[0:00] Everyone: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [0:15] Mayor: All right, we jump into item two, approval of the minutes of the regular city council meeting on June 24th, 2025. I'd entertain a motion to approve the minutes. Second. Motion second. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. The minutes are approved. Adoption of the agenda. Are there any changes, amendments, corrections to the agenda? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to adopt the agenda. [0:36] Various Speakers: Second. Motion a second. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? [0:43] Mayor: We have an agenda. Item four, consent agenda. I'd entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Approve. Second. Motion a second. All those in favor say I. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Item five, visitors and presentations. [0:53] Mayor: We have nothing scheduled. Item six, public hearings. Nothing scheduled. Item seven, unfinished business. Nothing scheduled. Which brings us to item eight, new business, the first reading of an ordinance amending the zoning code. Mr. Lindall, whenever you're ready to kick things off. [1:11] Jason Lindall: Uh, thank you, uh, mayor, members of the council. Uh, tonight's item is the first reading of a zoning ordinance amendment to, uh, strike and amend and replace the city's zoning development regulations. Um I am going to do um a slight introduction here of the topic and a little bit of history and then I'll introduce uh the consultants that have helped us on this project to walk you through um basically the information in your staff report. Um so with that kind of looking at the beginning of the project just again the scope the scope of the project um is to... we'll share. [1:58] Jason Lindall: Um, the scope of the project tonight again is to do a whole scale review and update of the city's development regulations. Um, as your um staff report notes, the the bulk of the of the what we're talking about tonight, the significant changes are within the zone, the specific zoning development standards. Um, the the other parts of the code, including subdivision signs, and the environmental regulations are really just um modernizations of those sections of the code without really sub substantive changes. Um so in giving you kind of a review of the project and its timeline it was divided into four phases. Discovery and direction, initial draft, public review and adoption and the adoption or phase four is where we are tonight. That included the planning commission public hearing that was held just last week. Um and then the first and second readings and adoption uh by the council. [3:00] Jason Lindall: Um over the course of the bulk of those uh uh previous three phases uh that included um um meetings with focus groups and designers to consider the changes in the code. Eight CAC or community advisory committee meetings. uh two open houses at the discovery and directions or phase one section um um of the project. Two more in the public review stage. Um two more open houses at the public review stage. Um two joint planning commission and city council meetings, one in January and one just lasted May to brief you on kind of the project as it came along. Um, and we actually had a specific meeting with the EDC to go over the standards related uh uh in the code as well. We had an internal department uh review which also included a review by the city attorney um of the of the code. [3:55] Jason Lindall: Um and then from a public engagement standpoint, we had a project website throughout the the project that had information that was built on it throughout the project. Uh so the public could track that if they wished. Um, we did online engagement through the various social media sources that the city participates in. Um, had a couple of articles in the White Bear Place, uh, excuse me, White Bear Press, um, including, you know, the notice for the public hearing, but other articles that the press just covered that topic in general. And then, of course, as I just mentioned, last week's public hearing um, with the planning commission. [4:38] Jason Lindall: Um just to go over briefly the information that came out of the public hearing. Um they reviewed as uh we'll go over uh again tonight um what we're calling the um 11 kind of significant changes or adjustments to the code. Um and we'll give you a little bit more about that here in a few moments. Um the commission then also held a public hearing which included staff summarizing the um comments that we had received prior to the public hearing. So information from the open house um at the open houses at the public uh comment during the public comment period and then comments through phone calls or emails. And so that was summarized during the public hearing. Um that information also included in your packet. And then there were four uh people who spoke in person during the public hearing and those comments are summarized in your staff report um but also covered in more detail in uh the minutes that were just part of the consent agenda. [5:49] Jason Lindall: Um and then the planning commission had uh general discussion about the ordinance. Um their comments focused in on through that discussion really on accessory dwelling units um short-term rentals um and electrical vehicle charging um and then some uh a few comments on bicycle parking. um they did not form a consensus on uh the short-term rentals, electrical vehicle charging or or or questions about bicycle parking standards um and left those standards unchanged in the current code. So they are as presented. um they did um come to a consensus um with the questions they had around ADUs and um an ownership requirement for ADUs. So at the end of their discussion, they voted uh 6 to1 to recommend the council approve uh uh the proposed uh changes to the development code um with an amendment that included an ownership requirement for one of the units for an accessory dwelling. So, either the principal house or the uh the accessory dwelling unit. And so, that covers kind of the the just the background and scope of the project and the public comment to date. Um, at this point, um, I would turn it over to, um, the consultants that we have with us here tonight, uh, Leslie Oberholtzer and Kirk Bishop, who can walk you through, um, um, the kind of 11 changes part of part of the the code. Much of this will look familiar because it's what we talked about at the May meeting. So, with that, I'll let Kirk and Leslie go ahead. [7:44] Leslie Oberholtzer: Good evening. I'm very happy to be here tonight. Um we have a series of um project goals. Uh first and foremost is that the zoning code is intended to implement the 2040 comprehensive plan. Um we believe that we've given you tools that will help um with implementation of your future comprehensive plan. So, we've written this um with some of the topics in mind um that have been discussed uh in uh the past couple of years uh for planning around White Bear Lake. Um but of note is to protect and strategically grow White Bear Lake. So again, protecting those areas um of stability and the residential areas and seeing where we think White Bear Lake will grow and making sure that the zoning code is written to help support that. [8:31] Leslie Oberholtzer: Um to support economic development, which is uh a lot about that uh strategically growing Whitebear Lake uh to increase housing choice, which is a part of the comprehensive planning goals. Um, and then also to transition your code to um, both a place-based zoning code, which means that we very intentionally wrote this code to respond to the context of White Bear Lake as a whole, but also all of the different neighborhoods within White Bear Lake and the locations of all the different zoning districts. And then finally, to create a more modern and user-friendly, well illustrated code. So, we hope that this code is easier to use than your current code um on the books. [9:15] Leslie Oberholtzer: So, I'm going to fairly quickly walk you through uh the zoning code organization. Um as Jason said, you've already seen any of this and so I would just hope that you would ask me any questions. Um so, I'm going to go pretty quickly through this. So, again, uh the code contents, the code is actually organized um the way somebody would use the code. Starts out um with the zone districts and the uses that are available. So, the first step would be to look at the zoning map and then to uh figure out what your zone is um and to look at all of the building regulations within the zone. So, the first sort of chunk of chapters is all about those zoning districts, the building regulations and the zoning districts um including things like setback and height and sort of building massing um as well as uses. [10:14] Leslie Oberholtzer: The second set of chapters is all about general development standards which would apply to all of the zoning districts. So things like um landscape and site design, parking, um environmental and operational standards um which is like noise and air quality and such. Um and then building design which is specific to the mixed-use zones. Um and then finally the administration sections um which are the procedures, nonconformities, uh administration of the code and then uh measurements and definitions. So sort of backup information about how the code can be used by staff and people that are using it. Um again those contents are reflected in there's a how to use the zoning ordinance sort of flowchart um on the inside cover and we again have tried to organize that in a way that makes it easier um for somebody to pick up and use um knowing which sections to go to. [11:07] Leslie Oberholtzer: The zoning map um has been completely redrawn. um we did match the residential zones generally where they are. So in order to create this new map, we used both the land use um map from the comprehensive plan um what's on the ground right now as well as your current zoning map um and we sort of overlaid all that information to see the areas of change and the areas to preserve um and move forward um which is where this map has come from. [11:39] Leslie Oberholtzer: The map is organized by the different chapters of of zones um clusters of zones. So we have uh the mixed-use zones which replace all of your uh business zones, your commercial zones um as well as some of the higher intensity residential zones, your um R6 and R7. um the residential zone section um which are all again color-coded together with uh shades of yellow and green and those are uh matched very closely to what you have right now um on the map and I'll talk a little bit about how those have changed and then what we're calling the special purpose zones which includes uh the industrial um two public zones um one for parks specifically for parks and open space and a second one for um public and institutional buildings. Um, and as I said, the three sort of industrial zones, uh, we've got business park, which matches very closely to, um, what has been defined in your comprehensive plan as business park. Um, we've combined the two I1 and I2 industrial into one general industrial. And then we've created an industrial commercial mix um, to accommodate some uses um, that have been discussed in uh, the over the past couple of years as needing a very specific location. [13:00] Leslie Oberholtzer: So, in terms of key changes to the residential zones, um, again, those have stayed very much intact. Um, and I'll show you how we have changed them. Um, but we have introduced what we're calling the lakeside zones, and those match pretty closely with the zones that currently exist, but those are all um those locations that actually abut water frontage. Um and the idea behind that was that we could manage that water frontage in terms of what is considered the front of the lot um where accessory structures can go and so on. So that was very helpful um in terms of organizing the regulations but the regulations for those locations did not change significantly. Um expansion of the traditional zone um which I'll show you in just a minute. Um, again looking at accessory structures, um, and how they relate to each of the zones and where that information is located, um, uh, including accessory dwelling units. Um, and then Kirk is going to talk a little bit about short-term rentals. [14:05] Leslie Oberholtzer: So, this is the list, um, in the code of the residential zones. This table is pulled from the code. Um, we did introduce an additional zone. Um, and it's sort of highlighted on the bottom of that slide. Um, it's pretty specific to uh the cottage park um parcels that the lots that back up to the um the waterfront. Those parcels are smaller than any of the other parcels along uh the water frontage. And so we wanted to be able to address some of the issues that you've been currently experiencing um with development along those um on those lots. Um and so this is a new zone that was very specifically created to respond to a lot of the variances that were approved um for new houses um along that location. Um so that is the R2C um zone that was new. [14:52] Leslie Oberholtzer: Um, we did sort of flip the R3 and R4. Um, and what you see at the top of that slide, I think you've already seen this before in another, um, configuration, but that sort of red line was the location for the traditional um, our zoning, the traditional houses that are around the downtown. And as you can see from that, we have expanded those to the west to some degree. That is another key change. Part of that is because those um houses and those lots very much match um what exists in the other location. Um and so they will be more conforming because the regulations will match them more specifically, but also because that particular zone, the traditional residential zone now called R3, allows for one and two family houses in the current code. and there were several two family houses in the area and we wanted to grab those in and make them legal. [15:58] Leslie Oberholtzer: Uh the residential zones um as you'll recall are uh regulated by building types and so there's a building types table on the first page of the residential zones. We created a lakefront house, a detached house, a multi-unit house, and an attached house. Um the attached house is only in the R5 zone, which is um the locations where you've got a lot of uh sort of town houses and quadruminiums