This transcript appears to be from a **White Bear Lake City Council** meeting. I have identified the speakers based on the context of the dialogue, the names called out by the Mayor, and the specific roles (Staff, Applicant, Attorney) mentioned in the text. [00:00:00] **Mayor:** Amending the CUP [Conditional Use Permit]. Uh, I have a motion. Do I have a second? [00:00:05] **Councilmember:** Second. [00:00:06] **Mayor:** The motion has a second. Any further discussion? [00:00:08] **Councilmember:** So, Mr. Mayor, thank you. I’ll say what others have said. When I heard this coming our way, my first thought was, "Oh, I thought they’re going to do that later. I thought they were going to keep it at South Campus and not move it." That was my first reaction, which I think a lot of people in the community had—the same first reaction. But I do also have in the back of my head, and I don’t know if it was—I don’t think I went to any of the Town meetings, but we got some briefings as this went through the first time—for now, it was always "for now." It was going to be at South Campus. It didn’t surprise me that it was moving to North Campus; it surprised me it was moving already. I asked a few questions and found out, okay, they were able to acquire some more houses, able to make it work now. All right, earlier than I thought, but always in the back of my head, it was sort of "for now." The second thing I thought when I heard this was coming our way was, "Oh, good, we can update the traffic study," because the traffic study we did for this original project was done during COVID, and I never really felt confident. I know they did the best they could, you know, but nobody was driving around when we were trying to do a traffic study to figure out how many people were going to be driving. I live on Bald Eagle Avenue. The traffic is going to affect my house—not nearly, I'm a little bit, you know, South—but people are going to leave school and go all the way down my house on their way out to 96. It’s already kind of a feeder, and so it will affect me. But I’m glad we updated the traffic study. I’m glad we have better data. I think I’ve spent some time in it; it looks like we have better data. So, I’m supportive. I’m kind of in the camp where, you know, it’s four nights a year. I’m in the camp of it’s a cool place to live, and it’s going to be an amenity and a benefit. It’s going to be a benefit to downtown; it’s going to be a benefit to the neighborhood. I’m assured by the discussion we just had about all the different things we can do from a strategic perspective to allay parking concerns. We will be very responsive, and I know the school district will be too. As we always say, change is hard, sounds bad, let's get it done, let's get it in, see what it’s like, and then we can adjust as we go. It’s never as bad as people think. I hope that’s the case here, and we’ll be ready to react if we need to. [00:02:45] **Mayor:** Councilmember Hughes. [00:02:47] **Councilmember Hughes:** I’m just wondering if it is worth putting at least the no-parking areas into this part now, since those were necessary at the site at South anyway, so that we can start off with that without having the city or residents have to come back in here and ask for what South already has. [00:03:05] **Councilmember:** I think to provide that—sorry—I think we have the language in there for one of the restrictions. I think the staff can correct me if I’m wrong; it gives us broad discretion that the school district is going to work with the city to figure out where those areas are needed to have no-parking signs. So, I mean, we could flesh it out more, but I think the language probably covers us to alleviate potential concerns down the road. Part of what I want to do is just make clear to everybody else that that’s also there. [00:03:35] **City Staff (Mr. Kelpie):** Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, what is currently called for is, again, the parking restrictions to be maintained on Division, a key ingress and egress out of the campus. To add that, to work with the county to get the no-parking added to Bald Eagle on the east side. The conditions allow it to be open-ended for the—I’ll call it the neighborhood permit parking area. We don’t know what that’s going to be yet. Some of this makes more sense to wait until... you know, right now we have crazy traffic on Bald Eagle because they’re working on the east side of the campus. Once everything is complete and done, we will know better how traffic flows and moves around the campus. If parking... you know, there’s many more parking spots on the new campus than there were at South Campus currently. So let’s wait and see what the issues are, how