Based on the context provided and the roles within the Hermantown city government and Planning Commission, here is the formatted transcript with speaker names assigned. **Note on Roles:** While Joe Peterson is listed as a City Councilor, he often serves as the Chair of the Planning Commission. Eric Johnson (Community Development Director) provides the staff reports. John Geissler is the City Council liaison to the Commission. *** **[0:01] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Good evening everybody, we would like to welcome you to the Planning Commission meeting for the city of Hermantown. It's November 21st, 2023, it's currently 7:05 in the evening. We'd like to start the meeting this evening with a roll call of members. We've got myself—Cory Kist is not here, Valerie Orlette? **[0:22] Valerie Orlette:** Here. **[0:24] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Beth Wofford? Not here. Buckley Simmons? **[0:27] Buckley Simmons:** [Present/Here] **[0:28] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Dante Tomason is not here. And Councilor Geissler? **[0:32] John Geissler:** Present. **[0:33] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you sir. Second up, can I get a motion to approve this evening's agenda please? **[0:39] Buckley Simmons:** [Motion] **[0:40] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. Can I get a second? **[0:42] Valerie Orlette:** Orlette, second. **[0:43] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. All in favor? Aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Motion passes. Third up this evening is the approval of the minutes from the October 17, 2023 regular meeting. Can I get a motion on that please? **[1:01] Valerie Orlette:** Orlette, move it. **[1:03] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. Can I get a second? **[1:04] Buckley Simmons:** [Second] **[1:05] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you. All in favor? Aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Motion passes. Number four is an open public discussion. Is anybody here this evening to speak on something that's not on this evening's agenda? If you are, this is the time to do so. Not seeing any, we'll move on to number five which is this evening's first public hearing. 5A is an application by Rainy Day Funding LLC for a subdivision to create 136-foot wide parcel of half an acre and a 1.88 acre lot assessed by the way of a flag lot of 30 foot in width at 5154 West Arrowhead Road. The property is located in an R3 zoning. Eric, what do you have for us on this one? **[1:33] Eric Johnson:** Great, thank you. If you recall, this item was tabled from the October meeting. There were some questions to the applicant regarding their ability to shift this lot from essentially the flag lot access from the eastern part of the property over to the western part of the property. There was concern from an adjacent property owner that there was a hand-dug well that was in close proximity to that property line and they were worried that potential driveway or utility work may affect that. Staff did reach out to the applicant to inquire about this ability to essentially mirror the property—for lack of better words—they were able to do that. They have now shifted that flag lot access, basically the driveway portion, over to the western portion of the property. So the what's known as Parcel A, which is essentially the parent lot, now directly abuts the property to the east—that's the one having that potentially hand-dug well near the property line that way. So that is basically what has changed between the October and the November meeting at that point. **[2:19] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Perfect. Thank you very much, Eric. Commission members, any questions for Eric or comment on this so far? **[2:25] Valerie Orlette:** No comment. Basically everything's the same, it's just shifted over. **[2:31] Eric Johnson:** It's shifted over. There is a little bit of change as far as some of the dimensions like lengths and such, but they still meet all of our minimum requirements. **[2:40] Valerie Orlette:** That dug well on the other side? **[2:42] Eric Johnson:** That is correct. **[2:44] Valerie Orlette:** So the dug well is away from the potential driveway? **[2:46] Eric Johnson:** That's correct. **[2:48] Valerie Orlette:** Thank you. **[2:50] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Perfect for that. Not hearing any other questions or comments from the commission members, we'll open up the floor for a public hearing at 7:08. If anybody would like to come on up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record, that would be wonderful. Come on up, sir. **[3:15] Mark [Resident]:** Yeah, just give us an over—you know, a brief overview of whatever you want to talk about this evening. We did hear a lot of testimony last time... 50 feet beyond that back of the first lot, it's about parallel with that, and it's also in line with some ledge rock that's sticking out. So I think when the construction of the second structure goes in place, I'm going to have a potential damage or whatever. I guess I'm concerned about the well with the second one. I'm not against a first house or anything, but the second one concerns me. Do we know what's going to be constructed? **[4:21] Joe Peterson (Chair):** No sir, we're just looking at splitting the lot this evening. **[4:25] Mark [Resident]:** I mean, so the builder that comes in, he can do whatever they want then, or basically place the house where they want? **[4:30] Eric