This transcript appears to be from the **Hermantown Planning & Zoning Commission meeting** held on **April 20, 2021**. Based on the context provided and city records, the Chair of the commission is **Joe Peterson** (who also serves as a City Councilor). [0:00] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** uh myself corey clonquist he's not here valerie ouellette here samuel clark here shannon sweeney jorgensen not here beth winslow here buckley simmons and mr geisler president thank you very much everybody second on this evening's agenda is the approval of the agenda can i get a motion for that please [0:36] **Beth Winslow:** so move winslow [0:38] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you beth can we get a second [0:41] **Sam Clark:** sam clark with a second take your picture eric thank you very much samuel [0:46] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** all in favor aye aye aye motion passes next up is the approval of the minutes from the march 16 2021 regular meeting does anybody have any uh comments or we otherwise we can look for a motion on that as well [1:13] **Beth Winslow:** if typos don't count i make motion to accept [1:16] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you beth can we get a second [1:20] **Valerie Ouellette:** okay i think valerie got in first there yeah i'll choose valerie on this one [1:26] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** all in favor hi hi that motion passes uh up next number four is public discussion uh eric is [1:32] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** there anything that's on the agenda this evening it's not before us [1:36] **Eric Johnson:** uh no i have not had any other notices from the public i do know that mr bob saunders is online with us this evening i don't know if you're here for a specific item or not sir [1:48] **Bob Saunders:** i am uh we are heiner's next door neighbors and they are wanting to put a flag lot in we just have a couple concerns that's all [2:00] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** sure we'll get to that in just a minute sir sure okay not hearing any we'll move on from the open forum of the public discussion and we'll move on to number five which is public hearings this evening number one is an application by brad and jackie johnson for a subdivision to create 136 foot wide parcel of one acre and a 4.03 acre lot [2:12] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** accessed by the way of a flag lot of 30 foot in width at 5233 maple grove road this property is located in an r3 zoning district uh eric what do you have for us on this one this evening [2:23] **Eric Johnson:** well great first question is can you see the screen that i have up i have a location map um no i see your uh your windows screen window location map is highlighted but we don't see a map double click all right press one more time apologize for that uh maybe what i'll do is we'll just uh ask the uh pz members to go to their packets then uh what this is before us it's a flaglet [3:02] **Eric Johnson:** application by brad and jackie johnson to subdivide a five acre lot into a new flag lot the property is located at 5233 maple grove road which is about two or three lots to the east of the fickner field complex the property is located in an r3 zoning district next if i could have you go to the drawing that is part of that application it shows how the proposed flag lot is going to be subdivided uh what it is proposing is basically the parent lot has the existing home and a garage as well as a shed on that property the applicant is proposing to have that [3:48] **Eric Johnson:** lot approximately 130 36 feet by 320 feet for one acre in size the flag lot would draw access from maple grove road with the driveway located on the west side of the property the pole portion that contains the driveway is proposed at 30 foot width by 320 feet in length and with the subsequent flag portion of the building portion a lot located behind that which is 4.03 acres there are some wetlands at the extreme north end of this property but the building pad area does appear to be [4:35] **Eric Johnson:** free of wetlands and is unencumbered that way this application does meet the flag lot ordinance as far as subdivisions go uh it is it has a minimum of the 30 foot entryway and uh is less than the maximum 500 feet allowed for that pole portion or the driveway portion this property would be connected to city sewer and you in water located in maple grove road and the applicant would be required to coordinate with st louis county on a new curb cut on maple grove road to access this property uh it's my understanding that the applicant uh more than likely would um these plans to subdivide this property and [5:21] **Eric Johnson:** potentially sell this newly created lot as a building parcel to the public that way the existing home his plans are generally to keep that as a rental property this uh this applicant does have a few rental properties both in hermantown and duluth i primarily primarily rents to uh people involved in the air national guard of which the applicant is a as a member of the air national guard i don't believe unfortunately that the applicant is with us this evening i'd be happy to try to answer any questions that the commission members may have [5:56] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** eric i guess i just have one looks like the neighboring lot is split almost identically [6:04] **Eric Johnson:** that is correct yes that was actually done by the johnsons as well about a year ago [6:11] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** okay and then i don't remember from that from a year ago is there anything they have to do with looks like the utility easement running through the back portion of the lot is there a power line that runs through there though [6:22] **Eric Johnson:** yes yes thank you that's the uh the power line extreme north end of the property that way so um everything in this my conversations that they don't plan to be anywhere near that portion of it that they would utilize uh basically that front 100 feet or so of this newly created lot for the building pad [6:42] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** just for my future knowledge of trying to make this simpler in the future um if they were to cross that power line would they need access or you know granted access to you know put a shed or whatever it is on the northern half of that lot the craft across the power line easement [7:01] **Eric Johnson:** the uh not quite up on the agreements between uh power companies and private properties that way i believe at least in other ones like the city has that you still have um the property owner just still has the ability to cross it right of access etc you cannot build structures underneath the power lines that way uh if you need to have a paved surface of such i mean you typically can have those but like i said no no structures underneath that um those power lines were within that easement [7:39] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** gotcha thank you those are all my only questions commission members any questions for eric other than the ones i provoke i asked well my only concern was how close that driveway was to the joining property but being they only adjoining property i guess they're fine with it sam beth any questions this evening [8:21] **Sam Clark:** sam clark no questions [8:24] **Beth Winslow:** beth winslow no it's it's it's being done all over so thank you very much [8:30] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** uh with that we'll open up the floor to a uh public hearing at 7 11. is there anybody out there that would like to speak on 5a this evening [8:40] **Brad Johnson:** i'm here but you can't hear me i don't think [8:43] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** uh i can hear you here for the johnson one or the heiner one [8:49] **Brad Johnson:** ah the johnson okay uh can you state your name and address for the record please yeah my name is brad johnson my address is 4958 maple grove road and i am the owner of 5233 maple grove road on the lots being discussed for the split [9:06] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** hi brad have you heard our conversation this evening so far [9:11] **Brad Johnson:** i have hope heard the whole conversation thank you very much for putting that together i really appreciate it all the work that was done on it i don't know who did all the work i'm guessing eric did some of it and probably most of it um so i do appreciate that so i'd like to talk a little bit on it um i think there's a great opportunity on this lot to expand our population of hermantown and and add some living space for families that i offer housing to most of the families that i deal with have a hard time finding three four and five bedroom homes in our community we do offer housing in duluth with those kind of homes but i think more people are attracted to hermantown just because of the great job that you people have done i don't know if it's the hockey culture or just the the great living that we have but we hear a lot that they just cannot find housing so we're trying to expand i don't know if we're going to sell that lot if we're just going to hold it and build a home for for other families coming through the area we do a lot with medical too we have a lot of people coming to our community that are only planning on staying two or three years and so they make great customers for us and we offer them the option not to have to buy making their life a lot easier so if you guys would consider approving this it would be greatly appreciated not just by us but by future families in our neighborhood so thank you for your time [10:33] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you very much brad commission members any questions for brad this evening not hearing any i'll close the public comment period at 7 14 this evening commission members any other questions for eric or brad if if not i would look for a motion on 5 a this evening [11:00] **Valerie Ouellette:** i would move to approve um five a [11:05] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you very much we have it first can we get a second please [11:08] **Beth Winslow:** i will second beth winslow [11:10] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you beth all in favor bye hi anybody opposed not hearing any motion passes thank you very much on 5a moving forward we've got 5b it's an application by heather heiner for a subdivision to create a 120 foot wide parcel of 0.52 acres and a 3.0 acre lot accessed by the way of a flag lot of 30 foot in width at 5273 arrowhead road the property is located in our three zoning district eric what do you have for us on this one [12:00] **Eric Johnson:** i apologize if you see me trying to get my screen up here again but um we've got it this time yep okay now you can now you can see this that's that's usually how it works isn't it let me see if i can get rid of that i'm failing this evening unfortunately well let's uh let's try to run with what i have here so uh once again this is another flag lot application before us this property is located at 5273 arrowhead road this is an existing lot that the property owner is proposing to subdivide once again into a flag lot uh the property has dimensions of 150 feet by 1024 feet there's currently a single family home and two accessory structures which are located on the property uh the applicant is proposing to create a flag lot that would be along the western border of that existing property similar to the one that we just heard it would be accessed by way of a 30 foot pole or the driveway section that would connect to arrowhead road and in this case would be a distance of 190 feet with the flag portion behind that being approximately 150 by 834 feet uh the proposed sizes for the two lots would be 0.52 acres for that parent lot where the home the accessory structures are and with the parcel located behind it that flag lot that would be three acres in size similar once again to the previous one the applicant would hook into public utilities located in arrowhead road those public utilities would progress up that flag lot that pole portion and then access the home behind it that way in regards to wetlands on site there's some once again at the extreme north end of the property