Here is the transcript with the speaker names identified based on the roll call, staff list, and context of the meeting. **Hermantown Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting** **November 16, 2021** [0:00] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** You say perfect. Good evening, everybody. We'd like to welcome you to the City of Hermantown Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for November 16, 2021. It is currently seven o'clock in the evening. We're going to start this evening with the roll call of members. Corey Colquist is not here. Valerie Roulette? **Valerie Roulette:** Here. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Samuel Clark? **Samuel Clark:** Here. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Shannon Sweeney Jorgensen? **Shannon Sweeney Jorgensen:** Here. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Beth Wenzloff? **Beth Wenzloff:** Here. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Buckley Simmons? **Buckley Simmons:** Here. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** And Counselor Geissler? **John Geissler:** Here. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much. Second up this evening is an approval of this evening's agenda. Can I get a motion, please? **Samuel Clark:** Sam Clark, I motion to approve tonight's agenda. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. Can I get a second? **Valerie Roulette:** Second. [0:45] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that for a second. All in favor? [Chorus of Ayes]. Motion passes. Third this evening is the approval of the minutes from the September 21st, 2021, regular meeting. Can I get a motion on that, please? **Buckley Simmons:** So move to approve. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. Can I get a second? **Samuel Clark:** Sam Clark with a second to approve. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. All in favor? [Chorus of Ayes]. Motion passes. Number four: public discussion. Is there anybody here this evening to speak on anything that's not already on our agenda? Not seeing any, we'll move on to number five, which is the first of public hearings. We have 5A: it's an application by Maurice Barrage for a special use permit for operation of a vehicle [1:32] impound lot at 4918 Lightning Drive. The property is located in a BLM Business and Light Manufacturing zoning district. Eric, what do you have for us this evening? [1:42] **Eric Johnson (Community Development Director):** Great, thank you very much. Uh, the applicant is proposing to uh, purchase—I believe the purchase agreement is getting ready to finalize—but the property which is located at 4918 Lightning Drive. This is a Gopher News building, if any of you are familiar with the city's industrial park. Uh, he plans on relocating his existing towing business to this property. Uh, the applicant owns Nascar Towing, which had previously been operating on a 4803 Miller Trunk Highway until that property was sold earlier this year. Now what the applicant is proposing to do is to fence a portion of the existing gravel surface in the parking lot to [2:17] provide a secure storage area for the towed vehicles. Uh, the proposed locations up in the northwest portion of the site which is underneath the existing power lines—approximately seven thousand square feet in size. Uh, the parking and fencing are allowed under this power line easement area, however, no buildings will ever be. This is very similar to the city's impound lot, which is located approximately 800 feet to the west. The city operates a small impound lot at that location there. The applicant is proposing to use the existing building for storage of his own vehicles as well as some office space associated with that. Uh, the reason this is before this evening is a special use permit is because it's being designated as parking as a primary use with the use of the impound lot. So that does require an SUP [3:04] under the business light manufacturing zoning district. Uh, but once again this is a similar use to uh, what is already in that industrial park, uh, not only from the towing and impound lot standpoint but also uh, potential use of that building for um, office space and storage. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much for that, Eric. Uh, commission members, any questions or comments for Eric on this at this time? **Samuel Clark:** Hi Eric, I just had one question. Sam here. With the uh, Option A and B for the fence, does that have any correlation to the special use permit? **Eric Johnson:** No, it does not. Basically, what that does do more is um, that gets into our stormwater permit because the way it's set up is under stormwater ordinance, if you increase your impervious surface area—whether it's paving, whether it's gravel—that starts [3:50] triggering uh, stormwater requirements to treat the stormwater. So it doesn't um—the the size doesn't really fall into it because still the parking is still a primary use for this property. **Samuel Clark:** Thank you for that. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Commission members, any other questions or comments for Eric? We're going to open up the floor for public discussion. Does anybody this evening have anything to say about 5A on our agenda? By any chance, is the applicant here? Would you like to address this at all? Thank you very much, sir. Uh, once again, is anybody here to speak on 5A this evening? Not seeing any, we'll close the public [4:35] hearing for this at 7:05 p.m. Commission members, any other questions or comments for Eric? **Beth Wenzloff:** I have a conflict on this because I am involved in this property, so I will recuse myself from this one. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much, Beth. I look for a motion this evening on 5A. **Samuel Clark:** I'd move to approve. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Just—well, we're the first. Can we get a second? **Buckley Simmons:** Simmons to second. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Buckley with a second. All in favor? [Chorus of Ayes]. Motion passes. Thank you very much, sir. Uh, 5B this evening is an application by Miller Creek Property Investments for a [5:20] special use permit for the operation of a lawn and garden material supplies business. The property is located at 5350 Miller Trunk Highway and is located in a C1 Office Light Industrial zoning district. Eric, what do you have for us on this one? **Joe Wicklund (Asst. City Administrator):** Chair Peterson, before you send it over to Eric, there's a request from online. Eric, can you make sure your microphone's on and speak right into it? All the commissioners are a little tough to pick up except for Joe. Thanks. **Eric Johnson:** Great, thank you. I apologize for that. Uh, what's before us this evening, this is a special use permit for a contractor shop and storage yard slash lawn and garden materials supplies located in the C1 Office Light Industrial zoning district. Uh, the applicant, Miller Creek Property Investment, purchased the Will-Do-Bid building earlier this summer for the purposes of relocating uh, their existing lawn and landscape business which had previously been located at 4818 Swan Lake Road. Uh, this was known as Miller Creek Lawn and Landscape, which had been there for a number of years. The applicant's business model has changed over the years. Originally when they're at 4818, they offered uh, retail sales as part of that site. Uh, they have since moved on from that and now it's primarily a base business where they're working directly with businesses and homeowners for uh, the installation of the um, of the landscape materials at that point. So uh, really the only traffic that they get in there is more clients coming