Johnson:** No, you have to meet the minimum setbacks associated with the R3 zoning, which this is. It's a 50-foot front yard setback, a 40-foot rear yard setback, a minimum of 10 feet in the side yard with a total aggregate of 25. So essentially you'd have 10 on one side and 15 on the other, or 12 and a half and 12 and a half—whatever you kind of choose that way. **[4:55] Mark [Resident]:** Okay, but as long as they meet those, that's the building envelope that they can work within? **[5:02] Eric Johnson:** Correct. **[5:03] Mark [Resident]:** Okay, so technically they could be within 10 feet of my well, which is still on the property line? **[5:10] Eric Johnson:** Potentially, yes sir. **[5:12] Mark [Resident]:** Okay, that's my concern. That's why I'm against the second parcel or the back lot. And has anybody actually voted in favor of this? Has anybody besides you know, come and spoke in favor of this split? **[5:30] Joe Peterson (Chair):** This is the first time that it's on the agenda this evening. Last month we decided to table it and ask the developer to flip it. And we were just talking about that with another person—that unfortunately for any type of application, you generally don't hear the people that are for things. They come to talk... it's not reflective about this one in particular, but that's just kind of an observation of projects in general. **[6:04] Mark [Resident]:** Okay, that's what I was kind of getting at. If there's a lot of people against it, why would we push it forward? **[6:10] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Basically what this looks at is: Does this meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance? **[6:16] Eric Johnson:** Yes, it does. The fact that both lots—both Parcel A as well as the Parcel B, which is the flag lot—that's what staff looks at. Do these meet the minimum requirements per zoning ordinance? We look at the setbacks, we look at the lot size, we look at the lot width, and in each case, if it meets those things, it meets the ordinance. **[6:40] Mark [Resident]:** Correct. Okay, so then the developer can actually come in and do actually whatever they want? **[6:48] Joe Peterson (Chair):** It's made for a single-family home and you work within those setbacks. **[6:52] Mark [Resident]:** Okay, so when you say single-family, just single-family, not a single-family next to another single-family like a townhouse type? **[6:59] Eric Johnson:** Nope. Each parcel—Parcel A will have one single-family home, Parcel B, one single-family home. **[7:03] Mark [Resident]:** Okay, all right. **[7:04] John Geissler:** The other thing, Mark, is that even if this flag lot didn't happen and they sold the lot as one lot, they could put that house wherever they wanted on that, and it could be within the 10 feet of your well anyway. **[7:18] Mark [Resident]:** Boy, I realized that. Yeah, and when the neighbors—the original neighbors—had their place after the airplane went through it, they were talking about rebuilding and they were going to move their house back, and I had no problem with that. Now with the developer coming in, I just can't see two houses. You know, I would never want a house where I looked at somebody's backyard or whatever. So I guess I'm just against it that way. But I do appreciate the mirror. **[7:48] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Perfect. Thank you very much, sir. Would anybody else like to come up and speak on this this evening? If you would, please come on up, state your name and address for the record. **[8:12] Mary Murphy:** I'm Mary Murphy and I oppose flag lots. And I'm going to be requesting information on the ordinance and the future of flag lots—for not just the Jackson project, which mostly concerns me, but all of Hermantown. I don't think that flag lots treat the people that live in the neighborhoods with as much respect as the people that already live here deserve. And green space is needed all over Hermantown—lots of green space. Thank you. **[9:18] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much. Would anybody else like to come up and speak on this matter this evening? If you would, now is the time. (To someone in the crowd) Well yours is next, but if you want to speak to this you may. Last call? Perfect. Is anybody online like to speak on 5A this evening? Joe, I don't hear anybody, do you? **[10:00] Joe Wicklund:** No. **[10:02] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay, perfect. We'll close the public hearing at 7:14 for 5A. Commission members, any other questions or comments on 5A this evening? I think, you know, we have created a number of flag lots throughout the city; it's become kind of the standard and as long as it fits all of the requirements I see no problems with it. My question would be, Eric, in the event the developer sells this property and the buyer decides to buy both pieces, we don't reverse a flag lot? They can just rebuild wherever they want or is there that possibility? **[10:48] Eric Johnson:** If a person were to buy both lots and essentially recombine those—which they can do directly through the county—given the width of this property which I believe is 166 feet of frontage, that does meet the minimum lot size/width for a twin home. So in theory, if someone bought both Parcels A and B and wanted to build a twin home they could—they would have to come to the board again. They could put it wherever they wanted on that property or place a single-family home anywhere within those setback areas. **[11:15] Joe Peterson (Chair):** That's correct. And