. This is what our community already has. So setting that aside, if we leave this zoning the same, I can still come in and buy the lot and put up a three-story building and park whatever I need to park for whatever I'm going to do for that building, and there's nothing—zero—that you can do about it. I'll put up a tip-up wall construction painted hot pink. I can do that right now. Whether or not it's housing—which, by the way, is another one of my points: we desperately need all forms of housing in our city at all costs, for that matter. So that's just two things. And when we get a Planning Commission that votes unanimously—and they are yours, mine, they are residents, peers—I take that unanimous vote seriously. The developer has brought it down to 17 units; these are things that you've heard. The height is reduced, even though it really shouldn't be a question at all in this conversation because, again, if I kept the zoning the same, height really doesn't matter. Parking standards, the sidewalk—I'm unbelievably confused. Do you want it? Is it not safe? If you guys don't want a sidewalk, let's go. I'm not going to make a developer pay for that. The sidewalk was brought up because you brought this up—maybe it wasn't you folks—concerned about the safety of the children. All right. And by the way, apartment folks are residents of our community. They have every right to park on the street just as you do. And if the building owner sells it, just like your homeowner—what if a family of eight moved in and they've got six cars, and now you've got four parked out in front of your street all day long? They have every right to do that. Believe me, I have a dad, three daughters, we played musical cars with $2,000 cars every once in a while. All right? It was tough, but you know, I have a right to use that street. And I feel very confident with the stormwater between Ramsey-Washington Watershed and our city, which meets and exceeds already what they have done there. The concerns about how this works—two things with stormwater and on traffic that kind of combine. We've had developments—I'll take BoatWorks. Unbelievably dense. Everybody was talking about that having problems with the parking and traffic. And you know, you can argue: is it too big? I get that. But it does work. You can say it's ugly—I don't think so; from the lakeside, I think it's beautiful. We got a lot of the amenities out of it, but that's another commercial for another day. It works. It *does* work. I think, and I trusted our city staff at that point, and I would say trust them now. We know it's been vacant for 13 years; nothing's come. This is the second person in 15 and a half years since I've been on the Council. No one's come knocking except two housing developers. Redevelopment is expensive, it's hard, but it's necessary. And they have to make money too. I'm not going to fault him for that. Setback—this is kind of driving, pulling the rest of my hair out. The setback's there because he's trying to push the property away from the eastern half of it. You can push it back, be closer? Okay. I don't know if that's going to work. I know part of it is the parking and the drive and the access; I get that. Not charging for parking—that was a key one for me. Thank you. Just trying to check my notes. I mean, is everybody who lives in an apartment a terrible driver? Do you go to terrible driving school when you move into an apartment? You know, I get speeding complaints all the time, and they're understandable. I complain; I live on Cedar Avenue, I know what it's like. But you know, when you talk to the police and you scratch the itch, guess what? Guess who's speeding on our streets? It's your neighbor. It's me. That's who's doing most of the speeding. These are folks that have every right to use the streets; they have every right to drive safely too, by the way. I do want to also—there was a key letter that came in our packet and he also wrote a letter to the White Bear Press that was in support of this. And it was the local White Bear Glass owner, and he's the president of the Economic Development. And I know you folks can say, "Well, yeah, he's got a thing." Yeah, he's got a thing. He's got a business in this area that you're all potential customers of. I'm not going to *not* go to his glass business anymore. He thinks it's important. There's a lot of people—and I'm eyeballing a real estate agent who I wanted to kind of pick on in a good way—but I've been told by multiple real estate agents that they purposely do not bring people into our community via that intersection because they don't want them to see it. So if somebody's buying a house, it's just not you that is being affected; it's everybody in our community, our city, our neighborhoods. And I just look at this and go, yeah, I understand, but you built next to a commercial property that can have a three-story building right now, today. Maybe not the parking or the density, but they can build that