This transcript features the City of Hermantown Planning & Zoning Commission meeting from June 15, 2021. The meeting is chaired by Joe Peterson. [0:04] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Now we're recording. Welcome everybody to the City of Hermantown Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for June 15th, 2021. It's currently seven o'clock in the evening. We're going to start this evening's meeting with a roll call of members. I've got Corey Colquist—here. Valerie Ollette—here. Samuel Clark—here. Shannon Sweeney Jorgensen—I believe we're trying to get her in on Zoom, I'm not seeing her yet, but if she comes in we'll record that. Beth Wenzloff—here. Buckley Simmons—here. And Councilor Geissler—here. Thank you for that. Second up this evening is an approval of this evening's agenda. Can I get a motion on that, please? [0:45] **Corey Colquist:** I'll make a motion to approve tonight's agenda. [0:49] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you, Mr. Colquist. Can I get a second? [0:51] **Valerie Ollette:** I can second that. [0:53] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you, Valerie. All in favor? Aye. (Aye). Motion passes. Third up this evening is the approval of the minutes from our May 18, 2021 meeting. Can I get a motion on that, please? [1:08] **Samuel Clark:** Sam Clark, motion to approve the meeting minutes. [1:11] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you, Sam. Can we get a second? [1:13] **Buckley Simmons:** Second. [1:15] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you, Mr. Simmons. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes again. Fourth up this evening is public discussion. Is anybody here this evening to talk about something that is not on this evening's agenda? Not seeing any, we will move on to number five. [1:34] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** 5a this evening is a public hearing for an application by Kevin Middleton for a subdivision to create a 190-foot parcel of 2.20 acres— [1:45] **Eric Johnson (Community Development Director):** Actually, Mr. Chair, I think you maybe have a different agenda. [1:50] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Do I have a different one in front of me? Oh, I've got the 18th, sorry. Okay. Okay, right here. 5a is an application by Benjamin Tessier for a special use permit for filling and grading within a natural environment shoreline overlay zone located at 543x Maple Grove Road. This property is located in an R1 residential zoning district. Eric, what do you have this evening? [2:23] **Eric Johnson:** Great, thank you. As you had mentioned, this is a special use permit application for the grading and filling within the natural environment... We'll see if we have that taken care of. So, this is a property that's located on Maple Grove Road, it's right adjacent to Lindahl Road. If Mr. Wicklund is out there, if he has abilities to bring up a location map associated with this, that would be great. If not, I'll just kind of keep on talking as I go through here. This is a 20-acre property, once again located 543x Arrowhead Road—there's not an address associated with this yet. There are wetlands on this property; the wetland delineation has been conducted, approved, as well as impacts associated with it. That's an R1 residential zoning and as we mentioned, it's a natural environment shoreland area. The applicant purchased the property in the fall of 2020 for the purpose of constructing a single-family home along with the associated driveway with it. There is a tributary to the Rocky Run Creek which is located on the western portion of the property, however, the location of this tributary is not in the area of where the proposed driveway would be. However, because of this tributary, there is a 300-foot wide shoreland associated with that tributary and what that does is triggers the need for a special use permit for the grading and filling activities associated with that. The whole purpose of the special use permit is to have a higher level of standards associated with the grading and filling, how long soil can be exposed for, and different care that the applicant and any contractors would need to take while working in the sensitive area. This is a fairly common type of permit that we've issued a number of times before within the city. The special use permit—there will be approximately 6,275 square feet of wetland impact associated with this and that's for the purpose of constructing the driveway through the wetland area. Because this property is located in the shoreland area, the applicant is only allowed to get 400 square feet of wetland impacts; after that, he has to enter into a credit situation. The applicant has worked with a local delineator to take care of all that paperwork. The proposed structure that's going to be located on this property is greater than 150 feet away from the ordinary high-water level—that's one of the requirements of the shoreland zoning, so he does meet that. Staff is recommending basically concurrence by this group for the special use permit, and then that would be brought on to the city council for their ultimate action. [5:15] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Perfect, thank you for that Eric. Commission members, any questions or comments on this one this evening? [5:21] **Corey Colquist:** Joe, is there any chance you've got maps you can pull up? [5:26] **Joe Wicklund (Asst. City Administrator):** I believe I can, yes. Eric, do you have the titles of those for me? [5:32] **Eric Johnson:** Uh, it should be "Tessier" would be the location map. [5:37] **Joe Wicklund:** Now hold for a moment, it'll take me a moment to get there. [5:45] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** And I want to thank Mr. Wicklund for helping us out this evening. [5:49] **Joe Wicklund:** Let's make sure I get that right before we start thanking me. [Laughter] There's certain pieces where I might have to run to the back computer to share these things. [6:00] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Gotcha. We have total faith in you and if need be, specifically on the next application, I can go to the—I cannot, I was just looking across if I could use the overhead associated with it, I don't see that equipment anymore. [6:16] **Joe Wicklund:** Yeah, let's do—if you could pause for me, there's some pieces that don't allow me to share screen when I'm the host the way that I would like and I'm having a tough time pulling these off my desktop. So if you don't mind, I can make a quick run and get those done for you. [6:36] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Sure, that'd be great. It's going to be helpful for the next one, appreciate it. [6:42] **Eric Johnson:** Oh, thank you for catching that. Yes, member Wenzloff was kind enough to say that on the site information I do have a wrong address. It has a legal address of 543x Arrowhead; it's truly 543x Maple Grove Road. So thank you for catching that. But the three different maps that Mr. Wicklund is working on right now: the first one is a site location map which shows where this property is located in regards to Lindahl Road as well as Maple Grove Road; the second one is the wetland application which shows the wetlands on the property as well as the proposed driveway location associated with that as well as that location of the tributary; the last one is a shoreland overlay map which shows the 300-foot area associated with that tributary and where it falls on the property. [7:34] **Eric Johnson:** Thank you, Mr. Wicklund. This is the, as I mentioned, the location map associated with that. This is down in the southeast quadrant of Maple Grove Road and Lindahl. It's that 20-acre site that's shown in red on that property. Mr. Wicklund, if you can get the WCA map possibly? Thank you. This is a map that I just alluded to a few moments ago that shows—there's a proposed house building that's just above what's labeled as Wetland B. Actually, if you scroll a little bit to the north, Joe, you can see where that proposed driveway location is on the eastern portion of the property with that 6,275 square feet of wetland impacts. And then on the western side, you see it labeled as the Rocky Run Tributary; they said it crosses Maple Grove Road in that area by way of culvert. So this driveway location is not—does not impact that Rocky Run tributary. And then lastly, the shoreland map, please, Joe. Thank you. This is the—that cross-hatched area is that limits of the 300 feet both in the north and south associated with that Rocky Run tributary. [8:49] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you again, Eric, and thanks again, Joe. Again, commission members, any questions or comments on this one this evening? Not hearing any, we're going to open up the floor for a public hearing. That is at 7:09 PM. If anyone's here this evening to speak on this particular matter, you can come up to the microphone and please state your name and address for the record. I'll give you that opportunity now. Not seeing anybody for 5a this evening, we will close the public hearing at 7:09 PM as well. Commission members, again, any questions or comments on this one this evening? Not hearing any, I'll look for a motion on 5a, please. [10:04] **Valerie Ollette:** I'll move to approve 5a as stated. [10:07] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you, Valerie. Can I get a second? [10:09] **Corey Colquist:** Colquist with a second. [10:11] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you, Mr. Colquist. All in favor? Aye. (Aye). Anybody opposed? Not hearing any, motion passes. Next up this evening is 5b, and this one here is an application by Jay Zierden of Zierden Construction for a preliminary planned unit development for eight lots of twin homes—so eight total units—and 21 single-family lots for a total of 29 lots/units on a 33-acre site located at the northeast intersection of Morris Thomas Road and Okerstrom Road. The property is located in an R3 zoning district. Eric, what do you have for us this evening on this one? [10:38] **Eric Johnson:** Great, thank you. And I may ask—I'm going to ask Mr. Wicklund first if he's able to get the location map up associated with this one. [10:48] **Joe Wicklund:** Yeah, if you give me just a second, Eric. I think I've got a few moments here and then we'll roll into it. [10:52] **Eric Johnson:** Perfect, that way everybody can see it. All right, do you think we're in business, Eric? That's perfect right there, thank you. All right, so what I'll do is maybe scroll down to the south a little bit so we can look at the what we call the main site. So this application before us this evening, as Mr. Chairman had indicated, it's for the planned unit development. This is composed of three different properties located in this area. The main portion—that red which is labeled "Site"—that is the 33 acres that is owned by the applicants here this evening. There's the property just located to the north of that, the orange, what's labeled as Outlot A; what that is is that's a city-owned outlot associated with the Valley View Division Plat which had been created in 1995. And lastly, there's the teal portion labeled "City Right-of-Way"—that's a one-acre parcel that contains a 66-foot platted right-of-way associated with Carlson Road that once again was platted in 1995 as part of that Valley View Division project. All told, by combining these three pieces, it's a 36.5-acre property for these 29 housing units associated with it. Mr. Wicklund, if I can get the Valley View Division plat, please? Thank you. I don't think we have ability to rotate that... we're going to find out, but I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. Sure. At least I can start talking to it. As I mentioned, this is the Valley View Division plat which was done in 1995. It has the existing homes there along Johnson on the west side and what this plat did was establish basically three different things I'd like to call out. The first there is what's called Outlot A—that's a two-and-a-half-acre city-owned property that was envisioned for future development as part of this plat. The city had looked into the history associated with that, and as you notice on the top of the page, it actually says "Public Open Space." That's the city sanitary sewer that goes through there. This Outlot A had been indicated as strictly an outlot and was meant for future development. Just north of that is the platted 66-foot right-of-way of Carlson Road. That's an extension of the other Carlson Road that lies on the other side. This Carlson Road is actually—there's a jog in it, so it doesn't line up straight across from Carlson Road as it is; it intersects Haynes, but it was a platted road as part of that 1995 for the purposes of accessing property to the western area and be able to get access off of Johnson Road. Lastly, there's a 20-foot existing trail easement on the back side of all those properties and that whole purpose is for once again a trail project. The city has been working on the Munger Trail Spur for these last couple years. The residents of this area have probably been seeing the trail work that's being done to the south of Morris Thomas Road—that's the Keene Creek segment associated with this. And what's envisioned is that trail system will go all the way from Keene Creek all the way up to the Hermantown Wellness Center. This area, once again, this was an existing trail easement that had been laid out as part of that original plat back in '95. So the property that the applicant is under control of is just to the south of that outlot and there's the ability to connect to this existing trail easement by way of an outlot associated with this plat. Joe, if I could get into the colored plat map, please? Thank you. And Eric, if there's a particular area you want me to focus in on, tell me and I'll make that happen right now. [14:44] **Eric Johnson:** We'll just leave this as it is. So we've got some different layouts here associated with this. As I mentioned, there's 33 acres of developer-owned property, a two-and-a-half-acre city-owned outlot—and that's in that red dashed portion at the bottom left of your screen up there—and then there's that one-acre Carlson Road right-of-way which lies just to the south of that. This development is proposing 29 total lots. There are 21 single-family homes which are indicated in yellow on this page that you see here; those homes back onto the existing homes on Johnson. And then there's six interior single-family lots that would take access off of the Keene Creek Drive associated with this. And there is one lot that would take access off of the existing Okerstrom Road just by nature of the existing wetlands in that area as well as Keene Creek; it allowed access of that one parcel right there from Okerstrom. It didn't facilitate itself to connect into this other roadway system. The blue that's showing on here are proposed twin home lots. These are interior into the site. As Mr. Chair had mentioned earlier, there are a total of eight twin home lots for a total of eight units for this. What the developer and the applicant is indicating is these would be similar in style to the twin homes that he has constructed at the intersection of Haynes and Morris Thomas Road to be a similar-looking product. And once again, these twin homes are located in the interior of the site taking access off of that interior roadway. The lots in this development range from the single family of 16,400 square feet up to almost 59,000 square feet—that's really that lot there in the lower right-hand corner which is quite large. The twin home lots range from approximately 11,700 square feet up to 20,605 square feet. The zoning for this property is an R3 zone property. A planned unit development is allowed in the zoning district as well as any other zoning district throughout the city. As part of the zoning and the PUD, the proposed setbacks are as follows for all the structures: they have a proposed front yard setback of 50 feet, which is the same as an R3 zoning. The rear yard setback is 40 feet—once again, same as an R3 zoning. The side yard setbacks are proposed to be a minimum of 10 feet between each unit. That is a little different from the R3 because we have a minimum of 10-foot but a total aggregate of 25, and in this case, they're asking for 10-foot for an aggregate of 20. As part of the planned unit development, we are able to dictate or have different building setbacks associated with that. The reason that this is coming in for planned unit development are three different items here. One is the lot size associated with the single-family homes; traditionally, an R3 zoning has a one-half acre lot size which is approximately 21,300 square feet. Plus or minus 17 of these 21 homes are less than that. The homes that back on Johnson—those are pretty across the board at that 16,400 square feet. Another rationale associated with that PUD is the addition of the twin homes associated with that. This is actually one of the few developments within the city that combines both single-family and two-family housing associated with it. The only one that comes to mind is up in Twin Pines... and that was almost more by default that it originally had started as a twin home development and they had some infill with the single-family through time. So this is one of the more true PUDs that we have seen here in the city that looks at a couple different housing types associated with it. The applicant has hired MSA Professionals, a civil engineering firm located here in the Duluth-Twin Ports-Hermantown area. They have prepared preliminary grading, utility, as well as stormwater plans associated with this project. They've had multiple meetings with city staff including the city engineer, who's looked at these plans and made essentially comments at this stage regarding preliminary; these pieces are already in good shape from a design standpoint. They've done a really