far we have to go out adding signs or working through that neighborhood process. It may be more of a reactive thing to see how things go once everything is in place. Today we don’t know what that looks like. All the high school kids aren’t there. We don’t know who’s parking where, how quickly people are getting out, or how easy it is to park in the parking lot. So initially, from a safety standpoint, just adding the Bald Eagle no-parking is what we’re anticipating. [00:04:55] **Councilmember Hughes:** Okay. My concern is simply that people shouldn't have to ask 15 times to be able to get in their driveway. I guess I have one follow-up to that in terms of timing. You know, we’re doing a lot of this that requires road work, and you know that’s the greatest season around here. I realized that this is all tied up in the CUP, but is there a chance that a stadium event—a large stadium event—will take place without any of these other requirements in place? [00:05:25] **City Staff (Jason Lindahl):** Mayor, members of the Council, the way the condition is written is it’s tied to the certificate of occupancy for the expansion of the bleachers. It says that the road improvements need to be completed to the satisfaction of the city engineer prior to them getting a certificate of occupancy for the expanded bleachers. So, the 1,500 bleachers as they are right now—events that were planned associated with that size and scale—are approved under the current approvals. But we did specifically tie the completion of the road improvements to the granting of a CO to be able to use the expanded bleachers. [00:06:05] **Councilmember Hughes:** Okay, thank you. [00:06:07] **Councilmember Jones:** So, for the reasons I kind of stated... but there are reasons. The stadium currently has already been scheduled with an estimated 30-plus games, albeit with lighter traffic, but with light and sound. We’re adding maybe five events, six if you’re really lucky. There are more parking spots—six exits versus one is a big one for me. As you pull out of South Campus, you really only have one direction to go; you go north. Maybe people are savvy enough to go south to go back north. I sit there at that intersection at County Road E, and anybody who lives anywhere near me knows it’s "tangle town" for a good portion of time. I do have a belief in the city and the district staff that they will work together. I’m comparing an average football game to what’s happening twice every single day with traffic. As Councilmembers, at best we’re hoping it's good to begin with; we’re not going to be able to predict that. As Mr. Kelpie said, there’s going to be struggles, problems, and issues. I don’t think four events a year is going to make that tipping point. I’m not going to push an amendment to the CUP to be respectful for other events. I don’t see the benefit. You know, we’re asking to come back into this neighborhood that has not had a lighted stadium with speakers in it for 35 years. I think that’s fair to limit that. But if you want to talk ice arena with this purchase, give me a call. Yeah, I know I went there. But I think there’s a lot of reasons that are good reasons. Mr. Mayor, thank you for your time. [00:07:45] **Mayor:** Councilmember Edberg. [00:07:46] **Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to support the resolution. I’ve asked my questions because I wanted to be clear that the expansion met the terms and conditions required for CUP amendments. I’m convinced that they are. Having done that, an important issue for me is showing deference and respect for the action of other elected bodies. The school district is governed by individuals elected by the public, and if there are people who believe that they were misinformed, misled, or that their judgment has been impaired, that’s an issue for them to settle at the ballot box. That’s an accountability built into our system. I would be very hesitant about this elected body taking over the work and the judgment that’s entitled to a different body. I think we’ve kept our conversations to our appropriate area of jurisdiction. I’m satisfied with that, so I’m going to vote in support of the resolution. [00:08:40] **Mayor:** Councilmember Hughes. [00:08:41] **Councilmember Hughes:** I actually want to say very similar things. I don’t think my role here is to go back and re-vote the bond. To not support the stadium in some form really doesn't seem like it’s my job. Having said that, it is my job to represent the people of Ward 2 and anybody who’s having a traffic problem because of this. That’s why it is important to me to make sure that we are trying to mitigate those problems all along. We spent, I don’t know how long—six weeks ago—talking