building today. So that's how I feel. Sorry for taking up so much time, but thank you, Mr. Mayor. **[00:23:50] Councilmember Walsh:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll repeat some of what's been said, but my points are: the vacancy. The 2009 vacancy is an issue. I mean, there's nothing knocking on the door to do something here, so that's an important part of what we're talking about tonight. It's a good proposal. It was a good proposal when it started. I immediately liked the idea of sort of sloping the apartment building towards the busy intersection and then going down to townhouses and then to the parking lot, then to the residents. I mean, they had care from the beginning, and it's been improved. The developers listened, as others have said, and made some changes that make it even better. It meets our guidelines, it meets the comp plan, it meets what we have planned for this site, it meets the density numbers—it's midpoint on density. It's a good proposal. The third thing I'll say is this is a *city* decision; this is not a neighborhood decision. We are a City Council; we represent wards. Today your neighborhood is involved, so nobody from my neighborhood is here. Next time we're here, it'll be my neighborhood, and this room will be filled with my neighbors. But we have to make—we represent wards, but we're city councilors. We have to make a city decision. So that's difficult today for the people in the room, but from my perspective—some of you have already said this—I look at the proposal: how does it affect the city, the entire city? Bigger than just the neighborhood. And you look at just traffic, for one thing. Traffic has improved with this proposal from a city perspective. It's not necessarily improved if you live off of Jansen Avenue and you live in that neighborhood back there, but it's improved city-wide. We look at in-and-out of E and in-and-out of Bel Air, which is the current site—again, vacant since 2009. So I think I just make that point. I like what Councilmember Jones said about housing. We need housing. We've been, as a Council, working on housing, making it a priority. We had a meeting a while back and set some development priorities for the city, and we made this intersection our number one priority. We told staff: work on this intersection. In a room, we all agreed: Bel Air and County Road E, make it the number one priority. So if we don't—here we have a developer come forward, staff worked on it as directed by us as our number one priority—if we don't approve this project, and I think it's good enough for this site, if we don't approve it for this intersection tonight, I don't think we're serious about County Road E and Bel Air as the number one priority. And I won't be anymore after this vote. If we don't approve this project tonight, it tells me we're not really serious as a Council about this intersection. And I have higher priorities for my ward in other parts of the city that I would say are more important than this intersection, but I agreed: let's make this the number one because it's been a long time with nothing on these four corners. So it makes sense. We've got a good proposal tonight for an intersection that we've made a number one priority. I think we ought to approve it. **[00:27:00] Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm no stranger to this intersection. I've been a resident of this community for 53 years, and almost all of it has been spent within three blocks of this corner. I have watched it. As Mr. Walsh just mentioned, I have advocated for several years and encouraged my colleagues to start setting aside resources and intentions for what we can do with this corner. So to some extent, we are harvesting exactly what I asked for. I want to give thanks to the developer. I think this work has been done in good faith; it's been done honorably. I express my appreciation for your work and for the care that you've taken. My experience sitting in this chair over 14 years is that the places where we have the greatest sources of tension are in "boundary properties"—the places that sit between differences in zoning and differences in land use. The challenges become how to deal with that transition. We have four parcels at this intersection. The tensions that we deal with are: we have established interests, people who have lived in the area for a varying number of years—many of you are long-time residents—and we have new interests, a new owner of this particular site. So I recognize that I'm not going to make anybody happy tonight, and that's for me to bear. The distinctions that I would make—and I'm going to pick some bones with some of my constituents, and you may not like that, and that's okay—the owner of this property has development rights, just as you have rights on your home. On the land that you own, the owner of this property also has rights. The rest of you, as it pertains to this site, have *interests*, but you don't have the