all conditions have been met by the applicant to meet the flag lot? **[11:19] Eric Johnson:** Exactly, the dimensional things. Now the next step would be, assuming this is approved by the board, would be for the building permit process, and once again upon that we'd verify that all those setbacks are met. **[11:34] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you. Any other questions or comments this evening on 5A? **[11:38] John Geissler:** Mr. Chair, maybe you want to just explain to the audience about the number of commission members tonight. **[11:42] Joe Peterson (Chair):** This evening we've got three commission members and one city councilor, so we have enough people for a quorum, so it'll be a passing vote this evening or a non-passing vote this evening. **[11:55] Valerie Orlette:** And I just have one clarification to ask of Eric. I think you've said it: This does meet all the current zoning ordinances. And do you remember when we put the flag lot into—made them [legal]? **[12:08] Eric Johnson:** I believe it was 2017 when we changed that ordinance to allow for flag lots. Actually, it was 2016. **[12:15] Valerie Orlette:** Okay, so since 2016 we've been doing this. **[12:18] Eric Johnson:** Yeah, and I probably would guess that we tend to do two to three flag lots a year. **[12:22] Joe Peterson (Chair):** I was going to say, I think we've had more than that this year. Once again, any other comments or questions this evening on 5A? Not hearing any, I'll look for a motion on 5A, please. **[12:57] Mary Murphy:** (From the crowd) Oh, hi. **[13:00] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Mary? **[13:03] Eric Johnson:** I don't believe so. None have, because once again it falls into a dimensional [requirement]. If you meet the minimum requirements of the minimum dimensional standards, it meets the ordinance. **[13:20] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. Commission members, I look for a motion on 5A this evening. **[13:25] Valerie Orlette:** I'd move to approve item 5A. **[13:28] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. Can I get a second? **[13:30] Buckley Simmons:** Simmons with a second. **[13:32] Joe Peterson (Chair):** All in favor? Aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Motion passes. Thank you very much. 5B this evening is an application by Robert Struck for a subdivision to create a 1,031-foot wide parcel of 13.72 acres and a flag lot of 6.04 acres with a pole portion of 193-foot width at 5661 St Louis River Road. The property is located in an S1 zoning district. Eric, what do you have for us on this one? **[14:08] Eric Johnson:** Great, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. This is kind of the opposite end of the spectrum for a flag lot from the one that we just previously heard. This [previous one] was an approximately 2.5-acre lot that was being subdivided. In this case, this is a 20-acre lot that is being subdivided. In the nature of this particular property, as I mentioned, it's a 20-acre lot. Given the location of the existing home as well as the presence of the Midway River, the applicant has chosen to look at a flag lot split associated with this. So what they're proposing to do is the existing "parent lot" will be 12.7 acres with dimensions of approximately 1,030 feet—excuse me, 1,030 feet by 970. And then the newly created flag lot of 5 acres will have the pole portions we've talked about before, which would contain the driveway. That's approximately 193 feet by 300, with the actual building area being 480 by 547. What we require is that the flag portion needs to meet the minimum requirements associated with the zoning district, and in this case, both of these created lots do meet our minimum requirements. As I said, this is just a little bit different as it's a 20-acre property. Once again, the rationale for the flag lot on this one was given the location of the Midway River; the site is more trapezoidal in shape—it's not a true rectangle or square—so you have to look at things a little bit differently from a dimensional standpoint to make it work. **[16:03] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that, Eric. Commission members, any questions or comments on 5B so far? **[16:11] John Geissler:** Mr. Chair, my hearing is not as good as it used to be, but I think I heard you say 5 acres for that second [lot]? **[16:18] Eric Johnson:** The flag portion is 5 acres, the whole portion is—no, it's 6.04. My eyes aren't as good as these... you're correct, 6.04 and 12.71. Thank you for those clarifications. **[16:30] Joe Peterson (Chair):** It's a wide flag pole. **[16:33] Eric Johnson:** Yes. **[17:01] Joe Peterson (Chair):** We'll open up the floor for a public hearing at 7:21 p.m. If anybody would like to come up and speak on 5B this evening, now is the time. Please state your name and address for the record. Come on up, sir. **[17:13] Robert Struck:** Welcome this evening. I am applying for the flag lot. I didn't realize I didn't have enough frontage, hence the reasoning for the flag lot to get back enough to secure the five acres possibly to build, and that's why I applied. **[17:34] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Sure. Any questions or comments for this gentleman? **[17:38] Valerie Orlette:** No, it seems to fit all of our specifications. **[17:40] Robert Struck:** Thank you. **[17:42] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you. Would anybody else like to come up and speak on 5B this evening? Not hearing any, I'm going to close