about an apartment building of 15 spots where we had eight people that might possibly be at a Christmas party on the other side of Bel Air, where this is 170 people parking in the neighborhood. It is a big deal. It does deserve our time and attention. I just want to make sure people know I think the city is always very responsive. I did ask the question: "How many people have complained so far about traffic coming in and out of the high school?" It’s less than the amount on one hand that has addressed those problems with the city. So, if you have any, please bring them up because I know that you guys have been working on it. There’s a traffic committee there that also works on it. We can’t fix what we don’t know about. I want to make sure that we’re finding solutions for all of that, but I think that I can’t not [support it], so I’ll be supporting the resolution, I guess. [00:10:00] **Mayor:** All right. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion for approving the resolution to amend the school district’s conditional use permit? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. [00:10:11] **Councilmembers:** Aye. [00:10:12] **Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. [00:10:14] **Councilmember:** Mr. Mayor, I abstain due to being an employee of this district. [00:10:17] **Mayor:** And one abstention. So the motion carries, the resolution passes. Go Bears! Thank you. All right, we’ll jump into Item 8B: Variance request for the monument sign for the McNeely Music Center. Mr. Lindahl, whenever you’re ready. I'll wait a few moments for the room to clear if you'd like. Otherwise, I can just jump right in. [00:10:40] **Jason Lindahl (Planning):** Jump in. As you mentioned, the application before you is a request on behalf of the McNeely Music Center site for a ground sign variance for their redevelopment site at 4910 Highway 61. This application included a public hearing at the Planning Commission that produced no comments but conversation from the applicant and the Planning Commission. Ultimately, the Planning Commission followed suit with the staff's recommendation for denial of this variance. To give you some quick background: the proposal is to reorient their sign to be perpendicular rather than parallel to Highway 61 to increase its visibility. The proposal is for a three-inch setback, whereas the current two-foot setback was approved through a previous variance. Some of the conversation looked at other signs along Highway 61. As you can see, there are some closer setbacks to the north, but in the context of a significantly different right-of-way size. We look at each one of the variance criteria detailed in state statute. It really comes down to whether or not there’s reasonable use of the property. They certainly have a previous variance that gets them a sign down to two feet from the ten-foot standard. The unique circumstances aren't created by the landowner, but in this case, the conditions result from the applicant's chosen design. We don't make a recommendation for denial lightly, but given the request is down to three inches, and they already had a setback down to two feet, we just didn't see a practical difficulty that allowed for our recommendation other than denial. I’ll stand for questions. [00:12:45] **Mayor:** At this time I would hear from the applicants if anyone wants to speak to this issue. [00:12:50] **Sean Higgins (Applicant):** Mayor, City Council, my name is Sean Higgins. I am the project manager with MSR Design representing the owner. The site is being developed into a Music Center. Our goal is to have a very community-oriented place, especially for kids who lack access to high-quality music education. The new variance is differentiated by inches from the previous one. This is really just more about public safety. We want the sign to face traffic on 61 to make it easier for folks coming up and down the road to see it, rather than having it parallel. We think the practical difficulty of having a sign that affects public safety is a good reason to approve a variance. I’m also joined by the client’s attorney. [00:13:45] **Brian Bell (Attorney):** My name is Brian Bell, outside counsel for the Manitou Fund. The shape of the lot necessitated the original variances, and those are driving the need for this one. It’s an extension of the awkward shape of the lot. Your ordinance provides that a variance may be granted to alleviate practical difficulties caused by lot shapes. Also, there's a dramatic distance between where the sign will be and where the actual right-of-way road is. It’s still 31 feet from the actual road. For these reasons, we ask that you approve the variance. [00:15:00] **Mayor:** First off, I’m