that don't anticipate uh having an issue associated with those with the building pad likewise i know for sure that the applicant was not able to join us here they had a prior commitment unfortunately so um i will attempt to answer any other questions uh from the commission members [14:52] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** commission members any questions for eric this evening on 5b [14:55] **Valerie Ouellette:** valerie just wondering the current building or the current lot the smaller lot the 0.52 um that would be on city water and sewer as well i'm assuming [15:08] **Eric Johnson:** yes that is correct [15:11] **Valerie Ouellette:** is that one existing [15:13] **Eric Johnson:** it's an existing home i believe uh i think it may be a jackson home to tell you the truth if i recall correctly okay yes it is [15:20] **Valerie Ouellette:** then i have no objection does anybody know if they've sold all the lots in the neighborhood next door [15:30] **Eric Johnson:** no they haven't yeah i believe there's a home going up right now i want to say it's on potentially lot two or lot three but um but there are hope there are at least two or three at a minimum left in there still [15:45] **Valerie Ouellette:** okay okay [15:47] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** uh commission members any other questions for eric before we open it up for public comment no not seeing any we will open up 5b for public comment at 7 19. is there anybody out there that would like to speak with us this evening if so please give your name and address for the record [16:11] **Bob Saunders:** hi my name is bob saunders i am married to karen harman we live at 5279 west arrowhead road and we are hiners next door neighbors [16:21] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** hi there how are you this evening [16:23] **Bob Saunders:** pretty good there are three homes in the other subdivision and the third one is going uh up now the other ones have been there for about a year or so just so you have the current information on it um we're not concerned about the house or the flag lot at all uh heather has got a very good reputation for design i'm sure it'll be a beautiful house uh we do have some concerns about the application however the map drawn by lhb shows a 30-foot driveway placed immediately adjacent to the survey property line of our lot at 5279 leaving 5273 arrowhead road with a lot fronting uh 120 feet uh in the findings presented by hermantown planning commission page 2.4 it is stated that the driveway shall be set back 10 feet from the property line page 3.4 states that the applicant must submit plans which show the driveway meets setback requirements of the city survey map issued by lhb shows the driveway parcel starting at the established survey boundary without the 10 foot step back as required by the city so which plan will be followed the one that lhb presents or the one that the city requires if the setback is required uh the lot existing lot fronting on arrowhead road will become 110 foot lot instead of 120 foot and that's still allowed by the city but it would be an error according to the lhb drawings and then concerning another issue witness storm water runoff feeds roads and driveways are considered impervious surface which allow runoff the area for the new driveway and the lot has in excess of 20 large mature trees anywhere from eight to probably 30 inches in diameter and the largest are very old trees probably when the jackson houses were built there is also significant undergrowth and countless number of saplings to trees that are three or four inches in diameter along the length of where the driveway will go removing the undergrowth and mature trees will no doubt increase water runoff significantly arrowhead road as we know has caught a lot of hills we're kind of at the bottom of the hill immediately before silky drive i think the heiner home is about four feet higher than ours on a lot elevation just the way it was 90 some years ago the proposed building site with the clearing lot is probably i'm going to guess 15 to 18 feet higher than our lot on the north side water is always going to run downhill especially with an impervious driveway uh what steps if any are going to be required to prevent additional runoff from affecting our property our garage and our house the garage we're talking about the original garage uh built in the 30s my wife had restored probably 18 years ago spent she could have built a new garage for what she you know she is a preservationist of sort yeah but um the slab is at ground level and you get a lot more water and these lots are even if they're not wetlands the soil is always wet so we're really concerned about water runoff water and we actually believe that that can easily be addressed in construction we just would like it to be uh set up for that thank you for the opportunity to talk uh we appreciate everything you've done to make this a public meeting thanks [20:30] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** absolutely sir thank you very much uh eric do we uh have to undertake any of that this evening when we're just approving a lot split essentially and we're not looking at the actual construction of stuff or is that something we should tackle this evening [20:44] **Eric Johnson:** well actually if i could uh just clarify and maybe answer uh the gentleman's question is that drawing that you see that's actually the the plot associated with this that 30 foot width is the actual what we call the pole portion of the lot and the driveway will be located within that 30 feet so um that that's not a driveway that you're seeing that's actually the the basically the the touchdown point onto arrowhead road that is utilized for these flag lots 30 feet is the minimum distance per the ordinance and that's what they're showing so what they would do then is have a driveway 10 feet from that basically they would center a driveway within that 30 foot with the uh the 10 feet for sure meeting on your side of the property on that west side is how that will work out [21:30] **Bob Saunders:** here's what i don't understand and i'm not clear on so along the property line between uh that that