Here is the transcribed townhall meeting with speaker names added based on the context provided. **[0:00] Corey Colquist:** Good evening everybody, we'd like to welcome you to the City of Hermantown Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. We're going to start the meeting here at 7:01 PM. Today is August 16, 2022. I'm going to start with a roll call of members: myself Corey Colquist, here. Valerie Olette? **[0:15] Valerie Olette:** Here. **[0:16] Corey Colquist:** Samuel Clark? **[0:17] Samuel Clark:** Here. **[0:18] Corey Colquist:** Beth Winsloff? **[0:19] Beth Winsloff:** Here. **[0:20] Corey Colquist:** Buckley Simmons? **[0:21] Buckley Simmons:** Here. **[0:22] Corey Colquist:** Dante Tomasani? **[0:23] Dante Tomasani:** Here. **[0:24] Corey Colquist:** And Councilor Geissler. Second up is the approval of this evening's agenda. Can I get a motion, please? **[0:32] Dante Tomasani:** With the motion. **[0:33] Corey Colquist:** Thank you for that. Can I get a second? **[0:35] Valerie Olette:** Second. **[0:36] Corey Colquist:** Thank you. All in favor? **[0:38] Commission Members:** Aye. **[0:40] Corey Colquist:** Motion passes. Third up this evening is the approval of the minutes from the July 19, 2022 regular meeting. Can I get a motion on that, please? **[0:53] Dante Tomasani:** Tomasani moves. **[0:54] Corey Colquist:** Thank you for that. Can I get a second? **[0:56] Valerie Olette:** Olette second. **[0:57] Corey Colquist:** All in favor? **[0:58] Commission Members:** Aye. **[1:00] Corey Colquist:** Motion passes. Number four this evening is an open public discussion. Is anybody here to speak on any item that is not on this evening's agenda already? If you are, please come on up and state your name and address for the record at the microphone, and we can talk about whatever you want to talk about. One more call for anything that's not on this evening's agenda. Not seeing any, we'll move on. Number five is the public hearings this evening. Our first one is an application by Lynn Tracy and Jerry Reno for a subdivision to create a 115-foot wide parcel of 0.53 acres and a 2.5-acre lot assessed by the way of a flag lot of 85 feet in width at 3919 Getchell Road. Eric, what do you have for us on this one? **[1:33] Eric Johnson:** Great, thank you very much. As you'd mentioned, this property is located at 3919 Getchell Road. It's an existing three-acre lot that once again draws frontage off of Getchell Road. The applicant came to the city in this past number of weeks here indicating that they wanted to subdivide their property. They were going to sell the existing home to a relative and then create a flag lot for potential future building behind that. So what they're proposing this evening is a flag lot subdivision of that property. Essentially, the existing home would stay in its current location obviously, and it would have a 0.53-acre lot associated with that. Right now the applicant's in the process of just finalizing utility hookups. City staff will verify that that has been completed because in order to have a lot less than one acre in size, you need to have city utilities associated with it. Then what they would do to the north of that is to be able to create the flag lot. I always tend to describe a flag as two portions: the "pole" is where the driveway is located and any utilities associated with that—that pole needs to be a minimum of 30 feet in width and a maximum of 500 feet in length. So before us this evening, the application is proposing an 85-foot wide pole and a 200-foot long portion associated with that—both of them, you know, well within the parameters associated with the flag lot. The actual "flag" portion of that lot is where the building footprint lies. That has to meet the underlying zoning requirements as far as size and width; in this case, it's an R3 zoning district, which would have to have a minimum of 100 feet in width and a minimum size of one-half acre, and in this case, it greatly exceeds that. That flag portion would be approximately two acres in size and be greater than that 100 foot of width. As I mentioned previously, the city staff will verify that the connections to the city utilities have been finalized, and then any wetland work associated with the future building pad will need to be performed by the applicant should they pursue a new building on that flag lot portion. **[3:51] Corey Colquist:** Thank you for that, Eric. Commission members, any questions for Eric on this so far? **[4:07] Beth Winsloff:** I do have a point that at this point from all appearances that there is still just a dug well and an on-site sanitary, so the whole system for the existing house has not been done yet. So I would caution us on that part too for the existing home. **[4:30] Eric Johnson:** Existing home, okay. **[4:33] Corey Colquist:** Commission members, any other questions? By any chance is the applicant here this evening? Would you like to come up and state your name for the record and tell us anything that we've missed? **[4:58] Lynn Tracy:** My name is Lynn Tracy, and I don't believe there's anything that has been missed. **[5:05] Eric Johnson:** Maybe if you could just share some information on the utilities. When you and I had spoken before, it indicated that that was going to be in the process of the connection to city utilities for the water and the sewer. **[5:19] Lynn Tracy:** The house has city sewer and city water. **[5:21] Corey Colquist:** The existing home does? **[5:22] Lynn Tracy:** Pardon me? **[5:23] Corey Colquist:** The existing home does? **[5:24] Lynn Tracy:** Yes. **[5:25] Corey Colquist:** Okay. Commission members, any questions for the applicant? I think you've solved all of our answers, ma'am. Perfect, thank you very much. We will open up the floor at 7:06. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on 5A this evening? It's an application to create a subdivision and a flag lot. Not seeing any, we will close the public hearing at 7:07. Commission members, last chance for any questions or comments on this one. **[6:10] Samuel Clark:** Sam Clark, one clarifying question then. Based on what Beth had said, if the existing home does *not* have city utilities, what are the ramifications of that? **[6:22] Eric Johnson:** Well right now, basically city staff still has to go through the formal paperwork of subdividing the lot. What I will do is—I have an email into the city utility clerk, she was out today just to verify that. Perhaps there's a condition associated if there is a recommendation that that be subject to verification of city utility hookup that way. So if for some reason city utilities were not hooked up, then staff would not process paperwork associated with this flag subdivision and would work with the applicant to essentially reconfigure that lot to make sure it was in compliance. **[7:05] Samuel Clark:** Okay, then as we have done many flag lots and I have no other concerns. Thank you very much. **[7:12] Corey Colquist:** Anybody else? **[7:14] Beth Winsloff:** And the understanding is the new property would have city utilities, right? **[7:17] Eric Johnson:** Right, before that's finalized. **[7:19] Corey Colquist:** Commission members, any other questions or comments? I look for a motion on 5A this evening. **[7:25] Samuel Clark:** Sam Clark with a motion to approve agenda item 5A. **[7:28] Corey Colquist:** Thank you very much for that. Can we get a second? **[7:31] Valerie Olette:** Olette second. **[7:32] Corey Colquist:** All in favor? **[7:33] Commission Members:** Aye. **[7:34] Corey Colquist:** Motion passes, thank you very much. Moving to 5B this evening, it's an application by Stephen Sarla for the construction of a 2,520 square foot garage, an accessory structure up on Highway 194. It's currently located in an R1 zoning district. Eric, what do you have for us on this one? **[7:55] Eric Johnson:** Great, thank you. Right now this is currently a vacant lot located at approximately 58XX Highway 194. It's approximately about half to three-quarter mile from our western boundary of the City of Hermantown here. This is an existing five-acre lot. The applicant is working with the city's building department for the house permit associated with this. So before us this evening is a special use permit for an accessory garage structure of 2,520 square feet. The building is approximately 42 by 60 feet in size; it would have 12-foot sidewalls and approximately 20-foot mean building height. Both the sidewalls as well as that building height are under the allowances in the R1 zoning. The applicant has indicated it's going to be for storage of personal belongings and vehicles that he has. There will be no business activity proposed or associated with this accessory structure, and the proposed setbacks from the property lines as well as the future residential structure are greater than the required minimums for an accessory structure. **[8:53] Corey