in to uh, to meet with them about designs versus members of the public driving into the site to buy materials that way. [6:54] This is still uh, looking at a way to um—for the permit purposes for the SUP—the contractor shop, there is storage and materials on this property. These are located primarily in the rear of the property. There's uh, garden-based supplies there: plant material, mulch, soils, etc. Those are located quite a bit back off the roadway surface. Primarily the use of the main building uh, that's more for office space. The applicant has done quite a bit of landscaping and recently paved their front parking lot area associated with this. So they've been doing quite a bit of investment in this property uh, really turning it almost more into an office type of use that way. Uh, as part of this, uh, one thing they [7:39] looked into earlier this summer was the idea of the rental storage pods. If you drive by this uh, facility, there's approximately 25 essential pods that are located out there. Those are, I believe, about 4x8 in size, I mean some might be 8x12. Uh, the purpose of those are those for rental only that uh, the person may be moving, they have the ability to rent one of these things from Miller Creek Property Investments. Uh, Miller Creek would then deliver that to their site and they they house all the material, or basically that pod, at the person's residence that way. There's no on-site storage of uh, of materials there. They also bring these to different job [8:24] sites. Contractors can use those for storage and materials once again on their site that way. That's strictly a rental business; it is uh, not not a mini-storage business associated with it. So what we're looking for this afternoon or this evening is a special use permit for the purposes of that contractor shop and storage yard as well as that lawn and garden material supplies building. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much for that, Eric. Commission members, any questions for Eric on this this evening so far? **Samuel Clark:** Sam Clark, no questions. **Valerie Roulette:** Thank you, Sam. I appreciated the fact that it said that they can't be um, stacked. That will keep it cleaner, safer, and I think that's a good use, I mean, good way to do that for sure. And how I understood it was those uh, containers don't come [9:11] back full to this site. They just stay where they are until they're empty and then come back. So that's why it's not a mini-storage. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay. All right. Commission members, any other questions? **Buckley Simmons:** No questions, Simmons, not this time. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Uh, we'll open up the floor at 7:09 p.m. Uh, does anybody have anything to say on this matter this evening? If you do, please come on up and state your name and address for the record. I believe the applicant is online uh, with our Zoom forum tonight. **Applicant (Miller Creek Rep):** Gotcha. Yes, I'm here if anybody has any questions. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Hi there. Commission members, any questions for the applicant this evening? **Commissioners:** No questions. No, nothing here. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** I don't [9:58] believe we have any for you, sir. **Applicant:** All right, sounds good. Thank you. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Once again, anybody in the public want to speak on this matter this evening? Not seeing any, we'll close the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. for 5B. We're looking for a motion on an application by Miller Creek Property Investments for a special use permit this evening. **Valerie Roulette:** I move to approve. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Valerie with the first. Can we get a second? **Buckley Simmons:** Simmons to second. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Buckley with a second. All in favor? [Chorus of Ayes]. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Uh, moving on to 5C this evening: it's an application by Brian and Marylee Malic [10:46] for a subdivision to create a 110-foot wide parcel of two acres and a 7.1-acre lot accessed by the way of a flag lot of 79 foot in width at 4008 Stebner Road. The property is located in an R3 zoning district. Eric, what do you have for us on this one? **Eric Johnson:** Great, thank you. Um, this is a uh, application once again at this 4008 Stebner Road. The applicant owns a 9.1-acre property. It's extremely deep, like I said, it's approximately 180 feet along uh, Stebner Road and um, the entire property is um, is well over 800 feet in depth that way—so um, actually I probably did this over 1200—1200 feet that way. [11:32] So what they're proposing uh, is—we've had a number of these before us, the flag lot applications—because they're looking to create two parcels. Uh, one between the parent parcel, which the existing home would be on, that's a portion of 110 feet by 467. So it's a little over two acres associated with that. And then that flag lot would be located in the southern portion of that property that's accessed by way of the 79-foot by 467-foot basically "pole" portion of the flag lot, how we like to describe it. That would contain the driveway and utilities, and then the actual building pad area is 331 by 822. [12:09] So uh, entirely it's about seven acres associated with it. So um, the minimum pole portion that where it meets down on a public right-of-way is 30 feet, so in this case they do exceed that by almost 50 feet associated with it. The maximum for the pole is 500 feet, so at 467 they are under that. So they do meet the dimensional requirements associated with the permitting of a flag lot. Flag lots are only heard by the Planning Commission; uh, they do not go into the City Council. So assuming there's a positive action on this this evening, staff would then finalize the lot split and give that paperwork back to the applicants who in turn then files it at St. Louis County. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much for that, Eric. Uh, commission members, any questions for Eric at this moment? Any comments on this? **Buckley Simmons:** I do like the fact that it's a really wide at the pole. Yeah, it makes it really nice for pushing in utilities and driveways and stuff. **Eric Johnson:** Yes, exactly. Sometimes we have questions on snow storage and how does [13:40] that really work out. So um, this is this is one of the uh, probably better examples of a flag lot application that we've had here. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Oh, I agree completely. Okay, uh, being that said, we will open up the floor for a public discussion on 5C and it's currently 7:14. Is anybody here want to come up and speak on this matter this evening? **Chris Raritz:** My name is Chris Raritz. I'm a neighbor. I would like to speak up. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Hi Chris, welcome. **Chris Raritz:** Thank you. I appreciate the commission uh, opening this up and sending the letter. My first question is uh, when when this is subdivided, is the idea that this would be just one lot for one house, or could this be a subdivision with uh, many houses? Again, I'm a neighbor. I can see [14:28] uh, the property over there. We bought our house uh, because it was in the middle of the woods, and now there's a subdivision coming. So would would like to understand uh, the nature of uh, what's intended for this. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Sure. Could you help me out with your address, please? **Chris Raritz:** Yeah, I'm at 4020 Stebner Road. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Gotcha. Thank you. Eric, would you give us a little clarification on this? **Eric Johnson:** Sure. Exactly. This application has come in as a subdivision lot split for a flag lot, and it's part of that the city's stipulations that this can only be used for a single-family home. If this would have been uh, presented to us as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), there could have been that opportunity to do that. But since this is a simple flag [15:14] lot split that way, this is for a single-family home. They could not do a twin home or duplex or anything back there. Once again, specifically for a single-family home. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that clarification. I hope that answers your question, sir. Did you have any others? **Chris Raritz:** I did. So just to follow up: so that would just be one single-family home? **Eric Johnson:** That is correct. **Chris Raritz:** Okay, great. Um, and then is there any consideration on the property value associated with uh, neighboring properties? **Eric Johnson:** I'm definitely not a tax assessor for the county, I'm sorry. **Chris Raritz:** No, then that is correct. Okay. And then what is um, kind of the ability [15:59] precedence of this council to approve or deny? **Eric Johnson:** I could help out a little bit with that. The way the city ordinance is written is that the Planning and Zoning Commission has the authority to uh, either approve or deny flag lot applications. Um, this does not go on to the City Council. Uh, what it does is there are stipulations written from a dimensional standpoint—what uh, minimum standards are associated with the flag lot. Uh, this property this evening, both between what's called the parent property and Parcel A as well as the Parcel B which is the flag lot—both these exceed the minimums of the R3 zoning district. **Chris Raritz:** And then one last follow-up. I mean, do [16:46] you see this as being, you know, dropping the the tax liability of the parent property to make it more appealing? **Eric Johnson:** Um, well I understand the way that the St. Louis County looks at this as they value a house structure as well as the value of the land associated with it. So this particular property, since the fact they're going to uh, remove or carve out seven acres from the parent property, uh, their their property values will go down some just because they have less acreage. Uh, obviously St. Louis County values land much differently than they do structures that way. So um, uh once again, you know, Parcel A, yes, there'll be a partial reduction in their [17:34] their tax derivative value of it just because they have less land, but they're creating a new seven-acre parcel which, once again, once that uh, a single-family structure is built on that, uh, that will probably almost double the existing taxes that are currently paid on that property as it is today. **Chris Raritz:** Sure. And then is this is this property—I mean, is is the idea like they're gonna uh, do the separation, you know, get the get the new lot and then sell all of it as an investment? I'm just trying to understand like the uh, benefit to the community. **Eric Johnson:** Well, what it is is once again that the [18:19] minimum lot size in an R3 district is 100 feet of road frontage and a half acre in size. If you have more than that, you as a property owner have the ability to subdivide the property assuming you can meet minimum requirements. In this case with the flag lot, which the city enacted in 2016, it does exceed those minimum requirements. So as a benefit to the community, is this brings another potential uh, source of taxes to our city. As part of this, uh, they are required to pay $1100 towards park dedication, which goes towards our park system as well, from the creation of our trails, parks, etc. that way. So those are some potential values that you look at at least from a community standpoint. But once again, as a property owner, they are within their [19:06] rights for our ordinance to be able to do this. **Chris Raritz:** Okay, I appreciate uh, I appreciate the opinions of the commission. Thank you very much for letting me speak. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for joining us this evening. Uh, Shannon, did you have anything this evening? **Shannon Sweeney Jorgensen:** Yes, I do. I just have a couple of questions. Um, first of all, in the uh, application documents in the agenda packet, um, I think there may be a mistake in there in that it indicates that the property owner intends to sell Parcel B with the new owner retaining the existing home. And I believe Parcel B is actually the vacant lot, and so I believe that should be that they intend to sell Parcel A with the the new owner retaining the existing home. So that's just a point of clarification and possible correction there. [19:53] And then my other question is regarding the actual flag or the pull portion of the flag lot. It appears from looking at the uh, Hermantown GIS mapping that the entire um, pole portion that abuts uh, Stebner Road is wetlands. And so I'm just—I have some concerns about um, what the what the process is or what um, what the ability is to actually be doing filling in that area when it's uh, it appears to be wetlands. **Eric Johnson:** I'll help with that, uh, Shannon. Eric Johnson here. This applicant did engage MSA Professionals, which has wetland delineation services. Uh, we are all there as what's called the [20:39] Technical Evaluation Panels (TEP)—that's myself for the City, it is St. Louis County Soil Water Conservation District, as well as the Board of Water and Soil Resources. We reviewed the wetland delineation for this property uh, this spring and did approve the delineation. Once again, any property owner has an ability to impact up to ten thousand square feet of wetland on their property or five percent of the total wetland on site, whichever is less. So what that requires is that um, if they [21:24] sell this land and someone wants to develop in the future, any impacts (mostly for the driveway) would have to have a separate application that comes through that technical evaluation panel for these impacts. So they would either qualify what's known as wetland de minimis exemption, that's going to fall into that 10,000 rule, or if it's greater than that, then they'd be required to purchase wetland credits through a bank—a wetland bank. And that's something that we do not only from the Technical Evaluation Panel but also the Corps of Engineers who ultimately signs off on these things. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you. There's a process to go through uh, should there be wetlands. **Shannon Sweeney Jorgensen:** Okay, great. Thank you so much. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much, Eric, thanks for the clarification and help. Does anybody have any other questions on this now that we've expressed a little bit of information? Commission members, any final questions or comments for anybody on this 5C this evening? [22:10] Not hearing any, I look for a motion on 5C. **Buckley Simmons:** Simmons with a motion to approve. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay, that was for approval, yes. Thank you, sir. Uh, can we get a second? **Beth Wenzloff:** Wenzloff, second. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much, Beth. All in favor? [Chorus of Ayes]. Anybody opposed? [Silence]. Not hearing any, 5C passes. Thank you very much. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** We're going to move on to 5D. It's an application this evening by JP Holding Company LLC for a preliminary planned unit development (PUD) for a 103-unit apartment building on a 13-acre site at an undisclosed Maple Grove Road address. The property is located in an R3 zoning district. Eric, what do you have for us on this one? **Eric Johnson:** Great, thank you. Quick clarification, it's actually 103 units. Okay, 108—and I do have a typo there, I [23:06] say 107—so we're all over the board, but it is 103. 