good job from MSA of being able to utilize the upland portions of the site. There is quite a bit of wetlands on this property, primarily located within the green area that you see on this drawing in front of us. And just to help everybody out in the audience, that green area is set up to be an outlot associated with this proposed development here that's approximately 12.6 acres in size. That consists of existing Keene Creek as well as a good portion of the wetlands within the property, as well as the stormwater ponds associated with this. The city does prefer that stormwater ponds are within outlot areas and in the case of existing or new developments, that those ponds be dedicated over to the city at the very beginning for their ownership and their maintenance. So the way this is laid out with that large outlot encompassing all those things, it works out quite well from a stormwater and environmental standpoint. The roadway proposed for this project is a 66-foot right-of-way. It takes access from Morris Thomas basically at the top of the sheet there. It comes in and turns towards the east where it intersects another portion of the roadway. That portion terminates a little bit to the south by way of a cul-de-sac and then that roadway continues to the north where it abuts that existing right-of-way associated with Carlson Road part of that Valley View Division plat. This is going to be a 28-foot wide bituminous roadway with curb and gutter with a five-foot wide sidewalk on one side of the street. It will be designed and built to city specifications and will be 100 percent responsibility of the developer to build and design this roadway. The city would eventually—this would eventually be turned over to the city for their ownership and maintenance, but once again, that's after the city engineer has reviewed it and accepted that project and the city council ultimately then accepts that roadway as part of the city system. As I had mentioned, there's two points of access associated with this project: once again, the southernmost being along Morris Thomas and the northeastern portion along that Carlson Road platted right-of-way. When the city looks at different projects, we really make a concerted effort to get two points minimum of ingress and egress into developments. This is for a life safety standpoint that we have multiple points to get into a property not only for our fire and any police response that way, but also in case if there's a water main or sewer main break something that happens within the development, that the people within this development have one other way to get out of that particular property. The fact that when Valley View Division was platted back in 1995, the foresight was that they included that Carlson Road right-of-way to be able to access land further to the west. It's been 26 years since the development has come forward and that's where we're at today. So what had been envisioned back in 1995 as an access to future development property is coming before us here this evening as part of this plat. This is something that the city has directed the applicant to pursue, once again to look at a life safety standpoint and have this continual roadway system that helps out this development here. As part of this development as well, there's going to be a land swap associated between the city as well as the applicant/developer. What the city is going to do is look at that existing two-and-a-half-acre property—once again, that red box area—and they're going to be swapping that two and a half acres for the 12 and a half acres associated with the outlot for this project. So once again, that green area, that outlot that you see there, that will all come under city ownership as part of this project. The benefits of that are multiple: the protection of Keene Creek with that outlot, the protection of wetlands on the site, the stormwater ponds are located within this outlot which eventually will be city owned and maintained. There's available land for this next segment of the Munger Trail Spur as it mentioned before. Joe, if you want to maybe put your cursor to the top part of the page, if you can roughly pinpoint where that trail comes through right now... approximately about that location right there. So then that trail would continue along Keene Creek for the most part, work within that existing green space, and then eventually hook up into that existing 20-foot easement associated with the Valley View Division plat. As well, the benefit of this land swap provides two points of ingress and egress to this development, once again for life safety purposes, and it has the ability to develop an existing outlot for residential housing—something that had been envisioned back in '95 when this plat was done at that time. Next steps for this project: this would go to a July 6th city council meeting for the preliminary PUD and the plat. There would be a future submission of the final PUD and plat associated with this. The developer has one year's time to make that application and during that time as well, there would also be a development agreement that outlines the agreements between the city and the developer, particularly having to do with road construction, stormwater, the land swap, etc. The applicant and their engineer will continue to work with the city engineer for the roadway design as well as utility systems. So at this point, that concludes my presentation. [25:37] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Perfect, thank you very much Eric. Commission members, any questions or comments for Eric? Any thoughts on this? [25:46] **Corey Colquist:** Yeah, I have a couple here. I guess to start, Eric, the green area that was on that map that was previously on the screen, can that ever be developed? [25:56] **Eric Johnson:** No, that will not be. To tell you truth, a good portion of that is existing wetland. That would come under city ownership for that; we would not want to see that developed. [26:07] **Corey Colquist:** So if this was to go through later down the road, no one could ever approach the city and try to develop any of that? [26:14] **Eric Johnson:** No, because our goals for that are once again the wetland preservation and particularly our trail, that this will be able to get this next trail segment secure right-of-way. [26:23] **Corey Colquist:** And then for utilities, is that going to be the developer's responsibility or will that be something the city would be paying for? [26:30] **Eric Johnson:** Thank you very much, I appreciate that. The utilities, roadways, stormwater, etc.—those are all 100 percent the responsibility of the developer to design those to city standards and build them to city standards. At that point, the city reviews those and accepts off on them and then they become city ownership. But those are the responsibility of the developer, 100 percent cost-wise. [26:55] **Corey Colquist:** Okay, and then the same with the stormwater ponds? The developer would be responsible for putting those in, once they're put in they pass it off to the city? [27:03] **Eric Johnson:** Yes, yes they will maintain them. The city maintains them after that point so we get a product that's in really good shape. It's nice because unfortunately, we inherit some of these stormwater ponds after the fact that they've been not maintained for 20 years. So we're getting a brand new product that way at the stormwater, which is a good thing. [27:16] **Corey Colquist:** Okay, and then the final thing, just the preliminary process. So this will get approved as you stated, and then has to go on to city council? [27:26] **Eric Johnson:** The city council—to help everyone out, the planning commission on a number of different items, this is one of them, the planning commission is essentially an advisory board that expresses support for it or not support, and they make a recommendation on to the city council. At that point, the city council is the group or the board that takes the ultimate action on items such as planned unit developments and preliminary plats. [27:51] **Corey Colquist:** And before any shovels in the ground, this would have to come back to us again and go through us and then the city again? [27:56] **Eric Johnson:** That's correct, yes. Because this is a preliminary, there'll be a final application for both the PUD and the plat as well. So we'll have the same thing again; we'll have another public hearing associated with it and it goes once again to the city council for the ultimate decision at that point. [28:11] **Corey Colquist:** Perfect, thank you. That's it. [28:13] **Valerie Ollette:** I did have a couple questions as well, Eric. The past few months we've had a lot of discussion about these planned unit developments and having them tastefully done and green space and area for the people that are going to be living here to picnic and get outdoors. I don't see any of that here. If those green spaces or if the green colored-in wetlands is in fact wetlands... other than that one trail, I don't see any recreational area here. [28:44] **Eric Johnson:** Yeah, that whole green outline—if Joe can get that back up again—not that's not 100 percent wet. There are opportunities within that that there can be some other open space with it. As I mentioned, the trail is ultimately envisioned to go through here and as part of that trail system, we do have other like pull-off areas for benches, picnic tables, etc., things like that. [29:13] **Valerie Ollette:** Okay, but the developer isn't doing anything? [29:16] **Eric Johnson:** No, not as part of that. The fact that they're turning over 12 and a half acres to the city for ownership is essentially... it's also a very large piece that they're turning over for us to have the ability to develop this. [29:27] **Valerie Ollette:** Okay, and then my other question is regarding Johnson Road. Last year that was repaved, quite extensive project, took forever it seemed. Was that done because of this development coming in? What was the time frame there? I'm just thinking if they're going to take this Carlson Road and make that curbs and gutters and sidewalk, I just wonder why that wasn't done on Johnson Road. [29:56] **Eric Johnson:** Johnson Road was an existing... the city has enacted what's called a roadway replacement plan for lack of better words. It's a series of five-year plans throughout the city that the city engineer and public works director has gone through all the city streets and basically ranked them from a one to five. What we did is try to pick off the worst of the worst and in this case, the Johnson-Carlson area was one area that needed quite a bit of work. Right now, we're working on Lavaque Junction just north of us. Each year we pick a different project, we try to coordinate the work where we can. No, that work did not have anything to do with this property. You know, obviously this property has been owned by the particular owner here for the last few years; this property did seek, I believe, a plan development back in I want to say '08 plus or minus for a townhome development which did not go through at that time. So we as a city always knew that this was a development piece of property and it would be developed sometime in the future. So no, the Johnson-Carlson work that was done last year did not have anything to do with this because this particular project came in after that work. [31:07] **Valerie Ollette:** Do you feel the Johnson Road is going to be substantial enough to handle the added traffic? [31:13] **Eric Johnson:** Honestly, and I'm not a traffic engineer, but the way it's set up—Joe, if you can get back that plan as well. Right now the Johnson-Carlson, that whole segment is essentially a low traffic standpoint. Even as you're looking at this—and once again I'm not a traffic engineer, I won't represent myself as one—but you look at this particular plan and the question is: where's a kind of a logical breakpoint within this development that people would want to travel northwards to get onto Carlson Road and then get out of that development? It's somewhere... I'll just do a quick count... potentially eight to ten lots is generally that breakpoint where you get along that midpoint of this roadway that people would have that option: "Do I want to go north or do I want to just go south and get onto Morris Thomas that way?" Will there be added traffic onto Johnson? Yes, there will be. At the end of the day, it still should be a low traffic roadway. [32:37] **Valerie Ollette:** Any other questions? Nope, that's it for now. [32:41] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Commission members, anybody else with any other questions? [32:46] **Samuel Clark:** Sam Clark, I have a few questions for Eric. One, I guess for the sake of everyone present, could you just explain maybe a little bit the difference between agenda item 5b and 5c? [33:04] **Eric Johnson:** Sure. Exactly. When the city does development, we have PUDs and typical subdivisions as ways for us to approve projects as far as a type of land use on there. There's also the plat associated with it, which is the subdivision of the property. The plat is the underlying mechanism which will subdivide this land into these parcels as we see on the piece of property right here. The idea of the PUD is the encompassing idea behind the project and in this case, it's once again a combination of eight twin homes, essentially single-family home lots that are approximately a third of an acre in size and a little bit reduced setbacks on the side yards—and that's the rationale for the PUD. But the plat is the thing that would then be recorded with the county for you and I to potentially buy a lot on. [34:01] **Samuel Clark:** So then I guess just for the sake of agenda item 5b, if theoretically a planned unit development was authorized, that wouldn't necessarily mean that this layout would also be approved in the next agenda item? [34:13] **Eric Johnson:** In this case, they're going hand in hand. The PUD as represented is shown with what's reflected on the plat. [34:21] **Samuel Clark:** Okay. Second question was: could you just explain how this specific application was exempt from the current moratorium on planned unit developments? [34:31] **Eric Johnson:** Sure. The moratorium that we had, if you recall, we had a three units per acre or greater triggered the moratorium. Projects less than that could still proceed. We did not want to close our doors totally to PUDs because that is our mechanism for a lot of developments. If you recall, a couple months back we permitted a townhome development at Hermantown Road and Lavaque; it was for three twin homes on four and a half acres. It falls way under the existing units per acre, but just because of the way our zoning ordinances are written, you have to pursue a planned unit development to have townhomes closer to 150 feet away from each other. So in this case, there are 29 homes on 33 lots, so it's essentially about... I think it's 0.8 or 0.87 units per acre. Standard R3 density is 2 units per acre. The moratorium is triggered at three. So not only is this falling underneath that moratorium, but it's also falling under the existing zoning as it is today. This is less than half of what is standard permitted under R3 zoning. [35:48] **Samuel Clark:** Okay, and then just my third question or maybe clarification would be: assuming that communication item 21-79 is probably directly tied to agenda item 5b, how would that proceed? The communication and the petition to stop the proposed road onto Johnson Road... assuming that that's closely connected to this agenda item, how would that be addressed if this was passed, let's say, before that was discussed? [36:20] **Eric Johnson:** I think as part of it, this is obviously something to keep in mind. I think that's why everyone is here this evening—a vast majority of people have signed this petition and that's related to it. That's something for obviously this board to keep in mind if they have issues or agreements with the neighbors associated with this. And ultimately for the city council to decide. The neighbors have expressed an interest that they do not want to see that roadway, but it is still the decision of once again this planning commission, and particularly the city council, to weigh that into the decision. [37:01] **Samuel Clark:** Okay, I have no further questions at this time. Thank you very much. [37:05] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Anybody else with any questions this evening? [37:09] **Buckley Simmons:** No, I just have one quick one. Outlot B, what's going to happen to that? So it can become city land or owned by the developer? [37:16] **Eric Johnson:** I believe that's the one that's located just north of Morris Thomas in that area. I believe there's a stormwater pond in that, so more than likely it'll be turned over to the city. [37:28] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Well, okay. [37:29] **Valerie Ollette:** I guess I just had one more question. Um, there's a picture of the twin homes. Are the individual lots going to be individual contractors and everyone different, or are the houses going to be all the same like some of the other developments? Do you know? And average mean costs, do we know that? Because I know we've talked about housing costs in Hermantown and being high. [37:55] **Eric Johnson:** I think we'll turn that over to the developer for that information for you. [38:00] **Valerie Ollette:** Perfect. Okay. [38:01] **Corey Colquist:** I suppose Eric, I do have just one clarification question too. If a planned unit development was approved in this case, what are the opportunities to change the road access to Johnson Road? Does that stop this development opportunity? Are there options to modify the layout? Is it a city requirement that you have to have two right-of-ways? [38:26] **Eric Johnson:** The city strongly encouraged them to do this. This is an existing right-of-way that's been on the