Here is the transcript with speaker names added based on the context of the meeting. **[5:49] Mayor:** Will the City Clerk please note those in attendance? All will be noted. Join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, let’s jump right into item 2a: minutes of the regular city council meeting from January 23rd, 2024. I would entertain a motion to approve those minutes. **Councilmember:** So moved. **Councilmember:** Second. **[6:35] Mayor:** Motion is seconded. All those in favor say "Aye." **Councilmembers:** Aye. **Mayor:** Any opposed? Minutes are approved. Item 2b: minutes of the city council work session on January 23rd, 2024. I have one correction. It says at the heading that this occurred at the Boatworks Commons community room. I believe this occurred in the council chambers. So with that correction, I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes. **Councilmember:** So moved. **Councilmember:** Second. **Mayor:** A motion and a second. All those in favor say "Aye." **Councilmembers:** Aye. **Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries, minutes are approved. Item 2c: minutes of the city council staff strategy planning session on January 31st, 2024. Entertain a motion to approve those minutes. **Councilmember:** So moved. **Councilmember:** Second. **Mayor:** I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say "Aye." **Councilmembers:** Aye. **Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to adoption of the agenda. We have one amendment: we're going to move item 4i, which was set on the consent agenda—that's the resolution granting two setback variances for 4556 Highway 61—that will become item 8b under new business. And with that, I would entertain a motion to adopt the agenda. **[7:21] Councilmember Walsh:** So moved. **Councilmember:** Second. **Councilmember Walsh:** Mr. Mayor, just a comment on the consent agenda—not to pull anything off the agenda—but I just want to bring a note to item 4c: resolution adopting the 2024 pay equity report. I just want to flag this. This is a report that we have to file every year with the State of Minnesota telling them that we are complying with pay equity rules. We’ve been doing it for decades. I don't believe it's necessary; we have to do it because it's a state mandate, but I just flag it for interest in terms of a legislative agenda as we're looking for things that we could tell the legislature, "Hey, stop sending us mandates that we don't need to worry about." The staff has to do this report every year, we have to approve it here in this consent agenda—it's a complete waste of time. So with that, I support the consent agenda. **[8:07] Mayor:** Good. I had a motion and a second. All those in favor say "Aye." **Councilmembers:** Aye. **Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. The consent agenda is approved. Item 5a: Community Development bi-annual report. Mr. Lindahl? **Jason Lindahl (Community Development Director):** Thank you, Mayor. Mayor, members of the city council, included in your packet is the bi-annual report from the Community Development Department. You received a first-half report earlier this year, I believe it was back in August, and now we're presenting information for basically comparing the first and second halves of 2023. As they look at the whole year, detailed information is included in the tables in your report. Staff will try to present just a few items here in summary to kind of give you a taste of what's in the report and the activity levels of the Community Development Department. **[9:38] Jason Lindahl:** So just as a reminder, the primary duties of the department include long-range planning like working on the comprehensive plan, short-term planning work that would be development review proposals, similar to the couple of planning items that the council is going to look at here in a few items, project planning for specific projects like the County Road E Corridor work and the zoning update process, zoning administration work day-to-day, conversations about interpreting and administrating the zoning code, working on housing issues, economic development efforts for the city, building plan review and building inspections from the building department, rental inspections for the city's rental housing stock, and code enforcement within the community. **[10:23] Jason Lindahl:** Just a couple of the projects that we just kind of talked about in those categories that we worked on over 2023 would be both the tobacco and cannabis ordinance work, the County Road E redevelopment site who is now seeking grant funds from the state to work on soil corrections before beginning that project, the picture of North Campus including the vast amount of work that's included all over the campus but also specifically the expansion of the bleachers seating around the state football field. Top of the next column, that is the gym expansion for the middle school. Below that in the middle is the Lochner apartment building, or the second phase of Barnum as it's probably more known to the rest of the community. While the planning work for that occurred a number of years ago, it's going through the building inspection process as we speak. **[11:10] Jason Lindahl:** Last slide in that middle column is the redevelopment of the former health clinic site on the southern end of Bellaire that was turned into a Montessori preschool and daycare. Upper right-hand column, as we mentioned, County Road E corridor work that continues at this time in the middle of the zoning ordinance update again, which is ongoing. And while handled mostly by the engineering department, the planning and community development department is assisting in the downtown mobility study. So taking a specific look at the building division, they do all plan building permit review and permit inspections throughout the city. They do all commercial, residential, and institutional construction projects in both White Bear Lake and Mahtomedi. In 