on the sort of single-story uh four units that are attached. Those really haven't changed. They're mapped pretty much where they currently are, and the regulations for them are very similar. Um as well, the multi-unit house in the R3, as I said before, is only for two units. Um, we just wanted to address the fact that some of those uh two-unit houses don't necessarily match the sort of character of the R3 zone and so we've applied a few design standards to those to help them fit into the neighborhoods a little bit better. [17:00] Leslie Oberholtzer: Each one of those uh residential building types is organized on three pages. They all are laid out exactly the same. The first page is an introduction um with some diagrams. The second page is for building and sighting um or and accessory structures. Sometimes the accessory structures I think fit on the second page, but basically uh all of the information from your current code for accessory structures, which was a little bit hard to find, um has been reorganized and put on the pages with the actual building regulations. so that when somebody goes to design a house um within one of the residential zones, not only are they getting all of those setbacks on the lot and the and the heights, but they also can um locate all of their accessory structures like a detached garage um more easily because the information is specific to uh that zone. [18:00] Leslie Oberholtzer: Additionally, we heard some comments that um and there were also quite a few variances approved for multiple accessory structures on some larger lots. And so, we've sort of reorganized how you can determine um how many accessory structures and what size, how how much you can put on your lot based on lot size. Um so, that's been incorporated um into the the different zones um within the building types. Um the other major change to the residential zones, um if you recall, we showed you a whole series of maps. Um there were many, many non-conforming lots, especially in the R3 and R4 zones. Um the lot sizes uh that had been incorporated into the minimum lot sizes, lot width, and lot area that had been incorporated into the zoning code were much larger than what is actually on the ground. Um and I've got those slides at the end if you want me to pull those back up. I'm not going to show you those now, but what we did do was we very much uh looked at all of the different measurements, measured a lot of lot sizes, a lot widths, uh all the lot widths, and determined uh a a set of regulations that match more closely with what's on the ground to reduce that those number of nonconformities. So, what you'll see um is across that front top line of each one of the residential zone building types, a lot area and a lot width that matches what's on the ground right now within those zones. [19:21] Leslie Oberholtzer: Um for the mixed-use zones, um these, as I said, replace all of the B zones um in your current code. Um these very much match the context of where they are located. Um, and so what we've done is we've created a series of zones that um have a kind of a dash after them. Um, and that dash should tell you specifically where those uh zones are intended to be used. So the dash D is for zones for the downtown. Dash C is for zones along your major corridor. So like along 61 or along 96 um or along uh some somewhat along uh County Road E. Um, and then we have a dash N for neighborhood scale. And so that's meant to be kind of the smallest scale of the mixed-use zones. Um, we also created a - A. So you'll see GX- A, which is specific to the arts district, um, to the northwest of downtown. And that's based on um, the arts district master plan. [20:30] Leslie Oberholtzer: The way these zones are organized is whether or not they require storefront and what kinds of uses are allowed within them. So they are all intended to kind of be mixed use but different types different mixes of mixed use um with the exception of the RX. So the two sort of orange colored zones that you see um are as I was saying earlier replace your R6 and R7. Those are meant to be multifamily. Um RXC is for the more intensive multifamily um along a corridor and then RXN is a neighborhood scale multi-family. The MX at the beginning of um the uh purple colored zones is for mixed use and the three MX zones um MXD for the downtown, MXC for the corridor and MXS which I believe I forgot to say is for the suburban area so sort of the outer edges um of the city. Those all require ground floor storefront to some degree. Um and then the ground floor uses are intended to be retail or service um or entertainment types of uses, eating and drinking uses and so on. [21:32] Leslie Oberholtzer: Um the upper stories in the rear can be pretty much any of the mixed-use um zone kinds of uses, residential, office and so on. The GX zones um are uh called the general mix zones and those are intended to be used for offices and they also allow residential on the ground floor and some limited commercial uses within them. So all of those blue locations. Um on the left hand side of that slide is kind of a blowup of the downtown. So, the limits of the downtown are the same limits that are in the comprehensive plan, but as you can see, we've created several zones um within the downtown area, and that is to very much preserve the storefront area in purple in the middle of the downtown and to write those regulations um using the current regulations that you have for your downtown, which are have a lot of uh design standards within them. So, we've repeated those and incorporated those in. Um but then as you expand out um allowing for those kind of office and residential uses um on the peripheries as a kind of transition between the neighborhood and those um storefront areas. [22:46] Leslie Oberholtzer: So just like the residential zones, the mixed-use zones are organized um all the regulations the physical regulations for those the building regulations are organized by building types. Um, we have the traditional shopfront building type and the cottage shopfront which very much are modeled after your downtown shop fronts. Um, those are the only uh building types that are allowed in the MXD and the downtown and the MXC along your corridors. Um, then the commercial center is a much more flexible storefront um that is allowed in the MXS. So that allows for things like um sort of your fast food or gas stations or shopping centers. Um very specific to the MXS. Um so much more kind of auto-oriented um uses within those. Um and then the general building is a um a larger kind of building that's meant to accommodate apartment buildings or office buildings. Um the cottage general is a smaller version of that and I'll show you that in just a minute. Um, and then a row building is like for a townhouse or a row house um or a live-work unit. [23:56] Leslie Oberholtzer: Then the civic building is a very flexible building type that's allowed in all of the um zones but is very limited in terms of its uses. So it can only be used for civic and institutional uses um or probably large-scale entertainment uses. So very specific uses within that building type. So you can just kind of see some of the images and these are all pulled from the first page for each of the building types in the code. Um, and I just want to draw your attention to the cottage shopfront versus the traditional storefront. Um, and then the cottage general in that very last column versus the general building. So the cottage scale is meant to incorporate sort of pitched roofs and um some of those elements of residential buildings um like you have in your downtown um and like what has been incorporated into some of the sort of smaller developments um in White Bear Lake. [24:51] Leslie Oberholtzer: So each one of those um building types is organized um using six pages. So the first page is the introductory page. It has a description and then incorporates those four images like I just showed you on the previous slide. Um the second page has uh the second through the fourth pages have tables of regulations that are keyed to diagrams at the top of the page. Um the first page is for building sighting. The second page is for parking and accessory structure sighting. The third page is for height and roofs. And the last page, which is what is most unique about this code, especially for the mixed-use zones, is about the street facades. It has a series of very simple regulations for locating entrances and a certain amount of glass on the fronts of the building. So these are the regulations that are intended to support pedestrian orientation um and to keep uh blank facades from being located in places where you um you want to encourage that kind of high level of permeability for the building. Then there's a last page that's um supplemental regulations which allows for us to expand upon any language that we might need within the tables. [26:14] Leslie Oberholtzer: So, as you recall, um, in the joint meeting, I showed you a series of tables and we had some discussions about height. Um, and we felt like there was a consensus, a general consensus, um, not to go above four or four and a half stories. Um, and so we've incorporated that maximum height um, within all of the different zones. Um this doesn't prevent somebody from coming forward for a planned unit development for additional height but it would have to come forward um for in the same process that you would normally do um for a planned unit development. So to to negotiate that but the code itself is written um to allow for only those maximum heights. Um the heights as we discussed are based on building types. [26:59] Leslie Oberholtzer: So, as you can see, um, on the table on the left, the sort of second row cottage shop front is only two and a half stories. So, it's meant to have that sort of pitched roof and be that low scale. Um, but then the other building types might allow for additional height. Um, but again, those are also matched to the different zones. So, the neighborhood zones that have a dash N at the end of them would be the lower-scale building forms. Um so there is a chapter in uh the general development standards on building design and um it applies to things there's a lot of description um again some of it pulled from your current code um that addresses things like balcony design um and window detailing um but in general I just want to draw your attention to the fact that we are very conscious of kind of managing the scale and massing of the buildings. [27:54] Leslie Oberholtzer: So within the building types, um we are stepping back upper stories where appropriate. So any time it's sort of above that kind of three-story line which is generally where your downtown is um maximum height um we are stepping back upper stories. Um we have half stories within roofs. So sort of similar to um Boat Works um but in terms of building variety the building design chapter has a section that is intended to break up buildings into smaller um segments. So that applies to buildings that are 90 ft or longer and we require them to be broken up into 50-ft segments. And that just means that those segments should have some differences in terms of the kind of window pattern, door pattern, proportion of recesses and projection so that you don't get these sort of big long facades with the same kind of window pattern and no movement um in that facade plane. And then finally, the special purpose zones, which I think I've already pretty much uh explained. Um, we did create that EX zone for more intensive commercial and industrial. We consolidated the two I1 and I2 and created a second P zone. Um, we did add some residential proximity standards for some of those industrial uses and we also addressed outdoor uh storage uses um and buffering of those kinds of uses. Um, so I'm going to turn it over to Kirk Bishop now. [29:26] Kirk Bishop: Thanks, Leslie. Uh, well, we've talked a fair amount about this idea of place-based zoning, greater emphasis on the physical character of buildings and how they fit within the context of the city's many neighborhoods. There are, of course, other aspects of zoning that we want to that will continue to uh be included in in the updated zoning code. And first and foremost among them is the regulation of uses. I think historically, traditionally when many people think about zoning, they think about where various types of industrial and commercial and residential growth can occur. And that will continue to be an emphasis in the new zoning code. [30:05] Kirk Bishop: But we've done so in a way that I think is more modern, flexible, and probably more durable over time and responsive to changes in the economy and changes in business cycles and the lot. Um, we have proposed that all the use regulations in the code, all the the permissions, the explanation of uses that are allowed as of right that require some form of conditional use approval or that may have some limitations imposed upon them will be consolidated into a single table. Symbols in the table tell us whether again uses are permitted or require some special conditions or approval process. And the categories themselves, the way the uses are defined have been defined more broadly again with this idea of not trying to define each and every type of individual business down to the level of minutiae but to put things in buckets as it were of general categories of retail and entertainment and office uses rather than trying to define the entire universe of all those uses. [31:21] Kirk Bishop: We think that'll again be more responsive to changes in business cycles in the economy and allow your staff to u more easily administer this code um going forward. So we have a couple page use table telling us where these principal uses are allowed. uh to draw your attention to a single row of that table highlighted on this slide and something that was mentioned in an earlier slide: the proposal to address the regulation of short-term rental units often referred to as Airbnb or VRBO type units that you go online and find a place to stay for a few nights over a weekend. short-term rentals um are addressed in the zoning code under the general grouping of lodging uses. Lodging being the traditional hotel, motel type uses, those will continue to be allowed in business and commercial zones, our new mixed-use zones that Leslie described as they are today. [32:19] Kirk Bishop: In general, our approach to this