books for 26 years for the purpose of developing property to the west. This project falls squarely within what the city envisioned 26 years ago on how to access interior land and to provide multiple access points. [38:46] **Corey Colquist:** I suppose knowing, kind of taking on Valerie, then—when Johnson Road was redone here recently, knowing the road is undersized, was there any consideration into modifying that knowing that the city had planned on adding another development here? [39:03] **Eric Johnson:** It was part of discussions of the existing property owners on Johnson and Carlson that that group had wanted to have a narrower roadway, and the city at that time adhered to that. So I was not part of that project, but that was constructed outside of city standards. The city did pay for that project until today; each property owner paid, I believe it was $9,750 either in a one-time payment or an assessment over 10 years, and then the city does pay for the rest of it that way. That's part of the roadway improvement project. [39:41] **Corey Colquist:** Essentially, there is no opportunity to change basically the plat? That's not part of this, at least the application at this point? [39:51] **Eric Johnson:** No. [39:53] **Corey Colquist:** No further questions. Thank you. [39:55] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Again, thank you, Sam. Is the developer here this evening or somebody that wants to speak on his behalf? Please come up to the microphone, give your name and address for the record, tell us a little bit about your vision for this project and how you came to the layout like it is. [40:15] **Jay Zierden (Developer):** Uh, I'm Darth Vader and this is my partner Voldemort. Seriously, I'm Jay Zierden and I've been building houses in the Hermantown area for 30 years. My kids go to school here, my friends live here. I'm not interested in throwing a bomb into the community and creating something that's bad for the community. I understand there's a lot of people here angry about this road. I would ask them to look at it from a different perspective. I would say the people in this room will probably be the primary users of this development. There will be a half mile of sidewalk that they don't have; it'll create a loop for them to walk, it'll give them access to the Keene Creek trail. Everybody's looking at this as "There's going to be 16 more cars on my road." By the time this development comes to fruition, half those cars will be electric; there'll be no sound. This development will take five to ten years to build up. There's 60 garage stalls here. More than half of those cars are going to go out on the Morris Thomas Road. The other half that do go to the Johnson Road... in 10 years a good portion of those will be electric cars. There will certainly not be any loud mufflers in this development. Again, I'm sincerely sorry, I had no intention of making people angry. I'm trying to do something... I'm putting a lot of money into this and giving it to the community. I'm building the road, I'm paying for it. I'm building the sidewalk, I'm paying for it. I'm building the water and the sewer and the stormwater and I'm paying for it. I'm giving it to the community. I'm giving it to you, and someday your friends or your children or your grandchildren might live there and you can walk there and have a cup of coffee with them. It—I understand you're angry about the traffic thing, but it will happen over a period of five to ten years; it'll be so gradual you will not notice the amount of traffic on the road. I guarantee that to be the case. And you're focused singularly on "more cars on my road." It provides access for you and your family and your friends to the rest of the community. So look at the whole picture, not just "more cars on my road." But that's all I hear. [42:47] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** We appreciate that, Mr. Zierden. Do you plan on building all the homes in there? Are there going to be lots for sale? [42:54] **Jay Zierden:** I do not. I will probably build the townhomes in the same manner—I don't know if you're familiar with my development on the corner. I promise they will look identical to that product. As far as the single-family homes, I would prefer to sell them and have... there will be covenants, you know, so that nobody's going to move in a trailer house. There'll be some consistency to the product there, but I do not intend to build the houses. [43:24] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Sure. And we've talked a lot as a group here over the valuation of homes and lots and stuff like that in the city. Whereabouts do you see the lots coming in at for sale? Because it's almost getting unreasonable for somebody to build a new home in Hermantown; it's pushing half a million dollars for a new house in Hermantown. A lot of that's on lot prices. I was checking just the other day and some of the lots that are going for sale in the neighborhoods like this are 120, 130 thousand just for the lot. Where do you see your 21 or so lots that you're going to put up for sale coming in at? [44:03] **Jay Zierden:** Our goal is to be under $100,000. But we have to pay for the sewer, which—everything is really expensive right now. So it's going to be cost-driven. You know, I don't get to pick that point today because I don't know what I'm going to pay for pipe and for fire hydrants and for concrete and for blacktop. [44:27] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** I'm not asking you to stick to a number, we're just curious. [44:30] **Jay Zierden:** Okay. [44:32] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** And I've seen your work; you've done beautiful homes here in the area for, like you said, decades. I've walked through many of them on the Parades of Homes and stuff. You do a nice product. Commission members, any questions for the applicant this evening? [44:48] **Valerie Ollette:** I guess I have one. It might be for Eric as well. Before you can start selling these lots, does this road have to be completely done—sidewalk—or can you knock down the trees and have a dirt road? I guess what is the time frame on that? [45:07] **Jay Zierden:** It would be next fall at the earliest before we can start building any houses in there. [45:12] **Valerie Ollette:** Okay. And do you plan on starting to build these homes before you put in—? [45:17] **Jay Zierden:** My preference would be to have for sure the curb, gutter, and sidewalk installed. Whether both coats of blacktop are on the road... I'm not certain yet. Depends on when winter comes and timing of those particular products. [45:30] **Eric Johnson:** And maybe I can jump in from right there. There's—as part of the development agreement, we outline those things. There's really two different avenues for developers to take. One is they complete all the work: the roadway's in, the stormwater's in, curb and gutter, the sidewalk's in, etc. And then at that point, the city signs off on the development and we sign the plat. At that point Mr. Zierden can start selling lots, start building lots. The other avenue is that the city's/applicant's engineer identifies the cost of what it will take to build all those things, the city engineer verifies the number, and then that becomes the basis for a letter of credit for 125 percent of that work. At that point, the city would sign off on the plat and Mr. Zierden can start selling lots. So the money is secured if something ever happens—Mr. Zierden walks away from the project and you're living there, the city has the money available to them to be able to complete that development. That money is on hand. So those are the two routes that developers can take to do their work in the city here. [46:42] **Valerie Ollette:** Perfect, thank you. [46:44] **Buckley Simmons:** Do you have another question? Uh, streetlights at all? [46:51] **Jay Zierden:** I have not had that discussion, but I'm certainly open to it. [46:54] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Commission members, any other questions for Mr. Zierden? [47:04] **Valerie Ollette:** Yes, I just—going on Sam Clark's comments earlier—if the Johnson Road was not included... and I know the city prefers it to be, that's the way it was designed... it looks like a beautiful development and well-needed, certainly needed in the community. Are there any options other than Carlson Road to Johnson Road that would be possible? I know the city would not like it, but I'm just throwing that out there from my perspective. [47:33] **Jay Zierden:** Of course, you could dead-end it and put a cul-de-sac in it at the end of the outlot. But honestly, if I live there, I want to see these people... if they look at the big picture, it makes the community better to have the road run through. I think if you look at all perspectives—not the singular traffic perspective—it's better for the community to have it go through. But I probably will never live there, so from my perspective, I'm fine with putting a cul-de-sac on the end. But I think it's a better product that goes through. [48:14] **Eric Johnson:** I'll jump on that a little bit more too. As we look at more things as well, it's not only the life safety but also the maintenance of this road. All this road needs to be snowplowed, and when you get developments that have long dead ends in it, it becomes very inefficient; you have issues with snow storage, you have issues maintaining it. When you have the abilities to have through roads, it's a much more efficient system. Let's just even envision the comp plan is trying to use an efficient use of our infrastructure that we have, whether it be roadways, water, or sewer that way. So we look at all those different things. Regarding "is there another out for this roadway," it makes it very difficult to get back onto Okerstrom Road. Not to say it's impossible, but you've got potential stream crossing which would be fighting tooth and nail with the DNR to be able to get that permitted; there's wetlands over in that area. It's a lot of impacts that would be associated if you tried to get a roadway out onto Okerstrom. I'm not saying it's impossible, but there's a lot of environmental issues associated with that. [49:09] **Valerie Ollette:** Okay, thank you. [49:10] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you, Mr. Zierden. We might have you come back up in a little bit. That being said, we're going to open the floor up for a public discussion. When you get up to the microphone, please state your name and address for the record. If we've heard the same thing three or four different times, I'm actually going to cut you off; we're trying to get out of here at a decent hour this evening. The public record is going to be started right now at 7:50 this evening. [49:33] **Tony Marino:** My name is Tony Marino. I live at 3760 Johnson Road. Thank you, sir. I am the person that initiated the petition. I'm sure you guys have heard about it. Um, I'm pretty fired up about this thing, and even more so after listening to the comments. Um, I do not see the Carlson Road as a benefit to our neighborhood. You've said many, many times during this that the city has been planning this since 1995. And yet two years ago, they had a chance to rebuild the Johnson Road knowing that there could have been some more development there—that wasn't discussed with those of us on the Johnson Road at that time. So now we're talking about putting 37 housing units in there, and I don't buy that there's only going to be eight houses driving north, because when you start heading north, you've got Fleet Farm, Walmart, Sam's Club, Costco, the mall, Target... you got a lot of businesses up that way. And so there's going to be a lot of people exiting north, not eight houses and 16 cars. It's going to be a lot more. That's why I talked to everybody on the Johnson Road, the Portland Road, everybody that has access from Morris Thomas to Haynes Road, because they're all going to be affected. The Johnson Road is a narrow road; it's used by everybody in the neighborhood as a place to walk their dogs, to push their strollers, to ride their bikes. And quite frankly, I could have gone up to the Alexander Road and got people to sign it; I could have gone to the Dana Road... because all these people are walking around our neighborhood all the time. Adding a few sidewalks down there isn't going to improve our neighborhood. We already live in an area of town that probably has the highest density, the smallest lots in the whole city. Now we're adding a whole bunch of more living units. And I'm not here to question the development itself, I'm here to question the development of the Carlson Road. It's been stated in the paperwork as I've read—you've mentioned it—that it's a safety thing, fire, police. Well, throw a fire hydrant in them. The fire department's just down the Morris Thomas Road on the corner, three-quarters of a mile from the development. They're not going to come in around to the Johnson Road to get there; they've got good access. Um, I even would kind of hate to see emergency vehicles coming in from the north, but these maps don't show they come in from the north. They're going to have to come up Portland Road, they've got to come around, they're going to be making all kinds of zigzags potentially at high speed if it's an emergency on a narrow road that's traveled by a lot of people on foot and bikes and everything else. I would be willing to bet that they can get to the area quicker if they take the main roads with straight shots, wide access, wide shoulders and all that stuff. You also stated that for plowing it's more difficult if you got a cul-de-sac, but this development already has a cul-de-sac, so there's no reason we can't have another cul-de-sac. Let's just eliminate this Carlson Road from the thing and let us have our neighborhood. You know, as I pulled all these people, there's a lot of people that are new—from three months to a year to a couple years—and they all told me "Thank you for doing this. One of the reasons we chose to live here was because it was a quiet neighborhood." I'm not so buying into the electric cars thing. We just spent seven or almost ten thousand dollars per property to have our Johnson Road fixed up. This is going to add traffic, which is going to add wear and tear, it's going to add noise, and it's going to add a hazard to the people that like to walk that neighborhood because there's going to be an increased amount of traffic. So please consider that. [54:14] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Perfect, sir, thank you very much. Ma'am, if you'd like to speak, please come up to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. [54:26] **Lisa Smith:** Hi, my name is—thank you. My name is Lisa Smith. I'm a resident at 3761 Johnson Road. So Tony came by and talked about the petition and of course I was a little reticent because I live adjacent to what is going to be the Carlson Road. And Mr. Zierden, I respectfully would like to—[Music] Um, I'd like to also tell you that we're [Music] very... as personally, my husband and I don't have any reservations with the developments [Music]. It is what it is, cities develop, we understand that that happens. There are some concerns that I do have and there are some things I'd like to note. Number one: we will be experiencing major change in our neighborhood based upon this development coming in. All of those trees will be gone. Our neighborhoods will look vastly different because of this development going in. We understand that, we accept that as hard as development is, part of development going in. However, I would also like to respectfully disagree with you, Mr. Eric Johnson, about knowing 25 years ago that that Carlson Road was platted and knowing that development would go back there at some point. A two-acre, two-and-a-half-acre outlot that the city owned is vastly different than a 36-acre development with 29 homes going in there. That's very different for the Carlson Road than what the city could reasonably say. When we built our home, we were told "This is what the city owns; any development that goes back there will be very small and if anything, it would be a very long driveway which would be very expensive and it likely won't happen. So build your home as close to this property line as you can because you gain on the other side and this road likely won't ever go in." And I say that in all honesty, that is what we were told when we built our home. Now we have a road going in that has a 66-foot wide easement and there will be—essentially people can reach out and catch our home when they drive by our home. When I look at the plat of the new development and you look at the traffic pattern that is built in there... it's a beautiful development, but you know, has the nice cul-de-sac and the cutoff road and whatever. But if you look at the main traffic pattern of that development, it's a straight road that comes back to the Carlson Road and there's a little jog that goes left onto Morris Thomas. Most of the homes are on that straight path with the exception of the townhomes that are set in there. So if I were a driver and I was thinking about going north, the last thing I would do, even as the home closest to Morris Thomas Road... the last thing I would do would be to pull out of my garage, turn this way then turn this way then this way. I would instinctively drive straight ahead and turn right on Carlson. That means every home along that main development where the lots are proposed to be smaller is going to come out and up the Carlson Road, which is many more than the eight lots that you're proposing will likely go that way. So that in consideration with the Johnson Road being built narrower, and the difficulties that they had with the Portland Road coming down and around with the construction of the Johnson Road... I'm not sure if any of you are familiar with this, but there were some issues with the Portland Road coming down and