Based on the context of the White Bear Lake City Council meeting, I have added the speaker names and timestamps. **Speakers:** * **Mayor Dan Lind:** Chairing the meeting. * **Assistant City Manager/Clerk:** Taking roll call. * **Jason Lindell:** Community Development Director (presenting the Shaffer Richardson project). * **Lindy Crawford:** City Manager. * **Councilmember Edberg** * **Councilmember Jones** * **Councilmember Walsh** * **Councilmember Hughes** *** **[00:00:00] Mayor Dan Lind:** Absolutely now, well, somebody's gotta pay the bills. [Applause] [Music] Assistant City Manager slash Clerk, please take the roll. **[00:00:15] Assistant City Manager/Clerk:** Robert Walsh? **[00:00:16] Councilmember Walsh:** Here. **[00:00:17] Assistant City Manager/Clerk:** Hughes? **[00:00:18] Councilmember Hughes:** Here. **[00:00:19] Assistant City Manager/Clerk:** Jones? **[00:00:20] Councilmember Jones:** Here. **[00:00:21] Assistant City Manager/Clerk:** Edberg? **[00:00:22] Councilmember Edberg:** Here. **[00:00:23] Mayor Dan Lind:** And Trent McQuorum, will you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? **[00:00:25] All:** I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. **[00:00:40] Mayor Dan Lind:** Right, jumping right into Item 2b: Minutes of the regular City Council meeting on May 24th, 2022. I'd entertain a motion to approve the minutes. I have a motion, a second. All those in favor say aye. **[00:00:52] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[00:00:53] Mayor Dan Lind:** Any opposed? Motion carries, minutes pass. Item 2b: Minutes of the City Council work session on May 24th, 2022. I’d entertain a motion to approve those minutes. I have a motion, a second. All those in favor say aye. **[00:01:05] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[00:01:06] Mayor Dan Lind:** Any opposed? Motion carries, minutes are approved. Moving on to Item 3: Adoption of the Agenda. Anyone have any amendments or changes to the agenda? Seeing none, I’d entertain a motion to approve. I have a motion, a second. All those in favor say aye. **[00:01:18] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[00:01:19] Mayor Dan Lind:** Any opposed? We have an agenda. Moving on to Item 4: Consent Agenda. I’d entertain a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. **[00:01:25] Councilmember:** Move to approve. **[00:01:26] Councilmember:** Second. **[00:01:27] Mayor Dan Lind:** I have a motion, a second. All those in favor say aye. **[00:01:30] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[00:01:31] Mayor Dan Lind:** Any opposed? Consent agenda is adopted. All right, Item 6: Public Hearings. We have nothing scheduled. Item 7: Unfinished Business. Nothing scheduled. Which brings us to Item 8: A resolution approving a request by Shaffer Richardson for concept stage approval of a Planned Unit Development at 3600 and 3646 Hoffman Road. Mr. Lindell. **[00:01:50] Jason Lindell:** Mayor, members of the council. Before we just jump into this item, I just wanted to make sure we clarified for maybe some of the people in the audience that had been here for some of their other planning items that were on the consent agenda that with the adoption of the consent agenda, those items have been approved. So, you're welcome to stay around for as much of the council meeting as you'd like, but your items have been—now that the council has taken action on your items. **[00:02:15] Mayor Dan Lind:** Okay, thank you. Yeah, all right. They’re doing efficient work around here tonight. I like it. Thanks, guys. See ya. So just so clear, all of the consensus—that’s correct, yep, we’re all set. You can stay [Laughter]. It's a beautiful summer Minnesota night though out there. All right, let's jump in. Let's hear about the Shaffer Richardson project. **[00:02:40] Jason Lindell:** Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. Again, the item before you as you mentioned tonight is the Shaffer Richardson concept PUD request, case number 22-2-PUD. The subject properties are located at 3636 and 3646 Hoffman Road, or just to the east of the intersection of Highway 61 and County Road E. Peter Orth of Shaffer Richardson is representing the applicant tonight and I believe is available in the audience for questions from the council. The subject property, just to give you a little bit of background quickly, is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as Transit-Oriented Development but zoned B for General Business. That distinction gets us to the reason we're processing this as a Planned Unit Development or PUD application tonight. The Comprehensive Plan having a Transit-Oriented Development category guides the property to allow apartment-style development, but the zoning ordinance has not been updated yet to facilitate an exact zoning match to that. So, the PUD tool helps us in the interim to allow development consistent with the Comp Plan. Again, the concept stage PUD is what's before the council tonight. It's the first of a three-stage review process for PUDs. That concept stage review that's before the council tonight has had a neighborhood meeting, public