use table is not to pull the rug out from underneath property owners and change the use permissions, but to simply use that more modern classification system and to address uses that are not currently addressed in the code. Short-term rentals is an example of a use that's not expressly called out in the zoning code as permitted or prohibited or something in between. Uh, as you are well aware, there are numerous rental residential units in the city of White Bear Lake in every city. Um, and the city has rental licensing program for those rental units. It does not distinguish however between traditional yearly rental type dwellings that we typically think of when you rent a house or an apartment um or the short-term rental. There's no distinction. [33:15] Kirk Bishop: So we've proposed uh regulation to address that um deficit in the existing ordinance. Uh you'll see there on the table that in the uh commercial mixed-use higher density residential zones as proposed short-term rentals would be a use permitted as of right. But in the lower density residential zones, the R1's, R2s of the world, those would require conditional use approval under the proposed code. The final column of the use table, as with all of the use types, indicates whether there are any use specific conditions or standards that apply to a use listed in the row. And in the case of short-term rentals, there are uh supplemental use regulations that apply. They're they're presented here on the slide defines what a short-term rental is. And it's basically all or part of a of a dwelling unit that is offered for rent for fewer than 30 consecutive days or rented for 30 consecutive days. [34:06] Kirk Bishop: The conditions on short-term rentals, whether they're approved through the conditional use process or permitted as of right, are as follows. No more than six adults and dependent children could occupy a short-term rental. They would not be allowed on lots containing accessory dwelling units because what we don't necessarily want to do is have people building accessory dwelling units solely to be used as um short-term rentals. Um no external alterations that would alter the general residential character of the area in which they're located. Not be used for outside events. essentially in uh attempting to ensure that they're not used simply as party houses uh or mass gatherings, that they're really just lodging units. Um and that the uh rental license will continue to be required um as part of the city's rental licensing program and probably carve out a short-term rental section of that licensing program. So, we thought we'd bring that to your attention. [35:31] Kirk Bishop: Um so, accessory dwelling units, again, a subject that we've talked a fair amount about and generated a fair amount of discussion about. Um as you well know, the city currently allows accessory dwelling units um in residential zones on lots occupied by otherwise single family residences. Today, in order to build an accessory dwelling unit, either in a detached building above a garage, in a basement, in an attic, some addition to your house, a conditional use approval, conditional use permit would be required. A visit to the planning commission and ultimately a visit to before you for a final decision up or down about whether to uh to um to allow the uh accessory dwelling unit. Um the existing ordinance uh says that an owner must live on the property. [36:26] Kirk Bishop: Jason mentioned early on that that was a a topic of great discussion at the last at the planning commission hearing and in fact they've recommended a change to what is in the draft that's before you tonight. Um, so, uh, there are two major changes to your existing accessory dwelling unit regulations, those in effect today in the proposed draft. One is instead of requiring conditional use approval, accessory dwelling units would be allowed as of right without a trip to the planning commission and council. Um, the other significant change from today's ordinance in the draft is the elimination of the owner occupancy requirements. As you heard uh in Jason's opening remark, the planning commission has recommended that that owner occupancy requirement on a lot occupied by an accessory dwelling unit either in the principal unit or in the ADU uh be reinstated uh in the draft and based on your deliberations tonight, we we plan to bring that back if that's what you approve on first reading. [37:51] Kirk Bishop: Uh the other change from today's ordinance is a what I consider to be a very minor change. Under today's ordinance, the accessory dwelling unit cannot exceed 880 square ft in area or 40% of the floor area of the principal unit, principal dwelling unit on the property. We've recommended that that be changed from 40% to 50%. So, no more than half as big as the principal unit would be the uh would be the standard under the draft ordinance. And that received no negative feedback one way or another in in previous meetings. [38:35] Kirk Bishop: Parking another important subject as part of zoning. I'd say our observation as consultants who work around the country and around the state on regulations is it's taken on a probably a somewhat of a a reduced role in importance or in terms of uh local government's willingness to uh dictate parking. But it's still an important component. uh we have an entire chapter devoted to off-street parking requirements uh off-street loading and uh including motor vehicle and bicycle parking requirements. The uh the chapter starts off with a again a consolidated table that exactly matches the use table that I had up before uh telling uh indicating how many motor vehicle parking spaces are required for all the uses that are allowed in the various zones under the proposed ordinance. [39:35] Kirk Bishop: The existing exemption for nonresidential uses... the exemption that says if you're a commercial use within the downtown, you don't have to provide parking. We've got we've got parking lots uh that lots are constrained in terms of the ability to provide it. In recognition of that, historically, parking hasn't been required in the downtown. that general exemption that applies in today's B5 or CBD parking in zoning district would be extended to the MXD and GXD zones that Leslie described before. Those that are primarily within the downtown area. Um residential parking is not exempt. uh residential units within the downtown area would continue to require parking. [40:31] Kirk Bishop: As regards areas outside of downtown, many of the minimum parking requirements uh from today's ordinance have been reduced somewhat. I'd say the parking has been made more flexible under this ordinance. a little more uh room for the market to determine how much parking but within limits established under the zoning code. As an example, the parking requirement for office and service uses under today's ordinance would be reduced by about half under this proposal. Doesn't mean that owners of office buildings or uh merchants in involved in service or retail uses couldn't provide more parking but their minimum requirement would be reduced substantially under this ordinance. Um there's also proposed for the first time under this ordinance a sort of blanket exemption for small businesses. Uh uh floor space of up to 1500 square feet would be exempt. The first 1500 square feet of floor area uh for retail and service uses would be exempt from parking. we wouldn't start the clock or the calculation until we got to 1501 square ft of floor area and then we would start. We think that's very helpful for small businesses. [42:04] Kirk Bishop: It recognizes that um many times uh those types of businesses are on lots that are constrained in terms of their ability to fit parking on the lot. And so we think that can sort of be consistent with that economic development and growth goal that Leslie described earlier. The parking chapter also builds in a kind of menu of possible reductions and um options for flexibility that don't exist under today's ordinance. Affordable housing, for example, um would be uh eligible for a 50% reduction in otherwise applicable minimum parking requirements. And the otherwise applicable requirement to cover a portion of your parking for multifamily housing would be uh affordable housing projects... legally binding affordable housing project would be exempt from that covered parking or enclosed parking requirement. If there's a nearby public parking lot, we'd give you credit for that under under the proposed ordinance. [43:08] Kirk Bishop: Um, and there are any number of other options that would be available for folks to on a case-by-case basis based on the context um to reduce their parking somewhat from the minimums in that table that I presented on the first parking slide. The parking chapter also has a new proposed requirement for uh providing electric vehicle charging infrastructure in large parking lots. Large under the proposed ordinance would be those that have 30 or more parking spaces would come under the EV charging station requirements of the proposed ordinance. They're set at a fairly nominal level. We've tested them against a project that I'm sure all of you are familiar with, the Lochner project. And the Lochner project would would meet the requirements uh for uh that under this ordinance had they been in effect. Um there's also a within the requirement for electric vehicle charging, there's a recognition that if the cost of providing that electric vehicle infrastructure exceeds uh a nominal portion of the overall construction budget for the project that reductions or exemptions would be allowed. We've set that at three and a half percent of the total project budget um as the threshold for when you'd be eligible for reductions and exemptions as of right. Um there'd always be possibility for relief through other mechanisms. [44:38] Kirk Bishop: Uh moving on to that third chunk of the organization uh that Leslie showed you in the table of contents. I will talk a bit about procedures and administrative parts of the new proposed zoning code. Uh, one of the things that we've spent a fair amount of time talking about internally and and represents a change in this uh, proposed code is the planned unit development overlay and process. Planned unit developments will continue to be an option for projects in the city of White Bear Lake. The planned unit development project as you all know is uh involves a fairly robust review and approval process. A lot of kind of back and forth negotiations based on the public benefits that are brought about by the proposed development as measured against the uh the level of flexibility that the applicant or property owner might want. [45:34] Kirk Bishop: What's one thing that's very new about the PUD process under this ordinance is that PUDs um will be if they occur on sites of over five acres in area the PUD process the multi-step robust transparent process will be required for those larger land projects and they will be subject to some fairly specific requirements. In addition to any negotiated conditions that get imposed during the process itself. We call those standards the master plan development standards and they're intended to ensure that these larger sites are kind of knitted into the city's overall fabric in a way that kind of fits the context. So an option for essentially projects of any size but mandatory for larger five plus acre sites is the key change to the planned unit development uh thresholds and process. [47:00] Kirk Bishop: Another change I'll bring to your attention and it again is on the uh sort of on the subject of transparency and engaging the public in the planning and zoning process and that is an expanded notification radius for mailed notices. uh currently zoning changes, conditional use permits and the like, we send notices to property owners within 350 ft of this property that is the subject of the application. And we've proposed the expansion from 350 to 500 ft under this uh proposed ordinance and require that posted notice signs be placed on properties that are sub going to be the subject of a public hearing related to a zoning kind of matter. [47:45] Kirk Bishop: The other thing we've tried to do is to look at opportunities for uh streamlining the approval process for things that uh may not rise to the level of development proposals with widespread community impacts. One example of that is a new proposed newly termed administrative adjustment process. These are currently referred to as administrative variances under your zoning code. Uh we've kind of re-constituted the the range of things that might be eligible for what is akin to an administrative variance, but we like to call administrative adjustments. Um and they are as listed on this bulleted list, kind of small adjustments to setbacks, minimum lot size, lot coverage, and the like. Very kind of de minimis in nature. Um the process would involve notice mailed notice or hand-delivered notice personal service notice to neighboring owner abutting property owners. Again it's very kind of low impact in nature the level of adjustment that's available through here. So we notice by only abutting property owners. [48:58] Kirk Bishop: We then wait for a period of time for those abutting owners to file some sort of objection or have their questions answered about the project. And we delay and we say the zoning administrator may act on that proposed or requested administrative adjustment only after uh waiting at least 10 days from the date that notice is provided to the abutting owners. If the abutting owners, one or more, file an objection, then the uh the the matter is kicked upstairs as it were and goes to the full board of uh adjustments and appeals for a final decision. Um if not if no objections are filed indicating that there you know it doesn't seem to be an issue with the neighbors and the and the proposal itself the the zoning administrator can take action um to approve or deny the administrative adjustment or to kick it upstairs if even without an objection to kick it up to the board of board of adjustments and appeals. [50:00] Kirk Bishop: So that that's kind of seen the process is a little bit different. It's nuanced different than the current administrative variance process which kind of puts more uh decision making as it were in the hands of abutting property owners which is a bit problematic in terms of uh uh the role of uh various officials