2023, we saw just over 4,800 permits come through the city's inspection department and with evaluation of just over $2.2 million and permit fees of just over 1.9 million. Looking at the trend in this building inspection data over the last 10-plus years or so, we see a steady trend of increasing activity for the number of building permits in both Mahtomedi and White Bear Lake. **[12:41] Jason Lindahl:** The overall trend tends to be again on the upward swing. What we have seen, though, is a spike in 2022 and we are seeing a slight downward trend after that. You'll see that continued in some of the other slides we're talking about; basically, we're attributing that to the spike with the Lochner apartment building and the school district's investment in not only North Campus but in a number of sites throughout the community. If you look at total valuations as we summarized in that first slide, again we see an upward trajectory with spikes again in 2021, 2022, and 2023. Again, those basically we attribute to the higher value of the school districts and Lochner investment in the community. **[13:29] Jason Lindahl:** Finally, in the building division looking at fees collected throughout that time, again we see a substantial increase in 2021, 2022, and 2023, again contributing that more directly related to the higher value investments in those sites that I mentioned. Generally, though, in 2023 you'll see in these three sides we're seeing what we think is the beginning of at least a downward trend to a more traditional level of investment in the community. And so while that's a downward trend from the last couple of years, we see it returning to more of a traditional path and historic path in the community. **[14:16] Jason Lindahl:** Next in the community development report, you'll see some tables that summarize the code enforcement activity throughout the community in 2023 and comparing it with also 2022. But at least in summary, in 2023 we saw just over 443 code enforcement cases throughout the community. The highest or the largest category related to motor vehicle activity—and that is expired tabs, junk vehicles, and the like throughout the community. You might see that there's also a separate parking category that really has to do with where cars are parked and if they're parked on appropriate surfaces and locations. So that's the distinction between those things. Taking a look at the activity by ward throughout the community in 2023, you see basically a pretty even distribution of the code enforcement activity throughout the five wards in the community. And that is a combination of complaint-based activity that occurs in the community that the city doesn't initiate, but then there is the actual initiated work on behalf of the city that's done proactively through the inspections. Even with these two different factors, you basically see that there's a pretty even distribution. **[15:49] Jason Lindahl:** And then finally, the topic we look at is zoning activity throughout 2023, and there's a table in your packet that compares the first half and second half of that data. Overall, what I would say is if you look at individual categories in here—which include sign zoning permits, building permit review, zoning letters, administrative variances, land use cases, questions and inquiries, meetings, and inspections—what you basically see is pretty even activity in the first half and the second half of the year with the exception of the questions and inquiries section. So what we generally see is a little bit of a slowdown in the second half of the year as you go through November and December through the holiday season, but in this case, we saw substantially higher amounts in the second half of the year. **[17:20] Jason Lindahl:** Some of that may be just the fact that we're having a little bit warmer weather and there were more questions than activity in the community. We're not really sure if that's a leading indicator to some more activity that's coming in in 2024, but overall, we see pretty even numbered in those activities. So that summarizes the information in the community development report at a high level, but I'd be happy to take any questions that the council may have. **[18:09] Mayor:** Thank you for the report, Mr. Lindahl. Council, do we have any questions? Very good, we appreciate the report. I want to go back just a second to correct something. I had asked for a motion and second on the adoption of the agenda; Councilmember Walsh made a few comments, we approved the agenda, but I want to go back and make sure that we have a motion and second on the consent agenda itself. So I would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. **Councilmember Walsh:** So moved. **Councilmember:** Second. **Mayor:** I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say "Aye." **Councilmembers:** Aye. **Mayor:** Any opposed? Now the consent agenda has been adopted. All right, item 5b: Sports Center annual report. Miss Crawford, whenever you're ready. **[18:57] Lindy Crawford (City Manager):** Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. I'm going to give a high overview of the sports center. If you have questions, I likely will need to go get those answers because I'm not the expert here. But it was a good year for the sports center. We had seven youth hockey tournaments, 13 high school hockey games, the 30th annual Holiday Open figure skating competition, and that brought about 350 skaters to the area which generated a record-breaking revenue for the sports center this year. So that's exciting. And then we had three spring ice skating shows as we always do and approximately 100 White Bear Lake Area Hockey Association youth games. Some notable improvements: one on your screen is the Hockey Day Minnesota puck wall. So those are all the donors for Hockey Day Minnesota, and we get to display that at the sports center. **[19:43] Lindy Crawford:** Next slide. Some facility improvements that we have made in