exists already between us and hyzers there has to be a 10-foot setback correct [21:46] **Eric Johnson:** yes there will be a 10 foot there's a there's um well each resident residential homes have a minimum of a 10 foot setback from a side property line correct [21:56] **Bob Saunders:** yes so then does the 30-foot driveway start at the edge of that 10 feet or at the beginning of that 10 feet [22:04] **Eric Johnson:** no it starts at the property line that's where the 30 feet is so the driveway doesn't have to be 10 feet 30 feet wide it would in fact be 20 feet wide correct [22:16] **Bob Saunders:** no no what you're just seeing this is just a plat plan this is not the driveway this is strictly i'm looking at the map that lhb provided not the that's the one in the packet that's correct yes that's just that's just the subdivision of the land that is not a driveway so the driveway would take place within that 30-foot parcel that you see per that lhb drawing that is not the driveway i'm not trying to be difficult okay the the map shows with what you're telling me what i'm understanding anyway is that shows a 30 foot width and the driveway by city regulation has to be 30 feet wide and there has to be a 10 foot setback that's the way i read the the notes on the paper uh page three line or sub point four says they're supposed to be a 10 foot setback so it's it's confusing because the drawing that lhd provides shows 130 foot starting at the property line and a 30-foot driveway is required with a 10-foot setback so 30 plus 10 to me anyway equals 40 that's what i'm not understanding [23:44] **Eric Johnson:** i don't believe it requires a 30-foot driveway 30 foot wide driveway that's just the pole section of the new lot that's being formed has to be 30 feet wide and the driveway has to be within those 30 feet 10 feet off your property line [24:02] **Bob Saunders:** okay that makes sense then is there a does the city have a requirement as to the width of driveways for emergency equipment to uh go through [24:12] **Eric Johnson:** uh we typically try to have a minimum of eight to ten foot wide driveway but that's all okay you know you answered a lot of questions i really appreciate that thank you very much [24:25] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** you're very welcome sir john does the driveway have a setback [24:32] **Eric Johnson:** yes the driveway has a 10-foot setback and as well as any buildings beyond would have a 10 foot set back yes exactly the city views the driveway as a structure in this case so the driveway in essence can only be 10 feet wide 10 feet of setback on each side correct [24:50] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** that is correct yes okay all right that makes a ton of sense thank you everyone i really appreciate that you're very welcome sir thanks for joining us this evening hey have a great night stay safe folks thank you okay anybody else want to speak on this in the public hearing portion of the meeting [25:09] **Valerie Ouellette:** so the other concerns mr saunders had regarding the impervious surface and the elevation is that something that's taken up with the building permits then [25:17] **Eric Johnson:** yes when we get the application it'll show the uh the location of a house pad the location of the driveway and then we look at it as well from the water standpoint and if there needs to be a side yard swale to be able to direct water away from the property lines that that we we look at that as well [25:38] **Valerie Ouellette:** we're looking at just i had forgotten completely about that so thank you valerie well nobody likes surprises you know so it's better to look at these items ahead of time [25:46] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** well thanks a bunch everybody it's really appreciated thank you again sir we're going to close the public hearing portion of this meeting at 7 28 p.m uh commission members any other questions for anybody on this application this evening to do a lot split not hearing any i look for a motion on 5b this evening it's an application by heather heiner to do a slot split [26:10] **Beth Winslow:** i'll make the motion then beth winslow [26:13] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you beth we're the first can we get a second [26:19] **Sam Clark:** i'll second it [26:21] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you very much all anybody opposed not hearing any the motion passes thank you very much moving on to number six continuing business looks like we're going to have continued discussion of the pud study [26:40] **Eric Johnson:** yes exactly and um i'm going to give it one more opportunity to attempt to share my screen and i'm going to apologize in advance because i think i'm going to fail again so earlier today i sent over a email that uh had a about memo from the ardc generally recapping what had been discussed a couple weeks ago at our meeting and what i really want to try to do is is keep this issue in the forefront for everybody involved that um want to keep this moving along and what i'd really like to do as well is have another work session approximately two weeks from now before that other may meeting that we have for planning and zoning because it would uh really at least a staff goal that when we hit our may meeting for planning and zoning that we're able to hold a public hearing at that point based on the study that the ardc has been doing so my my hope or my goal is to have a work session again in two weeks time um have ardc present to us uh much more detailed information based on our discussion that we had a couple weeks ago as well in order to help them fine tune their uh their study that would be then presented to the planning and zoning as well as a public forum at that point so once again this uh this documents this outlining really number of the items that we discussed and some of the items that uh the ardc is using as they're crafting this study in this document that way i believe um i think all of you were able to join us at that meeting i know i've had conversations with mr peterson as well on it i think we've had some really good input and some direction um like i said just trying to