around. It's a major safety hazard there. I can tell you that with experience because I almost got into a head-on collision with another vehicle as I was traveling down the Portland Road and another car was coming up Johnson to go up Portland, and it wheeled around that corner. And had I not slammed on my brakes, it would have been a head-on collision right there and nowhere to go but over into the ditch, which is a little bit steep. So adding more traffic there, including not just residential but all of the delivery trucks and the mail trucks that currently use our road as a thoroughfare, and the UPS and the FedEx and you know all of the traffic that has now come forward as part of home deliveries and groceries and all of that is going to be added to Johnson Road. And it's not just about Portland, it's about our neighbors, it's about our kids and our grandkids playing on the road and being able to walk safely in the road. We don't have the sidewalks. But I am saying that our kids don't play on that sidewalk, our kids play—they ride their bikes. Where are their friends on Johnson? They're not going to ride them over there because I as a parent, if I were living down at the end of Johnson Road, wouldn't let my kids go far enough down to play on that sidewalk. Um, I'm just asking that you consider it. I'm asking that you consider that maybe the inlet and outlet there isn't the best thing for that neighborhood. And maybe there is another possibility and it might take more work and it might take more planning, but I'm asking you to consider it. And I'm asking you if no other changes can be made to the plat as it exists, then I'm asking you to turn it down until a different development can be made for it. Thanks. [1:01:06] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much, ma'am. Mr. Chairman, I've heard a couple of different numbers on the unit count. [1:01:12] **John Geissler (Council Councilor):** Johnson, can you confirm the unit count? [1:01:14] **Eric Johnson:** Yes, the unit count is 29. I've heard 39 a couple times; that is 29. [1:01:18] **John Geissler:** Okay, thank you. [1:01:19] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you, Mr. Geissler. [1:01:21] **Carolyn Clark:** Hi there. Can you please state your name and address for the record? I'm Carolyn Clark, I live at 4744 Portland Road. I have two comments. I live on the twisty curve, and I think the narrowness of the road is a serious consideration. I have witnessed on more than one occasion when a school bus and a garbage truck cannot pass each other because the road is too narrow. The other thing I've witnessed on more than one occasion is that cars—two or three—have backed up because someone's parked on the road. One was a graduation party, one was a garage sale, and the school bus could not get through and had to stop. So if you're thinking of safety issues, kids parked on the school bus for... it was about 15 minutes. Not a good thing, stopping traffic because of the narrowness of the road. But that curve is—I see it all the time where it's a real issue for vehicles passing. [1:02:37] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you. You're welcome, man. Thank you for your comments. Come on up, state your name and address for the record, please. [1:02:44] **Janet Johnson:** I'm Janet Johnson and I live on 3743 Johnson Road. And one comment I want to make: the development doesn't bother me so much, but we can get to it simply by going down Morris Thomas Road. We don't need another road to get to a trail. Anyway, some of this is a little repetitive. I just invite anyone who's going to be involved in the decision-making to go down Johnson Road and to clarify. [Music] A couple years ago when they started planning, I think the original... they were thinking of 24 feet and with the money involved, the citizens talked about 22 feet would be wide enough. You know, they brought it down to 20; we had no say in that. We agreed to 22, not 20. So, to the safety issues... I have an acquaintance that came down Portland around the curve and almost hit a person. The other day I was walking very much on the edge with my dog on the edge of the pavement, and someone was coming down and someone was coming behind me, and that person behind me just stopped just to let the other person come through. So it's a very narrow curve. I worry about kids riding bikes. The grates are steep on the slopes. Our culvert is quite steep and sometimes driving I feel like if you meet a car or there's someone walking, it feels like you're almost going to sideswipe the mailboxes. So I invite anyone to come and take a drive. But yeah, that's about all I have to say. We didn't expect a boulevard, but it'd be nice to have had for our money a little wider road. And I worry about the safety. [1:04:42] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much, ma'am. Sir, if you could state your name and address for the record, that would be wonderful. [1:04:49] **Jim Samberg:** I'm Jim Samberg, 3789 Johnson Road. Hello Commission, Councilor Geissler. Um, first I'd like to thank Tony there and our neighbors for speaking up. One of the biggest things I see here is we have a petition of all neighbors. I'd like you people to take that into consideration. Everyone has signed that and i think that petition should mean something pretty strong to this commission and to the city council. It isn't about quietness on our street as much as it is about more traffic. Electric cars are good and great, but they're still there. That's one of the biggest points. One of the questions I have is: wetlands... is that Carlson Road wetland? It sure looks like... I mean it's... so when they were doing sampling in there they had to have a track vehicle in there I believe to make that sample. So I can't believe that isn't a wetland, a piece of wetland. But if it's not, that was my question. Another one is half-acre lots. Why would we make a consideration for that? That's been around forever. This is a new development, why do we want to make them smaller? This is a great development, it seems like a beautiful plat. I get the amount of houses and you need homes, but why put them so close together? Why not make them half-acre lots and leave it as is? Then we can have as many... whatever houses you can fit in that half-acre lot. Stormwater pond is another question of mine. Why does the city want to take that over? I've been on the utility commission for over 20 years, so I've been around the block a little bit. I get the stormwater pond deal, but I believe that Keene Creek Townhomes take care of their own ponds, and as part of development if they don't take care of them, there's usually the superintendent that goes out there and checks them. Why do we want that as a city and take on that responsibility? I'm not against the development, I'm against the road. I just don't like the road. The reason why we live on Johnson Road is it is quiet. I'm not against development of the project behind us, I just don't like the road. And I agree with Mr. Marino about the fire department's down Morris Thomas, and a cul-de-sac... there's nothing wrong with a cul-de-sac. They're all over the place, they're everywhere, and they're beautiful cul-de-sacs. Am I correct? Um, the Carlson Road does Johnson Road residents no good. We just have a new road. We love our neighborhood, we love our neighbors. Thank you, Mr. Marino, for taking the time to put that petition together. And we'd like it to kind of remain that way—that the development works behind us on a cul-de-sac. I'm all good with that, it's just the Carlson Road project. And 25 years ago... I've lived there on Johnson Road maybe 23 years now... I don't remember any of that plan going through. Not saying it isn't true, but it wasn't even talked about. And then when that road was redeveloped and blacktopped and everything, which by the way cost us a lot of money. And so we'd like you guys to take that... you people, I'm sorry... to take that under consideration. You know, that road is new and we'd like to keep it that way. [1:08:44] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for your time. Thank you very much, sir. If you'd like to come up, state your name and address for the record. Remember, we've been hearing the same thing from everybody as far as traffic and that kind of stuff; if you've got something new, that'd be great. [1:08:58] **Jim Langdon:** Yes, Jim Langdon, 3733 Johnson Road. Uh, one of my concerns is this PUD deal that you guys keep talking about. Um, the impression I have is it's going to be like the rest of the neighborhood, and from what I see, I have three lots touching my property now with this new development that is not the same as what's around. I think the lots are way too small in the project that they have developed. [1:09:31] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Can I ask how big your lot is? 150 by 300? [1:09:37] **Jim Langdon:** 150 by 300, and I'm at 3733 Johnson. Okay. Then the next thing is I'm concerned about the water line... that you want to move in the water system, which means you would have to connect it with the Johnson Road. And the Johnson Road water line is on the east side of the road. Does that mean our road gets started again? And um, that's it. Thank you. [1:10:02] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you, sir. Ma'am, come on up, state your name and address for the record, please. [1:10:08] **Jennifer Jacobson:** Jennifer Jacobson, 3751 Alexander Road, one road off Johnson. Thank you. Um, and I apologize, this is relevant and additional though. Great. I'm here to address concerns not only for the current development being contested, but also to address my concerns on the planning and zoning of Hermantown in general. On the City of Hermantown's website, the first thing you read, and I quote, is: "Hermantown, Minnesota has the advantages of accessible big city amenities while still allowing for country living and small town community feel." To me, building multiple large-scale housing units in pockets all over the city does not coincide with the country living and small-town community feeling as stated, but instead you are creating the big city housing amenities that many residents of Hermantown moved here to get away from. In the last year and a half, there have been requests for almost 450 housing units to be built in Hermantown. I know that not all of them have been granted, but this goes to show how much pressure there is to develop every available open lot. The units that have been approved have not even been completed yet, and you are already wanting to add more. As we speak, townhouse units are being built less than a mile from this proposed project. And yes, they are very nice townhouses being built, but what is going to happen when all of these units around this town are filled and demands on our infrastructures are increased? The city's road improvement plan just replaced those roads in that neighborhood and as you saw, the condition that the water and sewer pipelines were in... they all needed to be replaced. And now you want to tap into them again... do you think the ones in the neighboring area are going to be in any better shape than what you had to deal with? Furthermore, with these units, there will be families with children needing to go to school. And I know that it is the school board that must deal with that issue, but why act like the decisions that are made today do not affect anyone else in the future? We have just begun to pay the increased property taxes on the remodeling that the school district did to consolidate the school. Do you really think when five to ten years when all these units are being built that we will want to hear once again that we need to think about the children that have no place to sit because the schools are no longer large enough to accommodate the influx of students that you created by over-densifying the town? Additionally, the units that are currently being built are not just being built in one area or blended into their surroundings, but are instead being built on any piece of land that is just big enough for the units to be squeezed onto with little or no buffering to the single-family home neighborhoods that they are being built in. Just because there are only a few big buildable lots currently available does not mean that you have to allow developers to build maximum capacity on them. And what will happen to the current housing prices in these neighborhoods once the market becomes saturated with all these new units? Flooding the housing market in these neighborhoods could potentially drop the market value of the existing homes once the demand is gone. The current Growth Management Comprehensive Plan is from 2001 with the top three plan concepts listed being: one, maintain the rural and suburban character of Hermantown; two, manage residential development to preserve critical natural features in existing established neighborhoods; three, phased residential development consistent with necessary and available public infrastructure. According to the 2014 Small Area Planning Guide amendment to the plan, Hermantown exceeded the population projections that were used as the basis of that 2001 plan in 2010. For the last 10 plus years, the city council and the planning and zoning commission have been using the plan recommendations that were created for a much smaller based population over 20 years ago. And I understand that the planning and zoning commission have been talking about updating that comprehensive plan, but until it is completed, they are now looking at basing current decisions from their Planned Unit Development (PUD) and in the recent survey that you guys did. My issue with this line of decision-making is that this survey was sent out to only 56 people with 45 participants responding. How can something that is going to significantly impact over 9,000 Hermantown residents be based on opinions of 45 people, with some of those having a direct financial stake in the outcome of these decisions? According to the March 16, 2021 city council minutes, 37.5 percent of the survey group was comprised of Hermantown residents, not counting counselors, PNC members, or city staff. But it also stated that that 37.5 percent did include local realtors and developers. Now, I have a hard time believing that a single realtor or developer recommended to slow down building multi-unit housing. In this small of a sampling group, if the few people who will financially benefit from more housing being built were given equal weight in this survey as to the thousands who live in these neighborhoods, then their results will be skewed in their favor. This survey is potentially unethically biased towards encouragement of growth and development, and more citizens need to be given a chance to be involved in the growth of their community. I am not saying that this project or all development is bad, but Hermantown residents cannot be expected to solve the current housing problems. A future large-scale plan including all aspects needs to be assessed. To me, it feels like you are not looking at the big picture of this town with accurate data and what the citizens of Hermantown want. I ask you to take a moment to look at the current website homepage and see if yet another large-scale housing development truly fits, and if it is what the current residents in this and other neighborhoods need or want. Thank you. [1:16:47] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much for your words this evening. Anybody else want to come up and speak this evening on this matter? Sir, if you can state your name and address for the record. [1:17:05] **Jay Zierden (Developer):** Jay Zierden, Zierden Construction. As the developer, I just want to say first of all... going through this process with Eric, the city engineer, MSA... we have basically kind of went with their guidance and what they thought made the most sense. And like Eric brought up, this was a future vision and we want to do it right. One thing I think that's skewed is they're talking about the price of building—that isn't just Hermantown, that's across the country. And nobody likes change. But Hermantown's the place people want to be. I bought this product four years ago; I bought it from a developer and it was going to be developed. Next to that, for ten years I've lived in Pittsboro Preserve which is right out of dental... I mean, parts of that aren't even paved that have 44 lots, not 29. So I understand Johnson Road residents' concern, but I also... as a council, I mean, taxes are only going up. This is going to make the City of Hermantown stronger. And if many people don't want these things, they don't want to see their taxes go up—well, in order for that to happen, we have to produce tax dollars. That's all I gotta say. [1:18:48] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much, sir. Anybody else this evening that wants to speak at the public hearing? [1:18:55] **Joe Wicklund:** Mr. Chair, when there is a chance, I do have at least one folks online. [1:19:00] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you, Joe. I'll check in with you, Joe. Appreciate it. One more, quick... can I get your name and address one more time? [1:19:09] **Jim Samberg:** Jim Samberg, 3789 Johnson. And my comment was... the property that we're looking at... they were going to put up a buffer of trees along that property to the back of the people on Johnson Road. And I've been wondering if there's any way, whereas the development goes up—like I said, development at all—but a buffered zone. They were going to plant trees there to keep the development and the neighborhood separate. Just curious if that's a question or a possibility for our neighborhood. [1:20:00] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Sure, thank you. Thank you again, sir. Anybody else this evening? State your name and address for the record, please. [1:20:07] **Tim Cleary:** Good evening, I'm Tim Cleary, I live at 