the sports center—that is the lobby of the sports center so you can see it's been redone. I don't have a "before" picture, but anyone who's been there knows that that's a pretty good upgrade from what we had. We also replaced the rubber flooring in three locker rooms and the player boxes, we added four additional security cameras, and we have installed solar panels on the roof. We had a little bit—quite a bit of a setback with that installation. We're working on a remedy and that'll be done later this spring, but we found the framework for the panels mounted on the roof were found to be defective last fall. So that will be fixed soon, we hope. Next slide. Before I get there, after 22 years, Charlie Holman, who was our maintenance technician, retired from the sports center. So sad to see him go, happy for him to retire. And we filled that position with Chad Jameson, who comes from Drake Arena in St. Paul with over 12 years of experience and lives right here in White Bear Lake and could, I think, walk to the sports center. So he's really enjoying working at the sports center and we love having him. **[21:20] Lindy Crawford:** In your packet is the revenues; inadvertently didn't include expenses, so I apologize about that. We'll get that corrected for next time. But ice rental and revenue remains steady over the last year. Live Barn remains a source of revenue, but we are seeing it reducing, especially from the pandemic. And then we had been supplementing the sports center with ARPA funds; that allocation completed in 2022. But it certainly was helpful over the pandemic for the sports center. But I'm not doing it all justice; we'll have Bruce here next time to give you a better, more thorough update, but they're doing great things at the sports center. Thank you. **[22:05] Mayor:** Great. Well, we'll extend our congratulations and thanks to Mr. Holman for his 22 years of service and welcome Mr. Jameson to the community—or at least to the sports center. Questions from Miss Crawford on the sports center? All right, thank you again. Item 6: public hearings, we have nothing scheduled. Item 7: unfinished business, nothing scheduled. Item 8a: conditional use permit for 2555 Lake Avenue. Mr. Lindahl, whenever you're ready. **[22:52] Jason Lindahl:** Mayor, members of the Council, as you mentioned, the item before you is a conditional use permit request for the property at 2555 Lake Avenue. The property is guided by the comprehensive plan as low-density residential and zoned R2 single-family and also within the Shoreland overlay for White Bear Lake. The applicants, Annie and Dustin Carlson, are requesting a conditional use permit for a third curb cut on their property. The Planning Commission reviewed this item at their meeting last month in January and there were no comments through that particular part of the application. However, recently just this week, we did receive one comment from a neighbor that's been included and provided to the Council supporting the request. After reviewing the application and hearing from staff, the Planning Commission recommended denial of this application. **[23:38] Jason Lindahl:** Just as a way of a little bit of quick background, back in June of 2022, the applicant sought approvals for variances and a conditional use permit for an addition to their home and an accessory dwelling unit to be part of their detached garage. They added a two-car attached garage to the principal structure and again expanded their existing garage from the number of stalls and added the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on the second level of that. Those applications were approved by the council, and so the applicant subsequently went on to seek a building permit consistent with those land use approvals, and those were approved administratively in August of 2022. As part of that application, you'll see the rendering for the ADU as it was proposed to face Stillwater Avenue. Staff would note that as part of that application, either at the land use level or at the building permit level, the garage door and curb cut that's the subject of tonight's request weren't part of those approvals or plans. The applicant began work on that curb cut prior to any city review or permits. At this point, they were requesting a 12-foot curb cut. **[25:14] Jason Lindahl:** Included in your application packet tonight is a note from the applicant that states the reasons that they're requesting the additional curb cut and driveway access at this point. I will certainly be happy to answer questions about that, but the applicant is also present and can certainly make their presentation about those findings. The additional curb cuts again were not permitted as part of the ADU. And again, just as a way of follow-up here, you see in the lower right-hand corner of the screen an actual picture of the detached garage with the ADU above it, and circled in red is the location where the single-stall garage door and curb cut have been placed on the building. **[25:59] Jason Lindahl:** In looking at the findings for this application, you would see that the proposed curb cut is not compliant with the standard laid out in the zoning code. As a matter of fact, specifically related to the conditional use permit process for an ADU, the standards specifically say that separate driveways and curb cuts are not allowed for ADUs. It's generally inconsistent with the neighborhood design of the surrounding properties, and the engineering department is also generally not supportive of the proposal. Looking more specifically at the findings point by point: First, consistency with the comprehensive plan; staff finds that it is not consistent. The land use policies specifically talk about the low-density residential neighborhood character and the accompanying zoning categories generally limit single-family neighborhoods to a single curb cut. The transportation section talks about limiting access management for safety. **[28:18] Jason