still keep an open dialogue on this whole process so we can keep this as timely as possible so really at this point if there's any other questions or comments that the members may have on what they've heard the date so far during this study or at least these presentations i'd be happy to attempt to answer any of those questions or engage in a discussion [29:33] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** i personally don't have any questions right now [29:38] **Beth Winslow:** my only question is how many do we have some applicants hole on hold right now or is this still the others have gone away and so this this is just for the future [29:50] **Eric Johnson:** i've been um discussing the process with the applicant who had been before us last october and just keeping him appraised of the process and where we are in the time frame he has not indicated any sort of an immediate application for it but he's just uh just curious that it's moving along through the process so the answer to your question is no i don't believe we're holding anybody up but in the interest of uh being able to still conduct business and move projects forward that we're still trying to work with this june july time frame to get it wrapped up both from a planning and zoning as well as a city council standpoint [30:38] **Beth Winslow:** i'm glad to hear that i just wondered if there was somebody waiting in the wings [30:42] **Eric Johnson:** okay sure um [30:44] **Valerie Ouellette:** this valerie i just have if you could explain item d under number two the approach to regulating different pud categories um letter d you talk about single family multi-family or both with or without a change in density is there any kind of limitations there at all i mean multi-family are we talking to twin home or we talk in apartment building [31:07] **Eric Johnson:** well really what and these are my conversations with the ardc is i think we're trying to get away from the specific language of apartment buildings and just building this more off of the idea of density in numbers of units per acre because there are so many different housing products out there whether they're twins threes four plus flexes etc that um that we think that we can start at least uh defining some development by a having some sort of a density um identified and that could be through the way of density bonuses different stipulations to um and how many units per acre you could actually get some things that we've been kicking around is the more density that you're looking for the greater of um common open space in the development would be required and when i say open space that's the usable open space not the wetlands not the power line corridors things like that you know you're getting the idea of pocket parks trail systems things like that so if a person wanted to get up to a potentially a four times density multiplier that in turn they would be providing x percent of their site for this usable green space throughout it and to date i mean that that number has not been identified but that's really what we're um trying to look at um i believe in at least my discussions from other staff members and with some of you as well that there seems to be a pretty um common thread of a height of a 35 feet throughout this district because that's in keeping with other residential structures throughout it currently that is our our maximum height within the r3 zoning district albeit it's measured to the mid midpoint of the roof structure as opposed to the um the peak of the roof that way just so people are aware that way so we can at least keep the consistency from a height standpoint you know throughout the development that way as well as this pud process kind of a roundabout answer for you valerie [33:24] **Valerie Ouellette:** yep yep but well that you know it's a work in progress right that's good thank you very much [33:31] **John Geissler:** i've been accused yes sir i have a question on that on that uh height restriction or height a limit the arbors project that is being proposed without under underground parking and three levels above does that fit within the 35 feet [33:48] **Eric Johnson:** i believe that they came in about um i think that one was coming in at about 42 feet john okay now that was now that since it had been approved that was that would still fall under previous approved projects that way [34:04] **John Geissler:** yeah okay so yeah a two-story 35 feet is probably going to be a two-story home not a three you know you're not gonna get three stories in 35 feet okay sounds good [34:25] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** well great well no thank you um i guess i just like to get your thoughts and or availability if we try to do a work session here in a couple weeks time is that something that uh generally support for from the group [34:44] **Valerie Ouellette:** i'm all for that i think it's important [34:46] **Eric Johnson:** well great what i'll do then is i'll send out a meeting invite uh maybe list this plan for the tuesday night again i think that five o'clock generally worked pretty well for people is that uh continues to be a true statement okay so i guess it's tentatively say yeah may 4th at um 5 p.m but i'll send out a meeting invite here with the next day or so just to get that in everyone's calendars so thank you [35:16] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** perfect thank you uh number seven this evening is new business we have uh something from the airport custom zoning discussion [35:25] **Eric Johnson:** and i'm going to try to give my way one last attempt here stop sharing so i apologize we had a powerpoint presentation for this that mr mulder had presented uh last evening but if some of you recall that had been sitting on planning and zoning within the past 18 months and we do have a couple new members here the airport by way of the joint airport zoning board is pursuing what's called custom airport zoning right now there's three existing safety zones associated with the airport there's what's known as a zone a which is primarily right outside of the runways and it's meant for they like to say cows and cars it's grassy areas no homes no businesses etc