3782 Okerstrom Road. I was really happy to hear that you are caring about the wetlands and I just wanted to get some clarity. I heard—I was a little confused about something. I heard that the wetlands are going to be reserved; I'm wondering if there's been an environmental impact study on the wetlands? And then there was also a question about green space or play space for kids. I know there will be a lot of kids moving into this development, and well, there has none set aside in the plans for such a thing unless it sounded like I've heard somebody say picnic tables being put. The only place left besides the development is in the wetlands in the surrounding area, so I'm not sure how to— [1:21:00] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** I think Eric touched on a couple of your items earlier. There was a wetland study done on the property. Over 12 acres of that will be given to the city. Through that, there will be a trail that's going to be created with that. It's got spots where you can stop along that trail and essentially have a picnic lunch or something. They're working on a new spur of it right now. [1:21:28] **Tim Cleary:** Part of the trail system, not part of the development? [1:21:30] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** It's part of the overall trail system. This trail system will connect to Keene Creek Park by way of a 2,100-lineal-foot trail that's almost finished right now. There's plans in the future to add a playground to Keene Creek as well. So not only an amenity for that park, but for this portion of the city here as well. [1:21:55] **Tim Cleary:** Thank you, sir. [1:21:56] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Anybody else this evening you'd like to come up and speak? [1:22:00] **Audience Member:** Can I ask the question without taking the podium? The setback for the R3 zones... the back you name the side setbacks... [1:22:15] **Eric Johnson:** The rear yard setback in the R3 zoning district is 40 feet; proposed under this development is 40 feet, so that mirrors that. I can also add there are some comments about lot size. All the lots in here from the single-family standpoint are proposed to be a minimum of 100 feet in width. R3 zoning is a minimum of 100 feet. So the only thing is they're not quite as deep as the standard R3, but they still meet all the R3 requirements—front and rear yard setbacks—with the exception of the side yard mirror. [1:22:52] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you so much. Thank you again for that clarification, Eric. Okay, one more shot. Anybody want to come up and speak this evening on this matter? Not hearing any, we will close the public hearing—Joe? [1:23:07] **Joe Wicklund:** Just a reminder, I'd like... we have at least one in the online setting that would speak. [1:23:13] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** I forget about the Zoom world, I'm sorry. Sorry. Hi there, welcome to our meeting this evening. Could you please state your name and address for the record? [1:23:25] **Joe Pike (via Zoom):** Hi, my name is Joe Pike. I'm at 3729 Johnson Road. I won't reiterate too many of the earlier points; I just want to speak to the cumulative effect of the issues and objections that we've heard tonight. The road obviously is a concern for many people. My wife and i walk around the existing streets with a newborn and a stroller. Soon enough, that kid is going to be riding around on a bike and I definitely have those same concerns that we heard earlier. I very much encourage anyone making the decision to drive the neighborhood; I think that was a great suggestion that we heard earlier tonight. The size of the lots was another concern. Cumulatively, it's the same for me. I'll have at least two lots that will abut the rear of my property. I don't necessarily have a problem with single-family homes behind me, but I think people in this area love privacy and that's not going to be different for prospective homebuyers as well. And meeting the minimum setbacks on an undersized chunk of land is not conducive to privacy for anybody—the existing homeowners or the new people. Like we heard earlier tonight, if you can reach out and touch your neighbor, that's not necessarily ideal. I would consider larger lot sizes if possible. It just feels like the development is shoehorned in. It's a chunk of land that in my mind is developable, but barely. There are sections of it that are usable, there are sections of it that are not, and we're trying to squeeze that lemon for everything that it's worth and I just don't see how that's in the best interest of the City of Hermantown. Another problem that I have is with the way that this was communicated, or rather the lack of communication. To hear Mr. Eric Johnson speak earlier tonight, the builder and the city must have been in collaboration and discussions for quite some time, but the first time a map of the planned development was made available publicly was just over 24 hours ago. And I think that was only because I was squawking about it. I asked, "Where can I see this map?" The Zoom link wasn't even posted for this meeting until just over 24 hours ago. And I think that shapes the conversation, I think that limits participation from the public, and I think that is intentional. And i have a problem with that as well. So those are all of my concerns. Thanks very much for hearing me. [1:26:01] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate you zooming in this evening. Anybody else want to speak on this, Joe? Is there anybody else in the waiting room? [1:26:08] **Joe Wicklund:** No one else has asked of the members in the Zoom room. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [1:26:12] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much. We will close the public hearing at 8:26 in the evening. Commission members, some discussion, some questions, some comments? Anything from you guys? [1:26:26] **Eric Johnson:** I guess first of all, I'd just like to respond to that last comment. The city, as part of the process, mails out notices to adjoining property owners 1,000 feet... [1:26:41] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Can I stop it? For years it was only 350. It was a much smaller distance. [1:26:47] **Eric Johnson:** Exactly correct. And for years, we only sent out a letter letting you know about the meeting. As part of that letter, it states basically... and in the past, people traditionally get the letter and they'll call me and I share information. Until we have an application, basically, we have to work under... we have to protect all parties involved. Because if you come to me and say, "I want to build this," and I start telling people, "Joe wants to build that," it jeopardizes Joe's product and land values and different issues. So until a project is actually submitted to the city, we're not at liberty to give details about it. I can say that there's been talk about a potential development, it's going to be potentially a combination of different housing products. I can talk in vague terms; I can't say it's going to be this, it's going to be that until actually I see it too. And like I said, we send these letters out... I believe these letters all went out June 4th, which meets the state statute that we have to notify everybody. And I said in the past, you know, I'll traditionally get some phone calls. It's really just been through the pandemic that the city has actually posted the entire agendas for planning and zoning to our website. In the past, it was just a letter. So we've been trying to be more proactive in getting this information out there to the public. But once again, it's always available—someone could come in to me during that whole time once they get notified, I'd be happy to show them the project. So no, we're not in collaboration or collusion or trying to hide things from the public. [1:28:16] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Right. Even in the last year or so, we've given more information than we have for the previous decade plus that I've been doing this. I think Mr. Geissler can attest to that as well. Councilor Geissler, do you have any guidance on this this evening? [1:28:40] **John Geissler:** I just commented to say that I believe that the posting was on the website earlier than 24 hours ago. I know I looked at it a few days ago. I got my packet last Wednesday and I think all the commission members did that day as well. And as Eric said, he's always got an open-door policy. For me, I'm all about development and I think it's good controlled development. I'm not opposed to this project at all. It's been interesting listening to all of the discussion tonight, and just remember everybody: that road was platted and has been platted since 1994, I believe it was. So I think the other development that that Carlson Road could have been used for was development to the west where there's a huge parcel that is under one ownership that could have been sold by anybody. So I don't think that that Carlson Road was just intended for that small little piece of city property. It could have been and still can be for potential development further to the west between that road and Okerstrom. There is still a lot of other possibilities of further development to the west. Thank you all for taking the time and I think it's appreciated. It will go to the city council regardless of what the planning commission says tonight, so you'll get another opportunity to come and speak to the council as well. [1:29:43] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** I'd like to just put my two cents in a little bit. I'm kind of intimately tied into this; I actually own a home on Alexander Road so I know the neighborhood very well. I've walked around Johnson Road and Portland Road and Alexander Road quite often. The roads are nice and new and beautiful in there and they're a little skinny—I'm not going to tell you they're not. But it wasn't my decision to make them as wide as they are. But I wonder if we would be having the same conversation if we were talking about extending Portland and building Johnson Road? Would all the Alexander Road people be there complaining about it? Because nobody here is from Alexander except for one lady I believe that spoke. I also live in a neighborhood here in Hermantown that doesn't have sidewalks on the side of the street and I walk out of my neighborhood to walk the city streets that have sidewalks and pass many, many people. I also walk a lot—I probably walk 25 or 30 miles a week—so I use the city sidewalks often. So I do understand your point there, Mr. Zierden, about being able to use that infrastructure and the people that live in that area and it would be a little bit of a safer thing. I have no problem with it. I believe when Johnson Road and Alexander Road were platted years ago, somebody knew somebody was going to... someone in the future was going to build something to the west and that's why they made that Carlson Road plat. And we just happen to be here today. We weren't here 10 years ago, we're not here 10 years from now; we're here today discussing this. I understand everything about traffic. I don't see everybody from this neighborhood driving to Carlson, taking a left onto Johnson Road, to take a right onto Portland to try and fight their way out onto Haynes Road—which is a difficult road to get out on sometimes. Myself, I would be going down Morris Thomas Road and going to the controlled intersection to come up to the mall area. Those are just my points of view. So I agree with you there. I can totally understand your point of view there, but to get out, I don't see it. And I've sat here for many years and talked to people about traffic and done traffic counts on facilities and structures. One of our biggest fights over the years was the YMCA and whether to put the YMCA in because they thought thousands and thousands of new cars were going to be driving through that area of town. It hasn't changed a bit because I literally walk through there every day. I do appreciate all of your comments and questions this evening and I don't see traffic as being a major, major issue. Yes, people speed on every road and there are close calls, and I do sympathize with your close calls, but that can be on any road. So tonight we have to look at the viability of the project and that's what we're going to look at here. And you guys are welcome to... whatever our decision is this evening here, it's going to go to the city council. We're not the end-all, say-all; we just have to make sure the boxes are checked for the project. That being said, commission members, any other questions or comments this evening before we look for a motion? [1:33:48] **Beth Wenzloff:** I was just going to mention that that is the whole premise—we have to make sure that it's fitting into the boxes that are checked. I've lived in Hermantown now 22 years and I love the rural nature of Hermantown. The growth... from a developer point of view, you have to have so many to make it work. It just cannot go any other way unfortunately. It'd be nice to put in 10 and call it good, go away. It just doesn't work that way. So there are those checks and balances that we are not only today but are going to be looking at... we're looking forward to making sure we have—trying to weigh everything together to make it be still as much rural and still as much the community we want. But we do have to allow... if it fits in the boxes, it's hard to say no just because unfortunately that's true. [1:34:52] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** And if you look back at that 2001 comprehensive plan, I believe like the eastern half of the city is supposed to be more urban and the western half of the city is supposed to be more country living. [1:35:08] **Jennifer Jacobson (from audience):** Yes, ma'am... yes. But of the population projections that they used or exceeded in 2010. Yes, they did plan on it being developed there, but they planned on it being developed at a much smaller percentage rate, much smaller population. [1:35:26] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** If I'm not mistaken, I believe... and then somebody can correct me, I'm human and make mistakes... but the 2001 comprehensive plan was doing an outlook for 20 years and to a population of 10,000. I don't know if we're there yet. Are we at 10,000? [1:35:46] **Eric Johnson:** We're still short. I think we're just shy in the 2020 census. And even just to echo what you said—you even look at our zoning map and essentially from Ugstad Lake, or you know use it as a divider, everything east of Ugstad is R3 zone property, which is a half-acre minimum. As we look at from zoning... you start going to the west and you start getting into the two-and-a-half-acre and the five-acre lots over there. But like you said, it's—when you look at it from a strict zoning standpoint, it's half-acre lots minimum. So those are my two cents; those are what I'm looking at as somebody who's sat up here and volunteered years of my life doing this. Does anybody else have any questions or comments? [1:36:20] **Corey Colquist:** I have a couple of thoughts and bear with me. Thank you guys for your feedback, I really appreciate everyone's input; there was a lot of great input. And I think to what Mr. Chair alluded to, you know, we do this monthly, we volunteer, and we hear a lot of this every month when projects go in. I guess to start, the walking, the strollers... it seems like traffic would be the one thing out of everything I heard that—okay, you know, I think there's a valid point. But from a comprehensive plan, I do agree it needs to be updated; I believe the city is going to start working on that. But this project seems awesome for this area minus the traffic issue that you guys have brought up on these other roads from what I've seen. Volunteering on this committee with all the projects, the traffic/safety issues... the sizing of this was brought up. I guess my question would be: was anyone here for the PUD for Engwalls? Anyone in the audience today? Mr. Slain? Yes. But I guess point being, when smaller lots were proposed on that land, there wasn't a concern because there was that emotional connection, which I completely sympathize with all you guys. Me being neutral on the subject, I'm looking at what's best for the city, what's best for generations to come. I know the school district was brought up. Was anyone here for the P&R properties of the 130-plus units being put in saying our school district's not going to handle it? I think you guys have brought valid points, but I think there's a lot of emotion tied to it. And us being volunteers here, we certainly can sympathize with that, but we're looking out for what the greater good is. I think the traffic and safety concerns are very valid, but change is hard. And I think going back to the point that 26 years ago that road or that right-of-way was put in... that's been there. I've been on Johnson Road, I used to kind of hang out there, and I've always wondered what that was. It was a right-of-way, it kind of makes sense. I think that's been very clear and big-picture thinking... that's always kind of been a thing. I think the setbacks and the density fits great. I mean, there could be a developer here proposing an apartment complex if it was a month from now when our moratorium's up. So I think there's a lot of emotion, rightfully so, with how close it is to your guys's property, but there's also a lot of good. I lived on Ugstad for many years, grew up there, no sidewalk, and now i'm on 53 and i have a sidewalk—absolutely love it. My wife and I walk it every night and it's a safety factor. I love the sidewalk. Whether or not you guys would use that or not, I truly think when it was brought up of bikes and strollers, that would be a great thing for you guys. And then yeah, all in all, I'm very impressed with the project, very excited. It's definitely needed in Hermantown. I mean, you