Lindahl:** Looking specifically at the land uses around the site, again the staff finds no, it is not compatible. The third criteria looks at whether or not the proposal complies with the zoning and performance standards; again staff finds no, specifically relating back to that standard for adus that says they're not allowed to have separate curb cuts and access points. Fourth, looking at whether or not the proposal will tend to depreciate the surrounding areas; in this case, we believe that there is a potential to do that because a third curb cut would be inconsistent with the surrounding character. Fifth, can the use be accommodated with existing services; in this case, the third curb cut was started without a permit and so its design could potentially impact how the city provides services without going through that specific permitting process. And finally, traffic generated meeting the capacity of the streets; again, the additional curb cut is specifically prohibited for the standards for adus and the engineering department is generally not supportive. So based on those findings, both staff and the Planning Commission are recommending a denial. **[30:38] Mayor:** I understand the applicant, Mr. Carlson, is here. If you'd like to briefly make your case and let us know what your thinking is, the podium is yours. **Dustin Carlson (Applicant):** Well, Council, thanks for taking the time tonight. City employees, I appreciate you guys have been incredibly helpful to our project. A long story kind of pretty short—I'll try to keep this pretty simple—is you're right, we did start a curb cut without the city approval. In fact, that wasn't me, that was my stepfather. We've all had circumstances where you had to bail out family, and my wife and I was able to bail out some family and keep Grandma and Grandpa around. We took a vacation, we came back, and the curb was cut. We told him specifically not to, we're going to wait till springtime. So we apologized and we actually brought it to the city's attention. It wasn't like the city busted us; we stopped right away and said, "Hey, sorry, we made a mistake." We all let you know, where do we go from here, right? And then we had no idea that this would even be a big deal on a 1.5-acre lot. That's my mistake. We weren't aware a property so large would have so many restrictions put upon it. So of course there were eight reasons why the Planning Commission doesn't want this to be done, right? I don't know if I have time to go through all eight; you guys have a pretty busy agenda. **[32:12] Dustin Carlson:** But My Philosophy with this whole project is the ADUs, which were designed in late 90s early 2000s, are really popular in California/East Coast—not real common in Minnesota. Most cities, in fact, I couldn't find another city that doesn't allow an ADU driveway. I don't know where that came from. I talked to previous administrations and they kind of grasped at it; they didn't really give me a definitive answer why a driveway isn't allowed to an ADU except that the single-use family lot size that we have is considered the same as every downtown White Bear Lake lot. A typical downtown White Bear Lake lot is what, 15,000, 18,000 square feet? Give or take, we're at 64,000 for part of the lot plus we have another third acre across the street. So our lot is dramatically different than what the ADUs were designed for. **[33:45] Dustin Carlson:** If we picture the ADU as a single driveway, single car garage, beautiful little 800-foot apartment above it—I love it, it’s great—and that makes sense. I understand Council, Mayor, you guys have put together rules and ordinances that we should all follow as city citizens and I agree with you completely. But that's where variances are designed for. This is extenuating, it's different, it's not typical. The lot isn't typical, it's massive compared to every other potential ADU. There's not a single driveway that goes from 96 to Stillwater Street—it doesn't exist. This city does say that our neighbors don't have multiple curb cuts; in fact, a neighbor four doors down on one side has two. They're right next to each other. A neighbor two doors to my west has two as well. **[34:30] Dustin Carlson:** The difference in this property and the uniqueness of the property is the reason we think it should be approved. It's big, it's massive, we have tons of space. We talked to all the neighbors; the neighbors were fine with it. When you look at the 2030 comprehensive plan, there's nothing about curb cuts in the comprehensive plan. It doesn't exist. It doesn't say that three curb cuts aren't allowed. I was part of that process in 2007; I've read it a number of times. It just—I can't find it. Lastly, the reason we switched up the project on the fly—one, we live in Hugo, "Wild West," I know. Okay, moving to White Bear Lake, a little more rules we weren't aware of. But if you look at the house and you can see the little carriage house that we built, the backside was this one big wall and it didn't look good. It didn't look right. So we wanted to do something different. The contractor brought up and says, "Hey, let's put a little garage in here, let's put a little driveway in here. You can use it for fishing for boats down the line. Grandma and Grandpa can have access to it." It looks better, it's safer, and it has a future purpose. We weren't aware of the curb cut rules that were in place. We apologize for that, but we think it looks better, we think the neighbors like it, and we think the lot supports it. In fact, our first cup, we split up the lot—there’s four potential lots, in theory, we could have put four driveways on if we wanted to do it and we're not asking for that. So we're asking for a blessing, we're apologizing for the mistake, we stopped everything, and we'd love to finish it up. **[36:50] Mayor:** Thank you, Mr. Carlson. Appreciate that. Just for refreshment for my edification, perhaps if the City Attorney could just help me understand so I have it