next falls into the b zone in the b zone there are restrictions as far as the size of a property which is currently i believe two and a half acre minimum lot size as well as having stipulations on how many people can either reside or utilize that structure on a per-acre basis and right now that's 15 people per acre can utilize some sort of a business structure etc within that so what they're trying to avoid is um number the gathering type of areas you get into churches you get into some recreation facilities etc that way and then lastly there is the sea zone which is the largest of the safety zones the only restrictions associated with that is the actual height of structures in their relationship to the airport runway elevation the city of hermantown is a little bit different we have a number of businesses off of what's called runway 3 that reside within the bee safety zone those are skyline bowl the um lakes theater harley-davidson etc those businesses actually reside in a in a b zone but with what's called c zone exceptions so they're able to exist they're able to continue and uh work and expand within that existing zoning the way it is that way so as part of this custom zoning that allows for each community to set their own safety zones associated with these runways um jazbee along with their work and jasby is a joint airport zoning board is worked with the different communities surrounding us duluth ourselves rice lake kenosha township um they're all part of this board st louis county as well and as part of the custom zoning we're looking to essentially keep the status quo on what's called runway nine that's a runway that generally runs east west we have one of the three zones over there in this case they're going to be renamed zones one two and three what we're looking at more from a custom zoning standpoint was the elimination of that b zone off of the runway three so what would happen is you would have the a zone that exists essentially behind gordy's in that area there and then everything from gordy's running to the south would then be in what's called the three zone or the essentially the c zone there is that there is no in between b or two zone associated with it um that custom zoning proposal was propo was provided to the mndot who had reviewed that the application went in last november and they uh sent back a letter early part of february stating at that point that they were not accepting those proposed changes jasby representatives have had the opportunity to meet with mndot to discuss that further to understand um their concerns and uh look at ways to keep moving forward with the custom zoning as part of that discussion with mndot which has just happened within the last few weeks mndot is recommending that their a zone two in some sort of fashion does continue to happen off that runway three what they're proposing or at least recommending that it's not as strict as what it currently been known as their primary concern is trying to limit vulnerable populations i.e people in hospitals looking at some maybe adult care facilities potentially daycare type of facilities looking at schools there had been initially some conversations about churches synagogues etc that way that what mndot is recommending is that once again some portion of land that the city can designate off of runway three would have this zone that would restrict those type of uses and those would be new uses so that's one thing that we are starting to look at from a staff standpoint we had a discussion with city council about this last night as well um there's concern about churches and you know what really is defined as churches that way that if the city was to um concur with these type of recommendations that they would not have churches as part of that language once again things like medical or dental clinics would be allowed what they're once again they're looking at is vulnerable populations places that people do not have really a choice or ability to get in and out of readily bowling alleys theaters etc would continue to be allowed within that zone both as in existing condition as well as future conditions here as well what the ordinance or any changes would be would just be on new developments within the future so what we're anticipating is having some more conversation not only from the planning and zoning but also staff and city council on how we move forward on this do we continue to work under these mndot recommendations and say yes we can limit or exclude a certain portion of these uses i.e once again the vulnerable populations do we say no do we skip the status quo and say that we really prefer to continue just to work with the custom zoning trying to have a zone one and three and not that in between zone or do you go as far as creating an entirely new zoning district that would stretch along some portion of highway 53 that would then exclude those vulnerable type of uses there's some general feedback that this new zoning district would um not really accomplish what we're trying to it would be a little bit more cumbersome and a little bit more restrictive as property and land develops the benefit or the i guess the benefit of an actual zoning district is it could limit what could be perceived as taking procedures from a land use standpoint because if it's specific to zoning and not specific to the airport you can you can regulate that by keeping it within the existing b area that we have now it does open up the city a little bit more for some potential uh taking um i mean there's some general comfort level with that but that's something that we as a city have to know and be able to be comfortable with moving forward so um as i said this is going to continue to come forward and be discussed both myself and mr geisler sit on this jsb board we have both been tasked with at least bringing some information back to jasby by may 6th on how the city plans on trying to move forward with this uh what we're kind of perceiving as a timeline is we're going to have some further discussion at the city council on may 3rd for this at that point staff anticipates seeing direction or getting direction from city council on how to move forward what the city or what staff would