hearing, and review by the Planning Commission and is now before the council. That process—a similar process would follow for the second stage, the Planned Unit Development stage of the PUD. Again, the council and the Planning Commission would see this should—at least one more time should the council act on it tonight. And then the final stage PUD is an administrative review that takes place at the building permit process just to make sure that the building permit that's submitted matches the PUD that was approved by the council. The proposal tonight includes two apartment buildings totaling 243 units. As I mentioned before, this application included community comment that was gathered at a neighborhood meeting on March 4th and the Planning Commission public hearing that occurred on May 23rd. There's details about that in your packet, I’d be happy to answer questions if the council has them on that. Just as a note here in our discussion, the land use application again is that concept stage PUD. Part of the discussion in developing this concept from the applicant has included discussion of potentially including up to 20% of the units targeted to be affordable. The concept discussion that's happened so far has been that those units would be affordable at the 50% Area Median Income or AMI level. Again, there's details about more details about that in your staff report, but as part of our discussion here at the end of the night, both the applicant and staff is looking for some general feedback from the council about the interest to have affordable units included in this proposal and whether or not you would consider using TIF to support those affordable units. But staff would also like to just emphasize: the discussion about any potential inclusion of affordable units and use of TIF is just a general concept, general feedback for the applicant so we can begin to finalize the development proposal in the next stage of the PUD review. There is no entitlement, no hard decision that's made tonight related to TIF. That's not what the ask is before you tonight. The ask is for the approval of the concept stage PUD. And as I mentioned, the Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval with the revisions that are again detailed in your report and I'll give you a little bit more review on those here in a few slides. As I mentioned, the Comp Plan guides this site for Transit-Oriented Development, similar to the Barnum site that is located directly to the east. The site as you see it today includes the Stadium Bar restaurant with its associated ball field and then the additional property that's directly to the north. It's surrounded again by the Barnum apartment building that's directly to the east and then the existing apartment building to the north and the parking lot to the east. Included in your packet is the applicant's concept site plan that you see here. It includes a two-building design with the southern building abutting the County Road E portion of the site that's proposed to be four stories and 119 units. The northern building is proposed to be five stories and approximately 124 units. They're linked together in the northwestern corner of the site by a single-story building that's designed to include common recreational space for the two developments. There is internal parking under both buildings, and those internal underground parking areas are linked under that building so you can access underground parking between both buildings. The PUD request is part of this application that allows the applicant and the city to negotiate the zoning standards. In this case, the applicant's asking for deviations related to parking, open space, the front setback as it relates to County Road E, and building height, and proposing enhancements related to building materials and outdoor amenities. This rendering is a proposed look of the site looking northeast from the corner of Hoffman Road and County Road E to the four-story portion of the building. It gives you a sense of the mix of materials and height. You can see pedestrian figures and bicyclists to help give a sense of scale. Along this County Road E side of the building, you also notice that there are some individual entrances to units on that side—commonly walk-up style units—so they'd have a separate entrance on the outside of the building. The next rendering is the opposite view from Hoffman Road looking back to the south and east. You can see the single-story common space building that links the two together and the underground parking access on the Hoffman Road side. It also gives you a comparison to the Barnum building to the east, showing that the five-story building is approximately the same height as the four-story Barnum building that has a peaked roof. The PUD concept design that staff is recommending approval tonight does include a few revisions that we plan to work out with the applicant and to bring back to you in that final stage. The architecture revision that's proposed is enhancements in the variety of the materials and some articulation of the building to help reduce the overall size and density and appearance