103 is what it is for this evening. Thank you for that. Sure. So uh, what the applicant uh, is looking for this evening: they currently own the 10 acres which is um, adjacent to the property on this kitty-corner from City Hall here. It's a long linear site that has the the city's trunk sanitary sewer line on it. The applicant has owned that property for well over a year. Uh, what they have now done as well is they ventured into a purchase agreement with the adjoining property to the east to purchase the rear three acres of that five-acre parcel. So all told, they're looking at a 13-acre parcel here for this. [23:52] Uh, the property owner is proposing what's known as the Arbors of Maple Grove. Once again, it's a 103-unit, it's a four-story apartment building. Uh, the property, the site, is currently undeveloped with the topography generally rising from the south to the north. It contains a mixture of trees and open grassland area. The trunk sanitary sewer, as I mentioned, runs along the western boundary of that 10-acre parcel and adjacent to that uh, for the most part uh, there's some wetland that runs um, approximately four or five hundred feet into that site. So what the applicant is proposing to do is to uh, run a 66-foot wide public right-of-way that would uh, run quite a bit into that property in order [24:37] to be able to serve this 103-unit apartment building. The city would require that two things: not only that the applicant dedicate the remaining uh, 66-foot right-of-way as it continues to the northerly property line, but then if they also uh, have monies in escrow or an agreement with the city that when the time comes that property to the north uh, ever develops, that they would continue that roadway to the north. And that would allow for an eventual connection over to LeVaque Road. Now there is a property owner that owns quite a bit of land to the north of that which spans all the way over to Ugstad as well, so that could um, basically extend the uh, the city's uh, interior roadway system for this portion of the city that way. [25:23] The um, the 103 units, uh, there's a combination of both interior parking spaces as well as surface parks. There's 92 basically under-building parking spaces and then uh, 97 on the surface parks for a total of 189 parking spaces. Um, the four-story building is going to be 42 feet above grade. The way the topography works uh, generally that parking level kind of sits down in the grade that way, so it is partially hidden from the from the ground plane that way. Uh, to help you out under a PUD ordinance that we spent quite a bit on uh, earlier this year, uh, we have a 35-foot uh, maximum height but we do have the ability to go 20 [26:08] above that should you have additional landscaping and setbacks associated with this. Uh, the applicant's proposing a 60-foot uh, side yard setback—the minimum that's on the eastern side—so that's uh, almost one and a half times the height of the proposed building that way. In addition, they're looking at different conifer trees and keeping quite a bit of the natural topography associated with it on that side. What they're looking at is the building will consist of approximately 71 one-bedroom units and 32 two-bedroom units for it. Um, as I mentioned before, the city spent—and in particular this group spent—a lot of time on a new PUD ordinance and just to try to uh, provide more guidance [26:54] uh, not only for um, applicants coming to the city but also to provide more information both from the staff standpoint as well as Planning Commission and City Council to review these different documents. So I'll go through some different things and how this application relates to that. One of the criteria was if a particular project exceeded four units per acre or five acres total, that it required that you had to split the process—that you had to have two separate applications: preliminary and then a final. In the past, uh, the way the PUD ordinance was written is you could combine the preliminary and the final. So in that case there only would have been one meeting associated with this. So uh, in this case, since they're required to have separate meetings, that [27:40] there will be multiple meetings both at the Planning Commission as well as the City Council associated with it. Uh, also one of the things that we spoke about was uh, the need for a traffic memo associated with a project of a lot greater than four acres. Uh, the applicant is working here—has worked with a traffic engineer out of the Cities who has provided a traffic memo associated with this. I have sent that memo on to St. Louis County and their traffic engineer for their review as well. What we've done, because since this development is proposing to share the same driveway or roadway with the adjacent property which has 110 units of senior housing which were approved about two years ago—once again they're accessing that one same point that way. [28:26] So that memo does take into account this proposed uh, building at 103 units as well as that future assisted living at 110 units that way. Both Maple Grove Road as well as LeVaque are county roads. So uh, once again we would look at the traffic, look at the um, the county's traffic engineer for any guidance associated with this. Uh, this property and projects area has been looked at quite a bit in the past when it was known as the um, the Pillars of Hermantown when that was a larger assisted living type of facility that way. Uh, Saint Louis County was okay that was a total 137 units with that. They were not indicating that there there's going to be any need for [29:13] any additional turn lanes etc. going into that site, but we will still uh, go back and work with St. Louis County on any comments that they may have for this. A big part of our PUD ordinance as well was uh, the addition of basically amenities associated with the site. Uh, what we did quite a bit with that PUD ordinance is start to lay out some different ideas um, you know what what on-site amenities could be, and in this case the applicant's proposing not only an internal trail system which will eventually connect to the city's—the citywide trail system to the north—but they also have a sidewalk system which will then uh, link down to Maple Grove Road and that existing sidewalk over there. Uh, in addition to that, um, there's also a [29:59] dog run area, a community garden for apartment residents, a play structure, and a pavilion associated with that as well. The proposed location of this building uh, there's really very little wetland impacts associated with this. There's just a couple small uh, crossings where they get into the parking lot area. Uh, actually Mr. Wicklund, is it possible to—um, I'm sorry you have it up right there. Thank you. My monitor is not working, that's why. So um, in regards to setbacks in the PUD process as well, the city of code allows for a Planned Unit Development to have standards that meet the city's goals for each proposed development. So [30:44] what we do as part of once again the PUD process as well is we look at how does this building, the facility, relate to its adjoining neighbors that way. So um, the proposed structure, the apartment structure, it's located 370 feet from the western property line, 60 feet from the eastern property line in that—to the east it discontinues into a large wetland complex, so there's there's no existing structures over there right now. Uh, there's an average—it's 180 feet from the northerly property line and an average is 490 feet from the southerly property line. The way that