Colquist:** Perfect, thank you very much for that. Commission members, any questions or comments on 5B so far? **[9:02] Samuel Clark:** No questions. **[9:03] Valerie Olette:** No questions. **[9:04] Beth Winsloff:** No questions. **[9:05] Buckley Simmons:** Nothing here. **[9:06] Corey Colquist:** Not hearing any, is the applicant here this evening? Did you have anything else you'd like to add, sir? If you did, you need to come up and state your name and address for the record, please. **[9:37] Steve Sarola:** My name is Steve Sarola and as Eric already mentioned, the building's just for personal use only. I'm just going to put my own personal cars in there. All my cars are classic running cars; they aren't, you know, they aren't bits and pieces, trust me. So yeah, I just—it's to get my own personal cars in and not have them, you know, out in the open at all. And it's a large building, but I'm going to put a 4x8 trailer, I got a couple of lawn tractors, one with a snow blower on it, and yeah, that's about it. Just someplace to store them so they are out of the elements. **[10:20] Corey Colquist:** Perfect, thank you for that. Commission members, any questions for the applicant this evening? **[10:25] Valerie Olette:** Thank you very much, sir. Also, you can't see the pole barn from the road at all; it didn't look like it on the drawing, that's for sure. It's not going to bother anybody. **[10:33] Corey Colquist:** Perfect, thank you very much. We're going to open up the floor for a public discussion at 7:11 on item 5B. If anybody else would like to speak on this matter, please come on up to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. Would anybody like to come up for 5B this evening? Not seeing any, we'll close the public hearing at 7:12. Commission members, any other comments or questions about 5B? Not hearing any, I look for a motion. **[11:22] Corey Colquist:** Mr. Chair, seeing this is a personal garage, I move to approve agenda item 5B as stated. **[11:32] Dante Tomasani:** Thank you very much for that, Mr. Colquist. Can we get a second? **[11:37] Samuel Clark:** Second. **[11:38] Corey Colquist:** Thank you for that. All in favor? **[11:40] Commission Members:** Aye. **[11:43] Corey Colquist:** Motion passes, thank you very much. Moving on to 5C, I believe it's an application by Philip—I'm sorry, I'm not going to be able to say your last name right—Nyhaus for a Commercial Industrial Development permit for the construction of a 7,200 square foot retail showroom building with 12 parking spaces. Property is located at approximately 5190 Miller Trunk Highway and is located in a C-commercial zoning district. Eric, what do you have for us on this one? **[12:12] Eric Johnson:** Great, thank you very much. First thing I would like to clarify is—the applicant, since the staff report was written, has had the opportunity to have a wetland delineator out on site and I put on your desks there's a new site plan associated with this. It does locate the wetlands on that property, and the applicant has since revised the site plan to have 24 parking spots associated with it. So now it does meet the required parking for that C zoning district. Getting back to it, this is an 8.8-acre site, takes access off of Miller Trunk Highway. The applicant's proposing a 7,200 square foot retail showroom store for his Midnight Sun Spas. The applicant does have this business over in Bemidji, and this would be a new location for him in this area of the state. As I mentioned, there's a number of parking spaces on the lot. They will take water and sewer access from Miller Trunk Highway. Associated with that Miller Trunk work for the water and sewer as well as the access, there will be the requirement by the Minnesota D.O.T. for permits of working within the D.O.T. right-of-way and for that driveway entrance. As I mentioned previously, the wetland delineation has been conducted and is shown in the site plan at your desk this evening. The building, once again, is approximately 7,200 square feet in size; the lot coverage is 1.9 percent on this property. Under this zoning district of the commercial, it allows up to 50 percent coverage for the ordinance, so it's a very small footprint associated with this. The facade proposed, and there's a portion in your packet as well, shows the building facade with a two-tone steel siding with awnings both on the front and the side, that being the east side facades. There will be three basically overhead doors that would be able to provide access not only to the showroom area but also the, basically, the storage area more towards the rear of this. The interior of the building is broken up into three bays: the front portion is approximately 4,400 square feet in size, that is going to be the retail showroom area; behind that is a 1,200 square foot storage utility area; and then lastly at the rear portion of the property, it's a 1,400 caretaker/office space. Caretakers are allowed—units are allowed under the commercial zoning. The applicant has indicated that sometimes when their technicians are coming from Bemidji, it's quite a long drive going back, so it would be easier just to have a place that they could stay overnight or if they're up here for calls in this region, they'd have a place to stay overnight. The interior trash would be handled, once again, within that utility storage area associated with it. The applicant and the engineer have met with city staff, particularly the city engineer. We've discussed the preliminary plan so far and have made comments regarding the stormwater pond, access, etc. **[15:19] Corey Colquist:** Thank you very much, Eric. Commission members, any questions or comments so far on 5C this evening? **[15:28] Beth Winsloff:** I just have one question. Can the audience see these drawings? Because what I'm seeing is not the drawings up on the monitors. **[15:37] Corey Colquist:** Mr. Wicklund, if you could access the agenda please? I just thought it might be helpful for them to see what you're talking about. **[15:47] Joe Wicklund:** Sure. Okay, there it goes. That's the last one. **[15:58] Samuel Clark:** Joe, Eric—is there any issue with airport zoning? **[16:05] Eric Johnson:** They are in a C zone, so it's a height restriction only, and they are quite a bit under that. The airport elevation is approximately 1,580 and with the building height, it looks like approximately 1,443, so they are well under any height restrictions associated with the airport zoning. **[16:29] Samuel Clark:** Okay, so then they—no, they wouldn't have to go to airport zoning and get any sort of...? **[16:35] Eric Johnson:** No, that is correct. Yeah, this is strictly a C zone which is height only. And what Mr. Wicklund has put up on the board here, this is a grading plan associated with it. Here is the site location. Once again, it's on the north side of Miller Trunk Highway with the airport located behind that. And then Mr. Wicklund, if you could scroll up a couple images so we could see the building facade associated with this, please? Here's a line drawing associated with that. So once again, the two-tone metal structure. Basically, there's three different looks at the interiors: this is the storage area as well as that caretaker area, this is a showroom in front of the building, and then lastly at the top, that's a proposed building elevation associated with this. **[17:35] Corey Colquist:** Commission members, any other questions or comments before we open it up to the public? **[17:41] John Geissler:** I just want to say I spoke to the property owner directly to the west—he owns a plumbing and heating shop—and he's excited to have a new neighbor, just so everybody knows that. **[17:50] Corey Colquist:** Sir, did you have anything you'd like to add to the presentation this evening? Please come on up, state your name and address for the record. **[18:03] Philip Nyhaus:** So I just wanted to make sure that these were the plans you handed out just now—they were emailed to you at 4:51 today. **[18:12] Eric Johnson:** That is correct, yes. **[18:13] Philip Nyhaus:** It's different than what's on the screen. The wetland delineation was quite large, so we redrew the whole property and moved the pond and everything so we are avoiding all of the wetlands. I just want to be sure you had that. **[18:31] Corey Colquist:** Sure, yeah, exactly. We did share that with the P&Z members here, so thank you. **[18:37] Philip Nyhaus:** That's all I have. **[18:39] Corey Colquist:** Commission members, any questions for the applicant this evening? **[18:43] Beth Winsloff:** It looks a little deceiving—the property looks square but it's really much, much deeper and that's right, it's not showing... the rest of the balance of it is all... **[18:55] Philip Nyhaus:** Yeah, they don't show the whole nine acres. I kind of wish they did too. **[18:59] Beth Winsloff:** Because it's 1.9 percent or something. I just want to make sure