of the bulk of the site. It also includes a provision to ask for enhanced materials around that walk-up units. I would note for you that you did receive a revised resolution tonight. Originally, the resolution included a recommendation to actually consider raising the entrances so they were true walk-up or more brownstone kind of appearance. The applicant stated during the Planning Commission that that would create some challenges for the ADA access to those sites, and the Planning Commission agreed to remove that. So staff has updated that provision to again only ask for the architectural enhancements. The next one relates to building height and setback. These go hand in hand. The northern building is proposed to be five stories and 59 feet—again, approximately the same height as the Barnum. The southern building closer to County Road E is four stories or 48 feet. The code would require some increased setback as the building gets higher, and in this case, the site meets those increases in all instances except the setback along County Road E. In that case, the ordinance would require a 33-foot setback, but the applicant is proposing 22. This is acceptable to staff under the overall PUD based on the inclusion of the architectural enhancements and walk-up units. Under the traffic and circulation section, it should be noted that the consensus opinion of the engineering, fire, and public safety and community development departments is that the northern drive lanes for the parking lots on both the Barnum site and the proposed site here are linked together. That creates the best overall design for public safety and access. There's also a condition of approval that relates to removal of some stalls from the interior cul-de-sac. If you look here at the applicant's site plan, you'll see that interior parking lot and the internal cul-de-sac. Originally, this design included those parking spaces, and the fire department had determined there wouldn’t be sufficient room to have a fire truck or emergency vehicle come in there and still have enough room to turn around. The condition requires removal of those stalls. The Fire Marshal updated staff today that they've been having ongoing discussions with the applicant to refine their design to still include enough parking but ensure adequate safety access. Regarding parking standards, the code would require up to two stalls per unit. The PUD allows us to get a more targeted approach here that has been found to be successful at the Barnum site—instead of looking at the parking ratio on a per-unit basis, you look at it on a per-bedroom basis. This use is proposed to include a number of one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units. Staff is supportive of that proposal. The applicant is also requesting a minor change to the parking stall size. Code would require 8.5 feet by 20 feet, and the applicant's proposing 9 by 18.5 for the internal underground parking. It helps them fit the footprint of the building better. The open space standards of the code would require 500 square feet of open space per unit. The applicant's proposing 410. Staff is generally supportive of working towards a slightly higher amount consistent with the Barnum, given the quality of the internal amenities. Finally, the staff is suggesting the applicant add an east-west trail connecting Linden and Hoffman avenues on the north side of the site. With those revisions, staff is recommending approval. We take comments and questions from the Council and remind you that as part of the feedback, we're looking for specifically two items: Park Dedication and TIF. We do have some options in the negotiation of the park dedication—either land or a fee in lieu. And finally, circling back to the use of Tax Increment Financing as it relates to including affordable units. With that, I’d stand for questions. **[00:09:05] Mayor Dan Lind:** Thank you, Mr. Lindell. All right, well, I'm going to kick things off. Some of my initial thoughts: as a concept, I'm pretty supportive of it. I won't pretend like I'm the biggest cheerleader when it comes to big apartment complexes or dense housing, but I recognize that there is a demand for it and a need for it. I think all these projects need to consider the surrounding area. The fact that we already have Barnum next door, it's on a busy road—I think it makes sense. So as a concept, I'd be supportive of it with the conditions that city staff has pointed out. The one concern that I have is the idea of going to five stories. I think that deviates from what we've typically done in this city, and I don't want this to create the slippery slope of today it's five stories, the next project is six, and we start to get tall real quick. I look at The Waters that I drove by earlier today; that's a very, very big building and it's four stories. I think four stories is the appropriate height for any building in White Bear. So I would welcome some continued conversations with regard to that. That's my biggest concern of the concept itself. Beyond that, the parking and all those other things will defer to city staff. When it comes to TIF, I would