right in my head what the legal criteria is for the conditional use permit, how much discretion this body has. **Peter Gilchrist (City Attorney):** Mr. Mayor and Council, as staff indicated in the staff report—and those of you that sat through my new council member orientation recall me talking about the difference between policy decisions and quasi-judicial decisions—this happens to fall in that category of quasi-judicial decisions. CUPs are presumably granted because you've gone through the policy process and you said that these things are allowed in our city with the issuance of a CUP. Obviously, you have discretion to place conditions on that permit to mitigate any potential impacts on neighbors, but that's generally what we're looking at. Again, there's a presumption that they're going to be granted unless you have specific reasons not to. Here in this particular case, it really butts up against that one line in the section of the code that says a driveway is not permitted for this Adu. So really, a denial of a CUP—I think that's fine. If this were to be granted, I would see this as perhaps an amended CUP and a variance as the speaker indicated. Long story short, Mr. Mayor, you do have some discretion here, but it would be more in the sense of exercising your discretion to overcome that language in the code. **[38:23] Mayor:** It does, thank you. Well, let me just briefly share my thoughts and open up to the Council. I had the opportunity this afternoon to look at that stretch and the difficult thing that I'm grappling with is I have all the respect in the world for City staff working through what we are trying to do. They have a wide-angle lens, not just on a case-by-case basis. It's easier for me to look at the property which is huge and seemingly fits from an aesthetic standpoint, and I understand why the homeowner wanted it. But I do place a lot of deference in what City staff is doing because they're doing this for 12,000-plus single-family homes and 25,000 residents. That's what I grapple with. In an ideal world, if we could do whatever we want, I don't see what the harm is except for the precedent setting. **[39:55] Mayor:** I've been the one who's been as vocal as anyone about making sure we're consistent with variances, with CUPs, with anything land use so that residents have some predictability when they go to apply for applications. We don't get a lot of split decisions in the Planning Commission, which I think is good. So they don't make it on the consent agenda for that reason and it falls to this body to grapple with. Those are my initial comments for the Council. What would we like to do with this application? Councilmember Hughes. **[40:41] Councilmember Hughes:** Mr. Mayor, I guess I do have a couple of thoughts. One of them is I also drove by there and it appears it's already in use. I guess I don't know that it is or it's not but... kind of, you know, you said you stopped right away and it looks like—I mean I could be wrong because I didn't watch anybody drive in—but there are railroad tracks going right into the door. **Dustin Carlson:** Right, but what I'm saying is— **Councilmember Hughes:** What I'm saying is I don't know at what point the stop work requirement was put on there by City staff, but it looks particularly cleaned up and not like work had actually kind of stopped and a hammer had been put down. And the only reason I bring that up is because, well, it sounds petulant... you were told not to do it and then you went ahead and did it anyway. It gets to the point of: if we make any kind of decision tonight, is it actually going to be paid attention to by you? **[41:27] Councilmember Hughes:** Regardless, putting that aside, I get to the point where the code does actually say "no driveway to an ADU." And why is that? I came to the conclusion—and I don't know what the rest of you guys think—that it's because it stops an ADU from being a secondary home on a single-family lot. You then have to use the homeowner's driveway, you still have to negotiate with the homeowner; you don't drive into a secondary entrance never walking onto the homeowner's property, which keeps the ADU in some ways underneath the roof of the lot owner. **[42:13] Councilmember Hughes:** If we start moving down this way, we are effectively saying we're going to have ADUs with secondary driveways which are effectively second single-family homes. I recognize we have a situation where we have a really huge lot. I guess I'd just say if this doesn't get approved, then split up your lot or take down one of your driveways and put the one where you really want it since that's already in code. It really is more the precedent of: is this where we are? Are big lots going to be allowed to put a secondary home on it and have their own driveway? That's where I'm struggling. I actually would welcome all of your thoughts on that. **[42:58] Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Two things that I'm not clear about—I'm looking at the maps and I'm having trouble finding where the third curb cut is and trying to figure out if there is one of them that can be decommissioned. **Jason Lindahl:** The third one's off of 96 because it's bookended by 96 and Stillwater. Can somebody point at them? Well, so the yellow that you can barely see is the new curb cut. **Councilmember Edberg:** Yellow one is the new one? Okay, got it. Thank you. So the topic of ADUs is one that I've become aware of in the past year or two, and I'm really intrigued by what ADUs might be useful for in this community. But we haven't studied it. We haven't had those conversations. I know that the zoning drafting/redrafting committee is going to take up that conversation. I hope that's a forum that might be coming. Is this a part of that conversation to come? Can we take up as part of our zoning conversation either reconsideration or reconciliation of our thinking around ADUs? Mr. Lindahl, we're going to be taking that up in the next two, three, four