the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. Commission members, once again, any questions or comments on 5B? It's a flag lot like we haven't seen yet, where it's really big. **[18:22] Buckley Simmons:** I don't have any either. **[18:24] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay, not hearing any questions or comments, I'd like to look for a motion on 5B please. **[18:29] Buckley Simmons:** Simmons with a motion for 5B as stated. **[18:32] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. Can I get a second? **[18:34] Valerie Orlette:** I can second, Orlette. **[18:35] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. All in favor? Aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Motion passes. Moving on to 5C: Zoning ordinance text amendments by the city of Hermantown amending Chapter 5, Land Use Regulations, by creating Section 590, the Hermantown Business Park. Eric, what do you have for us on this one? **[18:49] Eric Johnson:** This also was a continuation from the prior meeting. There were some questions at least from this board wanting to have a chance to delve a little deeper into what staff is proposing as language associated with that zoning district. And then last week we did receive a request to actually have access to the City's website which talks about the Hermantown Business Park. Obviously tonight's a little bit different as the fact that we only have four members here this evening, and a couple of the members who are missing unfortunately were some of the ones that had some of the most questions. Obviously, we can still have a discussion tonight and a vote if that's the mood of the board, or obviously a continuation as well if need be. So, given that, as we had mentioned, the City has been working on what's called an Alternative Urban Wide Area Review (AUAR) document for 120 acres associated with land at Highway 53 and Loberg Bypass. This is land that is a former Superfund site associated with that 26 acres hard on that corner, and there's other essentially green fields or land that's lightly developed that moves a little bit further up Highway 53. The City has been working with those property owners on this document for about a year's time. The AUAR is actually coming to City Council on December 4th for their final acceptance. It has gone through all the environmental review and comment periods associated with it. The only comment that we received back was that any future development keeps the snowmobile trail corridor in place—there's basically that corridor that runs along the power poles, basically bisecting that site running north-south, and that was the only comment that we received. So the next step was to create this new Hermantown Business Park zoning district. What it does is envisions more of a melding between the business/light manufacturing (BLM), the C-Commercial, as well as elements from the Hermantown Marketplace. So what we're looking at is a little bit higher standards than you would potentially see in the regular BLM or C zoning districts. Similar once again to where the Hermantown Marketplace played—Hermantown Marketplace was essentially a C-Commercial zoning, but it added some different requirements as far as allowed uses in there, some architectural standards, site planning standards, etc. So what this Business Park is envisioning, once again, is some different obviously minimum lot sizes, looking at some particular uses. One thing that is excluded from this Hermantown Business Park is mini-storage; that's something that we allow in the C1 and the BLM zoning districts. We're looking at more of a higher and better use for this Hermantown Business Park, so that type of use is not allowed. I believe last time there were some questions associated with the size of restaurants potentially that could happen in there; I believe that the ordinance the way it's written right now is 2,500 square feet. I think there was maybe some concern that that maybe should be larger. Once again, that was a question from one of the members. So those are obviously things that can still change with the ordinance if that's more of a recommendation from this board. Once again, the vision for this Business Park is more potentially large-scale warehousing, some potential light commercial uses associated with it, office showroom type of uses—that sort of thing. A portion of this 120 acres is within the airport zoning district, so we have to be cognizant of minimum lot sizes associated with that as well as what the particular use is, because in the Zone 2 airport zoning, they cap basically building occupancy at 20 people per acre. So once again, as applications come in as this project develops in the future, staff will be cognizant of those things. So right now, I said this is gone through quite a bit as far as the environmental, and once again this is kind of the next step: identifying, at least creating this Business Park zoning district, and then at that point staff will continue to work with the existing property owners on what makes sense from their standpoint—how much of their land they'd like to see within this Business Park area. These once again, some of the existing uses, particularly on that western property as you move up Highway 53, do already include mini-storage and warehousing, so they may decide that it doesn't make sense for them to be part of that Business Park but rather continue as they are in that C1 zoning. **[24:14] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Eric, I have a question. Do you see this overlay or this new zoning district being