not be supportive of the Tax Increment Financing. I think the Barnum, if that's the example of the most recent housing project and it's considered a success, it's at a 97% rental rate and that's 100% market-based. I think that's how we should build apartment complexes. I don't like as a matter of principle the notion that some of our residents are subsidizing the housing for some of our other residents. I'm sure the Council has some more thoughts on TIF, but I would not be supportive of moving forward with the project that included TIF. As far as a park dedication goes, I see the basic concept of a park dedication as just that: it's land that's pursuant to that project that's supposed to be reserved for some recreational area. When you build a project to just simply write a check, that seems like a shakedown, and that's not what the intent of a park dedication is. I would welcome more feedback from city staff on what they think is the appropriate way to go, but just at this early stage, I think actual land and creating some kind of recreational outdoor space—particularly its proximity to the Vento Trail—I think that makes sense for us to utilize some space in that area and not just cash a check and put it elsewhere. Those are my early thoughts on this project, and I'll open up the Council for further discussion. Councilmember Edberg. **[00:12:00] Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I'd also be interested in understanding more about the park dedication fee and how that number was derived. What are the driving factors that create that, and I guess if there's any comparisons to either Barnum 1 or 2 or other developments? I'm looking for context because it doesn't seem quite right, but I'm curious and I don't know, so I'm just going to ask. **[00:12:20] Jason Lindell:** Mayor, members of the Council. The statute lays out that the cities can require a park dedication fee in either a percentage of land and or a fee in lieu or cash. As the Mayor’s kind of alluded to, the idea of having land associated with a project is designed to make a more direct connection between where potential park improvements occur and the actual development itself. The option to do a fee in lieu or cash is important because there could be situations where communities have adequate park facilities already existing in the area. The fee, I believe in statute, is 5% of land or an equivalent cash amount. In our case, the fee is around $550 a unit, which is significantly lower than I've experienced in other communities in the West Metro. **[00:13:30] Councilmember Jones:** A couple things. I'll start off with the easy one. I'm just not looking for another millennial Gen Z building. Not interesting. I'm a pro-apartment guy, but I hear they’re legos, they’re easy, they’re cheap. I don't want to look like everybody else. That's why the Barnum appealed to me as far as the look and feel. I’m very leery about what that box construction is going to look like 20 years down the road. As far as the whole affordable housing, I do say hey, if you're going to do 45 units, what is the benefit? But we do have an opportunity to do that. And the park dedication fee? Yeah, no, that's just not even going to ring the cash register even close for me. I’ll just throw it out there: I want that triangle piece across the western side. Give that all to me—not to you personally [Laughter]—that becomes park. And the Bruce Vento Trail, no matter what it turns into, it's going to be a link. I am still looking at the affordable housing saying can we cut that number in half so it's not that much TIF? If I'm going to give you TIF, I want that land, that's for sure. **[00:15:00] Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I'll touch on the other two issues. I'm unalterably opposed to TIF, but not for the same reasons that have just been voiced. I think there are times when TIF makes sense, but in the case in this situation to subsidize luxury apartments with our tax base is just plain—I won't get on board with that. I think we ought to let this builder go out and talk to the markets, borrow money, and let them build their luxury housing and do what they're going to do. So with regard to TIF: no way, Jose. The park dedication: I'm interested in seeing something different. I'm open to a discussion about how do we leverage the proximity to the Vento Trail. I think there's an intriguing opportunity. And the last item is the five stories. I am like the Mayor: I am highly opposed to opening up the creep. We have no other five-story buildings in the city right now. If we're going to have a quaint community, I think that's a part of it. I would remind some of my colleagues that when a five-story building was proposed on the north side of town, there was—I think Mr. Jones' language was—"fire and pitchforks." If it was not acceptable on the north side, I want to know why it might suddenly be acceptable on the south side. Unalterably opposed to five stories. **[00:16:45] Councilmember Hughes:** I do, Mr. Mayor. I have a quick question. This plot—it says that it'll need to be platted, and so the county says they were going to want