everybody knew it, because the total coverage is only two percent. **[19:07] Philip Nyhaus:** And if I'm not mistaken, a good portion of that lot is wetlands. Right, it's... I mean, that lot's been for sale for a long time. And that's precisely why. I found that out yesterday. I wasn't planning on using the north end of the land but I don't think it would have changed me. **[19:27] Corey Colquist:** No, but it looks like you made good use of the available highlands on there for your facility. **[19:33] Philip Nyhaus:** I did, thank you. **[19:35] Corey Colquist:** You're very welcome. **[19:37] Valerie Olette:** I'm going to say I really love the design of your building. **[19:40] Philip Nyhaus:** Thank you, I tried harder. Yeah, it looks very nice. It's all glass garage door on the front facing south, the top of the roof's copper... so it'll look... not real copper but color-wise. **[19:53] Corey Colquist:** Perfect. Commission members, any other questions for this gentleman? Thank you very much. **[20:01] Philip Nyhaus:** Thank you. **[20:03] Corey Colquist:** We'd like to open up the floor for a public hearing at 7:21 PM. Would anybody else like to come up and speak on 5C this evening? If you would, please come on up to the microphone. Not seeing any, we'll close the public hearing at 7:21 as well. Commission members, last chance for questions or comments. Not hearing any, I look for a motion on 5C this evening. **[20:41] Dante Tomasani:** Mr. Chairman, Tomasani moves to approve 5C as stated. **[20:45] Corey Colquist:** Thank you for that. Can we get a second? **[20:47] Buckley Simmons:** Simmons with a second. **[20:49] Corey Colquist:** Thank you. All in favor? **[20:51] Commission Members:** Aye. **[20:53] Corey Colquist:** Motion passes, thank you very much, sir. Welcome to Hermantown. We had a little typo on our stuff this evening—we had one applicant withdraw. It should be the next one on our agenda list, which is listed as 5D but it's 5E in our packets. So we're going to move on to the application by PNR Development LLC for a rezoning of a 27-acre parcel located at 4747 Hermantown Road. The parcel is currently zoned R3 residential with the proposed rezoning to C-commercial. Eric, what do you have first on this one? **[21:28] Eric Johnson:** Great, thank you very much. Mr. Wicklund, if I could have you bring the staff report up again just so we see a location map. So while he's doing that, this is a property located at 4747 Hermantown Road—it's the former Ingwalls property. Right now it's currently being utilized by a landscape contracting business on that property. This is a 27-acre property and has frontage both on Hermantown Road as well as Anderson Road to the north. If we recall in the past couple years, there's been an application by Sandy Hoff to redevelop the potential northerly eight acres of this property for a small-lot residential development of 25 homes. This is still a viable, approved proposal at that point. Any potential rezoning of the site would not affect that as it was approved under a PUD—a PUD can be in any zoning district throughout the city. The applicant, PNR Development, has been looking at the southerly 19 acres of this property for some time. They have had some initial conversations with city staff about the development of this property: what could be developed, what kind of extent of development could happen on this property. As of right now, it's currently zoned R3. Once again, the existing use on this property is primarily commercially based, so it doesn't quite fit into that R3 zoning as it is. When this application came in, city staff looked at this corridor primarily from Haynes over to the site and looked at the existing properties out there currently at Haynes Road. Mr. Wicklund, if you can go to the next slide please—actually let's go to the one above please, sorry about that. Thank you. There we go, thank you. So at the intersection of Haynes Road and Hermantown Road, there's this existing commercially zoned property there right now—that's the Accurate Auto Repair site as well as the BP station on the south side of Hermantown Road. As you continue to progress to the west, there's other uses that are a little bit more in keeping with commercial, although they do fall right now under the R3 zoning. Right next to that is the Salem Lutheran Church. Churches are allowed in a commercial zoning district—that's where we see primarily a number of our churches—and there's also a daycare associated with that church right now on the south side of Hermantown Road. As you move a little bit more to the west, there's a Kids' College daycare building. Once again, we're primarily seen in the commercial district. And then next to that is the Estates Treasure building; it was a former greenhouse area in that portion. Once again, functioning as a commercial use but in an R3 zoning district. So there really is a history of basically more commercially based properties in a portion of this corridor through there. Yes, there are some residential homes on the south side of Hermantown Road as well as the King Creek townhomes located on the south side of Hermantown Road. There's a number of townhomes in that area; we have seen those type of developments sometimes once again being in a commercial district as well, kind of being viewed as multi-family housing that way. So as the applicant's been looking at this 19-acre site, they have looked at basically the ability or the request to rezone this to a C-commercial. Right now there is no formal application by the applicant other than this rezoning this evening. There may be something at a future date as far as potential redevelopment of the site. I believe the applicant is in the audience this evening and if he could maybe share some thoughts that way, but right now as I'm saying, this is strictly a rezoning that we're looking at this evening. If an application came in in the future, this would once again come to this board for review and approval under the commercial zoning district. An application would come in under what's called a Commercial Industrial Development permit, similar to what we just had. Under those, you look at a number of different things: you look at how the application layouts on the site, how the traffic is affected, how the environmental different aspects are associated with it. Right now King Creek, as you can see on this property or this map right here, is on the easterly side of this property, so a CIDP application would address all those different types of elements. But once again, that's at a potential future date under a separate application. As for tonight, it is just looking at a rezoning of this property. So a potential rezoning of this property would really accomplish two things. Right now it addresses the existing user on this site being the landscape contractor business—that brings it more into keeping with a commercially zoned property that way. Also, a rezoning to a C-commercial would provide the applicant with some more guidance as he moves forward with the potential redevelopment on this site, knowing what you could accomplish under a commercial zoning district versus an R3 zoning district. **[26:45] Corey Colquist:** Thank you for that, Eric. Commission members, any questions or comments so far for Eric on our fourth applicant this evening? **[26:55] Dante Tomasani:** Commissioners, I do have to recuse myself from the vote on this one for the record. **[27:03] Corey Colquist:** Thank you for that, Dante. **[27:05] Samuel Clark:** Just for clarification, I guess Eric—the current business is the church and the daycare... those qualify under R3 as well as commercial, right? **[27:18] Eric Johnson:** Generally not so much. Like the Treasures building, that's a commercial—that would be something that if it was permitted today, we would guide that to a commercially zoned area. That's been in existence for a number of years, so basically what we call a grandfathered use; it's a legal non-conforming use is what it is. So what city staff has been discussing as well, given the nature of a number of these commercial uses in this corridor, is the city's undergoing our comprehensive plan—just starting that process right now. We see this as a great opportunity to look at this as what's called a small area study, to not only look at this corridor as well... is this properly zoned? Is there potential for commercially zoned properties other than what's coming before us this evening? **[28:13] Samuel Clark:** Right, but as the current zoning is R3, the church and the daycare Kids' College—or whatever you want to call that—is allowed under the current... they would be allowed? **[28:24] Eric Johnson:** Exactly, under a special use permit, particularly with the daycares that way. Primarily, we would try to guide them initially to a commercial zoning property versus an R3 because it's a permitted use. **[28:38] Samuel Clark:** Change the