in the zoning process. So we think this is a uh very transparent process applies to very few things mainly lots that have existing uses on them. These are not to be used in lieu of the plan development projects for projects that need a whole lot of flexibility, new development, but for just in our experience, it comes into play most often for individual residential property owners who are looking to make an minor expansion to a building to put some accessory units, uh, accessory structures on the property, expand a patio or deck. They run into a slight setback issue. Um, and we're trying to provide an easier path for those very kind of minor things to go through the zoning approval process. Uh, another thing that we had proposed in the new ordinance is a more streamlined site plan review process for some types of applications. [51:26] Kirk Bishop: First of all, let me tell you that site plan review in White Bear Lake, as in most communities, I I guess I would say, uh, is required for just about anything of any of any substance. Uh, if it's more than four dwelling units on the property and it involves new construction or building additions, you're going to be going through the site plan process. Uh, and that's pretty much the same that's the same under today's ordinance. Expanding a use, establishing a new use, uh, building and site modifications that increase the amount of coverage or the overall intensity, you're going to be going through the site plan process. Under today's in today's world in White Bear Lake, that involves uh review by the planning commission with the recommendation and a final decision by council. Um that's the process we had proposed uh and is written in the draft that is before you uh a kind of bifurcated approach that has that says not all site plans need that level of public review. We're essentially doing a compliance review check at the site plan level. [52:38] Kirk Bishop: Maybe we could define a universe of site plans that are eligible for a more streamlined administrative site plan approval process and that's what we had proposed in the draft. Um but I think uh maybe Jason wanted to talk to you about maybe an alternative approach that we might that we might want to use with regard to site plan review. And I guess I should go on to say what we had come up with was a basically a threshold of 30,000 square feet or 30 dwelling units kicks you into the major site plan. Review by planning commission final decision by council. Anything that doesn't qualify as a major site plan would have been eligible uh for that administrative approval. But with that, I'll throw the floor to you. [53:23] Jason Lindall: Sorry, we're shuffling around a microphone. Um, so, um, as Kirk kind of, uh, outlined for you, that the site plan approval process that's proposed, um, has sort of that two-tiered approach, two levels. Um and he also mentioned that right now the kind of the standard approach is you pretty much need to go through site plan for just about everything under the current code. I would add that um one of the other adjustments that we've made in the code is um from a process perspective to try and streamline things is in all practical matters um the majority of uses that would come through and need to go through site plan approval process are also a conditional use. So there was actually a more significant process um than even Kirk just kind of outlined for you. [54:19] Jason Lindall: So the the idea was then um to create that that more streamlined site plan process that has that major um site plan and administrative site plan designation. And the threshold difference between those things was or is proposed to be 30,000 square ft of a new commercial building or an addition to an existing commercial building. um or on the residential side, um 30 dwelling units in a in a multi-unit building. This wouldn't include something like a 30 unit subdivision, although I think the opportunities for that to come into White Bear Lake are pretty limited based on the land that we have available. [54:58] Jason Lindall: So um in acknowledgment that this has been one of the points of discussion over the development of the code um as we talked about with you know accessory dwelling units um um short-term rentals some of the parking standards um the CAC had a fair amount of discussion about the administrative um nature of some of of the things some of the things we were proposing that came also across as a point of discussion in the joint meetings with the planning commission and council and really that from staff's perspective the really kind of fundamental issue um that I think the team of the CAC planning commission and council that have looked at this was struggling with was the um balance between public engagement for projects in White Bear Lake and the administrative process that while needing to meet every particular standard, I mean the administrative process would only allow for that a project to be eligible for that if you met every single particular standard in the zoning ordinance. [56:06] Jason Lindall: Um staff just came to the final in the kind of final analysis internally that the balance between the engagement side of things in White Bear Lake and the administrative um um ease of some of these smaller scaled project. We were going to we were landing and anticipating that the council would land on the um the engagement side of things. So, we're we're actually suggesting at this point that um we just have the site plan process without a distinction for administrative site plan. And so I we um I'm assuming that we'll have some further discussion about that with the council as uh as we get to the discussion period. [56:56] Jason Lindall: So um with that, I can let Kirk finish up with the section of the code. the the next section of the code I guess actually that I was going to cover is um the um the last change that we're going to note um in the zoning in the proposed zoning code relates to cannabis uses. Um, so we, as the city, the council all remembers, you know, uh, the state uh, legalized cannabis uses and then gave the cities a timeline to, um, um, put zoning standards into place. We had a detailed discussion with the planning commission and council over 2024 and landed on standards at the end of uh 2024 to meet the state imposed deadline to have those standards in place. um those um those standards carry over into the current zoning code um with with an emphasis from the council's direction of taking a cautious approach to introducing these uses into White Bear Lake um and um establishing them as conditional uh uses throughout the community um and with specifically related to dispensaries focusing them on the outer edges of the community in our commercial areas rather than more internal to related to either downtown or neighborhoods uh throughout White Bear Lake. [58:21] Jason Lindall: So um in applying that perspective to the new code, dispensary uses were moved from well we're just included in the B4 zone no longer exists which is where they were in the current code. So, they get moved into the MXS or mixed-use suburban zoning category, which pushes them generally to the outskirts of our community. And so, the maps that included in your packet indicate as a result of that four new locations um that previously were not eligible under the the city's previous standards that could be now eligible for dispensary uses. and then two areas in the community um that um were previously eligible that are now not uh would not be eligible under the way the new code exists. [59:15] Jason Lindall: So those areas of the map that you're looking here on the northern half of the city are really along Highway 96 related primarily to the area uh closest to Interstate 35E. Um two of those locations on either uh north or south sides of that the west side of that intersection. And then further down 96 um at what I think people can all picture in their head there's a Speedway or gas station located there. Um and then if you move internally to into the city up here at 61 and 7th you may be able to picture in your head there's a veterinary clinic there that previously was a B4 zone. So it would it would have been just outside of the buffer from the high school that was created there and an eligible location in this case because it's now part of the downtown zone and not in the MXS zone that then is that site would no longer be eligible and again meets the city's general philosophy of moving this away from downtown and our neighborhoods and and more out into our uh suburban mixed use suburban fringe. [1:00:33] Jason Lindall: Similarly on the south side you'll notice um that uh the MXS location down here at Century and 694 which is again currently another gas station um is a location that could potentially uh be eligible for... excuse me could be eligible for a dispensary kind of use. And then um you'll may notice also at Hoffman and County Road E um just to the west of the Lochner site, the property that the city received as part of the park dedication. Um that was a commercially zoned property prior to now. And so as the city received that for park dedication, we are now um establishing it as the P zone. So it would no longer be eligible the the northern portion of that triangle that the city man. So that takes you through the changes related to cannabis. And so really at this point what we were um proposing to do is to open it up for discussions and questions from the council um before we moved on to um a recommended action in the next slide that basically just says we're recommending that the council conduct the first reading and d give staff any direction um about uh the content of the code and then direct us when to bring it back for second reading. So with that we'll open it up for discussion. [1:02:14] Mayor: Mr. Lindell, the second reading is scheduled for July 22nd at this point. Great. Thank you, Mr. Lindell. Um there's a lot of content here to digest. So, normally I'm pretty free-wheeling about who has comments, questions, and have a little bit of discussion. But I think at the first pass here, just for the good of the order, does anyone have any specific clarifying questions for Mr. Lindall or consultants? things that we don't quite understand, don't quite follow. Um, let's let's handle that first. Anybody have any questions? Council member Edward. [1:02:41] Council Member Edward: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The clarifying question is for the administrative approval, it talks about 10 days from the time something is mailed and the recipient, presumably a neighbor, somebody, another interested party, but not the applicant. um has 10 days from the date it was mailed. Is that calendar days or business days? And I ask because I'm sorry, the mail service ain't what it used to be. And I've had personal experience of mail coming from within our city taking more than the usual one or two days from date of mailing and that bites into the um the amount of time somebody's out of town. Somebody gets their mail but doesn't open it on the date recite etc etc. And so it undermined the ability to engage in the conversation. What is the current interpretation of the uh proposed timeline? [1:04:14] Jason Lindall: So mayor uh members of the council um so the the 10 days that is proposed um are calendar days... or are business days? Okay. And the council may or may not remember, but the initial proposal was 7 days. And so we actually um with some similar concerns about this about checking mail and speed of the mail and that kind of thing. Um staff did amend the application to be up to 10 days um for that response period. [1:04:47] Council Member Edward: I didn't read deeply. Do we specify business days anywhere in our code or should that be a clarification? We say 10 business days as the standard um to modify that or is that somewhere else that a reasonably knowledgeable person would know where to look? [1:05:07] Jason Lindall: Yeah, we we don't define um business days, but just to double check this... [1:05:31] Troy Anderson (City Attorney): Yeah, I've got the answer, I think. Okay, just to avoid you having to look for it. Um there is a computation of time provision in here that talks about that all references to days are calendar days unless it expressly states business days and uh business days would include uh references to any regular city government working day excluding Saturday, Sunday and holidays observed by the city. So that's in 1301.020.2 page 39 of the packet. [1:06:09] Mayor: So, Mr. Anderson, with that, if we wanted to incorporate the interpretation that um Mr. Lindall gave us a moment ago, that the expectation was a business day. Does that require a modification to the language? That's what I'm interpreting you to say is that unless we specify business days that the assumption is it's a calendar day. [1:06:34] Troy Anderson: That's true. And I don't um the particular section you're talking about, I don't know where that is. I don't know if it might say business days currently. And if it does, I I don't think that would need to be changed. But if it doesn't, and that's what the intent is, then it would need to be updated. [1:06:51] Jason Lindall: So, well, mayor, members of the council, and actually looking at uh the provision here right now, it just speaks to at least 10 days. So, it doesn't specify calendar or um business days. But if it's the direction of the council that it is one of those, we can make that clarification. [1:07:08] Kirk Bishop: U mayor, members of the council, I also would suggest excluding holidays. [1:07:11] Council Member Edward: So when we get to more specific I I'm going to request that we air on the side of engagement that we um specify business days to accommodate the realities of our male service and modern life. and uh uh I'll look to for guidance as to when to formally adopt that into our action or or proposals. [1:07:48] Mayor: Well, let's proceed like this, assuming that there's not going to be like 50 different things, right? Um and this one's I think this one's kind of a layup because I'm with you. I I think it sounds like the default is it's going to be 10 calendar days because that's what it defaults to unless you specify. And if we want to air on the side of more time, I'd fully support that. We just add the word business to it so that it's clear that it's business days, therefore more time. Um, anybody