an additional 10 feet of right-of-way along County E as frontage. How does that impact the fact that we have a variance they’re asking for? Is it kind of the same space? **[00:17:15] Jason Lindell:** Mayor, members of the Council. This is the county's opportunity to ask for additional land to facilitate their future plans for that road. It does reduce the land that's available to site the building. What staff attempted to do was to create a design along County Road E that had what was felt to be a minimum amount of appropriate setback given the height of the building and the road, but an acceptable reduction based on the desire to have a better-looking building with better materials. It’s a package deal. **[00:18:25] Councilmember Hughes:** Okay, thank you. I wondered where that went. And so if they somehow wanted to come back and say okay we'll only build the four-story building, that obviously limits their proposed height by 10 feet and then we might not be looking at the same setback requirements anyway, right? **[00:18:40] Jason Lindell:** Well, in this particular case, the setback we're talking about is along County Road E next to the four-story building. Assuming that stays four stories, the setback stays the same. The five-story portion on the northern side already meets the setback requirements. The question for the Council is whether that is the appropriate height for the site. **[00:19:10] Councilmember Walsh:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was just going to—on the design idea, just on the concept and everything—you were actually just talking about my biggest hang-up, which is that long wall along County Road E. I feel a little better about it after hearing you describe it, but I mean, that's not something I'm going to live or die on. If I really liked the Barnum because it's set back, you know, the 33 feet is better than the 22. I'm listening to my colleagues on the height. I've always been "treetops." I think four stories gets you to treetops; I think five stories gets you above treetops so you could see a building coming out of the skyline. I share the concerns on TIF. I think we've done a good job as a city in avoiding TIF. I've never voted for a TIF project since I've been here. Foregoing property tax revenue to say there's a city interest in doing that is a bridge too far for me. I'm a "no" on the TIF as well. **[00:21:10] Mayor Dan Lind:** Good question for Mr. Lindell: I want to be crystal clear on the PUD process. This is just the Phase One concept stage. By no means is this the stamp of approval from the city saying "build it." There's a lot more back and forth that has to happen, is that correct? **[00:21:25] Jason Lindell:** Mayor, members of the council: the short answer is yes. What you're approving tonight is the overall concept with the suggested revisions and then your feedback on park dedication and TIF. Staff would then go back to work with the applicant. **[00:21:40] Mayor Dan Lind:** If it was the will of the Council to say "listen, we're a hard 'no' on five stories, it needs to be four," is this resolution the appropriate mechanism to convey that message? **[00:21:50] Jason Lindell:** Mayor, members of the council. I would say yes. If that's your qualifier, I think we can amend the resolution to include that direction. **[00:22:20] Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Lindell, hear this thoughtfully because it's intended: staff are in a challenging position in negotiating when the Council has not firmly spoken. How are you going to represent that on our behalf? Are there other concerns we ought to know about? **[00:23:00] Jason Lindell:** Mayor, members of the Council. It sounds like there's consensus around height, and we can amend the resolution to reflect that. It would be very helpful if you could voice consensus around the park dedication and TIF. The challenge becomes that all of these things relate to each other. If the unit count goes down, the parking changes. We carry your message forward and ask the developer to figure out how to make all these things fit. **[00:24:30] Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So Mr. Jones raises an issue about the design—the boxiness. How would you interpret and represent that fuzziness to the developer? **[00:25:00] Jason Lindell:** Mayor, members of the Council. There are specific standards—the length of the wall, the architectural features used to break up that wall, changes in the plane or depth of the building. You can make what appears to be a very long building look like several small buildings. If we're hearing from the council there’s concerns about the overall boxiness, that's good direction for staff. **[00:26:30] Councilmember Jones:** I'm not jumping down Mr. Edberg's throat, but you used the word "luxury." This is a market-rate development. Signage on E? I just want to clarify that. I'm stacking height and flat roof in the appropriate place. I would never approve a five-story building. But whenever a resident talks to me, I’m like, okay, we made some concessions on the Boatworks project. I am not opposed to using some TIF, just not