same *rights*. And finding the right balance, if there is such a thing, between these two is where the magic is. That's the conundrum. I think the Mayor described it accurately: there isn't a perfect solution. For me, as I have thought about this—and I will respond to a couple of folks who have spoken and written—"we don't want it." Frankly, I don't care what you want. That's the wrong question. I think the question that I do wrestle with—and I'll speak to my Council colleagues—is: to what are they entitled? What are the protections embodied in, whether it's in statute, in comp plan, or in code? What are the protections that exist for existing citizens that give them some ability to have some control, to express their interests, and to be protected in certain ways, right? It's not absolute, and judgment is always required in this situation. I go back to our comp plan and to the neighborhood mixed-use description that is in the comp plan. I've read that sucker multiple times. For me, I look at the language that speaks to the use of apartments and stacked multi-family housing and courtyard apartments being the "predominant use." This is in the neighborhood mixed-use property. But then it says, "with townhomes and villas used where appropriate in transitional areas abutting surrounding residential neighborhoods." And I ask myself: is this particular parcel those transitional properties where villas and townhomes are to be used? My answer is: I think so. And that becomes the mechanism that I say gives protection to existing residents to defend and make their voices known and to advocate for what they want. Is that absolute? It's not. I look at this particular parcel—if we had been talking about the Level Up Academy property not very far to the east, a much larger property—I think the step-down process that is being proposed by the developer on this site could work there. On a two-thirds of an acre site, we are left with a property that is directly in the neighborhood, it directly abuts one property owner, it's across the street from another one, it's kitty-corner across the street from another. And I think that this particular parcel is a transitional piece, and that we need to think about that differently. Now, we've not had that zoning conversation that I think we need to have, perhaps should have had—we haven't. But in this situation, I read the comp plan and say I have trouble reconciling that an apartment is an appropriate use on this parcel. I will not make that same argument on the two north corners, because they do not have a budding residential neighborhood. I will not make this argument on those parcels. But I'm going to make it on this one. And because I do not perceive that—so we have an apartment directly abutting a neighboring home, etc., etc.—I look at that language, and a plain reading to me is that an apartment is not appropriate on this site. And therefore, the R6 designation is not an appropriate zoning. And for that reason, I'm not going to support a rezoning to R6. I would—well, no, don't do that [addressing the audience]. I sincerely hope—I don't know if it's possible, I will not predict it—I did not make this decision thinking that something else will come. I want to advise you that you are running a risk. We are all running a risk that what *could* go on that property could be a whole lot worse than what is being proposed. And I don't want to hear a single person who is in this audience tonight speaking against this proposal saying, "Oh, let's stop blah blah blah," because those options exist and you're rolling—you've wanted us to roll the dice. All right, the dice is being rolled. So whatever that die is, you're going to live with it, right? And nobody's going to get an opportunity with me to complain about a future one if they meet other code and statute. But I'm not going to support an R6 on this one. I would welcome—I'm hoping that there is another option that comes forward—but that's where I'm at. **[00:32:30] Councilmember Walsh:** Well, thank you, and you've made your decision. But let me try to use your language. I see your language; I read it when you sent us an email on this. I see within the language: this proposal meets it. And I get it, you're saying an apartment building abutting a single-family home on County Road E. But it *does* transition to townhouses before it gets there. I see the language, I read the language, it meets this: "townhouses and townhomes and villas used where appropriate in transitional areas abutting surrounding residential neighborhoods." The townhouses abut the residential neighborhood, and then there's an apartment building. I know you're seeing it differently—you don't see room for the apartment building at all on this parcel—but I read this language and think: no, it fits. It works. Apartment building on E and Bel Air (very busy), then townhouses in the transition, then to the neighborhood. So that's my pitch. Maybe it's too late; you've made