then do would be to revise our zoning ordinances to reflect these potential exclusions and that would then be required to go through the city process it would come before planning and zoning more than likely at our june meeting and then would come before city council in their july meetings because that would require both a first and second reading with any sort of amendment or ordinance change that way so um once again this is more to kind of keep you aware of the discussions that we've been hearing from this the jazz bee and mndot try to get your initial thoughts on it once again i apologize for the lack of graphics but um i would like to maybe hear some of your thoughts that way as we're looking at potentially new zoning ordinance that would restrict new uses of these vulnerable populations within a a set area within the city and that that area generally extends from miller trunk highway down to arrowhead road and then um eastward more or less to about where ridgewood apartments is and then westward approximately five or six hundred feet as you're moving uh down towards arrowhead so it's essentially a small trapezoid area that this would be in and that would mirror the existing what's known as a b zone today [46:40] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** eric it doesn't do any good for tonight but maybe you could email that four point presentation out to all that would help everybody visualize that trapezoid shape that we're talking about yes definitely so and then um and then what we could probably do as well is uh include this on that work session that we're going to have in a couple weeks here also i think it would be good if we could get more of the members you know we got what three missing tonight if we could get everybody tuned in on that the other thing that when beth in the real estate business probably knows this better than anybody about a taking but as a for instance the and we'll use mr caulkus as an example they've they've had that bowling alley in their family forever but let's just say bowling goes away and now we put a restriction of you can't have a hospital there and the kolkats come and say well gee i my bowling alley isn't going to work but st luke's wants to build a hospital here but you're not going to allow me that so there's a value to that i'm going to sue you the city because of that you've taken that ability for me to build a hospital there or you know the better example probably is a movie theater because movie theaters probably will be a thing of the past at some point and you know what are they going to do with that big box you know um so yeah that that's the that's the danger of a taking is if we place the zoning restriction on that property and that corridor actually is uh already has a lot of medical use to it that i can see that being more uh adult care or something so that's concerning to me especially um overseeing a big chunk of this parcel in my management that's that's a little scary um just [48:19] **Valerie Ouellette:** valerie uh mr geisler what's the general feeling of the council can you share any of that what what you know you guys have talked about amongst yourself [48:33] **John Geissler:** yeah and while i maybe scared everybody with just taking the city attorney has told everybody it's probably not a big issue um it has happened in rochester uh with a similar type of uh uh of a zoning amendment and there were some lawsuits in this with the rochester airport but uh the counts of the three options that eric talked about the council kind of likes the best one of putting some restrictions on this zone of the vulnerable population hospital adult adult care you know the largest gathering of assemblies uh the movie theater the bowling alley would still be allowed and in a clinic you know there's uh in the gordy's building there is a chiropractic clinic things like that so you've already got some clinics in there uh you got chiropractor in the in the skyline building as well we have dentists in the woodridge building that's right that's a big center there well and i having lived on part point for many many years um there was an issue with the zoning down there between um some property just down near the bend and the city kept changing the zoning on it to the detriment of the property owner um so i can see what you're saying i can see that could be an issue um i you know you hate to give up any flexibility and because it might come back and bite you in the end [50:23] **Sam Clark:** sam clark here i guess uh i'm only quick very quickly doesn't have to be very long-winded but is there i guess is there any precedent for the concern with the zoning how it currently is and uh i guess i'm out of curiosity why is mndot of all parties kind of the driving force [50:47] **John Geissler:** mndot aeronautics they govern the zoning districts of the airport mndot aeronautics okay it's not the minnesota department of transportation it is the yes it is it is a it's the aeronautics division of mndot okay yeah i didn't realize that there was such a an entity until i was on the jazz b board so yeah it's it's quite a quite a big department actually they they govern all of the all of the safety of the airports throughout minnesota that that [51:24] **Sam Clark:** makes sense and then i guess is there a precedent for the concern i mean have there been issues or is this kind of coming out of left field [51:33] **John Geissler:** well the the whole thing is is that uh this zone for hermantown has always been in what they've called kind of a custom zone it hasn't fit within the mndot regulated zones but now mid dot aeronautics has changed that each airport can do custom zoning so they the airport jazbee has spent lots of money with with consultants and engineers to to recreate this zoning of the entire airport it's not just hermantown it's all of the the other municipalities rice lake duluth kenosha township and that's why all of this has come about is that the the airport has requested this custom zoning it only has been around for a year we would be the second we're the second ones to request it only i believe it was lake elmo airport which is a much smaller airport received approval on their custom