anybody have any objections to that? This is just a first reading, so we don't need to take any formal action. If there's consensus among the council, I assume that's all you need for tonight. If something's really contentious and we think it's some push-pull, we can either do a straw pull or something more formal. But unless someone has any strong objections, I think that's the direction. Let's expand it and add the word business. Council Member West? [1:08:35] Council Member West: I do have a question just about um the definition of days and like how many... I'm wondering how many changes we would need to make to the zoning code to add business or do we need to change the definition so that it is an assumption of business days unless it's unless it says otherwise. [1:08:57] Jason Lindall: H mayor, members of the council, I'm trying to think of the situations where days are specified beyond statutory requirements in the code and I think there would be fairly limited application of that. yeah. So, it we're thinking about like the definition of like short-term rentals where it talks about the definition of less than 30 days or regular rental longer than 30 days. So, um I I I think if if this is a concern of the council, we can, you know, take a closer look at it and give you feedback on any other specific locations where it might affect the notification and reply period for folks. [1:09:58] Mayor: Yeah, I think that's really the general direction we can I think that's what it is. Maybe at the second reading, we just got to do a little homework on that. I don't think anybody's disputing the 30 days for purposes of the short-term rental. It's really about notice where this council airs on the side of more transparency, more opportunity for public engagement for those. Let's let's do a PDF word search and see where where that is. Um and then report back at the second reading. Okay. All right. Any other clarifying questions before we just jump into discussion comments? Council member Hughes. [1:10:31] Council Member Hughes: I'm sorry you had the chart up there about building height and um I was listening and it didn't engage. Um so we are at 4 and a half unless there's a CUP and then you maybe can or even with a CUP you are at four and a half stories... [1:11:00] Leslie Oberholtzer: Yeah, that's really the one. Okay. Yeah, I couldn't find a page. So, so it's it is uh each building type has a different u maximum height allowance. Um, and I think the building types that we were most concerned with and the the location that we had recommended um allowing for some taller buildings was in the MXC and GXC and the RXC, the corridor zones that would occur along specifically as as I've shown up here along Highway 61 where the most sort of redevelopment is is anticipated. Um and in that those locations we've removed um anything above four and a half stories. [1:11:47] Leslie Oberholtzer: So the storefront traditional storefront that might be developed in any of those locations where you see the kind of purple color the maroon purple color those would be a maximum of 4 and 1/2 stories... three stories and then one and a half stories stepped back beyond so that it wouldn't be as visible from the street. Um the same situation in the general building which would be all of the kind of light blue locations. Um and again these are just along major corridors and the major corridors that are defined are um 96 and 61 and interstate 35. So the light blue that you see along county road E would not qualify as a major corridor. County Road E is not a major corridor as stated in this. So it would only be three and a half stories. So it's only really along 61 and 96 that it would be four and a half stories that that case... um, the one again in the general building the top story the one story would be stepped back above three and a half stories and that half story that we're anticipating is that kind of allowance for that first level to be elevated a little bit above the sidewalk and maybe have parking underneath. Um, so especially for residential units, but even with a CUP, there's no going over? [1:13:06] Leslie Oberholtzer: With a with a planned unit development um process, then they could come in and ask for Yes. Which they can now today. Okay. Gotcha. This is just what was in the code. And a PUD would be required for sites that are five acres or more. Right. Right. Right. I was Okay, perfect. [1:13:30] Jason Lindall: And I I would uh mayor, members of the council, I would just add um while we are talking specifically about height, um if you come into a PUD application process, it really is... we could we could be talking about any of the development standards. An applicant could come in and say, I can really do this great development for White Bear Lake if I could just tweak X, Y, and Z. And that may be height, that may be setbacks, that may be um materials. Um but the PUD process is that tool or mechanism that allows for some sort of relief if the council and the applicant can come to a decision that overall we're going to have a better development. [1:14:08] Council Member Hughes: Okay perfect. Um I was just trying to think about the parking thing in my own mind on um bikes. What is the requirement right now on bicycle parking for residential units? [1:14:48] Kirk Bishop: So for small residential buildings up to four dwelling units, no minimum requirement for bicycle parking. five or more dwelling units, one space per four units in the building, at least half of which need to be indoor secure long-term bicycle parking spaces like in a garage, like in a lockable resident-only accessible storage compartment. Okay. or yeah, something secure. Not just uh a a rack in the garage that's open that you know people can generally access, but something that's more secure than that. A bike room. Five or more requires something. [1:15:37] Council Member Hughes: Okay. Um, and this is just random. Somebody asked me about it. Trailering... leaving your boat on a trailer on your private property. What is the what does the zoning code say about that? And is that changing? [1:16:14] Jason Lindall: So, um, mayor, members of the council, um, the quick answer is our standards are not changing for that particular kind of activity. current currently there are standards related to where you can park um you know an RV or a trailer and those were consolidated into a new section of the code... 911. Yeah. Um, sorry as I'm fumbling through this... it details it's fairly detailed but the gist of it is the standards are not changing. Um and it it basically talks about a difference of standards related to trailers and their size. So if a trailer uh with a bed of more than 8 1/2 ft in length and more than 6 1/2 ft in height may not be parked or stored in an R zone or residential zone. So the idea is smaller scale fits in the neighborhood. You can fit it on your residential lot. You can do that. um larger ones um are are just generally prohibited. [1:18:20] Council Member Hughes: So like storing your boat on your property is completely allowed? [1:18:40] Jason Lindall: That um gets into um the RV standards. Um and that is um they must be stored on a designated driveway or hard surface abutting the driveway or garage. Um and so they're allowed um in White Bear Lake and they just have to be stored on a on a hard surface. So RVs encompass boats, campers, um um jet skis. [1:19:17] Council Member Hughes: Is a hard surface grass? [1:19:19] Jason Lindall: No, that would be um you know, basically that's a poured-in-place product like asphalt or concrete. [1:19:25] Council Member Hughes: So on your lakeside property on the grass is not allowed. [1:19:34] Jason Lindall: Correct. interior side yards it's limited to. So, not a front yard. So, just that additional clarification. Thank you. [1:19:55] Mayor: All right. Well, here's what I would propose. This is a first reading, so depending on different things that have come before the council. We've reserved comment and argument for the the second reading. This one's a lot more to to kind of bite off. So, if there's any major u objections, proposed changes, I think now is the opportunity to to discuss it. Um, and of course, you're welcome to reserve reserve comment until the second reading. But I'm going to kick things off with just a couple things on my list. [1:20:25] Mayor: And before I do that, I just want to thank staff and our consultants and the community and business owners. This is a, you know, almost two-year project and a lot of stakeholders weighed in. I know there was a lot of back and forth. myself along with several council members attended the planning commission meeting on Monday. I want to thank the planning commission too for all their hard work. Um I think we arrived at a pretty good product. It's never ever going to be perfect. There's always going to be a couple things that people want to pick and tug at, but I think um you know, first and foremost, we have something that you can actually read and follow. um as an attorney who's practiced in municipal law and corporate law and various other things... the current code, I mean, I've gone through it to build a shed and do different things and potentially build a house and it's very very difficult to kind of labor through and you're not really sure. So, in the name of just transparency and putting people on notice when they're looking to do things, this is just a huge improvement, a great modernization. So, I think that is a a major plus and and a good thing for the community. [1:21:42] Mayor: Now, the content on it in it... um, I think is overall pretty good, too. I know we've had some some good discussions with the Joint Council and Planning Commission. Um I've flagged a couple of issues that I know that people had some strong comments one way or the other, myself included. Um so, before I get to the EVs, because that's that's probably the biggest thing that that I don't like and want to see removed... Um, I do support what the planning commission ultimately recommended to the council, which was the requirement for there to be owner occupancy for the ADUs. That's what we currently have. There was a good discussion, I thought, among the planning commission about the goal of this is not to create, you know, multi-unit investment opportunities for people. It truly is someone who owns the property wants to rent out their build or rent out accessory dwelling unit, they can do that. And I personally don't care whether they're in the the ADU, the smaller one, or the main house, as long as there's someone there that's got a a financial interest in the property that is there day in and day out keeping an eye on things. So, I would I would support um I guess removing the or adding the requirement because the current proposal does not have that requirement. So bringing it into par at least with regard to that with our current code. [1:23:14] Mayor: Um I think Mr. Lindall, you talked about the site plan review and recommending getting away from this major distinction versus the administrative. And I think if I'm following you correctly, I agree with you. That makes sense. I don't I think the the the spirit of this council and I think the community is we'd like things to be aired out a little bit more and have it be a little bit more transparent and visible. So if I'm following you, is that the what the recommendation is that this would require the kind of the standard process that we're used to for all things not having this minimum threshold that could... I don't want to say sneak but kind of kind of get shuffled under on the administrative staff level? Um, not that's in and of itself dubious, but in the name of transparency, we're going to eliminate that distinction. Is that correct? [1:24:41] Jason Lindall: Mayor, members of the council? Yes. [1:24:41] Mayor: Okay. So, I would support that as well. Um, and the last thing that that I would like to see come back for the second reading changed is to strike all EV charging station requirements. At the joint session this winter/spring, we had a good we had a good conversation about that. Um, my reasoning for it is really without taking a position on EVs, whether you think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread or you think that they're they're evil and and have arguments against it, it is, I think, not appropriate for us to build in to the zoning code requirements for that. I'm convinced that a developer will look at the community, look at what the market will demand, and if they feel like that's necessary today, next week, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, where the the EV demand could be three times what it is today, or it could fall off a cliff... I don't know. But I want to let private developers make that decision based on what they believe the market demands. I think smart money would say any developer is probably going to put some level of EVs in and they don't need a mandate from us at the city level. So I would like to see those particular provisions struck which which would be uh 13.09.110, 13.09.110.2, and 13.09.110.3. [1:26:11] Mayor: Um, and I would imagine we'd have some debate on that. I will note um, Council Member Walsh is not here, so I just want to... he echoed that same concern. I won't read all the details um, setting forth his arguments. He'll have an opportunity to do that at the second reading if this is still around. Um, and then Council Member Walsh did say that he opposed the limited height requirements for residential buildings. Um, I think that the general spirit and intent of his argument was that it it potentially stifles developers who want to come to the community. I'll let him speak for himself at the second reading. Um, I share some of that. I think the structure that we have saying as a matter of the code, it's limited in those corridor areas to four and a half stories, but if the right developer comes in, let's have a good conversation about it and we can do a PUD and go to five and a half, whatever it might be. I like that structure. So, I'm comfortable with how it is as that was council member Walsh's thought on that. So, if anyone wants to respond directly to that, good, bad, or otherwise, or if they have their comments, I'm open to how we go through. [1:27:31] Council Member Edward: Thank you, Mayor. So, we have a couple of... and this is mostly in process, not content. Um, the process question is who directs