your decision, but I read your language and say it still fits. **[00:33:35] Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council and citizens who are having a hard conversation. All right. And I respect and appreciate the tenor and nature of our conversation. You have hit the nail on the head: on what syllable do we put emphasis? All right? How does one—and this is where judgment, this is where consideration is required—and I'm going to suggest, this is just me, okay, and I'm stuck in perhaps a White Bear that doesn't exist anymore or that's changing. I just don't see that this proposal, with the density that it has and particularly the nature of the development, fits with the surrounding neighborhood. So my sense is that it is not consistent with our specific language in the comp plan. That's an interpretation. And it's not amenable to the residential neighborhood that surrounds it. That's my take, and that's where I think my decision is going to go. **[00:34:40] Councilmember Jones:** Mr. Edberg, could he stop you? Well, okay, what about the northwest corner when you already have a building and the residents that you represent are on Oak Terrace where they face a three-story building? This already exists. This transition already exists. And I'm not pushing apartments so much; it was the point that you brought up, that Miss Longandyke brought up: be careful for what you wish for. Yeah. If you realize everything that can be done—it's just, okay, we're going to park semi-trucks there, we're going to have a liquor store there, it's going to be open 24 hours. We are open to that? So am I settling as a resident, as your neighbor? Yes, I am. Because I don't see the deal coming down the pike. There have been two. By the way, the other guy wanted $2 million of TIF money to build his project. He's not asking for anything, and he's building a lot better one. Reduced size projects, Mr. Edberg. That's where I'm saying we already have what you're describing in your mixed-use. And okay, so I'm going to be the new developer, and maybe I can make this commercially work. I'm going to put up seven three-story townhomes. What is the difference between apartments and three very large townhomes? What's the difference? And that's part of it for me. It's a rock and a hard place transition. It should have never been there; the neighborhood, the developer, and the city, to be honest, should not have been as greedy as they were back in the day. But they were. Jansen is a terrible—it's too short, should have never been designed that way. But it is. So we all have to deal with it today. Today we pay the piper. And you live next to, very close to, a commercial space that a three-story building—that we can park semis—and I just look at the townhome thing going: I can come in, if we were to change it to R5 and do that and less dense. Why is it less dense? Because there's less people? Is that going to really help the traffic? Is it really going to help the traffic? So that's my last pitch to you. And I respect your disagreement, and I will say I very much appreciate your letter to us, forewarning us of your "evil doings." No, I'm kidding, but seriously, thank you very much for that. That was not required and very considerate. Thank you for that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. **[00:37:10] Mayor:** Anybody else have any thoughts on this? **[00:37:15] Councilmember Hughes:** Mr. Mayor, I guess I'm just curious then: if we don't re-zone this and it's still—and in my head, when I'm thinking about this, I am separating this project from the zoning on this corner because it doesn't have to look like this. I mean, I guess partly I feel bad for this developer who spent so long looking at this project and now we're really yanking the carpet out from under him. And that's fine, we get to do that. But I certainly hope that in the future, if we're going to develop any of these corners, we're very specific about what the zoning would look like. Which actually leads me to another question for Mr. Lindahl. What is then—what can then go on here that's actually marketable? Because it is kitty-corner from these other corners. I guess as a homebuyer, I'm not really sure I want to buy a single-family home on that corner. So I'm not really sure how that markets. But I don't know, and I'm not—so I don't know. So I guess I'm kind of curious what you do hope goes there. Because I think that might bear on the conversation. You know, do you have an idea of something that could go there that would actually be something that could sell? Or are we—do we not care? And then, you know, we're talking about this rezoning project. And I think—so what happens after we do that? Does this still stay as a B3 site until we proactively make it something else throughout the project as it goes forward? I misunderstood that, I think, at one point—I misunderstood what was going to happen here. **[00:38:50] Mr. Lindahl (Planning Director):** Mayor, members