look at the demand, there's nowhere to purchase, you can't build... building costs are through the roof. So I definitely think there's a need in our community for housing such as this. Thank you. [1:39:23] **Samuel Clark:** Sam Clark, a couple comments. Looking at agenda item 5b, I believe it fits within the parameters of a planned unit development, excluding the moratorium. I do think that with the petition and a lot of the comments from the community, i think they were very well thought out and I do think that that should carry a lot of weight. I personally would be against agenda item 5b if it includes connecting to Johnson Road. [1:40:07] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay, thank you Sam. Any other commissioner comments? Like you knew I was gonna... [1:40:15] **Valerie Ollette:** I too am totally supportive of this development. I think it's beautiful, I think it'd be a great addition. I live on a road that only has one entrance and there is no other exit; I love it. I don't see it as a safety hazard, I don't see it as a problem with road care in the winter—we have wonderful plowing people, it's cleaned up quickly. I am opposed to the Carlson Road portion of it. I'm supportive of the development, but we got to figure out something... some other way to keep the Johnson Road people happy, I think. [1:40:57] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you, Valerie. Anybody else? Any questions or comments? [1:41:03] **Buckley Simmons:** Buckley Simmons. I appreciate everybody's concerns and viewpoint—the sincerity that we have not only from Zierden but from everybody in this room. I too support this project from what I see. I like what I see with the protection of Keene Creek, the trail systems, the green space, the 12 and a half acres. I think it's a great thing and much needed for Hermantown. [1:41:34] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you, sir. Anything else from you, Mr. Johnson? [1:41:37] **Eric Johnson:** No, I think that pretty well encompasses it. [1:41:41] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you. Commission members, any other questions or comments before we do a vote? Not hearing any, I look for a motion on 5b this evening, which is an application by Jay Zierden, Zierden Construction, for a preliminary planned unit development. [1:42:04] **Samuel Clark:** Sam Clark, I would make a motion to approve agenda item 5b as stated, excluding the connection of Carlson Road to Johnson Road. [1:42:14] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** So just to clarify, you are in favor of it as long as we take out the Carlson Road portion? Correct? [1:42:20] **Samuel Clark:** Correct. [1:42:21] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Commission members, any second on that or any other motions? [1:42:25] **Valerie Ollette:** I would second that. [1:42:27] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** We can take a vote on that, I guess. We've got a second. All in favor of that one? Aye. (Aye, Aye). That's three eyes. Anybody opposed to that? [1:42:43] **Corey Colquist:** Nay. I oppose that as well. [1:42:46] **John Geissler:** Councilor Geissler, I'm opposed to that. I do not want that motion to carry. [1:42:52] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay, we can look for a new motion on 5b. [1:42:56] **Corey Colquist:** Mr. Chair, I will make a motion to approve agenda 5b as stated. [1:43:03] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you, Mr. Colquist. Can we get a second? [1:43:06] **Buckley Simmons:** Simmons to second. [1:43:08] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Mr. Simmons with a second. All in favor of that one? Aye. (Aye, Aye). All opposed? No. (No). Councilor Geissler? [1:43:24] **John Geissler:** Aye. [1:43:26] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** That's four yeses, three nos. Eric, does that pass? [1:43:30] **Eric Johnson:** I'm assuming that passes. That is correct. Mr. Geissler was the tiebreaker. And once again, to help everyone out, this is what they're recommending is the approval of this to go to city council on the July 6th meeting. The city council will take the ultimate action on this preliminary PUD at that meeting time. [1:43:55] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Right, so we invite you to go visit the city council at 6:30 on July 6th. It'll be both an in-person and ability to attend via Zoom. Moving on to 5c, it's an application by Jay Zierden, Zierden Construction, for a preliminary plat for eight lots of twin homes and 21 single-family lots. Eric, what do you have for us on this one? [1:44:13] **Eric Johnson:** This is essentially just what we went through. This is the plat associated with the underlying land that way. 29 lots total—21 of which are single-family, eight of which are twin home lots. [1:44:26] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Perfect. Commission members, any questions for Eric Johnson on 5c this evening? No questions. Not seeing any, we will open up the floor to public discussion at 8:45. If anybody would like to speak on 5c this evening, you're welcome to come up to the microphone and state your name and address. Anybody want to come up? Not hearing any, we will close the public discussion at 8:45 PM as well. Commission members, any questions or comments for Eric on 5c which is just the primary plat for the previous public hearing? No. Not hearing any, we look for a motion on 5c. [1:45:09] **Beth Wenzloff:** Wenzloff, I make the motion that it's accepted as presented. [1:45:15] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay, can we get a second? [1:45:17] **Corey Colquist:** Colquist with a second. [1:45:18] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** All in favor? Aye. (Aye). Anybody opposed? [1:45:26] **Samuel Clark:** No. [1:45:28] **Valerie Ollette:** No. [1:45:30] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay, so that's... you were yes, Beth? Yes. Okay. So yeah, so it's four yeses and two nos. Motion passes. Moving on to continuing business. Eric, do we have anything for that this evening? [1:45:44] **Eric Johnson:** Uh, no we do not. [1:45:46] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay. Would we like to skip the communications or go right to the ARDC proposal? [1:45:51] **Eric Johnson:** Well, the communications, as you'd seen in your packet, had to do with the petition signed by the residents. I think we took that all in the conclusion. [1:46:07] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** I believe we did as well. So I think with that, maybe get onto... we'll move onto new business, 7a. It's a presentation by the ARDC for the planned unit development study. Gentlemen, if you could give your name and address for the record, that would be great. [1:46:27] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** Nice to see you guys in person. I'm sure you're kind of exhausted of PUD discussion, but it's nice to see everyone. [1:46:40] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Yeah. I remember the 92... one's got some Red Bulls, we'll be fine. [1:46:50] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** Excellent. Yeah, thank you for hanging out and waiting for long as well... have made them first. I know. Yeah. Well, that might have come right. That's true. Yeah. No Josh, I was gonna try and get your input on some of that stuff. We'll try to keep this... make this quick but thorough. Um, I—we have sent out the report from our work. Hopefully everyone has a copy of that. I'll just kind of quickly summarize it just so we can get to the recommendations and discussions. Just an introduction in the beginning, kind of outlining the moratorium—how it was three units or greater starting in December. The city conducted a survey, ARDC did a best practice review and a literature review, evaluated peer communities and that kind of compiled that. The following chapter, "Planning Context," goes into each one of those parts of the planning process a little more at depth. Outlines the results of the survey—and that whole survey, all the survey results are in the appendix. The ordinance review... those are those two matrixes that we reviewed together; they looked at the purpose as well as the regulatory approach for each of the ordinances. We looked at the comprehensive plan as well and saw that a lot of the PUD kind of aligned with areas of the comprehensive plan. And just some best practices review as well to kind of come to this recommendations based on our discussions over the five—I think five different times that we met digitally at least. So that gets us to the recommendations. We kind of identified six different areas just through those conversations with city staff and the planning and zoning commission: purpose statement and public benefit statement, density bonus adjustments to the dimensional standards, amenities, adequate public facilities, and process. And so Josh will kind of lead into with the purpose statement and density bonus changes. [1:49:12] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** Thank you. Yeah, so tonight, you know, we just want... we have a lot of discussion on the report, specifically the recommendations and any thoughts or changes. And I think we're looking for a recommendation to the council tonight? [1:49:21] **Eric Johnson:** Yes, that's correct. Yeah, so we asked you to make a recommendation to the council, and then we would take that into the next council meeting, present our presentation, and ask them to accept it. And then the city would actually have to amend the ordinance itself. So this is not a change in the actual ordinance, that will go through the standard process, but this is really identifying very specifically what those changes would be. So to start off with, we talked a lot about "What is the purpose of PUDs, how we want to use them?" And so we're recommending that in the ordinance you combine the purpose statement as a public benefit statement because really through the conversation, we really focused in on using the PUD for kind of really on its five items, kind of focusing through areas. One is flexibility and site potential—everything is going to be different, so we want to be able to make sure that we're developing sites to their best potential or their best use. Along with that, conservation of natural features and resources—a lot of talk about wetlands, shorelands, stuff like that. The third area is really encouraging efficiency in streets and utilities. And then the fourth area is really improved housing and neighborhood options and neighborhood types as well as doing what we can through the zoning code to affect housing affordability and, you know, again the kind of the continuum of housing from all different stages of life. So that's our recommendation. We took some specific language that we kind of pulled from Sartell, Minnesota; that was one of the communities that we looked at. If you want to look at the specific language, it's on page six, but it just lays out what the PUD process is, kind of what the benefits we're looking for—those six things—and then, you know, kind of what are just a few of the items that we're looking to achieve. Again, better than if it was standard zoning, compatible with surrounding development, and still conforming to the goals and policies of the comp plan. The next area we talked a lot about was about the bonus density. Now we were really discussed mostly specific to the R3 zone here, but we did make some recommendations to other zones just because it seemed that if we're going to specifically call out bonus in the R3, we should do it in the other zones. So in the S1 and R2 areas, we're recommending basically no more than a double bonus density, and that stays in line again with the comprehensive plan and the bit of discussion we had about that's a rural area, there's no utilities... it should maintain a relatively... really more of a conservation subdivision approach than any other type of variation in the Hermantown marketplace. In the R3a zone, i think we ended up saying you can go up to 50 units per acre, which currently in the Hermantown marketplace it's 35 units per acre for multi-family housing, so it's a 30 percent bonus density. And then in the R3 zone, we kind of fell back to that concept we discussed with a moderate suburban density in the R3 zone. And then we're also establishing in the language that the bonus density is discretionary. You know, when we say it's a double bonus density or moderate density, that's a maximum. The city doesn't have to grant it. And that bonus densities will be determined relatively early on in the process by again that site-specific review—what's appropriate for the site and then what is being offered in terms of the amenities and then the other mitigating factors, setbacks and stuff. So it's kind of laying out... it's still giving the city discretion to negotiate, but it's laying out again some principles early on in the process. [1:53:18] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Josh, can I ask how... what's your recommendations here for R3? How would that compare to what was being proposed tonight? [1:53:28] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** Well, you know tonight is actually less dense than the underlying zone, i think? Yes it is. Right. So it wouldn't be a factor. You had to have twice the lots tonight to have— [1:53:40] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Yeah. Right. And that's what I don't think people are quite grasping— [1:53:45] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** No, they don't. Yeah, right. No. Yeah, so tonight was a little bit—it was really interesting to see a PUD discussion coming in tonight. But it really kind of... it was almost more of a conservation... it was just working with— [1:53:57] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** And i don't remember who asked the question, but it was a good question in front of everybody: "How did this one tonight... how did this one work within the moratorium in place?" So that was a good question and good to clarify that. [1:54:12] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** Yeah, it was a very different... I mean, like I said, it is more of a true form of a PUD in the fact that it has multiple types of housing within the development, which is really what a lot of PUDs are envisioned to be. Well, they said the density was nowhere near what it could be. Exactly. Right. So and so in here, what we'll be talking about—some of the thresholds in our recommendations get to where you're either at four units per acre, so double density, or if you're over five acres. Well, the administrative thresholds and some of the other things really always bring it in. This, other than just maybe shrinking down, it wasn't that different than a standard plan. It just wasn't much different. So it doesn't really... it's not the best example. [1:54:55] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Can I ask one question on the discretionary portion of it? If it... does that open up the city to somebody saying "You're playing favorites, you did this for this development two years ago, you're not doing it for me?" Or should there be an actual thing that triggers that? I mean, that's just my thought when I see that word "discretionary." Triggers the use... triggers what you're getting instead of making it discretionary. Do you know what I'm trying to say? Like you put a park in, you've got double density... i did that too but I'm not getting it. I'm just curious on that. [1:55:36] **Eric Johnson:** Yeah. We as a staff were going back and forth with identifying a number. To tell you the truth, when we talk about moderate density, but we really didn't want to handcuff ourselves to potential development that if you say hard and fast "it's eight units per acre, it's 10 units per acre," whatever it is... it opens up the doors for a lot of things but it still closes the doors on others. And given the fact how much R3 land we have within the city, that it's just—we weren't at least from a staff standpoint comfortable getting that hard and fast number. I understand what you're saying about the word "discretionary"... is there a better word? I don't know. That's the only thing that stuck on my mind in your whole report was that word "discretionary." I just didn't want to see somebody get caught up on it. [1:56:22] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** Yeah. You know, this... correct me if you guys took a different feeling from our conversations... was you know this came down to still allowing the city more discretion... but it still allows flexibility. Ordinances are all over the place, but there are things that say "You get 12 and a half percent if you do this, this, this." There are places that lay out a menu: "Pick from these three." And there was just kind of a feeling that a lot of this was so dependent on site and location. [1:57:12] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay. [1:57:13] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** Yeah, I mean you want to be consistent... I'm sure Eric will say you want to be consistent in uses. You know, if you allow someone to have 10 units per acre and all they have to do is put in a dog run, and then the next person you say no... I just know the first few are probably going to dictate what happens. You've done this in the past, this is what you're going to fall back on. Yeah. [1:58:02] **Eric Johnson:** Well, and frankly, this is kind of serving as a reset on the use. The moratorium says that there were some issues that were concerned, and so we're trying to better identify it. So this is giving—putting out a framework but still allowing the city flexibility to act within it. And that's going to be ultimately the planning commission and council's to determine what is appropriate. [1:58:25] **Valerie Ollette:** And i think—I'm sorry, isn't that the case? I mean, like tonight we