a collaboration between the City and the landholder to actually physically construct it, or this being something that would be totally on the landholder there? **[24:34] Eric Johnson:** As far as development of the property, it's primarily—there have been some discussions right now. The land is lacking infrastructure; the sanitary sewer would need to be extended across Highway 53. The City Engineer has done a feasibility study associated with that and it's a very large number for that to happen. We have shared that with the property owner and so they realize that in order for the City at least to partake in that, there would have to be a user that reflects that type of need, and they're once again aware of that. There's been discussions about the interior roadway system associated with this: Is there availability of City construction with assessment back to properties? That might be an option. Right now we haven't gone down that road far enough because no users have really come forward to even have those conversations at this point. **[25:35] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Gotcha. I was just kind of envisioning the Airpark—when I was younger the Airpark didn't have anything in it in Duluth, we used to go there and fly model rockets, you know, but all the infrastructure was put in with that 30-40 year vision. I just didn't know if there was something with that kind of time frame on it so to speak here. **[26:02] Eric Johnson:** Yeah, right now if there were a couple of large users—and this is more conjecture—that there may be the opportunity to at least create some of that infrastructure, you know, particularly from the roadway standpoint. Obviously to get sewer across, that's a big leap that's going to cost a lot of money, but it's going to be more the interior extension of pipes, roadways, etc., and that's going to... there'll need to be a couple significant users on board before the City starts undertaking those things. And then once again, how was that done from an agreement standpoint, cost standpoint, etc. But right now I guess the big question you're asking is: Would the City go through, build roads, build utilities etc., and wait on it? No, I don't believe that's the nature of how we like to function. **[26:55] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Perfect. Thank you for that. Commission members, any other questions so far on 5C? **[27:03] Buckley Simmons:** Eric, I've got some questions and concerns. You had mentioned the "mood of the board" depending on whether we table this once again so we have time to discuss conversation and concerns with fellow board members. I would throw it open to consider that possibly we discuss tabling this for next meeting. **[27:21] Valerie Orlette:** We can make that motion here shortly. If that's something you want to look at also, Mr. Chairman, are we to have a public hearing on this? It looks like that is listed under public hearings. Do we need a—is that what we are supposed to have a public hearing on? **[27:43] Eric Johnson:** The Chair can call for a public hearing associated with these as well, yes. **[27:46] Valerie Orlette:** Okay, I just didn't know if we were required by ordinance to do that. Oh, I see. Sure. Yeah, I guess my—I'm pretty excited about this development, I think it'd be a great addition to the City and open up that space that's sitting dormant right now. What I've read looks very encouraging. But I guess I agree with Mr. Simmons that because Beth and Corey are not here, I guess we should give them the opportunity to voice any concerns before going forward on it. Unless there's some reason it's got to get pushed through. You know, Beth especially, because she had requested to get that document to look over before we move forward. So I guess I would agree that if we could table this until they had an opportunity to come and speak on it, that'd be my feeling. **[28:44] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay. Any other questions or comments so far on 5C? **[28:49] John Geissler:** I would support tabling it as well. **[28:54] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay, thank you for that. Should I move forward with a public hearing just because that's the normal protocol? (Pause) I just saw it listed on the agenda as a public hearing, right? I think typically when we table, we just go straight to table. I'm just thinking back to protocol: how we handle these things at City Council and tabling actions. There is not a public hearing past... actually, giving people a chance to talk wouldn't hurt. Exactly. So yeah, you can still call for a public hearing. We'll move forward with 5C, we're going to open up the floor for a public hearing on 5C this evening at 7:34. If anybody would like to come forward and speak on this matter, now is the time. Please coming up, state your name and address for the record. Not seeing anybody approaching the microphone, I'm going to close the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Commission members, once again, if you have anything else to say, now is the time. Otherwise, we'll look for a motion on 5C. **[30:06] Buckley Simmons:** Simmons with a motion to table 5C. **[30:08] Joe Peterson (Chair):** We have a motion to table 5C. Can we get a second? **[30:10] Valerie Orlette:** Orlette, second. **[30:11] Joe Peterson (Chair):** All in favor? Aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Motion passes. 