staff? What what level of authority is required to direct staff on what to bring to us or not bring to us or what they should prepare for the second reading? [1:28:01] Mayor: So yeah, so I I think we approach it kind of how I how I outlined it before. If any So if anyone has strong opinions or things that they would like to see change, just like I did, speak up and we'll try and draw some kind of a consensus. And if there is no consensus, then we can do it one of two ways. Someone can make a motion um to to formally change that. It'll be reflected in the minutes and then that'll be a more definitive uh request to staff to bring it back whatever the clean version is for the second reading and ultimate adoption. That's fine with me. We don't have to do anything tonight. Um I'm okay approaching it either way. You can bring a motion to amend what is specifically before us as a matter of process. If there is significant consensus without formalizing a vote and we see which way the wind's blowing, I just assume knock that out tonight so that we get as close to what we think will be the majority will of the council for the second reading. But that's more of a matter of convenience than it is we have to do it. We don't have to do anything tonight. [1:29:10] Council Member Edward: Thank you. Um not opposed. I thought okay let's juxtapose a couple of our conversations. I think there was wide agreement about uh business days being specified in the in the notice. Um and so if there is that consensus we could ask is there consensus on that and then that would be direction or we could take a motion in this situation. And if there is a difference of opinion on EV standards, my inclination would be suggest let's not take action if there is in the absence of a consensus... allow Mr. Walsh to come in and put his oar in the water and not be faced with a having to amend the code at that time. I just want to know let everybody make sure that we know what the rules of the road are. [1:30:10] Mayor: All right. No, that that's that's fair. I think if there's consensus to make a change, then we we direct it. So, for example, if the other people sitting up here have no appetite to strike the EVs, that's perfectly fine. It's going to come back in the second reading. I'm going to bring it up again. But but yes, so um that's why I would think just just go down the line. Um whoever wants to to speak up and it really is things that you don't like. I think that's that's what we need to do is is issue spot things that someone just opposes. Um, and let's get them out. [1:31:01] Lindy Crawford (City Manager): So, mayor, I'd like to add this is a 400-page document or something like that. So the more that we can hash out now um and the more consensus you can either build or not build um is helpful while we have our consultants here. Um, the second reading is the 22nd where you may consider adopting it. If you don't adopt it I will um I will kick it to the second August meeting because remember that August 15th that's a Friday meeting and we know at least one council member won't be here for that. So, not that you need to feel pressured to adopt it at the second reading, but the more you can hash out now, um, the better and and quite frankly, the easier it is to work within the document. [1:31:40] Mayor: Yeah. And just to echo that a little bit, I I've read through everything. There's still some things that I'm thinking about and and mulling, but these are the things that are kind of... I don't want to say draw a line in the sand, but big things that I would like to see changed. Those little things we can I think we can deal with on the fly if we need to. But tonight is the only night that our consultants are here. Correct? You won't be here for the second reading? Um so go ahead. [1:32:04] Jason Lindall: Mayor, members of the council, we we were going to to um you know, take up staffing and who's here based on kind of your comments and what's necessary. [1:32:15] Mayor: Okay. Then I would encourage the council to drill down on clarifications, things you're still kind of mulling over. This is a good open forum. If you're not sure, don't be shy. It's like Miss Crawford said, it's 400 pages. Certainly there there may be things that you're just not quite sure about in our head scratchers. So let's talk about them. Let's work it through and understand what it means while we have kind of all hands on deck. Council member Edward. [1:32:41] Council Member Edward: So I'll name a couple um for conversation. I support the uh ADU ownership requirement in one or either the principal or the accessory dwelling unit. I don't know if there's consensus on that, but I'm um I am inclined to say we want somebody on the premise who has eyes on presence in the dwelling. So, that would be one. I'm interested in um short-term rental and the discussion around that. We haven't touched on that much at all yet... u so those are a couple and to the extent that we can say 10 business days... whatever that number is business days... like to think that I didn't see anybody shaking their heads sideways. [1:33:38] Mayor: Yeah, just to be clear I thought we kind of dispensed with that. So I'll just take it up again. Anybody have any objections to... I mean what's going to happen is Mr. Lindall is going to come back next week with that... there could be other places and let us know and we'll we'll kind of color in the lines then um on the on the owner occupancy for the ADUs. Let's just address that right now. Okay. I I Council Member Edberg myself supports the requirement to have owner occupancy. Does anybody object to making that change or having the second reading come back? I'm seeing a lot of heads nodding yes. Um, council member Hughes, if you got Oh, sorry. [1:34:12] Council Member Hughes: I would like the one or the other. Not does anybody feel strong whether it's in the ADU or the main the primary residence? Okay. I would like the flexibility actually for an older couple to live in the smaller portion and rent out the larger... [1:34:34] Mayor: I agree. I think it makes sense. So, yeah. No. Um, okay. So, that's another one. I think that's that's pretty clear there. Um, the short-term rental is another one that I'm with you on that. I think we got to get that right. I know there there are people that have raised concerns about how we go about doing that. There is very real concern for... I think the concern is we don't want to create an environment particularly around the lake where there's probably more desire to do that for it to be a destination for blowout weekend bachelor parties... um you know, week-long families, longer ones. So, um let's let's punt on that for now to see if there's any other kind of low-hanging fruit out there. Um anybody else have any major objections to the draft that's before us? [1:35:15] Council Member Hughes: I don't have any major objections. I just want to say on that one, I'm tempted to try to figure out a way to not allow them at all. And I'm saying this because I would like for people to argue we should. Um, so I I mean right now I'm thinking why would we have why would we allow a whole bunch of Airbnbs up and down Lake Southshore all over the place? So what I'm saying is I'd love to see a way to not and then hopefully I hear from 30 people that say that's stupid. But if we don't then I'd like to move forward with that. So maybe just recap if if for no other reason for my own edification, can we go back to the the the 30-day and understanding that my understanding was right now it's it's effectively unregulated. Um so people can do it. We're going to require we're going to have our standard kind of rental structure for over 30 days. But for those short-term ones, it's a licensing process which does allow us to put some brackets around it. Is that correct or am I wrong? [1:36:23] Jason Lindall: Mayor, members of the council, that's correct. Okay. um that process would be subject to the standards that are outlined the standards or conditions that are outlined in the code which are basically what's on the screen in front of you and that includes um you know a limit of six adults and their dependent children... um that you're not allowed to have an ADU on that same kind of lot... Um, and that, you know, you can't exter change the external look of the property to make it look more commercial. You can't put in a great big parking lot, add commercial kinds of lighting, those kinds of things. [1:37:50] Jason Lindall: Um, and then you may not have events that are attended um by others. So right now as proposed um an example of that would be six adults and their dependent children are there and they throw a birthday party for one of those people, one of the kids, one of the adults and it's their group. They can attend that party but they can't invite guests beyond those people to that party. Similarly, um a person who rents an Airbnb um could not um um rent it and then throw um like a big event like a wedding or something and invite 200 people as guests to that site. Could they have a wedding for the six adults and their families that are there? Yes, but it would be just limited to those people. So the the intent of having that provision in the code was to address the scale of and intensity of the use of this new use that we're proposing in the code. [1:39:10] Jason Lindall: Now going along with that for current rental uses the city has a licensing process that focuses more on health, safety and the general operation of rental uses. um that those standards also include kind of what we casually refer to as a three strikes you're out rule. There's a three... major police call provision in that licensing standard not in the zoning code in the licensing standard that says if that occurs the council then has the specific ability to consider revocation of that license. So, um, we anticipate as an implementation step, should the council approve short-term rentals, that we would create an a specific short-term rental license. and that would relate more to the operation of the site and could address things like police calls or you know more specific noise regulations or um disorderly conduct things. [1:40:42] Jason Lindall: I mean we could we we would be able to give you a more specific kind of list of things to include based on any feedback you give us but also that next research step that we do. But we are currently recommending that we take that next step to establish a licensing standard um should the council you know adopt this use into the code. Um, and what I would also just add is that the the reason we're kind of proposing that balance between the zoning standards and establishing the use and then the additional licensing standard is the license um as a mechanism in general is is is more enforceable on the short-term basis. um the land use code... if you establish specific standards to that they tend to run with the land and there is some grandfathering concerns. that's less important for this type of use but just to acknowledge that in full disclosure the licensing standards are more short-term and we can address more specific things like the use of the property. [1:41:40] Jason Lindall: And in the situation where there would be someone who came um in let's just say on a short-term basis and um did had some activity that disturbed the neighborhood... um that license and then you know they were here for a weekend and then they're gone. That license is always going to be tied to the property owner and the city's enforcement mechanism is always with the property owner. And so it's not like somebody could come in, do a short-term rental, and they're here for a weekend, and then they're gone, and then we don't have the city doesn't have any recourse. Our recourse, our or our point of of of enforcement would always be um with the property owner, and that that won't change based on the turnover or the duration of time that someone's at a unit. [1:42:32] Mayor: Okay. I'm going to break this down for my simple mind. So, right now it's it's unregulated. It's just people just are doing it. What what you're proposing is there's two camps. There's around the lake... is that R2? The R2 zones. Those are all the uh the the lakeside districts. Okay. So, they need to get a conditional use permit and a license. Everybody else that's residential... it's just a license. Is am I following that correctly as proposed? [1:43:08] Jason Lindall: Yes. [1:43:10] Mayor: Okay. So then as a matter of policy, what we're saying is you need to check these extra special boxes if you're in R2 around the lake because we have greater public policy concerns about about that. And I think if I'm hearing council member Hughes correctly is maybe you want to air on the side of the default is we want to have more more control because the concern maybe applies everywhere. Um and the default position is as a matter of public policy. We're reluctant to do this but under the right circumstances licensing structure... we're okay with it. I don't want to put words in your mouth. [1:43:52] Council Member Hughes: Yeah. I'd also just like to hear from people. Um, I sort of feel like I'd like to throw a bomb out there and see what shakes loose. [1:44:02] Mayor: Well, yeah. And I mean, this is... I guess if somebody cares, that's what I'd like to hear. And I appreciate that there are people here listening to this really incredibly exciting evening. But this would be one of those where I could see people saying, "Oh, I wish I had... because this was a thought I had." Yeah. And I I guess my concern is because we're talking about the zoning code, that's not something we want to be to to change and swing wildly. We want to make those good decisions now. Now is the time to have the conversation about if if our default is we don't like it, but under a certain licensing structure, we'll allow it, then the zoning should reflect something different for the whole city or not. And I'm not saying I'm not pre-ordaining it. Now, I don't want us to get confused with licensing, that whole mechanism and the exercise that we're going through now, which is the zoning code, because those are two very different things. [1:44:54] Mayor: My concern is I just I just don't know. I think I don't think VRBOs are going anywhere. Um, and I think I know White Bear and the lake just every year just gets more and more and more popular. Um and that is a concern that it's that there is a a