zoning then? I'm sorry, the R3... I mean, it's listed as—I mean churches can be in R3, clubs, daycare currently can be in R3. Would that change then if we're going to make them commercial? **[28:55] Eric Johnson:** They would still be able to exist if it was ever rezoned to commercial, these other properties. As I said, that's something that we would look at potentially under our comprehensive plan more as a small area study. **[29:04] Buckley Simmons:** Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Ingwalls was there long before the city was the city. Is there any idea why the founding fathers didn't make that commercial at that time? **[29:21] Eric Johnson:** I don't know the exact answer for that, but we do have a handful of those around the city. Another one that really comes to mind is the Smitty's Auto Repair on Maple Grove Road—that is truly a commercial-based operation and that's in our S1 zoning district. So basically what—and I'm doing some conjecture here—is when the zoning maps were drawn back in 1976, they were looking at more broad-brush types of pieces that way versus small individual parcels. **[29:56] Buckley Simmons:** Couldn't have that out exactly, yes. **[29:58] Eric Johnson:** Like I said, a number of these do exist throughout the city that way. **[30:02] Samuel Clark:** Eric, I know we're trying to avoid "spot zoning." With the app—I forget which agenda item tonight, 5E—backing out now, this would be spot zoning, you know, by throwing a commercial... I guess what is the city's viewpoint on that and why are they electing that it's okay to spot zone on this property but others they've felt uncomfortable doing it? **[30:27] Eric Johnson:** Sure, there's two basically rationales with that. The first one is, as I mentioned earlier, is we're going to look at this area as a whole just more as a potential rezoning of many more parcels under the comp plan, but that's at a future date. And we've also had discussions with the city's attorney on this as well, and they said there have been in the past with other communities challenges against spot zonings, but none of those have held up in court. So from a basically legal standpoint, spot zonings really technically don't exist; the city can take action on a specific property if they so choose to. But one thing, given some of these other businesses in there of the commercial nature, at least from a staff standpoint, they had a comfort level that this property could be addressed on its own knowing that we're going to have the opportunity to look at this in a larger scale as part of the comp plan process. Now right now, that comp plan process is going to be approximately 18 months and the applicant is trying to get some answers, at least some direction, at this point in time versus 18 to 24 months down the road. **[31:36] Samuel Clark:** And I guess, you know, looking at Kids' College, the antique and the state treasury business—I mean, they're homes. I mean, they're designed to look like homes. And so I guess I'd be curious, you know, what is the definition of commercial buildings? When I drive by those, they do seem in my opinion to be residential, and so I'm kind of curious—if that's what we're using as a reference point, it doesn't quite seem to add up to me when we use "commercial" with those types of businesses. **[32:05] Eric Johnson:** Sure. Well, there's a physical business being operated under there in both those cases for quite some time. The city does have, for instance, the ability to do what's called home occupations, and that's more essentially envisioned as a person could run a single-chair hair-cutting stylist type of business out of there, a tax return business, something like that. It's more meant for just a single proprietor actually doing business out of their homes. What these type of uses are—and have been for some time—are actually full-blown businesses with a number of employees associated with those. The city views those as businesses, not as a home occupation sort of thing that's meant as a single proprietor. Like I said, in the case of the Treasures building, yes, it does have a bit of a residential look to it; however, it's fully functioning as a business. **[33:02] Samuel Clark:** Yeah, I guess my thoughts on that would be—they have asphalt roofs, I mean, they look like homes. The treasure I can understand being grandfathered in; the other ones do fall under R3 zoning. The businesses—the Beacon obviously is grandfathered in—so that's a little concerning for me. I guess my other question would be: PNR's doing a great job putting this project together and thank you for these packets, they look very nice, they seem to fit and the pictures all look good. But let's say PNR decides this isn't the property for them and we approve it as commercial—I mean, could we have retail in there and bars, restaurants, any of that stuff? **[33:51] Eric Johnson:** You could, yes. But it also basically brings the current use into alignment with the commercial zoning. But that is a correct statement—a commercial zoning does open it up to a number of different permitted uses associated with that. **[33:55] Samuel Clark:** Okay. And I guess yeah, I'd love to hear from PNR and what the plan is, and I'm sure there is one and I would love to kind of hear what you guys are thinking there, because certainly I do believe we need more housing like this in the area and would just be kind of curious to hear what the plan is. But I'll let the other commissioners ask additional questions. **[34:10] Beth Winsloff:** I have an additional question because of the housing, especially King Creek with the housing that was put in there. It's sort of sandwiched in from this and I'm sure as a resident if I was living there, it would be a whole different scenario to turn around and see a whole commercial development. And again, this looks good but it may not be what's there. And so I just caution us to think about, as we're looking at the comp plan and all the rest, doing some additional protections around what is existing around the area as far as the homes. I think in all of Hermantown we're going to have to have that in mind because as we change things, there's a lot of homes that have been there a long time or good developments that had that assumption of staying residential. To have a commercial across the street could change everything. And it may not be apartments that are R3; these apartments could go in the R3. **[35:25] Eric Johnson:** To a certain scale, yes, it would fall under a Planned Unit Development. **[35:32] Beth Winsloff:** Right, okay. The difference being the height, right? **[35:34] Eric Johnson:** Generally really the only thing would be the height, exactly. **[35:38] Corey Colquist:** So if I understand this right, the original Ingwall development that we talked about—those homes—is that going forward then, or is this in place of that? **[35:48] Eric Johnson:** My understanding—and the applicant may be able to share a little bit more information—is that that is still a viable project at that north end as far as those single-family homes. At least PNR has always been talking about the southerly portion of the site, primarily where these buildings, the Ingwall buildings, are today. **[36:09] Corey Colquist:** Commission members, any conversation otherwise? I believe we should invite the applicant up this evening. **[36:18] Samuel Clark:** Sam Clark, I had a couple a couple comments too, and I just kind of jotted them down. I guess my overarching concern would be the rezoning to commercial, not necessarily any sort of development in and of itself. In our agenda, I do not agree with the city staff's recommendations to approve it based on the comprehensive plan. I don't think it maintains a suburban character, preserves natural characteristics, or develops newer existing parks. There really aren't a lot of other commercial sites in the area with the exception of the corner there on Haynes Road. We have a number of childcare and churches that are in residential zone districts. With Eric's point, I did make a note that when we had the memory care unit up on Maple Grove Road, I had made the point on this commission that that was more commercial in nature and didn't necessarily fit with the residential neighborhood, but that wasn't the case in that case. Is that—that's an R3 planned unit development. The King Creek development is not a commercially based development. Again, with the commercial zone, as Corey mentioned, future commercial conflicts in that area if this fell through. Similarly to when we had the application on Levick Road where there was a person operating a business out of their home and it was first proposed to rezone that commercial—we discussed it and I believe the city worked with that individual. And then working with the comprehensive plan and knowing that that's going to be under development... as Hermantown's done in other areas, I think