voted to go 20 feet rather than 25. You know, so i mean we are kind of massaging some of these and the next guy could come into the road and only needed 20 feet between buildings. [1:58:45] **Eric Johnson:** Right. A lot of people depend on... for instance, Mr. Zierden is more of a traditional builder and that's the product that he is the most comfortable with—is your traditional single-family homes. At the end of the day, I mean those are third-of-an-acre lots. Whereas, you know, just use Mr. Slain's with the Engwall's redevelopment, those are 5,000-square-foot lots. The beauty of our PUD is we can give people choices, because right now we don't really have that choice. And at least even through this whole process, we've kind of just started to, I think, more define things to help out this group more than necessarily with the developer—that we start hitting numbers at: if it's more than four units per acre, if the site is larger than five acres, you have to do X, Y, and Z. But right now it doesn't say those things in our ordinance, it's discretionary. And so at least now we've got a hard and fast number for how this works. Likewise, if a development is over this size, you have to go preliminary and final as separate. Because i think that was the biggest thing i got back in the past two years: the development that came in for the apartment, they came in on the joint preliminary and final, and it was some member of the group said "This is the only time we get to comment on it." And the way it was set up was yes. But now something of that size... no, this has to come back for a final; there will be another opportunity to see this. And once again, that helps define this document that is... we said a long time ago, and I think I stole it from one of you guys, "We're defining the edges of the box, we're not going as far as putting a lid on it saying thou shalt have eight units per acre period." We've kept that lid open, but at least some of these other parameters we think we've tried to tie down. [2:00:46] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** That's a good way of describing that. I think to your question, we could have put a lid on the box, we could have everything kind of laid out and not provide the city with that flexibility. But just through our conversation, it sounded like that's kind of what the community wanted. [2:01:05] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** We cannot do that. I mean, I'm agreeing with you though. It's the wrong thing to do for the future. [2:01:13] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** Right, but an ordinance could. [2:01:15] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Yes, I agree. I'm just saying i'm thrilled you did not. [2:01:17] **Eric Johnson:** And that's, honestly, when i started thinking about this process six months ago, I thought there was a lid. And through this whole process and especially listening to this group in the last couple of meetings, I've become convinced—no, it is a bad thing. And it was very refreshing for me hearing you in your comments that way and being able to move forward with this that says: "No, we still like the ability to look at this and have that flexibility and not tie everybody's hands to such an extreme." [2:01:46] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** Excellent. Um, so adjustments: we established a maximum building height, provide additional height opportunity with further setbacks. In the model language that we produced, it was just the underlying maximum height of the R3 already, with the opportunity to go 25 percent above that with some additional setbacks. Again, we could have said for 25 percent it has to be five feet, but we just left that open to have what is the relation to other buildings within that planned unit development and still yes, there is a need for further setbacks, but not defining exactly what that was. We did, however, say that any land... or at least in the model... the recommended model ordinance... that height, let's say it's 35 feet, you know it will say it's the max height, there can't be... or the setback to the rear and side if it's another residential property has to be at least that. So that's kind of another regulatory adjustment. We mentioned the requirement of a concept or landscape screening plan for units over four units per acre; that's kind of a number that triggers a lot of things that we've heard about. We did kind of make a note that there currently isn't a specific landscape guidance with the City of Hermantown. Integrating this into the code maybe would be a reason to explore that so then you kind of have an idea of what those guidelines look like for developers. And then similarly just kind of that flexibility of setbacks and lot sizes—we didn't get into defining that but we brought in some model language that allows that flexibility and evaluation on a site-by-site basis. And then amenities on page 10 as well. Again, that four units per acre you see it a lot, kind of triggers a lot of different things once you get to that threshold. It also includes the need for amenities. We established a list and kind of outlined that on page 10 as well: it has open space, recreation areas, stormwater, conservation of natural resources, and landscaping, as well as some others. And so that becomes a requirement once you get to that threshold. [2:04:16] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** I think the community garden is great. I like that idea. [2:04:19] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** I would agree. Food is a really huge deal and so it would be... and it's another community thing, right? It brings people together. [2:04:31] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Yeah. It seems like that and—not certainly interrupt—almost like that in dog parks as well. You're interacting with your neighbors and getting your... establishing relationships that way. Two great opportunities that way. [2:04:54] **Beth Wenzloff:** I just think it's great to think about a community garden. Does the city end up owning that? [2:05:05] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Can I soar or go back tax forfeit like some of these other—? [2:05:14] **Eric Johnson:** In Duluth, for instance, there are a number of community garden groups that they are doing that. They come all we way over from Superior—Superior doesn't have that because there aren't those around. Yes, and it is a big thing and i think it's going to be bigger. I work with some young people that live in apartments and I didn't know that downtown Duluth there's rooftop community gardens. Pretty cool. [2:05:46] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Yeah. No, I like that idea, that's great. [2:05:51] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** So just kind of a list of requiring... you know, it's one of those, or those are the acceptable amenities to integrate into a development. Next big item was this idea of the potential impact on things like roads, water, sewer, public safety, schools. And so we did include this adequate public facility statement that again kicks in at that four units per acre or five acres in size threshold. For like the traffic study, traffic minimum study, we do give the engineer and the community development director some flexibility in determining the scope of specific studies. So if it's a small five-acre development with... you know, that's similar in scope to other developments, it may be a larger study; it would be a very largely generating a lot of traffic or, you know, with a mixed-use or something somewhere else, it might be a greater thing. And then of course it's also up to the discretion of if it's on a county or highway. But you know, that public facility statement... it's probably the most detailed or in-depth here, but just saying the city engineer and the community development... for things like water, sewer, stormwater, we can easily know the capacity and their engineers can easily estimate the use and generation that their facility's going to take. And then it's just a matter of matching that up. What that facility statement says is that if it's determined that there's an adverse impact, it can be denied on that, or the city can make recommendations or requirements to either alter the plan or make improvements within what are allowed by state law in order to allow that to go ahead. And then it does say that information on the size, type, location, and the expected population will be provided to city fire, public safety, as well as the public school district. We already provide plats to the public school district anyway, but yes, even tonight in general, letters went out to all those different groups and I heard back from the DNR—that's the only group I've heard back from. I think in all my time here, i've never heard back from the school district. [2:08:24] **Eric Johnson:** I think we do—in the last year, we do a much better job of informing the people around the proposed development. [2:08:31] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** And so this is something that again is referenced in the comprehensive plan and it just lays out that I would expect from future PUD reports you would see some line items on each of these comments—what was received or not received, or how you found the impact of the capacity. But again, this lays out the framework so that it's right in there up front and it's something that can be worked on right away. And then the next we talked about the application procedure. There were several comments here. One is the concept of neighborhood meetings. We are not recommending that neighborhood meetings are required. We are strongly encouraging neighborhood meetings for PUDs, especially if they start hitting that threshold where they require a preliminary/final. It's up to the developer to organize, report back to or include the city. But yeah, so it's one of those things—it's not a requirement, but if it looks like the development is going to want to have some additional public scrutiny, the city could certainly recommend that. And then we looked at the PUD ordinance, the application process. One of the things that was kind of pointed out is that it's heavily front-loaded. All the heavy lifting on the development site, development engineering, is really heavily front-loaded into the preliminary, which can—especially when you start getting into bigger developments or where you're integrating more engineering and mixed-use stuff—be quite costly and time-consuming for an applicant to put all that work in before they even get to the preliminary, when a preliminary could be denied or there could be adjustments. And so we're recommending kind of having the preliminary meet more "preliminary," less of the final work. What we need is just more sticking more to the concept plans—you want a concept truly planned for stormwater and grading so you know it's going to work, because you don't want to be doing the ponds last, but then really putting in the more details and everything more specifically into the final PUD plan. So what you might see is less of a finished product the first time around, but hopefully it can get to you sooner or before as much work is put in before it's out there being talked about. [2:11:13] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Longer... it gets to you sooner? [2:11:15] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** Yeah. You have more time to look at it and it may be in a form that you can do more recommendations on. [2:11:21] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** They have pretty... you would say like that they had pretty detailed engineer drawings tonight for a preliminary plat? Right? I mean, you wouldn't need that specific of a detail? [2:11:34] **Eric Johnson:** Probably not. I am looking at it. They give some good information. For instance, in a couple other developments—and i won't name names—but their engineering... I mean they went as far as having cut sheets and details of castings and everything for preliminary. That's thousands and thousands of dollars and i said at the big group tonight, they did a really good job of getting us enough information from the engineering standpoint—we understood how it was going to work, we were able to make some recommendations. For instance, if they had sanitary going one direction, Dave look, he says "No, if you actually move this over here, you can hit this manhole, this works for the work." Hey great. And all it is is the line, it's going to be eight inches in size, it's generally two percent. So it's enough that we know that it can work that way. We've not sized every drop or things like that that other groups have done and they've seen that developer swallowing a very large bill and something that money might not get approved. And that is one thing that the developers that we talk to all the time—that's the hardest thing is for them to have so much when there is an unknown if it's going to pass, especially in the old ordinance because it was still pretty tight. [2:12:44] **Buckley Simmons:** Quick question. I appreciate you guys... discretionary, the words flexibility, encouraged... is there a reason we don't just—why is it not required to have a meeting? What is the drawback? [2:13:21] **Eric Johnson:** Honestly, I'll jump in a little bit here. We can require that if we so wish. Like I said, it's—we as a city, we... I don't like the word particularly, but we strive to be transparent. Tonight, for instance, would there have been 30 people here if there would have been a neighborhood meeting? Probably still. On another project, i'll use the Arbors across the street... would there have been 80 people in there if there had been a public meeting before? Probably not. He may have been 30 for that. This information is out there. And once again, it gets back into the discretionary at the end of the day. This was, in my opinion, a very minimal development. Once again, it was less than the underlying zoning. Part of me is kind of like: "That's going to come back to get us," because yes it's a 30-acre site, but it's less dense than— [2:14:40] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** I think the same thing on the traffic study. Mr. Zierden's thing tonight would have triggered a traffic study. [2:14:45] **Eric Johnson:** It would have triggered a traffic study. And at least the couple meetings we've had, traffic studies... some of the public poo-pooed them and a lot of them are surprised that the impact isn't as great as they think. [2:15:02] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Exactly right. And then they said, "Oh, you just made those numbers." [2:15:05] **Eric Johnson:** The Arbors was like that. There was a—yeah. And the YMCA, that one always sticks out in my mind. People were so afraid of the YMCA on that corner for traffic. And even Mike weinstein was standing up here telling us about traffic—he lives a half a mile away from it. I actually live closer. I actually don't see any impact; i walk through that intersection literally every day at any hour of the day. [2:15:31] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** The only thing i'll say is caveat there: that thing has hardly been open outside of a pandemic, so we haven't seen the full impact. Right. But the times that the parking lot is packed is six o'clock in the morning. It's not at 8:30 when school... but still, it'll be interesting to see as we get out of the pandemic to see how when school is there and the Hawk might be... another hockey rink there too. [2:16:03] **Eric Johnson:** Well yeah, I'm still comfortable having that five-acre in there because in the same, you know, in my heart i still look at 30 acres... there could be 90 homes on here. In the fact that a developer comes in with 29, it's just like—Sony guy's stuff short or it wants to give half of it away. [2:16:20] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Well, that's what I wanted to clarify. That I had 37, i had 39. I don't know where Mr. Marino called me because it was 37. He was—he was the one not calling me 37 units. Okay. [2:16:35] **Eric Johnson:** Yeah. But I said, I think we said there will always be that outlier one way or another, and tonight that was it. I mean, this is the one that... yeah, you have to do a traffic—you know, it's a traffic memo. They'll probably estimate how many trips are going to go right and left on Carlson Road, and that would either answer questions or give people more ammunition. I don't know which. Or be skeptical of the information. But this is the same thing—in most other instances, a 30-acre site is going to have a hundred units on it or easily could have a hundred units on it. And yes, you have to have a traffic study for that. [2:17:15] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** The two other things that we're really highlighting in the preliminary application is again kind of putting the onus on the applicant to provide a narrative stating how their development complies with the comprehensive plan and PUD ordinance, so that they are doing the work of that and thinking about how this actually fits into it versus rather just trying to do something different within the zoning. And then again, a general description of the amenities. In the preliminary phase, it's not going to be final designs or anything, but you want to know: are they proposing a public garden that's big enough for everybody, or are they proposing a general thing? And then we did lay out... give the guidance on when you can do a combined PUD. Again, it's up to the city when whether you do it, but that there's a threshold that once it gets over that four units per acre, so basically double density, or five acres, then you are doing the preliminary. So it would be a relatively small PUD that could go forward as well, which seems appropriate given the small ones are not going to be getting into all the amenities, all the concerns about public