of the council, would you like me to answer that question first, or would you like the Council to respond to the marketing—the market conditions—and what could go there first? **[00:39:00] Mayor:** Why don't you go and answer Councilmember Hughes' question. **[00:39:05] Mr. Lindahl (Planning Director):** Mayor, members of the council, what Councilmember Hughes is referring to—her question is generally what would happen to this site at the end of the zoning update process. And my answer to that is: I don't know, because we have to go through that exercise. That is not a couple of months; it's 12 to 18 months of reviewing the entire code and the city's plans—the future land use plans, the County Road E plans, other plans for different parts of the community. And then we get feedback on those, we have a community conversation, we get feedback on that process, and we look at sections over time. And then that process is designed to create an outcome that then will ultimately go before the Planning Commission and City Council for action. And so it just wouldn't be professionally responsible for me to speculate on what it could be, other than to say the same comment I said today specifically about this development likely holds true in that zoning review process: we start by looking at the comprehensive plan and that guides us to where the conversation starts. **[00:40:15] Mayor:** But at this time, I'll move approval—well, actually, I'll entertain a motion for the resolution in front of us for the ordinance change from B3 to R6. I'll get it—no, it's the resolution for the PUD. It's the first reading of the ordinance. **[00:40:35] Mr. Lindahl (Planning Director):** We're recommending you conduct the first reading first, and then you're not adopting anything. You're conducting the first reading. **[00:40:40] Mayor:** Wrong. The topic is correct, my motion is wrong. There's no motion to make with the first reading. The first reading's done. So I would entertain a motion to approve the resolution granting general and developmental stage planned unit development approvals for the proposed property located at 2502 County Road E, White Bear Lake. **[00:41:00] Councilmember Jones:** So moved. **[00:41:02] Councilmember Walsh:** Second. **[00:41:05] Mayor:** Second. Any further discussion on this? This vote does require a super-majority—four-fifths vote per code. So I am going to ask the clerk to call the roll. **[00:41:15] Councilmember Walsh:** Can I just—clarification then: what vote requires a four-fifths? **[00:41:20] Mayor:** That the zoning ordinance change requires a four-fifths. Wouldn't that be next? Wouldn't that be in two weeks when we come back? **[00:41:25] Mr. Lindahl (Planning Director):** This is per our city code. City code requires a super majority of four-fifths vote. The City Council will approve both rezoning and PUD requests. **[00:41:35] Mayor:** Because they're sort of connected, it still requires the four-fifths. I don't know the genesis behind that, I just know that our code requires it. So for purposes of this motion passing and approving the PUD, four-fifths of the Council would have to vote in the affirmative. Please call the roll. **[00:41:50] Clerk:** Councilmember Hughes? **[00:41:52] Councilmember Hughes:** Aye. **[00:41:53] Clerk:** Councilmember Jones? **[00:41:54] Councilmember Jones:** Aye. **[00:41:55] Clerk:** Councilmember Engstrand? **[00:41:56] Councilmember Engstrand:** Nay. **[00:41:57] Clerk:** Councilmember Walsh? **[00:41:58] Councilmember Walsh:** Aye. **[00:41:59] Clerk:** Councilmember Edberg? **[00:42:00] Councilmember Edberg:** Nay. **[00:42:02] Mayor:** Motion fails for lack of a four-fifths vote. **[00:42:05] City Attorney:** So Mr. Mayor, because the motion to adopt was not successful, what I'd recommend then is that obviously you still have the question before you because you haven't acted affirmatively one way or the other. And so if the inclination is to deny now based on this vote, I would strongly recommend then that you make a motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying and to bring that back to you at the next meeting. So there's findings to support an action to deny. **[00:42:35] Mayor:** Okay, so I would entertain that motion if someone would like to make it. **[00:42:40] Councilmember Walsh:** Well, I'm confused. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, could I—would we—I would suggest that maybe we ask the applicant if he would be interested in changing his proposal before the Council makes a motion to deny it. Because the applicant may be willing—and I'm only speculating, we have to hear from them—but if the Council takes a vote on a motion to deny it, that essentially ends the application. **[00:43:05] Mayor:** So they'd have to start over if they want to amend. **[00:43:08] Councilmember Walsh:** Yes. **[00:43:09] Mayor:** Okay. So why don't we hear from the developer if you're so willing to? It really can—and we're not holding you to anything—please step up. If this is it and this is kind of your best and final, now's the time to let us know. If there's some room to move, I think—I won't speak for the whole Council, but I would think we'd have an appetite to rework things a little bit. **[00:43:30] Developer:** Thank you for the consideration and opportunity. I would say that it is not our intention to infuriate 39 residents in the place where we try to build. We do want to get something done here. I can see a path that more closely aligns with R5. We have one more shot at designing it, I think, before the risk and the costs force us to walk away. And so I can think of a couple of things that would be important in that scenario. I think a curb cut off of Jansen is important. The reason being, I recognize that it creates a sidewalk crossing on a sidewalk that we built for trying to make it safer, but I strongly believe that there are going to be more people on that sidewalk on Bel Air. So I do believe it's a safer option to have that curb cut on Jansen. Also, because if we have to put that curb cut on Bel Air, what you're going to end up with facing Bel Air is the sides of two rows of townhomes, and it won't activate the street, it won't be attractive, and quite frankly, I'm not sure it's marketable and I don't think we could do it. So that would be the first request. The second would be a townhome density up to 10 units. I don't know that 10 units will lay out correctly—we'd really have to spend some time that we could justify if there was a good-faith inclination that that was palatable to the Council—of trying to build up to 10 units. The closer we can get to that, the more certain we are that this is economically feasible and it would actually attract investment, bank financing, and things of that nature. If we can't get 10 units to lay out correctly and we need them to lay out correctly in a functional, attractive sort of way, then we would build less. But I think the option to build up to 10 gives us the opportunity to make something financially feasible. Setbacks, I think, are going to be another thing that I would consider important to us. Right now our setbacks off the apartment building are as low as seven feet between the apartment building and our property line along County Road E. It's more to the curb, but you know, that's as low as we go on the setback. I would ask that we could be allowed to build up to within 15 feet of the property line. I think that is a number where those units are a reasonable distance off the property line, we maintain a credible level of safety, we still maintain our site triangles, but we can still let those townhomes address the street in a way that does improve walkability. So if those parameters are palatable and we could—there was an indication that that could move forward—we could justify that additional time, effort, risk, and money in terms of trying to design that. And we want to be able to continue to build here in White Bear Lake, we want to have good faith with this neighborhood, and I think we can make that work. So if that is a palatable set of parameters, that's what I would request and could work towards that end. **[00:46:40] Mayor:** Okay, that's helpful. I'm not sure if this is the forum or not to get that deep in the weeds. I think it's more—it sounds like, if I'm hearing you correctly, you're willing to take a, we'll call it a third bite at this apple and try it. But it's going to be—it looks like 10 townhomes, if you're just back-of-the-napkin kind of numbers? Which makes sense. Okay. All right. That's what I think we needed. Thank you. **[00:47:05] City Attorney:** Mr. Mayor, my concern exists, or continues, under the 60-day rule. Failure to approve is not an action on the application; it will be approved by default if you don't act one way or the other affirmatively. And I'm not asking that you do that tonight; I'm asking that you be prepared to do that at the next meeting. Now, you've heard the applicant say, you know, maybe we can make something work. That's fantastic. What I'm suggesting doesn't stop that. What it does is get you ready to take a final action if necessary. In the interim, the applicant can write a written extension to the 60-day rule to give more time. But I don't want to leave you—and I don't know exactly where we're at with the 60-day rule, but if that runs shortly after the next meeting, you've approved this by default. So I don't want that to happen. That's why I'm saying: just give direction to prepare the resolution. Or you don't have to give direction, since it was—since you obviously don't have four-fifths for this particular proposal. I'm just going to tell you from a staff perspective: we'll have that resolution prepared because you need to have that ready and in front of you. Now, you may not have to act on it next meeting because 60 days been extended, they're working on it, all that—that's all fine and good. I