actually doing a small area plan before doing a rezoning of this size would probably be a good approach rather than just rezoning one 27-acre parcel. If nothing else, at least if the comprehensive plan is going to be a number of months, that might be a smaller, shorter-term solution to look at this, maybe with more input from the surrounding area. So those are my thoughts on it. Again, at this point, I don't support it just with the commercial zone in nature, especially when we just went through the planned unit development overlay process and gave a little more flexibility with things like that. So those are my thoughts. Thank you. **[38:45] Buckley Simmons:** Simmons would like to understand from the applicant as far as the difference between the height restrictions: R3 versus commercial. **[38:58] Eric Johnson:** So under the R3, it is a 35-foot height. Under the Planned Unit Development, you're able to go up to 43 feet in height, assuming you have greater setbacks, landscape requirements, etc. Under the commercial zoning, you have the ability to go to 65 feet. **[39:26] Buckley Simmons:** One follow-up on the commercial zoning too. I believe if this is rezoned commercial, any future commercial development opportunities only go through Planning and Zoning, is that correct? That does not go to City Council? **[39:41] Eric Johnson:** Yeah, because those traditionally fall under the CIDP applications. So this essentially would be the approving board for CIDPs. Now, for instance this evening, under rezoning, Planning and Zoning is a recommending board versus an approving board. So any decision or any recommendation by Planning and Zoning this evening would go to the September 6th City Council meeting. Rezonings require two readings at a city council level, so the first meeting on September 6th would be basically what we call the first reading or just the introduction of that, and then on the September 19th meeting, a formal action would be taken by the council at that time. **[40:17] Buckley Simmons:** Thank you for that. **[40:19] Corey Colquist:** Commission members, any other questions or comments? I'm just looking at this first drawing here and it looks like the building encroaches on the setback for the creek. **[40:31] Eric Johnson:** And actually, that's just a graphic that the applicant provided. That is not under discussion this evening; all that we're discussing is a rezoning. **[40:40] Corey Colquist:** Gotcha. Would one of you guys like to come on up, state your name and address for the record, give us a little bit of your story and your history and why you're looking to get this lot rezoned? **[40:55] Pete Pavlovich:** My name is Pete Pavlovich, I am a Hermantown resident. As all of you know and are familiar with our Airy project that went through, that's the type of building, that's the type of architecture we're looking at doing. We build a beautiful building—high class. It's not low income; it's good workforce housing, very much needed high-quality housing without stressing the school districts is what we've found out. Rezoning this commercial makes this building a smaller footprint to make the economics work. Otherwise, we have to spread the building out and we probably are going to be a little stressed. As you said, tonight is about height and that's the main point: being able to use a smaller footprint and get a little taller. Our buildings—Aery for example—attracts 50-plus and young professionals. I know we've heard a lot about school district concerns; Aery has put zero stress on the school district. Aery has 12 families in it and all of which—one family has migrated into Hermantown, all the other families in Aery were already Hermantown residents. So we suspect this would be the same situation here. I don't know if you guys got any questions I can answer. You know, this is—we're preliminary in the design. I can't tell you exactly how many units we're thinking. **[42:55] Corey Colquist:** Commission members, any questions for the applicant so far? Again, keep in mind we're just looking at rezoning the property tonight. **[43:02] Beth Winsloff:** So if I understand you right, the prime reason for requesting the rezoning is because of the footprint—you go higher rather than spreading out? **[43:10] Pete Pavlovich:** Exactly, that makes the economics work. And you know, we will be building into the hill. So yes, one side of our building might be 60 feet but the other side, the side facing more the residential, is going to be 20 feet shorter potentially. So the whole building isn't going to, you know, sit up on top of the hill and be 60 feet tall. We're going to utilize the landscape. I actually worked at Ingwalls for many years; I know the land like the back of my hand. [Laughter] **[43:48] Samuel Clark:** Have you guys explored other options to stay where it could be a PUD? **[43:56] Pete Pavlovich:** Well, we've done enough of the buildings now. The only way we could get by with doing something like that is if we didn't have our underground heated parking, and that's very much wanted. I think everybody that lives in our buildings fight for spots. Heated parking, wintertime Minnesota. So it's a model that we would really like to keep in there. **[44:22] Samuel Clark:** Certainly. And I believe you guys do beautiful work, love the property and everything. To be transparent, it makes me nervous if you guys were to back out. I know your quality, but the next guy in line—what's their quality? And I guess I'd be curious if there is a way to get to that minimum or stay within it, or maximum I guess... it just... and then the spot zoning thing makes me a little nervous right now. **[45:00] Pete Pavlovich:** Yeah, I don't think—I mean, we've explored options and punched numbers up on different properties too. And I think with the cost of land and what we're dealing with with the hill and rock and everything else there, I don't think it—as of now, preliminary design, the economics aren't going to work unless we can get the height. **[45:21] Corey Colquist:** Commission members, any other questions, comments? **[45:30] John Geissler:** So it'd be less of a footprint if you're able to build higher, right? Because let's face it, you can build an apartment building in an R3. **[45:41] Pete Pavlovich:** Yep, it's just a different shape. Like I said, it's a different shape and our model having the underground parking is huge for the residents. You know, they're beautiful facilities. **[46:02] John Geissler:** Thank you, I appreciate it. **[46:04] Corey Colquist:** Commission members, any other questions or comments before we open it up for public hearing? Not this time. Thank you very much, sir. **[46:08] Pete Pavlovich:** Yeah, thank you. **[46:09] Corey Colquist:** Good evening everybody. It's currently 7:47, we're going to open up the floor for a public hearing. I just want to reiterate to everybody that we're looking at just rezoning the land tonight. There's no project that's really before us. You're all welcome to come on up and speak. I don't want to hear the same thing over and over and over again, though. So if I have three or four people talking about the schools and stuff like that, we've already heard it. So please come on up one at a time, please state your name and address for the record, and we'll gladly try and answer your questions for you. Come on up, somebody's got to be first. **[47:00] Kevin Shea:** I'm Kevin Shea, I live on 477 Anderson Road, so it'd be right at the top of the hill from this potential project. I guess my only concerns would be—well I got a lot of concerns—but this falls into the Suburban Development Concept area, which is Area 1 for Hermantown's plan. And under that, you know, it says to maintain this as a suburban character. And if you read the definition from Hermantown's comprehensive plan, there's nothing remotely close to having a big apartment building. And so that's kind of a concern of mine, along with some of the other places that you've mentioned that are already there that qualify to work in an R3 area. You know, if you had somewhere—I saw the number, I'll just use it as 147 potential apartments. If you use the City of Duluth's numbers, you have to factor in that's 1.4 cars per unit. So if my math is right, you're putting 205 cars between two daycare centers right there in what was a residential zone. And then as you guys mentioned also, what happens going forward if these guys change their mind? Can we get some other commercial building in there that none of us want? I guess that's kind of... I know there's a lot of other things that factor into this. You know, can the fire department handle it? We know they're short-staffed. Their Aery Apartments, if I'm saying that correctly, call their day... they have openings already. So why do they need another big building? That's kind of my questions and concerns. **[48:54] Corey Colquist:** I'm fairly confident in saying that there