to the degree that it was listed. Fifty percent Area Median Income—that's a metric that nearly one-third of our current White Bear Lake households meet right now. We've got to start thinking about that. **[00:28:30] Councilmember Walsh:** Well, I'll move the resolution as it's in front of us. I think staff did a really good job. **[00:28:50] Jason Lindell:** And if I may, you are moving the revised resolution with the highlighted additional architectural features? **[00:28:58] Councilmember Walsh:** Yeah, the one we were handed right before the meeting. **[00:29:05] Mayor Dan Lind:** The Council has a motion before it on the revised resolution. Do I have a second? **[00:29:10] Councilmember:** Second. **[00:29:11] Mayor Dan Lind:** I have a motion, a second. Further discussion? **[00:29:15] Councilmember Edberg:** I would move to amend the motion to require not more than four stories in the development. **[00:29:25] Mayor Dan Lind:** I have a motion to amend. I would suggest we add Item 2f, a "four-story cap," as one of the conditions. Do I have a second? **[00:29:35] Councilmember:** Second. **[00:29:36] Mayor Dan Lind:** Any further discussion on the amendment? If not, all those in favor of amending the resolution to impose a four-story cap, say aye. **[00:29:45] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[00:29:46] Mayor Dan Lind:** Any opposed? Nay? The motion carries. The resolution will be amended to include Item 2f. **[00:30:15] Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I sense Mr. Lindell that you can hear there's not a great appetite for TIF. Do you have enough guidance on that topic or do you need a motion? **[00:30:30] Jason Lindell:** If the Mayor would care to just make a statement on what you feel the consensus of the council is, no motion is necessary because they're not approved items as part of this. **[00:30:45] Mayor Dan Lind:** Happy to do so. To those that are listening, it is clearly the consensus of the council that we are not interested in TIF. If and when you decided to come to the council with the Phase Two plans and it included TIF, I think you're going to face some pretty significant opposition. So we have a motion and a second on the resolution as amended. All those in favor of the resolution as amended say aye. **[00:31:15] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[00:31:16] Mayor Dan Lind:** Any opposed? Motion carries, resolution passes. Moving on to Item 9: Discussion. Nothing scheduled. Item 10: Communication from the City Manager. Item 10a: Energy Improvement Project update. Is this Mr. Copy or is this you, Ms. Crawford? **[00:32:00] Lindy Crawford:** Thank you. In November 2021, the City entered into a contract with Trane to complete energy improvements. The Sports Center project is about 90% complete. The solar array on the Sports Center is about 0% complete as of right now, although we are working on that. LED lighting upgrades are about 75% complete. We have run into some issues regarding supply chain delays. **[00:33:15] Councilmember Hughes:** What are we doing with light bulbs? [Laughter] The light bulbs on the trail on Lake? **[00:33:30] Lindy Crawford:** Mayor, members of the Council. Regarding the pedestrian-scale lighting, we went back and reviewed it with Trane. For a nominal restocking fee, we’ll be able to look at changing those. The majority of communities are going with 3,000K for pedestrian lighting, but sticking with 4,000K for major intersections for safety. The test case we put in was actually 5,000K, which is even brighter. So we are looking at that switch to 3,000K. **[00:34:45] Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate the updated information. At some point, this topic is worthy of a more robust conversation, but I'm not going to make a—we got lots of other fish to fry first. **[00:35:00] Lindy Crawford:** Thank you, Mayor. So on May 21st, the Mayor, Councilmember Hughes, and I participated in Fire Ops 101. It was hosted by our Fire Union. It was wonderful. We went through search and rescue, live fire attack, and vehicle extrication. It was very eye-opening. **[00:35:25] Mayor Dan Lind:** Well, first off, let me thank Chief Peterson and the department. It was an awesome experience. If anyone else on the council hasn't done it, do it. It gives you a small taste of what firefighters go through. We did an extraction on the second floor in pitch-black conditions. When the council is making decisions about equipment, we understand fully what the job was. **[00:36:10] Lindy Crawford:** One more update: Manito Days and Marketfest begin this week. The parade will be this Friday, and I think the council is excited to participate in that. **[00:36:25] Mayor Dan Lind:** What time do you want us and where? **[00:36:28] Lindy Crawford:** Six o’clock on the Thursday. **[00:36:31] Mayor Dan Lind:** Anything else? With that, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. I have a motion, have a second. All those in favor say aye. **[00:36:40] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[00:36:42] Mayor Dan Lind:** We’re adjourned. Phil, you gotta let me do this [Laughter].