months, something like that? **[46:07] Jason Lindahl:** Mayor, members of the Council, that'll be part of the discussion that happens as the code is drafted over the rest of this year. The goal is really to have that done by the end of the year approximately. **[46:54] Councilmember Edberg:** Fair enough. So what's in my head is that I'm not sure if we were to have that policy conversation, would we come up with the same rule that "there shall be no curb cut for an ADU"? Would we adopt, reaffirm, or modify based on conversation? None of which becomes an easier immediate solution to Mr. Carlson's request. **[47:39] Councilmember West:** Yeah, I was thinking about the same things you both were mentioning. I also had a question for the City staff. One of the reasons why we do variances and why we're looking at the zoning code is if something happens over and over again, does the zoning need to be changed? Is that right? **Jason Lindahl:** Mayor, members of the Council, yes. **Councilmember West:** Is something like this something that's happened before? **[48:26] Jason Lindahl:** Mayor, members of the Council, I'm not aware that we've had... well, let me preface this by saying generally speaking, it's my understanding that in the recent history of the city we do periodically get requests for additional curb cuts. One to maybe two. That's more common. And there is some provision in our code to allow that in certain situations, corner lots, busier streets where you need a horseshoe kind of access. So really, that's what the provision that the applicant is using here tonight is intended to address. To be more specific to this request, whether or not we've received requests to do additional curb cuts for ADUs? No, I'm not aware that we've had those recently. **[49:13] Councilmember West:** The other thing is, you know, I was on the Planning Commission before here, and it is, I think, problematic to make an action that's against the code before talking to... and I appreciate your apology and you can't control other people and I totally get that, but it makes it really hard for us to make a decision when it isn't planned out ahead of time. Thank you. **[50:00] Councilmember Walsh:** Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just would reiterate some of what Councilmember Hughes said. It's an accessory dwelling unit, and the word "accessory" is key there. There's a reason we decided not to have driveways and garages for accessory dwelling units. I was on the council when we put this accessory dwelling unit code in in the first place—this is not that old. Sometime after 2015, maybe 16, 17, 18, we put this in. So we haven't—it hasn't been that long since we've discussed this policy. It seems to me we ought to honor the decisions in the code for accessory dwelling units and not go that route tonight. **[50:45] Mayor:** Yeah, and just to echo what Councilmember Walsh said—and this is more about what Councilmember Edberg brought up—I would welcome that conversation. I think for tonight it's difficult. I wish we had flexibility within the code as it pertains to driveways and curb cuts for accessory dwelling units because I think we should have a conversation about nuances with lot size. For example, if you've got a very small downtown lot and it's a 50-foot stretch of road frontage, that probably is not a good candidate for a second curb cut. If it's a large lot, which we don't have a lot of, I think we need to have some flexibility. **[51:32] Mayor:** I don't think that helps Mr. Carlson out tonight, but what I grapple with is having good policy and not having the flexibility to try to avoid an absurd result when nuances come up. Mr. Carlson's lot is very unique in White Bear Lake in that it is so large. I don't know a lot of lots other than corner lots that have roads on two sides. It is different. But I think the Council's decision tonight is ultimately to deny, recognizing that in a situation like this, we should give some thought into how we want to address this going forward. **[52:19] Lindy Crawford:** Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Lindahl, the garage door that was installed—is that accessible from the existing driveway? Can you drive north into it? **[53:06] Jason Lindahl:** Mayor, members of the Council, the garage door on the Stillwater side of the building? No, not the Stillwater side, the internal... those are accessible only from the existing curb cut. Does that answer your question? **Lindy Crawford:** I think so. My question is: is the new garage accessible from the existing internal driveway? **Jason Lindahl:** Yes, it is. **Lindy Crawford:** Okay, so it's accessible from Stillwater as well as the existing driveway? **Jason Lindahl:** Correct. **[53:52] Dustin Carlson:** Council, can I make one more comment? Very briefly. Councilman, I appreciate your "stop order"—just so you know, we didn't do anything after they told us not to. I told you guys we did it. But yeah, they park in there, of course. The reason we have garages on both sides... ADUs don't last forever. I don't know how old all your parents are; they're not going to be here forever. That won't be an ADU forever. In fact, the ADUs have to be renewed every year, right? **Councilmember:** Only if you rent it. **Dustin Carlson:** Well, they're living for free, but anyways... the ADU is not going to be there forever. It's a garage and eventually, it's going to be a pull-through for boat storage. So the common sense of a drive-through garage made sense. If it was a garage and not an ADU, would it be any different? The ADU law wouldn't fit; it'd just be a garage. So this is temporary; we thought it made sense. One-size government decisions for everything is hard to swallow. Thank you. **[55:23] Mayor:** All right, Council. We have a resolution before us that denies the conditional use permit for a third curb cut at 2505 Lake Avenue. What would we like to do with this? **Councilmember Walsh:** I'll move the resolution, and