hasn't been a study done on a lot of that stuff because we're just looking at rezoning the property tonight, but I understand your concerns. We haven't talked to the school district at all because there's no proposal; we haven't talked to the fire department at all because there's no proposal. **[49:15] Eric Johnson:** Exactly. And regardless of whether this property is rezoned this evening—or at least recommended to be rezoned—or if it stays R3, eventually if there's an application for something other... I mean, regardless, any sort of application would come before Planning and Zoning where these things would be fleshed out. You would have once again the traffic, the environmental setbacks, etc. all those different things, regardless of the type of development that way. **[49:45] Kevin Shea:** And regardless of the zoning? **[49:47] Eric Johnson:** Correct, no matter if it's PNR or JP or Sunrise, whoever the name is on it, all those would have to be addressed. Exactly. And the same thing: there'd be public notification associated with that, there'd be the opportunity for public comment just like we have this evening here. **[50:00] Corey Colquist:** Correct. I wish I could answer all of your questions but again, tonight it's just looking at potentially rezoning the land. **[50:06] Kevin Shea:** Right, and that was just my concern: as it's zoned natural, what are we opening the door up to? Totally understand, thank you. **[50:18] Corey Colquist:** Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak on this matter? Please come on up, state your name and address for the record. **[50:27] David Manderfeld:** David Manderfeld, 4780 Hermantown Road. Hi there. **[50:31] Corey Colquist:** Hi there. **[50:32] David Manderfeld:** I'm on Hermantown Road. I'm coming down, I'm going past the church; they have a parking lot and then the parking lot ends and there's a pond. What I'm wondering is: what are the dimensions of this property? Where does it start, where does it end? So I'm assuming it starts right after the parking lot of the church and then goes a little further and then goes up a hill and then around kind of a corner and then you're at the daycare. Is it north of the daycare on that end, or is it north of the antique shop, or does it not go that far? **[51:24] Corey Colquist:** Joe, can you pull the site up for us please? Thank you. This might point you in the right direction here, sir. Is there any way to zoom in on that? Thank you. So you can see—let Joe get it centered here—you can see where the church is and the church parking lot. You can see that the site starts in roughly in between that parking lot and the pond. You can see it on the map there, and then goes past the old Ingwall facility there where I used to work in the greenhouse, and then all the way back to Anderson Road there. **[52:05] David Manderfeld:** Yeah, it's like an 80-acre parcel, an eight-acre chunk of that. **[52:13] Eric Johnson:** That is correct, yes. And that's something that had been approved, not under construction at this date. **[52:20] David Manderfeld:** Essentially yes, sir. Thank you very much. **[53:05] Corey Colquist:** Thank you very much. Come on up, sir, please state your name and address for the record. **[53:15] Mr. Miller:** Miller, we're at 4793 Anderson Road. So we're across from it, but given that it's just a zoning application, maybe some points to ponder for everybody. First of all, I really have to give the developer, the potential developer, credit for the quality work that they have done. But in driving through Hermantown, there's corridors and there's residential corridors, there's commercial corridors. And some of the talk tonight got me thinking that a lot of the talk has been towards going from residential to commercial versus maybe going from commercial to residential, and as those properties get sold and get developed, maybe they lose that commercial standing versus turning everything into commercial. And yeah, Ingwalls is old—I mean, it's older than dirt. My father-in-law used to blow up their manure pile. So it goes back. And the other thing is the loading that goes on. The church has minimal loading except on Sundays; the daycare is pretty quiet. Everything that goes on there right now is quiet. When we start putting in 100, 120, 140 units, all of a sudden you've got a lot more traffic going on. Road access is kind of critical in that spot there because whether it's the Anderson Road or the Hermantown Road, you've got hills and curves and issues going on that way. I always kind of look back and I think: if that property was to be turned into single-family housing, how many houses could be developed on that property? And that would be in keeping with the residential aspect of that whole area really. As you move west, that whole area is very residential. One of the other thoughts is—and it's already been talked about—but if the zoning was approved and then in the future the current developer backed out, what could happen with other developers given that new zoning? Another thing that I look at is the model of the city—there appears to be some... but as the advantages of accessible big city amenities while still allowing for country living in a small town community feel. That's part of what I really like about Hermantown; you know, we've got that, but we also have corridors that are very commercial. It's like R3 is R3, that's what it's zoned. I guess we can live with that, but do we have to make everything bigger and more commercially developed? Let's see—there is an old cemetery on that land. Yes, there is, and I don't know how that deals into the whole thing, and I'm not even sure exactly where it is but I know about where it is. Let's see here. One of the other thoughts is—and you kind of see it happen on Maple Grove Road—but as property gets turned into commercial property, the residential properties that remain tend to start getting really degraded. And do we want to see that happen within the corridor that we're talking about here right now? In the residential corridor, it's... what can we do to make Hermantown really Hermantown? With that, I guess I'd like to thank every one of you for your service and doing what you do. I'd like you to think of being a next-door neighbor to that property and what this would be like for your residential property versus what could be very residential in that area. Thank you very much. **[57:15] Corey Colquist:** Thank you very much, sir. Please come on up, state your name and address for the record. **[57:35] Resident Neighbor:** This particular rezoning is my backyard. The property's been in my husband's family for over 100 years, closer to 120. We've always had it very residential, it's a tight-knit community. We work well together. This—I would be looking at a 65-foot story building in my backyard, and we have never dealt with anything that's going to turn it and make us feel like it's not home anymore. And I understand they want to make it bigger to make more money. I want it smaller so I can enjoy my property. It's something to think about. Thank you very much. **[58:30] Corey Colquist:** Thank you. Please come on up, state your name and address for the record. **[59:05] Resident 2:** You've just all brought me to tears with your concern for the residents, I appreciate that so much. I appreciate you, thank you. We are in a community and a neighborhood and it would be carefully respected. Just a couple things, I'm not going to repeat what I had scribbled out this afternoon. But I was told by a member of the commission that this would affect the school and I don't know if that's right. And the other thing is, it seems like we're trying to clean up on paper that area to make it commercial later. Most of those businesses are grandfathered in from the early 1900s—except for a couple. Again, just thank you. And the city could put together a referendum or a survey to each person to find out how many developments they really want—the people, not just the small committee that's doing things. I appreciate it, but I would really like to see that for us so the people are going to determine what they want Hermantown to be. Thank you very much and thanks for caring. **[1:00:25] Eric Johnson:** Actually, I'm going to follow up on that last question. The city, as part of our comprehensive plan process, there will be numerous points of basically resident and citizen input associated with that. It's really the guiding document for the city as a whole, and that's going to be going on over the next 18 months. There'll be notices on our website, in the paper, things like that. Do we have the ability to send out a mailer to each resident? Maybe, maybe not. If we did, it would probably more likely go through the utility bill, something that we already have an existing way to communicate with property owners. And just once again, things are in process where residents do have an ability to