5D this evening is a zoning ordinance text amendment by the city of Hermantown amending Chapter 5, Land Use Regulations, by updating Section 500 S1 Suburban to include "Agritainment" use as a special use. Eric, what do you have for us on this one? **[30:52] Eric Johnson:** Thank you. "Agritainment"—I'm not quite sure how much of that is truly a word or not—but that's a word that the City essentially has been using since 2018 up on the highway, because the City at that time had been approached by a user who was looking at a wedding barn, wedding facility, corn maze, different things like that. At that time Josh Bergstad, a member of the city staff, did quite a bit of research on essentially the idea of agritainment. So what we did in the C1 and the C1A zoning was allow for that idea of agritainment. It was very loosely defined what it was. Particularly, some of the requirements were a minimum lot size of 10 acres, it required a special use permit associated with it, and provided site plan and basically the ability to set some hours of operation. I mean there were fairly few number of things associated with it because, once again, this was something fairly new to the City and we just wanted to keep it essentially as open as possible. But because of the special use permit, we have the ability to put other restrictions or requirements on that. As this came forward with adding agritainment to the S1, staff discussed the best way to do this, also discussed this quite a bit with the City Attorney, and he recommended that we keep the same language from the C1—we just carry that over to the S1—but we add additional items within the special use permit section of the chapter to essentially give this a little bit more requirements associated with it. So there's going to be two things this evening: The first one is the S1 that adds agritainment to this zoning district and, as I said, it puts a minimum of 10 acres of size on the property, you have to have a provided site plan, the City has the ability to set hours of operation, and it requires the special use permit. The second item after this is the special use permit section where we get into a little bit more requirements—really a lot of those get into state building codes etc. that way. **[33:04] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that Eric. Commission members, any questions or comments so far on 5D this evening? Is this primarily for wedding barns? **[33:14] Eric Johnson:** That is what the applicant—and I believe the applicant is here this evening—wishes to do. It's... and I would actually welcome them to maybe once that time comes to explain it a little bit more, but that's primarily the use of it—is for wedding barns. **[33:30] Valerie Orlette:** And there was one just built west of the city limits a couple years back—I don't know what township that is, maybe Grand Lake? I've heard it's fairly successful. **[33:40] Eric Johnson:** Yeah, I know it's very successful. **[33:42] Valerie Orlette:** Anyway, any requirements for water and sewer? **[33:45] Eric Johnson:** Obviously, if they don't have city services, they'd have to provide on-site services. In that case, you'd work with St. Louis County for well and septic requirements. A lot of things that we are finding—and we'll get once again into the special use permit—were building code, fire inspections, things like that. The ability to sprinkle, life safety type of things. Those were... what we did is we looked into a lot of state requirements and the State Building Code recently changed. If you are in a non-code jurisdiction you could just do those types of things, but now they've said that any assembly type of building has to be... but I mean obviously in the city we're code jurisdiction. But yeah, there were a lot of these popping up in rural areas and becoming unsafe because of exiting and toilets and things. This is a conversion of existing structures that way. **[34:45] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that conversation so far. We're going to open up the floor at 7:39 for a public hearing on 5D. If anybody would like to come up and speak about agritainment, or educate us, or ask any questions, that would be wonderful. Come up please, state your name and address for the record. **[34:55] Matt Laveau:** My name is Matt Laveau. I live at 5650 Rose Road, Hermantown. Thank you. The property, I guess, that we're trying to build the wedding barn on is 4258 Midway Road—it's on the corner of Arrowhead. Some of you may be familiar: there is currently a large red barn that's there. And this wedding barn and event venue space kind of came to be because my mom is looking to pass this piece of property off to me and my siblings, and it is our hope to keep this in the family and not have that property subdivided, split up, or sold. Also Beth Winsa... Bill Winsa, they're relatives... and that is the Winsa farm. So it's our goal to create an experience, if you will, for people to come within the community—weddings, office parties, things of that nature. This is really our first step, our big hurdle to get this rezoned so we can start some of the other bigger items that need to be addressed. I've talked to Eric quite a bit, talked to Joe, so we know we have a list of things to do, but this is really our first step. I got a whole sheet here, but I think I can open it up to you guys for questions or I can just keep going. **[36:58] Joe Peterson (Chair):** This evening we're just looking at amending the text of the land use regulations. I mean, I don't need a full education on it, but I mean if you want to give us a short snapshot, that'd be great for usage. **[37:05] Matt Laveau:** Yeah, so I mean