lot of um potential trouble that goes with it. Um, on a more a more a more kind of distinct point, if you look at Crosslake, Gull Lake, and that area, what once was people's cabins, quieter way of life, and relatively affordable... I say relatively, it's just spiked because suddenly it became an investment property. And when you can get eight grand a week for it, that's when a already expensive million-dollar cabin goes to 2.5 million. That's my concern. I don't want White Bear Lake to turn into that. If if a house costs $3 million and and the market dictates that it's fine if that's where people that want to live there is their residence. I don't want to create that. [1:46:09] Mayor: So now is the time to have that conversation if people share those same concerns um to to get this part right. And I I would urge us to air on the side of let's throttle her way back and we can we can dial it up if and when we we need to if we think it's not a problem. But I think we should default towards where a community... we want them to be residential homes, not revert back to our 100 years ago resort town completely. Um so I don't I guess I don't I don't know if this does this. I think maybe this draft is is getting on the right track, but the conditions maybe... I don't know if I don't know if that gets the job done if that addresses our concern, but I'm open to thoughts from the council. Council member Edward. [1:46:49] Council Member Edward: I share your concerns. I have been mostly oblivious to the growth of VRBOs. Um, I've had my eyes on other aspects of home ownership and rental. Um, but um, do we have presumably... are all of the short-term rental locations currently in existence? Are they licensed? And what data do we have about their number and location? I'd be curious in in getting a sense of Okay, they're we have them and they're pretty much all along one of our lakes. I'd be kind of surprised if anybody wants to put one down in my neighborhood or something like that, but it's possible. Do we have data on that? Do we have uh you know visuals or anything that would allow us to get a sense? And do we then have issues with grandfathering um uh properties that are currently Airbnb, VRBO, um and we are now changing that use or depriving an owner of of an existing use... [1:48:12] Jason Lindall: So uh mayor, members of the council, the short answer is we do not have data on this. Um um this is this is one of the modernization... what I'd put in the modernization bucket of the zoning ordinance. Um you know the last time we really took a comprehensive look at the code was back in the 80s and um short-term rental wasn't really a thing then. Um many communities um in talking with other uh peers of mine and and just have been being in this field um many communities in the metro area have already adopted standards related to this. We're a little behind the curve on this. Um there was a significant peak just in general um in the Twin Cities when the Super Bowl occurred a handful of years ago because it became a bigger thing. White Bear Lake was really I don't think impacted by that given our location in related to the rest of the metro. [1:49:12] Jason Lindall: Um but just in talking with colleagues at that time there was a big uh spike in in cities considering standards for that. So, um, staff included this in the package that's before you tonight because again, under the modernization perspective, this is a new use that... I think what the mayor has said is that we don't think this is going away anytime soon. Um, our code doesn't address it, so we don't ask or require applicants to make that distinction. um with the council. If the council would adopt this, then we would start to make that distinction uh with folks. And so um just based on that, we don't have any firm data to tell you that there are any certain number of of them within the community or not. And then finally, I would just say in that same vein, we also don't have a list of of complaints for code violations related to this that I can share with you because... well I can tell you I haven't had any calls in the three years I've been here that this has been an issue for a neighbor. [1:50:35] Lindy Crawford: I'd like to add um there's a commerce piece to this too that that data may be helpful. Do these people come and spend a weekend or a week or a month even um and and use businesses? That's a question. Had a quick search through uh an online search for a weekend in October for four guests. I found 11. Kind of all throughout all throughout town, not all on the lake. Um but that's just a very quick search. [1:51:03] Council Member Edward: So mayor what occurs to me um the distinction between Lakeside and non Lakeside districts. Again, I also have not had I've been oblivious. I don't I've not had any um concerns, but I'm not in a ward not on the lake, so you know, I wouldn't be catching those. So the distinctions between lakeside districts and non-lakeside districts is one. Is that relevant? Is it not relevant? I am I'm thinking that I am mostly okay with the licensing approach as being a more actionable and more more rapidly actionable way of controlling uh bad behavior if such exists u or inattentive rental to folks who have wild moments. Um, so the standards strike me as being reasonable, but I agree that I'm not sure that I want to open that up and we don't but we don't have any data to to know where any of that exists. So I don't know what to do with that. I don't like the idea as you described Gull Lake and and you know... no thank you. Just plain no. [1:52:32] Mayor: Yeah. Well, let's keep talking it through because to me, I I I'm not as sold on a distinction between the lake and not being on the lake. That's the probably the primary draw, but we still have a quaint downtown and people would want to stay a block off the lake. Bring the boat and you're you're putting it in at the boat launch every... So, I think you're still getting it... it knocks off probably the majority of the concern, but it doesn't eliminate it. And why pick on the lake owners? I think it's it's all we're a desirable kind of community for someone to want to spend a week or a long weekend. So, let's address that kind of in mass is is what I would say. [1:53:14] Mayor: And to the city manager's point, there's several that are not on the lake and and I don't know um how many are on the lake. Um just out of curiosity, when you ran that search, that's what's available right? That's what's available in October because I could only find two in August that were available. Yeah. So, this is purely anecdotal. I would hazard against those that have VRBOs on the lake, they're booked up through the summer, just like if you want to get on Gull in August, you better be booking August 2026 and crossing the same thing. They book a year in advance. [1:54:02] Mayor: So, um I don't know how we address the couple that are out there and and you know, not wanting to totally stop that, but my bigger concern is that it doesn't devolve into into more. To me, it strikes me as the licensing structure is the better way to approach it. So, I don't know what that means for the zoning code if it's just silent on it and then we regulate it through ordinance. I I I I need somewhat better understanding about how that that dovetails together in terms of where our powers lie in our ability to regulate and whether or not the zoning code can simply be silent on it and we regulated through licensing for short-term rentals. I'd be looking for some commentary on that. [1:54:41] Council Member Edward: I'm not clear on where the CUP process if we introduce this... would all such businesses then require a conditional use or how do we think about so that's yet one more level of or aspect of regulation. [1:55:04] Jason Lindall: So mayor members of the council... I'll kind of repeat your question back to you to make sure I'm answering it correctly so Um, we don't have because we don't regulate this right now. We don't have any hard data about if there are any of these in the community or not. Should the council um decide to accept the terms as the the terms for short-term rentals as proposed, we would then um and assuming that the council wants us to create a licensing structure, we would then alter the conversation we have with folks who come in for a rental license. [1:55:44] Jason Lindall: We would say if someone comes in for a rental license, we would say, "Okay, are you leasing it for short-term or long-term?" And if you were a short-term rental and you were on um in the lakeside zones, we would say, "Okay, well, before we can grant you a license, you need to um go through the conditional use permit process." And that's a review by the planning commission and approval by the council. and we would take them through that process. Um, if they were not in the lakeside zone, so in the R3 or R4 or other places where residential was allowed, we would say, "Okay, you need to get a short-term rental license. Here's that form. Here's that application." And then that goes to the council just like any other license for action. [1:56:37] Jason Lindall: And then well I mean I guess action by the council on the license is up to you. We would structure that as as once we get to those terms but a current long-term rental... someone buys a investment property wants to rent it on a year lease basis... that's an administrative process. It's more like liquor licenses and those other kinds of commercial activities come to you. So that that would be a point of discussion for council. mhm. Um um so really it it just it would mean adopt it like this. It changes the conversation... the point of contact conversation that staff has with people that come in for these applications. And under the current cycle your rental license for just your general rental license is reviewed every two years. So on that cycle, we would then, you know, when they come in to renew, we would ask, is this short-term or long-term? And if it's short-term, then we would take them through the other process. mhm. Okay. [1:57:52] Council Member West: Yeah. Um, I'm still kind of thinking about all of this. I think um you know I see houses that have lock boxes on them in my neighborhood. I assume that they are some kind of rental. Um and I know that you know the renting those properties make them unavailable for home ownership. um which to me is um you know not as ideal as home ownership would be um because it changes the affordability and all of that. So, I mean, I I hope we kind of go down the road of um if people want to rent their homes short or long term that it comes in front of us. I'm sorry, uh Council Member West, the last thing you said... if they want to rent them short or long term... um, for sure I know we're talking about short term coming in front of us, which I I fully support, but I would like to consider the long-term rentals as well, or at least have a discussion about that. [1:59:15] Mayor: I mean, I'm happy to have the discussion. I I'll just I've got no appetite to do that because I think staff's well equipped to say, "All right, do you have smoke detectors? Do you have check the boxes for the long term?" That's that's never been a concern of mine. We can have the conversation. Um I I'd be open to the council for the the short-term ones because there's more of a immediate touch point for concerns um potential concerns for the short-term rentals. So, I think we still kind of get back to, you know, the threshold question of for tonight. Do we need do we need some kind of construct within the zoning code or are we fine through licensing? [1:59:58] Mayor: I I don't I don't know yet and I honestly don't know if I'm going to if I'm going to be able to decide tonight. So, um this just might be something that we revisit. I think I've I understand the mechanics of the differences. Um, so if anybody has any clarifying questions, by all means, but I think it's something we got to kind of noodle on a little bit and we'll we'll make a decision. I don't have anything that says, "Hey, bring something different back for the second reading." Um, but we may need to pivot a little bit on that. Um, I'll just say that clearly this was well thought out and you think you knew what some of the concerns were. So before I go and upset that, I want to I want to think about it some more. [2:00:46] Council Member West: Yeah. Um, so maybe this is the um sort of the process going over again, pardon me. Um, for what the plan is now, if it's short-term, is it the CUP process or what or what is it? I'm getting a little confused is what I'm saying. [2:01:12] Jason Lindall: So, mayor, members of the council, so what's proposed before you in the current draft is that short-term rental is established as a use. It's currently not in the code at all. and as the the table at the bottom here talks about um where that use is allowed in particular zones and and um what kind of approval it would be. So for example in the MXD and MXC zones it would be allowed but as a permitted use but only in upper stories. in the GXD, GXC, and GXA areas of town, it would be a permitted use. So again, that's on any floor, but um we're suggesting the license would be, you know, part of that process. [2:02:20] Jason Lindall: In the GXN or as Leslie spoke about that N meaning neighborhood... that would be a conditional use. coming back to um the RXC or corridor and RXN... those neighborhood areas um they where there's more density allowed that would be uh eligible for as a permitted use. But in the R1, which is the island, and then the R2 A, B, and C, which are the zones around the lake... um that it's also a conditional use. And then in the R3, R4 and R5 um it would be a permitted use again but with the licensing standard. So again, the general approach is there is an additional level of review in those areas um that are um around water and then in the neighborhood area that GXN where you can have a little bit of density and um but still be closer to a neighborhood. [2:03:31] Mayor: Mr. Lindall, I don't know enough about our proposed zoning code yet... or zoning map yet. Does those bodies of water, does that include Goose Lake, Birch Lake, all other bodies of water, or only White Bear Lake? [2:03:52] Jason Lindall: Uh, it includes all of the lakes. [2:03:58] Mayor: Um, distinguish for me lakes from ponds. Peppertree Pond, Goose Lake... Okay. Okay. There's some different there there's