Good morning, everybody.

We'll go ahead and start July 8th 2022 Planning Commission meeting.

We'll begin the meeting with I I don't have any announcements, and I'll turn over to uh are you serving as interim director.

Uh acting directory.

Acting directly.

And um good morning.

I'm Katie Dadles, uh planner with the department, and filling in for Luis today uh as acting director.

Um I don't have any announcements.

Thank you.

I'll move on to the zoning committee, and I'll turn over to Commissioner Taid.

Thank you, Chair.

Good morning, members.

Um zoning committee mid on June 23rd.

We had a two item.

Um first one is 1125 uh child road cub and conditional use permit for uh elevation of the instruction and alternative on to fill in the uh followed uh uh free condition uh district.

Um after discussion and reviews and um we had um uh no one has spoken support in opposition at public hearing, and we a committee voted as six and oh in favor to approve.

So the motion coming out of committees to approve the conditional use permit for elevation of a structure.

And uh that was six to zero.

Is there any discussion on the motion coming out of the committee?

Or how was the total vote count?

Uh six six and oh.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

All right, see no discussion of all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed by sign for that motion uh for a conditional use permit at 1125 child road uh is approved.

Moving on to the next item, Commissioner Sayyid.

Uh Chair, thank you, Chair.

And next item is 918 uh 50 street uh rezoning.

Rezoning from uh RT1 to two family residential to RM1 multiple family residential.

Um 918 50 street east between Forest Street and Mendorah Street.

Um this one is a little bit interesting, and uh we had uh a long districation and uh um uh at the public hearing, and no one is uh spoke in support or opposition.

Um our committee um uh uh voted uh six and oh to deny, but I um ask uh um Mr.

Durmany to uh um present uh little summarize and is it was it was very interesting that's yours uh thanks over rotate this around uh so good morning everyone.

Bill Dermony planner.

Um this rezoning from RT1 to RM1 is in the estimation of the zoning committee and staff uh compliant with the comprehensive plan.

Uh however, there are two findings that you'll see in the the staff report in the draft planning commission resolution that are uh thought to not be met, and they are basically two sides of the same coin.

It's about spot zoning.

Uh so I want to go through the spot zoning issue a little bit um with you, and uh I also know that you had a couple other requests from the committee, and I'll uh I'll address those as well.

So some basics on this.

Um screen here in the middle.

Um this is a zoning map of the area.

All of that gray is zone RT1, and you can see a a couple parcels, a half block to the west here, uh, both of which are corner parcels and a little bit larger.

They are zoned RM2, which is a multi-family district.

Uh RT1 is a two-family district.

Um the land use scenario is all a little more diversified.

The subject site here uh is a duplex.

It's an existing duplex.

Uh basically the point of this rezoning uh is that the new property owner wishes to put a triplex here.

They wish to build out the interior.

They aren't planning to add on.

Of course, the rezoning is just one use classification to another.

It's not a conditional use permit for this specific thing.

But just as background, they want to add a third unit within the existing structure that is here.

This site is a duplex, and this color you can see spread throughout the neighborhood here, and then the lighter yellow is single family.

You can see that the majority of the neighborhood is either single family or duplex.

We do have this orange color on some of the corner lots that indicates multi-family, and the blue indicates institutional.

So the spot zoning issue is that court rulings in Minnesota have determined that spot zoning is illegal.

And one definition for that is spot zoning applies to zoning changes that establish a use classification inconsistent with the surrounding uses and create an island of non-conforming use within a larger zone property.

So this is a uh narrow 40-foot wide lot, um 5,000 square feet, very typical for the neighborhood.

And all of the lots that are are mid-block and are of this size in Dayton's Bluff are uh one family or two family.

So to expand that to multi-family would be inconsistent with the way the area has developed.