just need to cover you from that perspective. **[00:48:15] Mayor:** That makes sense. So we don't need any official vote or motion—nothing. Staff's just going to bring that back. Staff's going to bring a resolution rejecting this at the next Council meeting, and there are any number of maneuverings and things that can happen in the interim, up to and including the applicants stipulating to an extension, which gets everybody off the hook from the timeline standpoint. **[00:48:40] Mr. Lindahl (Planning Director):** Mayor, members of the council, I'd also ask the City Attorney this question: since we are under the first reading of the rezoning, would it be appropriate for the Council to say that the second reading—since there isn't support for the R6 proposal—should direct staff to come back with an ordinance that reflects R5? **[00:49:05] City Attorney:** So, Mr. Mayor, I mean, certainly a valid question. From again—the 60-day clock is ticking. I would be more inclined, frankly, to bring back just a straight denial of the rezone, because frankly, I don't know if you guys are going to be okay with an R5. You know, so I would hate to just bring that back and you go, "I'm not okay with that again." That doesn't mean you have to act on it to deny it, and there still could be plenty of opportunity to negotiate. I just want to comment too: I agree, just from my perspective, everything the developer has said—I take him on his word that he wants to work with you, and I think that's great. But I also have seen situations where that has flipped and that's been used to take advantage of the 60-day rule. So I don't want to set you up in that situation. **[00:49:50] Mayor:** That's fair. I appreciate the Council. **[00:49:55] Mr. Lindahl (Planning Director):** Mayor, members of the council, I think what we're hearing—or would like confirmation from the Council—is to recommend that we prepare a resolution for denial of the PUD and that you direct staff to extend the 60-day review period based on the need to review the denial resolution at the future meeting. And the City Attorney, I think, will confirm with me: as long as we have a good reason to do that, the city is within its power to just extend the 60 days. **[00:50:25] Mayor:** The direction is: bring us a resolution to deny at the next Council meeting and work with the developer to see if a deal can be had. I mean, that's what's at... enough said. Okay. **[00:50:35] Councilmember Hughes:** No. **[00:50:36] Mayor:** Okay, that's all—that's it for that item. All right, that's a long item. Moving on. Item 9, discussion: we have nothing scheduled. Item 10, communication from the City Manager. **[00:50:45] City Manager:** Tonight, upcoming events: Heart for Art. This is at the Center of the Arts; it's a fundraiser on Thursday, May 11th. There's a website link there for more information. Ramsey County Law Enforcement Memorial Vigil is Thursday, May 18th, and this year it's hosted by North St. Paul Police Department. If any Council member or Mayor is available and wishing to attend, please let me know; staff will be there. The Lakeshore Players Theater Gala: they are celebrating 70 years this year at the Hanifl Performing Arts Center, which is Thursday, May 18th at 5:30 PM, and there's a link for tickets. And the city's event, Touch a Truck, is Thursday, May 18th at Podvin Park from 5 to 7 PM. It is free and open to the public—Public Works, police, fire, Ramsey County, Xcel Energy, many, many trucks for everyone to see and touch and visit. So bring a donation to fill the Food Shelf truck. Yesterday we had a groundbreaking ceremony for our new public safety facility. Thank you to Mr. Copy for putting that on, as well as our other staff that was involved with that. It was a nice turnout for retired and current police and fire as well as the Council. So thank you for that. And then lastly, I just wanted to thank the Council for the conversation and the healthy debate tonight. I think that our new concept plan review process and things are working the way that we hoped that they would work, and this was a very transparent and healthy debate tonight. So thank you. That's all I have. **[00:52:15] Councilmember Edberg:** One more addition to her list? Sure. Filings for City Council seats that are open begin on May 16th, I believe, run through the 30th. So that's before our next meeting. Wards 1, 3, and 5 are up for election. If you too can sit here till 10 o'clock arguing these things, please run against me. Um, that's—so, filings are open. They have to be one of your neighbors. **[00:52:40] Mayor:** Thank you for the public service announcement, Bill. I appreciate that. All right, with that, I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. **[00:52:45] Councilmember Jones:** So moved. **[00:52:46] Councilmember Hughes:** Second. **[00:52:47] Mayor:** All those in favor say "Aye." **[00:52:48] Council (In Unison):** Aye. **[00:52:49] Mayor:** We're adjourned. Thank you.