speak about the city as a whole versus individual projects like tonight. **[1:01:12] Resident 2:** Thank you, ma'am. **[1:01:22] Corey Colquist:** Would anybody else like to come up and speak this evening? Sir, come on up please, state your name and address for the record. **[1:01:40] Alex Bushing:** Alex Bushing, I'm the director of development at F5 Sulker, 800B West Railroad Street. I am in favor of this zoning change. I'm also part of the development group that is looking at the 25 single-family home parcels. Without this additional development, or someone like it, our project will not move forward. This building, or potential building, offers a lot more residents the opportunity to be part of this tight-knit community. Thank you. **[1:02:10] Corey Colquist:** Thank you, sir. Come on up please, state your name and address for the record. **[1:02:22] Mrs. Miller:** I'm Miller and I'm on 4793 Anderson Road. Hi there. When you talk about commercial zoning, I was thinking about bigger roads, sidewalks, you know, access like that. And I would recommend that each one of you take a little walk on Anderson Road between Haynes Road and... I'm a walker and it's suicide sometimes because of the traffic on that road. It's a 30-mile-an-hour road and you have cars at 50 miles an hour. Same with the Hermantown road—no shoulders on the road. But my basic thing what I wanted to say is when I hear the word "commercial," I think of developed streets and sidewalks and a place for a bigger building. So that's just my comment. I invite you to walk the Anderson Road. Thank you. **[1:03:30] Corey Colquist:** Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else this evening want to come up and speak? Sir, come on up please, state your name and address for the record. **[1:03:45] Dave Allison:** Good evening. Dave Allison, 3735 King Creek Lane. Speaking on behalf of myself but I do have some affiliation with the association also. I'm going to address the larger issue. If I'm hearing correctly what has been said tonight, the R3 zoning that currently exists has been stretched a bit; some items could be considered not in compliance. We're being asked to consider a change in the zoning to commercial to accommodate some additional heights—that's fairly specific. But the rezoning in itself would allow for a considerable expansion of use not defined here tonight, and that is worrisome. That is my case, thank you. **[1:05:08] Corey Colquist:** Thank you very much, sir. Anybody else this evening who'd like to come up and speak? Come on up, ma'am, please state your name and address for the record. **[1:05:25] Diane Langley:** Diane Langley, 3719 King Creek Lane. My concern is about King Creek, the creek that's running through. I can visualize a parking lot with lots of blacktop and all of that, and wondering what consideration is being made to any kind of commercial project that's going to impact the creek. That's my concern, thank you. **[1:05:48] Corey Colquist:** Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else here this evening you'd like to speak? One more chance. We'll close the public hearing at 8:07 PM. Thank you very much for that. Commission members, now might be a little time for some discussion or any questions that we would have. **[1:06:22] Joe Wicklund:** I didn't realize we had people online who'd like to speak. I can open up the public discussion again. **[1:06:28] Corey Colquist:** Thank you, I would. Hi there, come on in. I'll open up the public discussion again at 8:07 PM. Sorry, I didn't realize you were online. Can you give us your name and address for the record, please? **[1:06:45] Justin Sites:** Justin Sites, 4740 Hermantown Road. I'm directly across the street from the parcel, so I will be looking at whatever entity is built here. I'm just wondering why we aren't requiring more of the developer as far as a commitment before we open this up to just whatever commercial development goes in there. With this zoning change, if this falls through, it's a complete crapshoot as to what could go in there. So it's just somewhat concerning that we would make this change without the benefit of a concrete plan in place, especially as the committee here apparently has drawings that aren't public and it's being kind of somewhat discussed on the side here. But I'm just wondering if there's a better process where the zoning change could be delayed to a later date once a more firm plan is in place. Thank you for that. **[1:07:45] Corey Colquist:** Sir, I think that's the same point of view as one of our commission members. Anybody else like to speak this evening? Is there anybody else on there, Joe? **[1:08:12] Joe Wicklund:** If you guys want to speak, you're muted. I can't hear you. Okay. **[1:08:22] Corey Colquist:** Thank you very much, Joe. We're going to close the public hearing now at 8:09 PM. Commission members, again some questions or comments amongst ourselves. **[1:08:35] Beth Winsloff:** Some discussion. I have a comment. I am really excited about a new comprehensive plan and I think there is a lot of room for trying to develop a little bit more commercial and trying to hone in on getting a grasp for the city for the future. I think this is much needed. Because of that, I think that this rezoning is premature. I think we need to look at that comp plan and even as we're saying, a smaller site plan—a smaller area plan—if we need to hurry. But I think that we need to really look at this wisely. We don't want to be like a lot of the places down in the cities where they will jump to something and then have it not be something that is really good for the area. We need to look at the whole city and then hone in on areas, and I just feel like this is just premature. **[1:09:50] Corey Colquist:** Thank you for that. I guess I would tend to agree, Beth. This parcel is 27 acres, certainly could accommodate a nice development without going 65 feet up. I too think that maybe we need to just step back and wait for the comprehensive plan. Certainly wouldn't stop the developer from developing, but it might just make it prudent to wait a little bit until we get a plan. I guess that's my feeling. Commission members, any other comments? **[1:10:43] Valerie Olette:** I just want to make sure that I've got it correct—that by keeping the zoning as it is today, it would not stop the total number of units in any shape or fashion; it would just stop the height restriction, correct? **[1:11:05] Eric Johnson:** That is correct. The applicant could fall under a planned unit development. And under planned unit development, there's the ability to set setbacks, densities, etc. all those different things. The one firm hard cap that we have is the height. **[1:11:22] Valerie Olette:** Okay. And if I remember correctly, the Aery development is roughly five acres, right? **[1:11:32] John Geissler:** But yeah, the reality is a smaller quadrant plus buildings that might be just as intrusive as you know... I get it, there's a lot of unknowns, but I'm just asking to maybe not base it off of what is... I mean, you guys are familiar with us. By going up, you can have less overall square foot impact on the property. **[1:12:45] Corey Colquist:** This is our discussion now, right? And on the other hand, if they walk away then we could... and I am a commercial broker, we could fill this place right now with commercial. A tiny bit of me goes "ooh" and the rest of me goes "wow." So I still stand—we don't have a concrete somebody coming in here right this moment; it could be anything. I don't believe, if I heard correctly, we don't actually have a development plan in front of us tonight. **[1:13:55] Samuel Clark:** No, it's the element of just commercial alone could change everything. My thoughts on the matter would be, there again, we're looking at a rezoning. The project I like, and I understand the economics and everything and I think it's much needed. But to the "what ifs" point, we're just basing this on zoning and there's, I guess, too many unknowns for me. When I look at the summary and justification in our packet, it doesn't have me sold that this makes sense right now. Maybe taking a step back looking at it, it would make sense, but based on the information presented tonight by the city, I just do not feel comfortable with moving forward with this. There's too many unknowns for me and the biggest thing I think I'm struggling with is I don't know if this is spot zoning. To me, it seems like spot zoning. The commercial characteristics of the property surrounding it just—I'm not sold on that part. And some of these other justifications, I'm just not sold on yet. But certainly welcome the project and understand it all comes down to economics and things. It would be a great thing for the city but just based on zoning alone, I do not feel comfortable with it. Anybody else? **[1:15:05] John Geissler:** This is what we've been doing in the city since its inception. You