primarily the goal would be weddings, right? And then an event space. Where the property is now, we have roughly 19 acres. We would have a new build approximately in the center of the property. It's pretty open—it's just a field there right now, so not a lot of major landscaping endeavors there. We would have some paths through the woods and whatnot for people to walk on. The current barn that's in place, we're going to be using that as a historical site. My sister wants to—we've had this farm for a hundred years, so there's quite a few pictures when it was actually a farm, so she's in the process of blowing up all these pictures. Restoration of that barn is going to transpire this summer; we have somebody coming in, they're going to jack that barn up, we're putting a new slab in. We won't be using that space for weddings initially just because it's not up to par, but the restoration eventually will happen. We've been working with Heather Hiner, an architect—and Foundation Architect—just to get a kind of idea what this budget looks like for us. And yeah, we've got a good game plan as far as design, but as far as capacity of that building, we want to keep it under 300. No sprinklers, no elevators. I'm in the elevator industry and they're expensive, so one story preferably at this point in time. **[38:41] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Commission members, any questions or comments for Matt so far? Again, remember we're just looking at changing the text amendments this evening, and then assuming that this is added to the S1 and the SUP, they would come back for a commercial-industrial development permit—we'd still have that. So keep your notes, because we'll definitely, assuming this moves through the process and a formal application for all this is made, there'll be a lot more site-specific type of questions asked you at that time as well. **[39:15] Valerie Orlette:** I just have a quick question just because S1 references animals. Are you planning on having any animals on the property? **[39:20] Matt Laveau:** If I have it my way, no. But my sister, who is watching us here, she does have horses right now. It is her goal to have those horses on site. There will be no... I believe at this point, again, hoops to jump through, but visitors won't be able to ride those horses. There won't be a horse pulling a sleigh or anything like that. No petting zoo—or maybe the only thing, and this is her wild idea, is she would like to have a "beer burrow." Very popular in some of the warmer states, but it's a donkey that has a sack and people can come and pet the donkey and get a beer. So something a little different, something that I've not seen in Minnesota myself. **[40:12] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Well, maybe it would be... and down the road from me there is an alpaca farm, so maybe you could ask them too. And no hunting on the property? **[40:24] Matt Laveau:** No hunting, no. Thank you very much, sir. **[40:28] Joe Peterson (Chair):** I don't think we have any other questions for you. **[40:30] Matt Laveau:** All right, thank you for your time. **[40:33] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you. Would anybody else like to come up this evening and speak on 5D? Not seeing any, I'll close the public hearing at 7:45. Commission members, Counselor, any other questions or thoughts on this one before we look for motion? **[40:55] John Geissler:** Regarding parking lots—are the parking lots required to be paved? **[41:00] Eric Johnson:** Per our storm water ordinance, yes. **[41:03] John Geissler:** And then storm water retention and all those things as far as the CP requirements? **[41:08] Eric Johnson:** So that'd be for the parking lot, for the roof of the building, and exactly any newly created impervious areas. That is correct. I will say that we did have a variance request on a paved parking lot once which was approved by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, but yes, we require paving. **[41:35] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Any other questions or comments on 5D this evening? Not hearing any, I look for a motion on 5D please. **[41:40] Valerie Orlette:** I would move to approve. **[41:43] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. Can we get a second? **[41:44] Buckley Simmons:** Second. **[41:45] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. All in favor? Aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Motion passes. Moving on to 5E, which is a zoning ordinance text amendment by the city of Hermantown amending Chapter 7, Special Use Permits, by updating Section 725, Governing Criteria, to include requirements for Agritainment use. Eric, what do you have for us on this one? **[42:15] Eric Johnson:** Thank you. As I just previously mentioned, staff went into more Minnesota building requirements and how to handle particular wedding barns and that sort of thing. So what staff did was took items from that as well as added a traffic analysis of property and site access. Once again, given the potentially large number of people that could be accessing this type of use, similar to what we've done in the PUD, that would require some sort of a traffic analysis based on road capacity—how can you handle it, how you going to handle ins/outs etc. that way. But other things: there's requirement—and these are once again for the State of Minnesota—for a licensed architect and engineer to either prepare the plans or conduct a code analysis of any existing structures. It must meet state requirements