zoning so this is a brand new thing and uh so mndot aeronautics has come back to us and said we'd really like to see hermantown and rice lake put some restrictions on the end of the runways for this vulnerable population [52:45] **Sam Clark:** so i i guess is the risk then to hermantown that if a plane tries to take off and crashes that we're now liable because we changed the zoning [52:57] **John Geissler:** no we were the explanation that i was saying is that we would be taking the rights of a property owner by saying you can't any longer build a hospital a school an adult care facility in that property if i get that part i guess is it if you built a hospital there and a plan happened to crash into it i guess i'm just con i just don't understand the what we need to take a zoning restrict i i get if you don't i get not building a skyscraper or something next to a runway but why would you not be able to build a movie theater or skyline bowling alley is right now i mean what's the what's the what's the risk i guess or what is mndot what's their concern this is just more of trying to understand basically what yeah i don't know eric you got what's your thoughts on that [54:12] **Eric Johnson:** the um essentially what each and there's this there's companies such as rs and h which the jazz being the airport is engaged for these things but they look at crash data and the likelihood of crashes and they generally look at a cone-shaped area coming off of each runway with as you're the as you approach the runway these cones become obviously much tighter in land area and you know more potent you know lack better it's more potential for potential issues because you're just lower to the ground so that's why the c zone is is a very large more broader area and that's just that height restrictions this is this is done at you know airports all around the us but like you said is mr geisser saying that you know within the last couple years here there's been more of a push for this custom zoning allowing each community can control their own zoning because studies have indicated that the chance or risk of crash are one in x number of thousands yeah i thought so it's really kind of just the city it's the cities if we take away if we make it more restrictive or if we don't make it more restrictive than the city's assuming liability for lack of a better term probably not but the mind will probably not approve our request for custom zoning the um one thing is that the city and would really make trying to make the push on is for indemnification for the city that if we do indeed have are successful with custom zoning that we are indemnified in case something does happen and get away from that liability standpoint and that's something that's uh that's another tract that's being discussed uh more or less from different attorneys from each one of the um associated communities here as well i'm assuming people can still not see my powerpoint presentation just see your email screen see my email screen okay well i i know we don't have to get into a big long car i think this has been interesting just to kind of learn about it i guess i don't my gut instinct is i don't understand what the big deal would be to have custom zoning unless there was an actual precedent or concern or legitimate issue that hermantown's trying to avoid or something but that's just my two cents and so what i'll do is i will we've got a pdf of this presentation i'll send that out after this meeting this evening and be happy if anybody has any individual questions please send them to me i'd respond to the entire group so you can see them that way and um but yeah what's this plan as well on the work session that um we'll discuss this a little bit further as well at that point um we'll probably have a little bit more input from city council also perfect good [57:25] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** all right moving on to number eight communications i'm not seeing any that's correct number nine commission member reports [57:38] **Valerie Ouellette:** valerie ouellette no report [57:42] **Sam Clark:** samuel clark no report [57:45] **Beth Winslow:** beth winslow no report [57:48] **John Geissler:** counselor geisler uh just uh something that is happening this summer now is that the sewer line that's been under construction for uh you know over a year is going to be done and the trail will be paved and uh so from the soccer park over to ing walls you'll have a new paved trail that's going to run through the city which will be kind of a an interesting kind of we've got some other trails and sidewalks but kind of the first trail through the woods if you will to kind of connect connect some roads without going down the road so i'm looking forward to that eric i believe it's done by july 1st correct [58:39] **Eric Johnson:** that is correct yes that that is a plan that we're operating under uh we also have another section uh on from morris thomas road down to keene creek park as well that is going to be starting construction here in the next couple weeks but that's also shooting in that same timeline [58:55] **John Geissler:** yeah and then we'll end up with a gap kind of between the walls property and morris thomas that i know eric's working on a plan to connect that so yeah it won't be long we'll get to keane's creek park all the way up to the soccer field and then from there up you know the sidewalks and it'll be uh it'll be fun to see so that was all i wanted just to chime in and let everybody know where things were at with that [59:20] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you very much mr geisler and that brings us to the end of our sheet we are looking for a motion to adjourn it's currently 802 [59:30] **Sam Clark:** sam clark i'll make a motion to adjourn [59:34] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** can we get a second [59:36] **Beth Winslow:** second [59:38] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you very much all in favor hi hi hi we're going to close this evening's planning and zoning commission meeting at 802. thank you very much everybody thank you have a great day thank you for your time everyone appreciate it thank you yes thank you