some differences. Do we have um differences around Prarie Pond, Peppertree Pond, etc., or are those left alone? [2:04:19] Jason Lindall: Uh, mayor, members of the council, the lakeside zones focus on the areas of the community that are adjacent to White Bear Lake, Goose Lake, and Birch Lake. [2:04:35] Mayor: Got it. Navigable water. Thank you. Okay. Any other thoughts on short-term rentals or anything else? Council Member Angstrand? [2:04:55] Council Member Angstrand: I just want to throw my two cents on the EV. I'd like to see that taken out also. [2:05:01] Mayor: Um, staying on that. Does anyone else have strong opinions one way or the other on the EV? We don't need to get too deep into it, but I just see where people are at. Council Member West? [2:05:09] Council Member West: Yeah, keep it in. I could get rid of it, but that's why I was asking about bike parking because it sort of feels disingenuous to get rid of one but keep the other requirement in there and my independent self is fighting itself. [2:05:22] Mayor: Yeah. Oh, I could be convinced with the bike... getting rid of the bike parking too. Um I'm just I'm still thinking. Fair enough. Yeah. Okay. [2:05:31] Jason Lindall: Mayor, members of the council, just to quickly as a context for the bike parking, there are bike standards in our current code. And how does the proposal compare to what the current standards are? Um, it it the current ones focus more on the commercial areas of town. Um, and the uh, you know, the Lake Village area of town for development that could potentially happen there. um what this code does is basically take those standards and apply them to the commercial area, you know, the new mixed-use areas of town and um you know, formalize them in the um the residential area, the multi-family residential areas, um which you know has been happening. Bike parking has been happening in kind of the the last couple of multi-family developments similar to EV parking as the developers come in with some expectation that they're going to do some of those. [2:06:40] Mayor: Yeah. And we don't currently mandate it for the apartments? [2:06:44] Jason Lindall: No, we don't. But they're putting it in anyways. [2:06:48] Mayor: Yeah. No, I want to clarify because I I I I think the same rules apply in terms of autonomy of a of a developer. I you know, the reason I didn't get too hot and bothered over it was because I don't think I fully understood it until I heard, well, then there's an inside storage component and that's different than here you have to put the big, you know, outdoor bike rack, which still adds cost, but it's not crazy. But when you start monkeying with you need enclosed square footage, that's a whole another level of cost. [2:07:23] Mayor: So I don't know if I die on that hill though, but I I don't I think for the same logic, I' I'd want to see that scaled back or removed, too. I just don't think we need it. I think we're not as good as a developer investing millions and millions of dollars with the incentive of I'd like to turn a profit and get rents in there. Um, and they're going to be looking at what the market would demand and if it demands EVs, they'll put it in. If it demands indoor bike storage, they'll put it in. If it demands, you know, purple lights in the hallway, they'll put it in. I don't need to I just don't need to dictate those those terms. So, fundamentally, I've got an issue with the the bike enclosure, too. [2:07:53] Mayor: I don't know if we need to solve that tonight. There's a couple areas that I want to go back and and think a little bit more about. But now that we've broached the new topic of that, I don't know if anyone else has a strong feeling one way or the other on mandated indoor bike storage. Council member West? [2:08:11] Council Member West: As someone who used to be an apartment dweller and has close family who are current apartment dwellers with bikes, indoor locked bike areas are incredibly important. So, I would suggest we keep them in. [2:08:30] Jason Lindall: And mayor, members of the council, maybe just for a little bit more context, like I said, there are some existing bicycle parking standards within the code. there aren't EV parking standards within the code and there are regular vehicle parking standards within the code. And so again in in the in the vein of modernization and addressing how people um um do mobility these days. Um, you know, there there was an effort to try to make our vehicle parking standards... whether that be a bicycle or electric vehicle or a regular what we I think what most people think of as a regular car... match more closely what today's standards are. So, um, that was the rationale behind that. Um and and you know there are communities I'm sure that you know some of you have heard of them who have gotten out of the parking business because of they've taken an approach similar to what the mayor has outlined tonight. Why are we telling developers who are investing millions of dollars that there need to be a minimum parking standards? Um the approach I hope that the CAC and the council has heard from staff is we believe that White Bear Lake should have these standards. um given the scale and and type of development that we have and we've tried to come up with a package here that addresses parking more universally related to mobility and modernizes it to address how it's being used today. [2:10:14] Mayor: So yeah, no to clarify, I'm not not shooting the messenger here. I get it. I think you you brought us something, but since you broached the topic, we we've historically had some sort of an occupancy-to-parking spot ratio. How you power the vehicle is a new phenomenon. The reason I know that is because I've never heard of a municipality regulating whether or not there's a gas station in the parking garage of an apartment complex. So, it is different. Um, but you know, by extension, bike parking, you know, that that at least follows a little more logic than the EV in my mind. Still not as convinced, but um, you know, I could be sold a little bit more on that. Um, so, but thank you for the background. All right. Anything else that we need to get on the table tonight to lay the groundwork for the second reading? Council member Edward. [2:11:15] Council Member Edward: Well, at some point when we are wrapping up, I was a member of the CAC. I'd like to offer some comments, but this might not be the right time. [2:11:21] Mayor: I I think it's totally appropriate if you think it it adds value to this deliberative body as we kind of go back and think over the next couple weeks and how we want to go into the second reading. By all means. [2:11:32] Council Member Edward: So, first of all, I want to express appreciation to our staff and consultants. I thought the project was well laid out. I appreciated the phasing... as you can tell by the... excuse me, Mr. Council member Angstrand. So, this little beast was not... and it's complex. There's a whole lot of stuff. Um, I appreciated the way it was phased and the way that the u committee was supported uh research done, delivery, all that kind of good stuff. Tonight we saw... in fact it's on the screen right now. We saw how the charts, how the readability, um, how the understandability of the code has been enhanced. [2:12:15] Council Member Edward: At the planning commission last week, there were several comments about the clean minds, the the clarity that was brought out in this new process. I was skeptical at first and I frankly I didn't understand it. I'm probably not probably still not in a position where I fully understand it, but I've got a lot more now. And so the process that we went through and the product that was created um I think serves our community quite well. Um now we can still have a whole bunch of well maybe this, maybe that. Well, that's fine, but overall um a really nice job and I want to express appreciation for that. So, thank you. [2:13:00] Council Member Edward: I think some of the things that impressed me about the outcome, the results of what we're dealing with... um I think the um whole engagement with our community was really well done as and we've already discussed how many different open houses, how many presentations, how much to the point where we didn't have that that many folks at the planning commission. um count them on a couple hands and they were mixed positive. So it's like the outreach and the listening that was done was really good and effective. A an outcome of that is that our future variance work is going to be substantially reduced because of the way consultants and staff got on the ground looked at what's really here and how do we... and so redefining some of the zoning districts based on what's there and what's normal... [2:14:02] Council Member Edward: because one of the things that was of great concern to me... and mayor I appreciate you naming me to the committee... I wanted to make sure that our neighborhoods were minimally affected. Um, and I believe that that outcome has been achieved in a satisfactory way. Um, in a community of 26,000, I'm pretty sure nothing will be of universal appreciation or acceptance. But um uh I was convinced that our neighborhoods are mostly um not directly affected by many of these items. So the folks who've lived here, invested here, built lives, fostered lives here are not um are being fully valued for their historic participation. that was important to me and I have not seen anything that in the proposals that drive me to a different direction. [2:15:05] Council Member Edward: So, um I also want to note that having had two of those major conflrations in our in our community development in at key intersections that caused very large turnouts of very unhappy people... things like increasing the notification requirements and the moving toward greater transparency, greater notification, greater um awareness of how to engage and when to engage... That also is a really important thing to me and I suspect to others as well. Uh and so um I very much have just plain appreciated the work. So thank you. [2:16:03] Mayor: Very good. Any final comments? Well, I think we got a little spade work ahead of us in a couple weeks, but we're in pretty good shape. So, does staff need any clarification or anything additional from us? [2:16:15] Jason Lindall: Mayor, members of the council, the only thing I would like to clarify is there the only consensus about a change that you'd like in the code is related to the ownership requirement for accessory dwelling units? Is that correct? [2:16:28] Mayor: And the notice. Yeah. And I I think it's safe to say and the notice related to days. I mean, I know there's there'll be some write that we didn't notice that, but that's kind of the marching order. Go through it and if it's notice in the interest of um public engagement, we want we want to maximize that that time to business days as well as implementing the planning commission's recommendation for ADU ownership. I think that's another consensus. Yeah? He said that the owner occupancy. [2:16:54] Jason Lindall: Sorry. You said short term. Nope. Yep. Okay. [2:16:56] Mayor: So, a couple outstanding issues, but overall, I think we're in good shape. Okay. We have a council member that's not here, so I don't know. Maybe he's going to totally upset the apple cart, but we'll see. Um, all right. Okay. Thank you all again. Appreciate it. All right. Item nine, discussion. Nothing scheduled. Item 10, communications from the city manager, Miss Crawford. [2:17:19] Lindy Crawford: Thank you, uh, mayor members of the council. Um, council members Edberg and West and I attended um the League of Minnesota Cities conference. Was that last week? A couple weeks a couple weeks ago already um in Duluth. It was a great conference. Um wrote about it in our weekly update to you guys recently. But there was a lot of really good information and takeaways and some things that I think that you know I would like to implement among when there's time and and appropriate staffing levels. But so it was it was a good conference. [2:18:00] Lindy Crawford: Um, in this folder is the purchase agreement for 2230 County Road E... um that is that red house next to the South Fire Station. So I had previously reported that um verbally our offer was accepted. So we do have an executed purchase agreement for that property. Just letting the council know um that that is done now in full transparency. Um, Marketfest is of course again this week and that is school spirit week I think this week and next week is public health and safety night. Um, and then of course we had a fantastic fireworks show on the 4th of July um out on the lake this year. [2:18:40] Lindy Crawford: There were two additional barges added um for fireworks and it was a great show. I just can't thank the fireworks committee enough for all the work that they do and and our staff that um doesn't load the barge but gets it out there and brings it back and take care takes care of all the trash and all all of the things that that our staff does in public safety. So, thank you to everybody. Um and that wrapped up Manito Days. So, another successful Manito season um under our belt... or the community's belt really. Thank you. That's all I have. [2:19:08] Mayor: Very good. Well said. Thank you. I didn't... go ahead. [2:19:15] Council Member West: Sorry to interrupt you a bit. No. On the new business, were we not supposed to have a public meeting? I don't know if you opened it up to the public that was here to talk. [2:19:22] Mayor: The first reading isn't public meeting. No. The public hearing was at the planning commission meeting. Yeah. I thought our first reading we had a... not for zoning. Okay. Thank you. Good clarifying question. We don't want to miss public hearings and we didn't. But good double check. I was just going to say I I saw the fireworks display this year, last couple years. Um, and it was it was great. So, I know that there's a lot of staff that are working on that holiday and aren't with their families. Um, so we appreciate that and it it doesn't go unnoticed. So, thank you. And the fireworks committee who mostly funds that. Um, yeah, it was a good Independence Day. All right. Any other questions for Miss Crawford? Comments? All right. With that, I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. [2:20:10] Various Speakers: Second. [2:20:11] Mayor: All those in favor say I. We're adjourned. Thank you.