for occupancy and fire codes, city safety requirements, once again ingress/egress etc. that way. Sprinkler systems for 100+ occupants—and that's once again research for the state that the staff has found. And lastly, traffic analysis of property/site access associated with it. So other particulars we would get into under a commercial-industrial development permit as Mr. Geissler had said: we'd look at storm water, we'd look at building layouts, site layouts, etc. Since those are covered under that CDP section, those are not addressed in this SUP; these are more essentially the mechanics of what would have to be followed under the SUP standard. **[43:55] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. Commission members, any questions or comments for Eric at this time? I have nothing. No questions. Thank you. We're going to open up the floor for a public hearing at 7:49 p.m. If anybody would like to come up and speak on 5E this evening, now is the time please. Come on up, state your name and address for the record. Not seeing anybody, we're going to close the public hearing at 7:49. Commission members, any other questions or comments on 5E? **[44:48] Valerie Orlette:** My only concern would be as Mr. Laveau commented about not needing a sprinkler system for occupancy of under 300. This will require a sprinkler system of a 100 or more. **[45:00] Eric Johnson:** That is correct, yes. **[45:03] Valerie Orlette:** Thank you for that. Any other questions or comments? **[45:08] Matt Laveau:** (From the crowd) If you want me to come up? **[45:10] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Please state your name and address for the record. **[45:12] Matt Laveau:** Matt Laveau, 5650 Rose Road resident. In regards to the sprinklers, I wanted to say that we were following state code when we had looked that up for building occupancy. Putting a sprinkler system in it is quite the endeavor, which then involves fire alarms and a lot of—it's a bigger expenditure that we were hoping to avoid. 100 people is relatively small, but that would be my only opposition—to follow the state code for the sprinklers rather than this one. But I said my piece and I'm going to let you do it. **[45:55] Eric Johnson:** Thank you, sir. Again, the City has did their research with that. We do have an interim building official that obviously between now and City Council we can engage a little bit further on some of those things, but at least what staff has researched so far, that's what we're seeing. And we're adding this language to this, unfortunately, not just for this gentleman, it's for anybody that comes before us. And because it's a zoning, you could ask for a variance on that zoning, provided it complied with state code, exactly. But I don't think it's 300, I think it is close to 100—but I could be wrong. But that is the goal of this: that you meet at a minimum other state requirements that way. And obviously as a City, we have the ability to add other requirements. **[46:58] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Gotcha. Okay, that being all said, commission members, any other questions or comments on 5E this evening? Not hearing any, I look for a motion on 5E please. **[47:05] Valerie Orlette:** Orlette, I'd move to approve 5E. **[47:08] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. Can I get a second? **[47:10] Buckley Simmons:** I'll second. **[47:11] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. All in favor? Aye. (Chorus of Ayes). That motion passes. **[47:18] Eric Johnson:** If I can add for the applicant, this will go to the December 4th City Council meeting. At that point it's just the first reading—it's introduced. At the December 18th meeting, that will be the second reading; that's where the Mayor would call for any public comment associated with that and City Council would take an action at that meeting. **[47:45] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Moving on. Number six, continuing business. Anything else, Eric? **[47:48] Eric Johnson:** No, there's none. **[47:50] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Number seven, any new business? None. Number eight, any communications? There's none. Number nine, commission member reports. Nothing from myself. Valerie? **[48:02] Valerie Orlette:** No report. **[48:04] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Buckley? **[48:05] Buckley Simmons:** [No report] **[48:06] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Councilor Geissler? **[48:07] John Geissler:** Just if you know anybody looking to serve on the Planning and Zoning Commission, we have one opening for sure. And yeah, I think that's usually the best way is to make calls to your friends and family and recruit. Is that... maybe there's somebody that lives in a Jackson home that might be wanting to serve on the Planning and Zoning Commission? **[48:30] Valerie Orlette:** Does that get posted anywhere? **[48:32] John Geissler:** Yes, it's—I have seen it in the Hermantown Star and we have it on our City website as well. **[48:40] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Last up is to adjourn this evening. Can I get a motion to adjourn? **[48:45] Buckley Simmons:** Simmons with a motion to adjourn. **[48:47] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. Can I get a second? **[48:49] Valerie Orlette:** Orlette, second. **[48:51] Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. All in favor? Aye. (Chorus of Ayes). We're going to adjourn the meeting at 7:53 p.m. Thank you very much everybody, really appreciate it.