facilities. And so having that chance to go through Planning Commission, Council, and public domain twice... that seems appropriate. I think that covers our proposed recommendations. Any questions on those or discussion around anything else? [2:18:59] **Corey Colquist:** Mr. Colquist, maybe didn't catch it, but i think his name is spelled wrong on the third page. [2:19:15] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** Geissler? Yeah. We get that one a lot. I'm no H, right? [2:19:22] **John Geissler:** No H, correct. Geissler's correct though. [2:19:27] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Well, there's some tough ones there. I went to high school with Corey's dad, so i've seen that name a long time. That either tells how old i am or how young Corey is. Let's figure it out. I guess since... i mean really the one thing I just heard was Mr. Simmons' comment. I mean, does this group think we should have mandatory public meetings? Same thing... i mean we could recommend that, and the council at the end will be the ultimate deciding factor again. But if you recommend one way or another, i mean there's a good chance they might say "Yeah, it's a good idea." So i guess that's one thing I kind of just heard out of this discussion. [2:20:10] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** Your question is about the neighborhood meeting? [2:20:12] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Neighborhood meeting, thank you. [2:20:14] **Valerie Ollette:** Yeah, I have a hard time with that because it could go downhill quickly and the city doesn't have control over it. And it kind of... it kind of fights that open meeting law, doesn't it? [2:20:30] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** Well, if any counselors show up it does. [2:20:33] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Well yeah, or commission members or troopers. Yeah. I mean, you know, yeah like in this case—in the case of Mr. Zierden's there... I own a home on Alexander Road, I would have been invited to that. Is that an issue if i went there? If there was more of us there? Yeah, right. We couldn't do that. Well yeah, i just—i just hate to see the city say "Hey, we really strongly have you do a neighborhood meeting" and it turns ugly. We did planning and zoning years ago, you were... i think John, you were on it with me when we had the police come to the planning and zoning meeting. We've actually... I was thinking of police reports... Chief Crace tonight saying "Maybe you want to send a cop over this way." Really, no for real. And that was over your neighbors having dogs. I mean it can get ugly between neighbors and I mean that's what you're talking about is people that are looking at the developer as Darth Vader, as it was so clearly put this evening. But allowing them to have it... they can choose. [2:21:44] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** Well, they can do what they want. They're in the public... you can do whatever you want. When we put in the Residence Inn in the City of Duluth, it was... we asked for it because we wanted a chance to tell the residents the other side of the story, which convinced them that it was going to be okay. So that's—that's where it was a good thing. But i've also been in them and being the ones going "No, you know, this is a bad thing." And it really does... you could sway a lot of that, i think. It can go out of control both ways. At least in a situation like this, it's in a controlled environment. Right? That's just my thoughts. [2:22:31] **Valerie Ollette:** Sure, but they can—you know, it might have worked smoothly. Or maybe just recommend, yeah, "encourage." [2:22:42] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Right. You know, and like i said, on all these projects, i talk to these people for months before time. And i can say to him, "You know, hey, this one's going to be... this one might be a little tough. You might want to talk to the neighborhood because that way you can control the dialogue or at least the message that's getting out there." Rather than so... the same thing, you leave it in their camp. And today with the world of, you know, Facebook and all that kind of stuff, i mean it can turn ugly in a heartbeat. [2:23:09] **Buckley Simmons:** Has anybody read the Hermantown Neighborhood Now? No. I just... yeah, it'll be tonight now after this meeting. Right. They'll be calling us. Boy, i wonder why he's hanging around here, you know. Yeah. No, but also like when we did the Walmart expansion, it was the same thing. It was—it was a hot button issue. I mean we got interviewed by the news and that kind of stuff after the fact, it was crazy. So just be careful about that kind of stuff, that's all. [2:23:45] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** Okay, so then I'm going to take just... so let's eliminate any language that... like said, some of those I think about the contract law that i had to sit through... you know, same thing: "strongly encourage" or some of those things. Maybe let's not have those in the report and just let's say "soften the language a little bit." Yeah, maybe soften the language. Some of those things... it's really only a handful of instances that someone's like— [2:24:14] **Samuel Clark:** It's a great report though, it is. I read word for word, it was awesome. [2:24:19] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** Not me... that's obviously an important thing. Yeah. [2:24:26] **Eric Johnson:** I said i—I hope that this gives the document... he helps out the developers, but it truly helps yourselves as planning commission members. At least have more of a comfort level as plans come in. Because I've been asked by a couple of you before to say, "What in our ordinance gives us something to stand on?" I'm trying to give you something to stand on. And hopefully this document at least is outlining will help you do that. Right. [2:24:55] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** All right. Any more questions for us? No, thank you very much. Yeah, thanks. [2:25:05] **Eric Johnson:** So i guess this is the way I got you guys here then. Is the thought pattern to just kind of take one last brush at that and then—because I don't think you can get it back to me by noon tomorrow to get into the packets for council. [2:25:21] **John Mulder (City Administrator):** But we have an extra week because don't we because of the five—? [2:25:27] **Eric Johnson:** We're actually the 21st... is the next one then it goes to July 6th. So this would be on July 6th actually. We were shooting for the 21st yeah, for next week. [2:25:47] **John Mulder:** Do you have an issue if this goes July 6th versus the 21st? I can share with the group... I mean I've talked to James Tolego... I thought he was going to be online today, but he was not. He's the only person that expressed any really interest in this process, and right now he's living in San Diego. I'd rather get it out and have some time to react rather than just say "Here it is" in the normal packet. And maybe Mr. Slain's got something to cook in... but that's the gentleman that triggered this. [2:26:24] **Eric Johnson:** Yeah. Because I said, i mean we can... next is the moratorium within that time frame? [2:26:30] **John Mulder:** No, the moratorium... and that's why we've been on the 21st because the moratorium will expire. But regardless, we don't have a new ordinance in place. But we at least as staff felt that we could... if we had to slow a project down, we could do that to be able to coincide with new language. [2:26:51] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Say that at the time. Let's go—Joe? [2:26:55] **Joe Wicklund:** I did want to point out that James is online too. [2:26:57] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Hey James. Hi James. [2:27:00] **James Tolego (via Zoom):** Oh, I'm listening. All right. [2:27:01] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Oh, San Diego! Oh, i'm sitting outside, nice weather. There you go. Well thanks for your interest. Yeah, it's very interesting. [2:27:14] **John Mulder:** We'll see what happens. Unless there's an applicant, i don't think there's a necessary need to rush it for the 21st. Okay. Oh, that's one of five opinions. But sure, i'll bring that up to Mr. Mulder tomorrow and just say at least... and honestly too, that's the reason this PUD tonight didn't go to the 21st—we didn't want to give the perception that we're ramming this thing together. You know, the SUP for that, that's easy, that can go on the 21st. But we wanted to know: let's give people the process and the time. So i mean, i'm okay with that if you don't bring it up in Mr. Mulder tomorrow. Yeah, i'm just thinking of... we get the packet down next week, or no this week... yeah you'd get it tomorrow and you'd have like a couple days to react. Right. And honestly, i mean you're up to speed on it, but the other members may not be. So I'd rather still get the packet, but you have discussion about it at the pre-agenda meeting and kind of actually go through it. [2:28:16] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** Sure. i think it's another two weeks to absorb it and tell them maybe into the acceptance that way. [2:28:22] **John Mulder:** Yeah, maybe that's what we do then: you still do a presentation on the 21st and then take any further comments. [2:28:28] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** I like that. [2:28:29] **John Mulder:** And then it'll go to the 6th for final acceptance. [2:28:31] **Josh Bergstad (ARDC):** Yeah, I like that. [2:28:32] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** I like that. Okay, again, i get time to read it, react it, think about it. Yep. i like that. As long as there's not an urgent applicant, i'd say let's do it that way. I don't care, we can ask... never hurts take a little more time. [2:28:55] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay. Very question, question or anything? [2:29:05] **Audience Member:** I think it's a fair question. I—i have no problem at well... do you want to ask her? I will. I'm just wondering how much this study has cost the city for this? [2:29:18] **Eric Johnson:** I have no idea. We had... okay, so it was before my time. Your proposal was plus or minus $7,800 but the other one was like 35 or—yeah it was it was almost it was eclipsing 40 for that. Guys, you blew it. Public record! Yep, there you go. So at least as me as a staff member, i've been very pleased with the work that ARDC has done on this and I think, you know, really listening to us and trying to synthesize our ideas as best they can, because this is difficult hearing from different people that way. But i guess i'm—i'm happy with this document that i've seen and i like your idea: slow it down a little bit, didn't give him console time to react to it. Okay. [2:30:11] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay, moving on. 8, Communications. I believe we kind of touched on this earlier. If you just want to give us a snapshot of what that was. I guess maybe we would say... obviously what you have to say is: recommend to accept the PUD with to reflect the comments of the evening. Because right now i didn't hear anything wholesale; it was this word here, that word there. [2:30:35] **Eric Johnson:** Yeah, it's not massive changes. Yeah. [2:30:37] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay, we'll look for a motion to recommend to the city council. I'm looking for a motion. [2:30:46] **Corey Colquist:** I'll make the motion... if I don't have to repeat what he just said! But a long, long way... Eric just said. [2:30:54] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** I get paid by the word here, i've been accused of that a long time ago. Perfect. Can we get a second? [2:31:01] **Valerie Ollette:** Second. [2:31:03] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Perfect. All in favor? Aye. (Aye). Motion passes with a couple minor changes. Okay, 8, Communications. We touched base on this earlier. Is there anything else you want to highlight on this, Eric? [2:31:18] **Eric Johnson:** No, thank you. [2:31:19] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay. Moving on, number nine, Commission member reports. Corey Colquist? [2:31:25] **Corey Colquist:** I guess just i thought tonight went really well and I think this process did what it was supposed to. Great feedback and i think it's fun when we can just disagree in a professional manner such as we did tonight. So no, i—i thought it went very well. So that would be the only thing i'd like to share. [2:31:42] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you, sir. Valerie Ollette? [2:31:45] **Valerie Ollette:** Thank you. [2:31:46] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Samuel Clark? [2:31:47] **Samuel Clark:** I don't believe Shannon's on Zoom... is Shannon on Zoom, Joe? [2:31:51] **Joe Wicklund:** No, Shannon was not here this evening. [2:31:53] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay, thank you. I'm gonna cross her off. Beth Wenzloff? Buckley Simmons? [2:32:00] **Buckley Simmons:** No report, but i would like to echo Corey: i thought it was well done tonight. Professional for agreeing to not disagree. Well done. [2:32:08] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Perfect. Councilor Geissler? [2:32:12] **John Geissler:** Yeah, I too, commission members, thought everybody did a great job. And Chairman Peterson did a good job running the meeting. And I always think it's important in these meetings like everybody stated: you know, i'm forward, i'm against it. I think it lets everybody know that... i think—i think that's good dialogue. So nicely done. [2:32:28] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** It is tough. Darn right it is. Yeah. And i know—I know Jim Samberg's been a friend of mine since I've been a little kid. So you know, and I've voted against what he wants. I know he's... i'm sure i'm gonna have all kinds of success! They just paid ten thousand dollars for—yep. Yep, for somebody else. Yeah, but it's a public road, we all get to use it. And we did the same thing, Valerie, with our road. You know, well i was... i paid 29 or whatever it was with the sewer and the road. Oh yeah. The other thing was that I want to comment on is the the trail sections that we that were talked about. The one that you can see from Morris Thomas into Keene's Creek is going to be paved and done and opened by right around the first of the month. [2:33:14] **Eric Johnson:** We're shooting for the June 30th date. We have requested an extension to the State of Minnesota to extend it for a year, but because of the unknowns at the state level, we're continuing to push for a June 30th finish date. And likewise with the other segment from Engwall to... [2:33:38] **John Geissler:** Yep, that's correct as well, because they both fall under the same grant that have that requirement of that date. That's gotta be getting close? [2:33:48] **Eric Johnson:** It's very close. The section 24 which is associated with the sewer... they've been there a long time, they're just kind of working up towards Maple Grove Road, which is not part of the grant. They're just waiting for the asphalt plants to come online and work it out. White, who's been working at Keene Creek... it's—well, you know, "incredible" to see what they've been able to accomplish. I was out there like May 1st up to my knees in mud and on June 2nd i could ride my, you know, skinny tire bike down the thing. It's incredible what they've been able to accomplish. For those of you who haven't, walk either one of those. I've walked... park at Keene Creek to walk at night, of course we know there's no work or park at the soccer fields and walk the other one. It's—it's going to be absolutely gorgeous. [2:34:39] **John Geissler:** Yeah, it's going to be nuts. I've walked in from the soccer—well yeah, it's not too bad, but it is beautiful. Do you know what the deal is—? [2:34:52] **Eric Johnson:** Yeah, we've... there's a... they're doing a utility extension that parallels the road. The contractor got ahead of himself and was missing some basically approvals on the... exactly... in the as-built, not as-built, but some of the shop drawings and such. So we said stop order, secure the site, get it finished, and then you can finish your work. That's—there's a little chunk of sewer going into those that one parcel that got sold. Remember there was a couple of different splits? So there's four lots and there's one little sewer going in there. [2:35:28] **John Geissler:** Every day it's terrible. I—yeah i kind of i complained a while back. Yeah. [2:35:36] **Eric Johnson:** Well i think Paul's been on it a little since i said something. I think Paul's on a little bit more to patrol it because there was a couple of days there was not hardly anything there at all. Yeah. There's that—there's a heavy wind that knocked down that one type of barrier. I know. And I reach out to that developer at least once a week where we are in the process, where we're going on. My understanding sounds like the documents were submitted last Thursday or Friday, so i think they're there. But i will definitely stay after that as well. That's the last thing is it's just like you said, someone to pitch over that anyway. [2:36:14] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** That's all i have for my report, but those trails are going to be beautiful. Perfect. And myself, nothing other than thanking everybody for getting through a long... with that, we'd look for a motion to adjourn. [2:36:30] **Samuel Clark:** Sam Clark. [2:36:31] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Mr. Clark with the first. Can we get a second? [2:36:34] **Valerie Ollette:** Second. [2:36:35] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much. Somebody was worried we can stay later! All in favor? Aye. (Aye). We're going to close this evening's meeting at 9:37 PM if we were going to go on.