excited to see the McNeely Music Center. I think it’s going to be a great asset to the community. Having said that, to me, the notion of a sign that needs to be 21 inches closer, otherwise it creates a "practical difficulty," is just a level that I can’t get to. I’m basing that on the advice of City staff. Council, what would we like to do? [00:15:30] **Councilmember Hughes:** Mr. Mayor, I think I’m confused by this. Is this the proposed sign in that color photo? [00:15:38] **Sean Higgins:** Yes, in our requested orientation. [00:15:40] **Councilmember Hughes:** Why don't you just put it closer to your building rather than closer to the street? This picture makes it look like you can put three wheelchairs through there. [00:15:50] **Sean Higgins:** To push the sign further towards the building... right now what we have in front of the building is a driveway. We actually expanded the existing drive so that Emergency Equipment can get in safely. Moving any closer to the building would put it into the drive. [00:16:15] **Councilmember Jones:** I’m going to respectfully disagree with staff. If I’m driving up Highway 61, I’m looking at the Express Lane sign from Ace Hardware—it's unbelievably large and close. I voted to support that. This just seems like the horse is already out of the barn in this area. It’s a lovely looking sign. I want to give this center the best opportunity they have. I don't see this setting a precedent because other things have already happened in the neighborhood. I’m actually going to be against the denial. [00:17:30] **Mayor:** I’d like to have our City Attorney weigh in. What discretion does this body have? [00:17:40] **City Attorney:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Council does have discretion, but you are limited by the statute. You cannot grant the variance unless you truly find that "practical difficulties" exist. This means the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. It doesn’t compel you to grant it just because a neighbor has one, but it is a consideration. If you are inclined to grant it, I would ask the Council to pass a motion directing staff to prepare a resolution for approval with proper findings of fact to be brought back at the next meeting. [00:19:30] **Mayor:** Is anyone willing to move the resolution denying the application for a variance? [00:19:35] **Councilmember:** So moved. [00:19:36] **Mayor:** Do I have a second? [Silence] The motion fails for lack of a second. I’d entertain a motion to direct staff to bring back a resolution approving this with findings of fact. [00:19:50] **Councilmember:** So moved. [00:19:51] **Councilmember:** Second. [00:19:52] **Mayor:** All those in favor say aye. [00:19:54] **Councilmembers:** Aye. [00:19:55] **Mayor:** Motion carries. This will come back at the next meeting. All right, the last item, Item 9A: Concept plan review for 2687 County Road D. Mr. Lindahl. [00:20:10] **Jason Lindahl (Planning):** This concept is for a 12-unit nursing home facility. The Planning Commission was generally supportive. It would require rezoning from B2 to RB (Residential Business). The applicant is proposing a setback of just over 10 feet where 30 feet is required. We are looking for general feedback from the Council. [00:21:30] **Mayor:** Is the developer here? [00:21:35] **Brian Wingis (Developer):** Mayor, Council, my name is Brian Wingis. This will be named Digna Suites. We’re trying to create a smaller model for memory care that fits into neighborhoods. It’s a difficult site to develop. It’s a low-impact, low-traffic model. We over-landscape these things aggressively. I got nothing but positive feelings from the neighbors. [00:22:50] **Mayor:** This all just makes sense. I have no objections. Keep moving forward. Council? [00:23:00] **Councilmember Edberg:** I attended the public meeting. It’s a one-story building on a difficult site. I see no reason not to encourage it. [00:23:15] **Councilmember Walsh:** Perfect use of a hard-to-develop site. [00:23:18] **Councilmember Angstrand:** I agree. Just make sure next time you know where the sign is going to go! [00:23:25] **Councilmember Jones:** Any storm water concerns? [00:23:28] **Brian Wingis:** We'll do retention underneath with cisterns. We've worked with watersheds before. [00:23:45] **Mayor:** We like the idea. Look forward to seeing the project develop. Item 10: Communication from the City Manager. Miss Crawford? [00:23:55] **Miss Crawford (City Manager):** No communications tonight, Mayor. [00:23:58] **Mayor:** Wonderful. I’d entertain a motion to adjourn. [00:24:00] **Councilmember:** So moved. [00:24:01] **Councilmember:** Second. [00:24:02] **Mayor:** All in favor say aye. We are adjourned. Thank you.