just to clarify, Mr. Mayor, we're moving the updated resolution that has additional predicates in there. **Mayor:** Did everyone get a copy of that? The electronic packet does have the updated yes. That's the resolution that you're moving. Do I have a second on that? **Councilmember:** Second. **[56:22] Mayor:** I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on this? **Councilmember Edberg:** I'm just going to support the motion. I'm also going to support conversation as part of our zoning discussion to try and understand this policy in greater detail. **Mayor:** Very good. Any further discussion on this? **Councilmember Hughes:** Mr. Lindahl, if you would go to that final parting comment: what would the situation be if this was just a third curb cut for a pull-through garage? **[57:09] Jason Lindahl:** Mayor, members of the Council, again the zoning standards state that if you're a single-family house, you are entitled to one access point. We have a CUP process to allow additional curb cuts. Under the future use of the property that Mr. Carlson has laid out—if it wasn't an ADU and the property owner came in and said, "Well, I want to put an access point in here," they would still be going through this same process. They just wouldn't be under the specific provision related to the ADU. Although I guess I would offer, an apple is an apple; you don't turn it into an orange afterwards. It would still be a second floor that had a bedroom, a living space, and a bathroom. There would be nothing that prevented this or any future property owner from using it as an ADU. **[58:37] Mayor:** Thank you. Okay, any further discussion on this? All those in favor of approving the updated resolution say "Aye." **Councilmembers:** Aye. **Mayor:** Any opposed? The resolution carries, denying the conditional use permit. All right, item 8b: resolution granting two setback variances for 4556 Highway 61. Mr. Lindahl. **[59:23] Jason Lindahl:** Mayor, members of the City Council, the item request two side-yard setback variances from the property at 4556 Highway 61. Included in your packet are some comments from the neighboring property to the south from an attorney representing that property owner with some concerns about the impact that this redevelopment of this site could have. The attorney spoke at the Planning Commission. I know that we have an updated letter from the attorney that's been distributed to the Council and they are in the audience tonight. The Planning Commission reviewed this item at their January meeting and both staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of these variances. **[1:00:08] Jason Lindahl:** In this case, this property is guided low-density residential by the comprehensive plan. It is zoned R2. Included in your packet and on the screen here is a survey of the existing lot as it is today and the outline of the house that's existing. By contrast, also included in your packet is a proposed survey that shows a west side-yard setback of 3.36 feet and an east side-yard setback of 6 feet. Generally, this zoning district requires 15-foot side-yard setbacks, but the surrounding neighborhood is very consistent in the layout that you see here. **[1:01:40] Jason Lindahl:** Part of the concerns that have been raised is how drainage would work on the site post-reconstruction. So the applicant has provided a plan here with elevations that show how the site will drain either towards Highway 61 or towards the lake. The applicant has also agreed to the condition that they place gutters on the house that will funnel runoff. To give you a sense of the development entitlement to this particular lot given its width, the required 15-foot setbacks of the zoning code show a very narrow buildable area on the lot, which is necessitating the applicant seeking these variances. The city code requires a minimum of a 22-foot wide house, and so while the applicant's proposing a slightly bigger 24.5-foot wide house, with the zoning on the site, that would not allow the applicant to build the required minimum width of a house. **[1:03:13] Jason Lindahl:** To give you a sense of the surrounding neighborhood, you'll see that many of the lots again have that 30-foot width kind of at the point where they touch the lake and branch out as they transition towards Highway 61. Taking a specific look at the variance criteria based on state standards—these aren't a standard that White Bear Lake can set on their own—we are looking at the "practical difficulty" test. **[1:04:47] Jason Lindahl:** First, is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? Staff finds that it is. Secondly, is it consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan? Again, staff finds it is. Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? Staff finds that it does. Fourth, are there unique circumstances with the property not created by the landowner? Again, staff and the Planning Commission found that the narrow lot does not allow for the minimum required house. And fifth, will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Staff finds that it wouldn't. So based on these five findings, staff and the Planning Commission were recommending approval. **[1:08:38] Mayor:** Thank you, Mr. Lindahl. I know the applicants are here tonight. We have received the communications that you have sent. If the those that have objected to the application would like to speak, you're more than welcome to. **[1:09:52] Chad Lemons (Attorney):** Mayor, council members, my name is Chad Lemons. I represent the Millers. I'll come right to the point: the existing home represents "reasonable use" of the property. It may not be the use the McDonalds want, but it is a reasonable use. The existing home is a non-conforming use which was built in 1920. If you want to modify a non-conforming use, that's governed by Section 132.010 of your code. A single-family home can be expanded to improve livability; however, it has to be a conditional use permit granted and