property is shaped now... Mr. Wicklund, can you show the next graphic that has [31:30] more of a context? Thank you. And um, is there a way to rotate that? I don't know if there is or not, but in this case... thank you. Maple Grove is located at the bottom of the page. You can see that uh, long roadway coming into the site. Uh, adjacent to that is that existing wetland complex and existing trees associated with that. That corner parcel listed I believe it's 5097 Maple Grove Road, that's where that assisted living was um, was approved a couple years back that way. [32:15] The Planned Unit Development ordinance does allow for the setting of site-specific setbacks—once again, whether it's front and rear yard setbacks, getting into some parking requirements that way as well as structures heights as well. The applicant is with us this evening. Um, let's see, I had a couple more things here too. Uh, once again getting back to the context and how this relates to the surroundings that way. Uh, the proposed building, once again, it's approximately 600 feet from Maple Grove Road as I said before, is that average of 490 as you can see there's a little bit of a notch located uh, down in that southeastern corner. Um, approximately a thousand feet from LeVaque Road. And then the two nearest residential structures are 520 feet to the home which is located at [33:02] 4134 LeVaque Road—and that's the property that would be subdividing. So that that property owner obviously is aware of this because they've been selling the property that way. And it's 420 feet from the home that's located at 5061 Maple Grove Road. So um, actually flip that around, sorry about that. Yeah, exactly. So um, selling my property no... 5061 is the property that's actually subdividing. 4134 is an existing property there on LeVaque Road. I apologize for that. So um, this evening the applicant is with us as well as a representative. They are available to answer any other questions that you may have associated with this. Um, from at least the staff standpoint, uh, [33:50] many of the goals that once again this Planning Commission had worked on and that uh, in the revamping and um, reworking of the PUD ordinances are met as part of this proposed development that way. There's quite a bit of land associated with this—there's 13 acres—it's a single structure. We have setbacks that greatly exceed any sort of other underlying zoning that way as well as well as distance from existing properties that way as well. As a use of a site that's um—it's hard to do because once again you're you're encumbered by a sanitary sewer easement. The nature of this property being more linear that way, it works well with that. And then once again [34:36] a power line easement on the north side, north portion of the site as well. So that concludes my staff report, and please open it up for any questions from the commission at this point. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much, Eric. Commission members, any questions for Eric on this for comments? **John Geissler:** I have one. Um, the assisted living that's neighboring obviously doesn't have very many cars. People there are not going to be with... with rough math we're talking over 200 possibility of cars with one bedroom because legally you can have two people in—each person could have a car. In that traffic study, have you seen it? Does it fit right here? **Eric Johnson:** And just to help out maybe any other questions, so the apartment at 103 units—I'm going to read the AM peak hour as well as daily trips. Uh, entering into that apartment uh, predicting 10 trips under the AM hour and 27 exits under the AM. Under the PM they're looking at 28 uh, trips into that site and 17 exiting the site and looking at daily trips of 560 into that apartment 13-acre site that way. Uh, from the assisted living, that 110 units um, once again that's a different type of that way. More or less the daily trips coming in [36:09] and out of there are more staff than the residents. Um, very similar on the AM: 10 trips in but only five trips out. And then PM trips, uh, seven trips in and eleven trips out. Looking at 264 daily trips for that. So between these two um, two facilities that way, looking at 824 total trips per day. Once again this information has been sent on to St. Louis County and the traffic engineer. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. I just just make a note here um, because the building is going to be four-story it exceeds the 35-foot level. And you're indicating that because of [36:56] the additional setbacks and or landscaping that's allowed... is there going to be specific landscaping that would cover that elevation then? **Eric Johnson:** Not for that height, but what we would do is—this is a preliminary uh, application at this time so it's more conceptual in nature. So uh, assuming this keeps moving through the process, that uh, staff would work with the applicant. You know, is there a potential for some birming over there on you know, planting in some larger conifer trees that way. You know, right off the bat, are you going to screen a 42-foot building with landscape? No, you're not going to. But what they've done is the way they've tried to site this as well as keep uh, quite a bit of that existing landscape in place, that there's quite a bit of mature trees on that site already. [37:43] So not only the combination of existing trees but you know what can be done once again—site birming, some potential evergreen trees as well. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Commission members, any other comments or questions on this? **John Geissler:** Eric, I had a question in regards to the new PUD ordinance that we had created. Neighborhood meetings were recommended or mandatory? **Eric Johnson:** I see they're recommended. I see they're considering one prior to the City Council meeting. That is correct. **John Geissler:** Okay, might be able to get some more information on that as well. Thank you. **Buckley Simmons:** Is that a city street we're driving in? **Eric Johnson:** It will be a city street with a 66-foot right of way and a 28-foot wide driving surface. Um, and who will call that? Uh, when the city takes over we will. I've talked to uh, Public Works and they're they're comfortable with that layout the way it is—not the need for a hammerhead or uh, turnaround exactly. They believe that the way that parking lot is configured that they can turn the plow around in that area. Yeah. **Buckley Simmons:** All right. And the rest of that 66 right away would be being their right of way? **Eric Johnson:** That's correct. We did that at the very beginning so. And once again have an agreement. Uh, this—the city has done agreements uh, whether it's utility extensions with applicants that way, so um, [39:16] now or this would be the end of the payment but we'd have that same agreement. But the sanitary sewer, they have the ability to connect directly into that sanitary sewer. **John Geissler:** The 264 turns in... so that will help ease that point? **Eric Johnson:** That is correct, yes. **John Geissler:** I like what's done with the trails. I think the commission's going to ask about the trails, but how will this proposed—which is showing here—connecting with what might be done as a more public... **Eric Johnson:** Uh, what we um—the um, with some conceptual alignments as we go through uh, that area you know what is it from City Hall over to um, to Stebner and what we do is we gotta start moving up to that. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** There was an editorial comment and I think we all work hard at that new ordinance and that consumer things we [40:34] talked about about amenities, trails. Thank you, Counselor Geissler. **Shannon Sweeney Jorgensen:** Just one other question. It appears that the road—there's one way in, one way out. There's not an exit and an entrance then, is that right? **Eric Johnson:** The way this is—yeah, right now it's right now it's a single road in exactly. But that's that's why the city is requiring that at the future date that this will connect up to the north. But right now that's not in the plan. No, not right now exactly. But what we're doing is we are—we're setting it up that we have the right-of-way, we have the ability to uh, get that future connection in there. Once again, there's you know, the property owner to the north um, someday they'll be coming to the city about some potential development because once again they own quite a bit of land [41:41] between LeVaque and Ugstad. And there's the opportunity that this would, you know, be part of the spine system uh, you know, off between LeVaque and um, and Maple Grove that way, looking over over to Ugstad eventually. **Shannon Sweeney Jorgensen:** And there's not a concern with that many people living there just having one access at this point? **Eric Johnson:** No, and they said that's a big reason that we send this to St. Louis County because they're the ones that, at least from the traffic standpoint, and they look at it from you know, their safety standpoint as well. This is part of the part of the PUD as well, as this has been sent to um, Police Department, Fire Department, um, to Superintendents of Schools as well as as I mentioned the St. Louis County Traffic that way. There's no plat associated with this so it did [42:27] not go to the St. Louis County Surveyor's Office. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay. Commissioners, any other questions or comments? I've got two. I think that future road extension to the north, where do you see that connecting back over when it comes west? **Eric Johnson:** Just north of the power lines. North of the power lines. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** But part of it is, too, is you know, would we have the ability to potentially use that power line area? **Eric Johnson:** You could because uh, obviously you can't build under it. Right. Negotiations with uh, Minnesota Power who owns that. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** And then my other question is are you able to do all the amenities under the power lines like that? Like the walking path and that kind of stuff is located underneath there? I [43:13] think there's a storm water pond under... **Eric Johnson:** The stormwater pond is... that's what potentially the applicant's uh, consultant might be able to answer that because that's one of the things—questions that we posed back to them as well—is to verify their ability to do that. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay, because uh, traditionally, you know once again as we talked about the impound lot earlier, you can have parking lots under there. You know, the trails are fine that way. You know, how are they going to view the stormwater? Is that a structure per se or is that something that uh, Minnesota Power would allow? We'll ask the applicant, I guess. Can we have the applicant please come on up? State your name and address for the record. Come on up. Welcome. **Janae Tolefree (Applicant):** Well, she can answer the traffic question. Can I get your name and address for the record, please? Janae Tolefree, 106 South 15th Avenue East, Duluth. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much. And can I get your name and address representing JBJ Engineering? **Engineering Consultant:** We are also located in Hermantown, but I don't live there if that's what you would like. We're at 5670 Miller Trunk Highway. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much. Uh, so your question, structures under the power lines? **Engineering Consultant:** Yes, that's one of my questions. Um, the stormwater proposed in there would not be a structure per se. It would be more of a filtration basin, so just filtering any stormwater that came on and then cleaning it out before it's released naturally into the wetlands that are already under the [44:45] power line. Just protecting the wetlands is what I would want to be doing. We may not even need that; the full stormwater plan is not complete on this as far as the runoff goes. So we may not need that—that was just one possible area if we needed it. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Gotcha. My question was basically if it could be done in the powerline easement at all, I guess. **Engineering Consultant:** I believe so. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Okay, right as long as it's not a structure. And we require documentation and removal by Minnesota Power. Part of that you know, once again assuming it makes it to that stage. **Janae Tolefree:** Okay, and then um, to address the—I don't know if we can go to some of the other images of that were attached um, that show the building, but there [45:30] should be birming showing on there. Could we get those in there? Keep scrolling Mr. Wicklund, keep going please. There, thank you. So if you can see the full height of the structure at the entrance to the building, that's where you can see the full four stories. But then we're going to propose birming up a half-story to reduce that building height in most areas. So just where you're going to enter the building at the parking lot entrance and at the building entrance, that's the only place it would be that full 42 feet. Otherwise, we'd use landscaping, actual earthen berms, to cut off a half-story which would be about five to six feet. So then you're getting [46:15] close to that 35 feet. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Gotcha. It's essentially uh, it's a reverse walkout because of our grade there. So we're walking out the underground parking and putting our lobby on the underground parking level. So and then birming around it so it's not truly 42. It'll be under 40 by the time we get our permit. Sure, you'll be averaging less than 40. Gotcha. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Commission members, any other questions for the applicant this evening? I think those are my only questions. I i think it was a nice use of the land, staying out of the wetlands. You did an excellent job. It's a neat project. I do have one other question that just came to mind. Your your amenities on site, would those be open to the public? **Janae Tolefree:** If the public trail had access to your site, yes. Especially to the neighboring property so that they wouldn't have to cross any of the busy roads. Especially if there's anybody that's of limited needs, they could usually use just that rail system. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Sure. So if the city trail made its way by there, you could walk on your your trail or whatever your internal stuff is? **Janae Tolefree:** Okay, it works for the seniors as well, absolutely. I can see that those two sites would work together. Yeah. [47:34] **Eric Johnson:** If I can ask one point of clarification as well: uh, this is a market-rate apartment versus assisted living or senior housing? **Janae Tolefree:** That's correct, market-rate apartment. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you very much. Does anybody else want to come and speak on this this evening? If you do, all you gotta do is come up, state your name and address for the record. We'll try and answer any questions for you. Come on up. **Jamie LePage:** Can you can you please wait till you get to the microphone? My name is Jamie LePage. I live at 4071 LeVaque Road. Okay. The entrance that comes off of Maple Grove and heads north into that apartment complex appears to be sited right on top of the city [48:19] sewer. Is that a normal way of building? **Eric Johnson:** Yes, we've done that before. For instance, our new trail that we built, that's on top of the sanitary sewer as well. So uh, we do that. **Jamie LePage:** So I got charged ten thousand dollars, ten thousand four hundred dollars back in 2002 to put that thing in along LeVaque. So you're telling me the best way to protect it is to build a road over it? But you'll probably have to charge the taxpayers more money to fix it in the future if it becomes a city road. I don't see that as a good idea to build over our infrastructure that was tar and curbs. So think that one through. The next thing is that road—the distance from the stop sign back down to that road. How many of you drive on Maple Grove every day during any traffic period? [49:05] **Commissioners:** Every day. **Jamie LePage:** So you know that most of the time when there's any high traffic period at all—which is like daylight hours—traffic's backed up past that drive. So no matter how many entrances people have to make in and out of there, what do you think that means for the ability for people to pull in or pull out? **Eric Johnson:** And that's why when you send this to St. Louis County, whose both these roads are, and they would say is there a need for an accel lane? Are there amenities associated with this into the site? So that's when we send it out to them. **Jamie LePage:** I understand they get counts, hourly counts. I understand the road studies. What I don't understand is the common sense part. If you put a time-lapse video camera there and watch, you're going to realize that driveway won't be accessible parts of the day. So think that through. Just asking. [49:52] Additionally, when you put in that road over there and you're eventually going to connect it to the other property over here to LeVaque Road, you know that there's no ditch line, no walking lane, nothing over there. Just like we went through, we talked about the other property that's being developed there. One thing you might want to consider is the people that already live here have to dodge people walking down that road constantly. Not to mention the access of people who come out of this building property onto that road specifically. Fire Department, a few other departments that operate out here have to watch out for that additional road traffic without any improvements. It's going to be a problem. It already is. Also, I would like to at least bring up [50:38] the fact that over the time that the traffic patterns have increased in this area—I've only lived here 22 years, I haven't lived here my entire life—but I've watched it develop. And this intersection... I've seen no less than 18 traffic accidents at that intersection. Why do I keep counting? Well, somebody has to in Hermantown. No less than three people have been killed on our roads since 2012, either bicycling or walking. I don't know how many of you know those statistics or if the city even keeps track. Increasing traffic is a big issue. All I'm interested in is that you at least look at it and consider it because I really don't want to be out on the [51:24] road again trying to help somebody or pick them up off the road after they've been hit by a vehicle. Done that too much already. That's all I have to say. **Eric Johnson:** In response, that's why we engage a traffic engineer—the consultant has, as well as our city engineer, as well as the county engineers. So all three of those those people, professionals in their field, weigh in on this. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Sure, thank you for that Eric. Thank you for your words this evening, sir, as well. Does anybody else want to come up and speak this evening? We welcome everybody. Come on up please, state your name and address for the record. **Randy LePage:** Once you get up to the microphone. Name is Randy LePage. I live at 4071 LeVaque Road. [52:10] I was at this meeting—or I was at a planning meeting for the other building that was discussed. I think that is a very, very high-density residential, actually commercial use of land in a neighborhood that it is not consistent with. There are a lot of single-family homes, uh, there's some duplexes and there are some other buildings around. There is also the City Hall that is nearby where we are today. There's also the Fire Department, the Police Department—a lot of governmental entities that keep [52:56] things going in this area. That is not a place that you want to tie up traffic. If my house is on fire, I want to make sure that that fire department is able to respond. Having that much density there and that many vehicles coming in and out, I am concerned that that would not be the case. I brought this to the to you guys' attention back when we were talking about an assisted living facility, which was originally going to be a bunch of apartments. Same thing: a lot of people, a lot of vehicles going in and out. [53:41] And these are just two streets that I go through every single day on my way to work. I don't want to double my commute time. Thank you very much. I don't think that this is the right place in the city for this kind of housing. I really think that that needs to be a little bit further away where there is more room for vehicles to move in and out. I thank you very much for your consideration on this. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you, ma'am. Would anybody else like to come up and speak this evening? We welcome everybody. Without seeing any, we'll close the floor [54:26] at 7:54 in the evening. **Michael Koppy (online):** Well, um, I would like to speak. I'm online with you. Sorry, I didn't... **Joe Peterson (Chair):** I just see one person on the camera system, you must just be calling in. **Michael Koppy:** No, I've been here the whole meeting time. I just can't see you on my screen, I'm sorry. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Sure. Name and address for the record? **Michael Koppy:** Yeah, it's Michael Koppy, 5124 Beaver Creek Road. Thank you. And I would like to, you know, sort of echo the same thing—that I think this density is way too high for that property. When the Pillars uh, development was in front of you guys and [55:11] in front of the council—and I don't know if you remember—but we had over a hundred residents opposed to that because it was a four-story structure. And now you come back with the same kind of structure, a four-story structure, and you're just asking for to pack that room again with residents that are opposed. It seems like you're not listening to the residents. There's just no way that the the density and the four-story height belongs in this area. And all you have to do is go back and look at your history. Um, a year ago when the Pillars were—or maybe it's longer now, a year and a [55:57] half ago—when the Pillars were here, and that was one of the main contentions: was the height of that building. And they did then change it and brought it down to three stories and they lowered the density of that whole property development. And that's the same thing that needs to happen here, otherwise you're going to have that um, next council meeting packed again with a lot of angry residents from this area. And I'll guarantee that. So please listen to the residents of the area of Hermantown. You know, they've um, planted their roots here, they have a lot invested in here. So we shouldn't let one investor come in and change the whole um, [56:45] environment that we are living in in this area. It it shouldn't work that way. You should be listening to the residents that are surrounding this property and how do they feel about it. And they've already spoken. So please listen to that. Thank you. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much, sir. Shannon, do you have anything this evening? **Shannon Sweeney Jorgensen:** Not at this time, thank you. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you. Does anybody else have any comments or questions on this this evening? Not hearing any, we'll re-close the floor at 7:57 p.m. Commission members, any questions or comments on this this evening? **John Geissler:** The Pillars project... that really ended up being underground parking with three stories, correct? **Eric Johnson:** That is correct, yes. I believe that's what this portal is. It is underground parking with three stories essentially, yes. There's one maybe like three and a half—but I'm pretty used to the applicant that way—but very similar that way. **Eric Johnson:** And then um, some more important clarification on the last comments is um, this proposed building, as we mentioned, is a thousand feet away from LeVaque. There's uh, eight or ten homes maybe that directly abut this area per se. So uh, the fact that it's located on two county roads, uh, that's one of the big things that we look at in these contacts as part of our revised PUD ordinance. So uh, except for a thousand feet from LeVaque, over 600 feet from Maple Grove, [58:18] located on two county roads out there. And once again um, you know, eight or ten homes at most that directly abut these properties that way. **Joe Wicklund:** We have a request from the uh, online meeting to repeat John's question and Eric's answer because it was not able to be heard. **John Geissler:** My mic wasn't on. My question was to compare the the two buildings—the Pillars project with this project. My recollection is that they're very similar in building style, that being a on-grade parking structure with three stories of housing above. **Eric Johnson:** Yes, and that's what I said to respond to Mr. Geissler—is that is correct that at the Pillars they're primarily, you know once again, underground parking. [59:05] Along the backside there is uh, some exposure of that uh, that undergone parking with three stories above. Uh, that's actually a pitched roof structure on that one, where this is a flat roof that's in front of us. And then I said further um, just looking at the context and overall relationship to neighbors that way, uh, this building—proposed building—is set back a thousand feet from the LeVaque Road, a little over 600 feet from Maple Grove Road. And there's approximately eight to ten homes that directly really abut this corner per se. That it's located on two county roads; uh, it's not adjacent to a neighborhood development per se, but uh, rather some individual single-family homes which are still residents obviously of our community that way. But it's uh, once again directly abutting you know, eight to ten homes at max that way. **Samuel Clark:** Thank you for that. Sam Clark, just just a couple comments I guess for for tonight. Um, I guess one: I originally, when this was proposed and the memory care unit, I did have some reservations with the two county roads just with the city's lack of being able to do any any traffic control. And then as a just a volunteer on the commission, I don't I don't I guess see—foresee any issues with the plan per se. I would be interested just in, you know, public input after this goes from a preliminary into more of a City Council situation or something like that. So I guess at this point uh, just with the preliminary approval, [1:00:38] I would be interested to see where it goes. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. And for a point of clarification for me as well, Eric: is this... does this fit within all of our new PUD requirements? Are there any variations that they're having at this point to skirt or move or is it... it fits within everything that we have now put forth? **Eric Johnson:** It does meet within that. As I laid out initially, as you know, this procedural standpoint they've been following that. Design standpoint, they've been following that. So um, yes, that you know, really meets the spirit of our revised PUD ordinance that we have. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** And we did that to protect the community. I mean, that was why we spent so much time with it—was to protect the community. Even though it's it's tough to think of 103 units going in that location, but it does protect the communities in the ways that we had worked with. But they are separate projects, right? **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Commission members, any other questions or comments? Not seeing any, I look for a motion on 5D this evening for preliminary Planned Unit Development for JP Holding LLC. **Valerie Roulette:** I make a motion to accept this because it does fit all of the criteria at this point. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much for that. Can we get a second? **Buckley Simmons:** Simmons with a second. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that. All in favor? [Chorus of Ayes]. Anybody opposed? [Silence]. Not hearing any this evening, 5D moves on. And again, it's a preliminary thing. They have to come back again, they have to go to the City Council. You're welcome to come back and speak on it again. **Eric Johnson:** Yes, to help everyone out, as not only this one this evening but also for two special use permits, these will be at the December 6th City Council meeting, 6:30 at City Hall in the same room. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you for that, Eric. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Moving on. Continuing business... I don't see any. Number seven: new business. Again, I'm not seeing any. Eight: any communications? Not seeing any again. Number nine: commission member reports. Uh, Valerie Roulette? **Valerie Roulette:** No report. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Samuel Clark? **Samuel Clark:** No report. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Beth Wenzloff? **Beth Wenzloff:** No report. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Buckley Simmons? **Buckley Simmons:** No report. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Counselor Geissler? **John Geissler:** You know I always have something. I knew you would. Yeah. Uh, the—I think we maybe talked about this before—but uh, we've had the same city attorney for over 40 years in Mr. Ovrum, and he is stepping back a little bit from his practice. He's still going to be assisting the city with some duties, but the [1:03:43] city attorney is an associate of Mr. Ovrum, uh, Gunnar Johnson. Some people remember that name; he did work for the City of Duluth in the similar capacity. So starting the first of the year, Gunnar Johnson will be our new official city attorney, but he is still representing Ovrum Law. So you may hear that name over the next... you know, we used to talk about "we have checked with city attorney," but Gunnar Johnson moving forward will be our official city attorney. And the city went through a vetting process of RFPs and interviews and whatnot, and he seemed like a great fit. And uh, Mr. Ovrum will still be working with along with him and representing HEDA and a few other special projects that he'll be working on. So I think that's it. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you, sir. Uh, myself, nothing this evening. Uh, we look for a motion to adjourn. It's 8:05. **Buckley Simmons:** Simmons with a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Can I get a second? **Samuel Clark:** Second. **Joe Peterson (Chair):** Thank you very much. All in favor? [Chorus of Ayes]. We'll close this evening's uh, public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Thank you very much everybody, really appreciate you coming out. Do we think we'll have a... [Transcript Ends].