do the rezoning and then you look for the developer to create the plan. You can't ask a developer to expend thousands of dollars to support engineered drawings that are going to be required for the next step without knowing if they're going to get it rezoned. This is the step, this is the process. We just can't put that requirement on the developer or the city who might want to move forward. So just think about that as you're moving along with the decision. **[1:16:00] Valerie Olette:** Is it totally out of the question here to make it a change with the condition that it's for a community apartment project, or is that...? **[1:16:08] Eric Johnson:** That would be a bit unusual. **[1:16:10] Corey Colquist:** I guess I wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable with that, but if there was—I would be open to other ideas of how we get the height with PUDs and different things. I don't know how those can be changed or tweaked. It just makes me way too nervous knowing that anything could go there. **[1:16:34] Samuel Clark:** I guess with the planned unit development, I know that's an option, but a planned unit development might also not make sense in this area too, depending on how it's laid out—might not be compatible with the area, it might be a detriment to the neighborhood. And I also don't think that you should just take any property that someone needs more height or wants to develop more space and just zone it commercial. I mean, you could do that, but then the precedent to me would be you could do it anywhere in an R3. Those are just kind of my thoughts. So it's not necessarily a development in and of itself, it's just taking a parcel of property, saying we should make it commercial, and then we can develop whatever we want on it because that essentially is what this application would be. **[1:17:18] Eric Johnson:** It's zoning. And I will echo what Councilor Geissler said: looking essentially, regardless of the decision, it's providing guidance to a potential developer as they move forward with the potential project. As I said, under a C zoning, you know what you're dealing with; if it's an R3, you generally know what you're dealing with. Right now it's in that gray area, and they're looking for some clarification based on their request. **[1:17:55] Beth Winsloff:** Eric, can you help me understand? So the PUD that we already approved for the—was it 28 single-family dwellings?—the old Ingwall project. So that property will also be rezoned commercial by doing this? **[1:18:13] Eric Johnson:** Right, yes. We'd rezone the entire property. What we try to avoid is having split zonings on properties, so we're addressing the 27 acres as a whole. **[1:18:25] Beth Winsloff:** And the developer that was going to put those buildings—is that the same developer that's doing these? **[1:18:32] Eric Johnson:** It isn't, no. The gentleman that spoke a little bit ago, he represents F5 Sulker; that is essentially their project. PNR is the one who has made the application. As I said, a PUD can function under any zoning within the city, so a potential rezoning of this property would not affect that prior approval; it could still go forward. **[1:18:55] Samuel Clark:** Now it's commercial then? If we... **[1:18:58] Eric Johnson:** It's commercial, yeah. But it can still... it still would be an approved project. They could still build it as essentially as approved. **[1:19:07] Corey Colquist:** If they walked away, potentially yes. We could have a big mobile home park. Just a thought. Commission members, any other discussion? **[1:19:20] Samuel Clark:** No further comments from me. **[1:19:23] Corey Colquist:** Any other guidance? Mr. Geissler, were you kind of alluding to possibly making it an exception for PNR? Like if PNR came forward that it could be zoned commercial if they came forward with a proposed plan, right? A condition... my wording was wrong there, but that's what I was thinking. **[1:19:40] John Geissler:** Everybody seemed uncertain, but again, my point is I don't care who the developer is—we can't ask the developer to move forward without giving them some sort of guidance. **[1:19:53] Corey Colquist:** Correct, I'm with you. I've sat here for a long time. I think that the guidance is whoever's looking at developing whatever parcel it is needs to know what their capabilities are on that lot. **[1:20:10] John Geissler:** Yeah, it makes sense. Sure, yep. **[1:20:15] Corey Colquist:** Here is—it's commercial, correct? **[1:20:21] Eric Johnson:** Yep, yeah. It would be changing to commercial, which is what we're being asked for, or keeping it R3, which they can still build an apartment building—it would just be a different shape. **[1:20:38] Corey Colquist:** Everyone gathering here... you know, some people worry about density, but the big thing is someone looking upon it, it should always be sitting up there. But that again is the original... and virtual we open, broaden everything didn't happen. But what I'm hearing is we would spend a couple hundred thousand dollars to put this nice beautiful 60-foot building and provide guidance, and we are doing this building. I feel like being able to hear that. **[1:21:20] Samuel Clark:** So again, I would say that's not necessarily the case. That's not necessarily the case, as a planned unit development application would be reviewed by the commission as a whole. Eric would have a report that the city would do diligence on. So in my mind, this is—we're kind of discussing things that don't exist right now. It's just rezoning a commercial, right? It's true. **[1:21:39] Corey Colquist:** Does anybody else have any comments on this this evening before we look for a motion? Not hearing any, I look for a motion on our fourth item this evening: an application by PNR Development LLC for rezoning a 27-acre parcel. **[1:22:07] Samuel Clark:** Sam Clark, based on my previous comments, I would make a motion to not approve—in my packet it's agenda item 5D—as stated. **[1:22:20] Corey Colquist:** Thank you for that, Sam. Do we have anybody that agrees with that or would like to make a different motion? **[1:22:28] Beth Winsloff:** I second his motion. **[1:22:30] Corey Colquist:** We have a second. All in favor? **[1:22:35] Commission Members:** Aye. **[1:22:38] Corey Colquist:** Anybody against? Sorry, it didn't pass this evening. It does go to City Council, yes. **[1:22:45] Eric Johnson:** Once again, earlier: Planning and Zoning in this aspect is a recommending board, they're not an approving board. This will go to the September 6th City Council meeting for a first reading, and then the actual meeting where action is taken is on September 19th. You're all welcome to be at both meetings. Traditionally, there's generally not public comment during a first reading; traditionally we have that at the second reading. But once again, you're all welcome to be at both meeting dates. **[1:23:25] Corey Colquist:** Outside of that specific item, that's great. Thank you, sir. And also it should be noted that commission member Tomasani abstained from the vote. Perfect, thank you very much for that. Really appreciate everybody. Number six this evening is continuing business; I'm not seeing anything there. Number seven is new business; do we have anything else this evening? There's none. Number eight, I'm not seeing any communications. No. Number nine is commission member reports. Myself, nothing. Mr. Colquist, no report. Valerie Olette? **[1:24:05] Valerie Olette:** No report. **[1:24:06] Corey Colquist:** Samuel Clark? **[1:24:07] Samuel Clark:** No report. **[1:24:08] Corey Colquist:** Beth Winsloff? **[1:24:09] Beth Winsloff:** No report. **[1:24:10] Corey Colquist:** Buckley Simmons? **[1:24:11] Buckley Simmons:** No report. **[1:24:12] Corey Colquist:** Dante Tomasani? **[1:24:13] Dante Tomasani:** No report. **[1:24:14] Corey Colquist:** And Councilor Geissler? **[1:24:15] John Geissler:** Have the audience, of course. I mentioned that the city is working, as everybody knows, on a recreational plan that will go in front of voters in November. Stebner Park plans for some work at the baseball field for church, some additional trails and additional expansion at the hockey arena. So there'll be some public meetings coming forward in September, early October, for example plans for all of those. So watch for that. And yeah, lots of much going on in that regard over the next few months prior to the November vote. That's it. **[1:24:50] Corey Colquist:** Thank you, Mr. Geissler. With that being said, I look for a motion to adjourn. It's currently 8:25 PM. **[1:24:58] Samuel Clark:** Sam Clark with a motion to adjourn. **[1:25:01] Corey Colquist:** Thank you for that. Can I get a second? **[1:25:03] Valerie Olette:** Olette second. **[1:25:04] Corey Colquist:** Thank you. All in favor? **[1:25:06] Commission Members:** Aye. **[1:25:08] Corey Colquist:** Really appreciate it everybody, thank you very much.