the non-conformance can't be increased. In this case, the non-conformance would be increased due to the length of the new house. **[1:11:24] Chad Lemons:** What should have happened here is that this should have been treated as a non-conforming use and that a CUP should have been applied for, not a variance. One other point: the unique circumstances here are being created by the McDonalds by tearing down the existing home. This is not an existing unique circumstance. Under statute and case law, you cannot create your own unique circumstance. What should happen is the existing home should be rehabilitated and restored. We are concerned that the new home will be two stories whereas the existing home is only one story. Given the narrow space between the two houses, I think that poses a definite safety hazard for the firefighters. Second point: right now the Millers have sunlight coming across from the North. That will disappear with the two-story house. It does affect their existing solar rights. **[1:12:55] Mayor:** Thank you for your time. Just so it's clear what's before the Council, we do have an updated resolution. Council, what would we like to do here? **Councilmember Hughes:** Move approval. **Councilmember:** Second. **Mayor:** Motion and a second. Any further discussion on this? **Councilmember Edberg:** I'm not an attorney. Is our attorney able to respond to the legal case that was made in front of us? **Mayor:** I think it would be more appropriate to just the point in question to me is: do we meet the legal standard in our Council's opinion as to whether or not we met the standard for a variance? But I will let Mr. Gilchrist enlighten us. **[1:14:26] Peter Gilchrist:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. In response to the concerns raised: you certainly do have a non-conforming section of your code. But that doesn't mean that you're not able to grant a variance to allow for an expansion of a non-conforming use. So I disagree that somehow this has to be constrained to the limitations in your code associated with non-conforming uses. As with anything in your code, you have the potential to consider a variance for that. As far as the unique circumstances being created by tearing down the existing home—as I understand it, the unique circumstances are the very small lot. It's the size and dimensions of the lot that create the unique characteristics here, not the fact that the home is being replaced. **[1:16:00] Councilmember Hughes:** Yeah, I was just going to ask a little bit more about that. We had a small remodel project and we had a two-foot setback which we then changed to a five-foot setback. It would seem under what he was saying that I should have gone through the non-conforming use process rather than a variance. I guess I don't know why it would be a problem in this case. It doesn't seem like we do that ever—go through the non-conforming use process when granting variances for residential property. **Peter Gilchrist:** Your variance authority exists for conforming uses and non-conforming uses. In this case, the fact that they're starting with a non-conformity doesn't exempt it from being eligible to have you consider a variance request for it. **[1:17:32] Mayor:** All right. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the resolution granting the two setback variances say "Aye." **Councilmembers:** Aye. **Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 9: discussion, nothing scheduled. Item 10: Communications from the City Manager. Miss Crawford. **[1:18:18] Lindy Crawford:** Thank you, Mayor. I have a couple slides. Our fire rescue boat is being built; it is almost done, about one month out. It is in Canada so it will be quite the journey to go get it at the border. Lastly, the Northeast Youth and Family Services (NYFS) board terms—we received an update. They are July 1st through June 30th. So Councilmember Hughes will remain on the NYFS board through June, and then Councilmember West will take over after that. And then I'm going to kick it over to Mr. Copy to give an update on the downtown mobility and parking study. **[1:19:51] Paul Copy (Assistant City Manager):** Mayor, members of the Council, back in November, the project team gave Council an update. Following that, the project management team went over a number of different concepts with the steering committee. We also took it to Main Street and the EDC in early January for their review. We'll be bringing that back next Thursday with some revisions. Based on those revisions, the steering committee will make recommendations that we would go to a public open house on March 7th. We'll take all of that feedback and come up with a final design concept that we would then bring back to Council for your final review and blessing. **[1:21:25] Lindy Crawford:** Thank you, Mr. Copy. I would just add that every presentation and every version of the draft concepts are available on our website to take a look at. Everything is in a draft form at this point. I would encourage the community to attend the open house; we will also have an online opportunity for people to provide their feedback. **[1:22:11] Mayor:** Thank you. And before we get off this agenda item, I just want to echo what Miss Crawford and Mr. Copy have said because I've gotten feedback from the community and there seems to be this misnomer that "this is what we're going to do." We're at the early brainstorming stages of this project. We're in the dreaming phase. Encourage residents and business owners to take advantage of these open houses. I know everyone sitting up here wants to hear from the residents and business owners. With that, we're going to move to item 11: the closed session. We are entering into a closed session pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13D.05 Subdivision 3a to evaluate the performance of the City Manager. At this time, we will dismiss others in attendance. The conclusion of this meeting will not be video recorded.