Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Call this meeting to order.

Okay. It's 5.09. Chairman Steve Dyer.

Here.

Mark Zolomanski.

Here.

Brian Hebel. Kyle Cook.

Here.

Todd McConnell.

Here. Awesome. Public comments not on the agenda. Seeing none and no speaker slips. We're going to go ahead and talk about our agenda today. Because the attorney is going to be a few minutes late, I would like to move that item number three that's tabled to later until he arrives. Let's move it to six. Let's move it to six. And then just move everything up. And move everything up.

That's good.

So on that note. We're now on application four, or excuse me, five, 1526, lot split, subdivision partial, 337 North Main Street. Anybody have any comments on this one? We don't have any. No, I'd like to hear from the applicant. Okay. Is the applicant here tonight?

The applicant is here. B squared properties. Do you want to come up and just tell them a little bit about what you're doing? The information's in here. I did have Trevor review this. You can see his little email back to me. Age 36.

So I'm Jennifer Erick. We have the property at 337 North Main Street, and we are proposing to do a lot split. which I believe you have the drawings there.

We do.

And it was already on the auditor's site into different plots, so we're just using the one plot line behind the home to split the lot. That's where we're proposing to make the lot split. It does seem to conform with everything that we read. So that is our proposal to do that.

Mark. Is it just getting split out to put another home on the other property? Is that the idea? They kind of can assume.

We're planning on putting a single family home there, and it would conform to all your regulations and everything to fit on the lot. There's enough road footage there to do that.

So it doesn't affect the policing? It doesn't affect the services? No.

Is the other home that's there going to be, is that going to stay? It's going to stay. Okay. I don't know if you had a plan on bulldozing and rebuilding or anything like that.

It's in accordance with the code. Yeah, so.

Todd, do you have any questions?

I do not. Any comments for the city?

I asked Trevor to review it. He didn't really provide a staff report, but he provided the email back that it meets the requirements of the UR1s.

I'll make a motion to approve application 5-15-26, Launceston, Minnesota Division of Parcel 3337. I think I added another three in there. North Main Street.

And I will second it. All right.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

They have to vote. I know, but I mean, they didn't have to stand there for the vote.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay.

Awesome. Application 51626, lot split, Green Chapel Road. Yes. The applicant is here tonight. A lot of words.

Yeah, go ahead. Jamie McNally with the Johnstown Land Company, LLC. We're proposing a lot, but you might remember this. This is strictly to accommodate the LRE substation that is currently under construction. The intent was to do a land swap with Looking Rural Electric so that we can move their substation from the corner of Mink and Duncan Plains to the current location. In order to do that, we had to establish a legal parcel TO ESTABLISH A LEGAL PARCEL, WE NEEDED TO CREATE A PARCEL WITH FRONTAGE ALONG GREEN CHAPEL. AND WE HAD ONE GIANT PARCEL AS PART OF THE PD, AND THIS IS JUST BREAKING OFF THE PARCEL SO THAT LRE HAS THEIR OWN DEFINED LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PARCEL SO THAT WE CAN CLOSE ON THE LAND SWAP. OKAY. WE'RE ACTUALLY NOT EVEN TRANSFERRING ANY DOLLARS WITH LICKING ROW ELECTRIC. IT WAS JUST A SWAP.

So there's no inconsistencies with the PD district? That's from... Mark, any thoughts, Mark?

No, I've got nothing. No. So the only question I have is the actual property, because the way that I look at the drawing... It looks like there's a large area and then it tails down to two other spots. Is that what the split is?

No, so the current... Do you want me to pull up the current parcel? Yeah, I have the map.

It's up to you. I've got the map. I just wanted to understand...

That flag lot, the entire lot, including the flag and the flagpole, is part of one large parcel right now. So the split is breaking off that funky shape from the one large parcel that is to the east of it. Access.

So that it becomes more contiguous with the other properties?

That's correct. So that rather than having the flag come straight down and splitting the other site, because I think what will likely happen is the remaining site will be sold to one end user to develop one large lot or one campus.

Okay. And just making access to the Duncan Plains or whatever.

Well, they would have access to Green Chapel. LRE also has an easement. There's an easement on place on CoLogic's site so that LRE can service Duncan Plains as well. And then LRE also has, unrelated to this, easement to run to the east as well. So we've been coordinating distribution and transmission lines with LRE to future proof so that those lines can run as LRE needs. Some of those easements, they may actually never need, depending on how the development happens, but at least they have the options.

So the 15 acres, the lot split is just the square. That's what that lot split is. It's splitting off from the flagpole you were saying and the tail.

The lot and the flagpole is breaking off from the other site that is neighboring it to the east.

So I have – So it looks like it's landlocked then. So is there going to be – is there a future use of that then? This is the only piece. I mean, I assume there will be future use. That was kind of a stupid question. But, I mean, what –

The square is the substation. And then the...

It's just like a driveway for them to get access.

It's a driveway.

They have the easement for this.

My question is, after looking at this further, because Collogix owns up to a certain point, and then you all own this first plot here, so what's going to happen with this rest of the little square here? Are we creating an island there?

No, I can pull it up, but we don't own to the west of that flagpole, with the exception of that there's a real small... Yeah, there's a small piece here. Yeah, so it wasn't worth it for them to jog it, for LRE to jog again. So that will just be left over. That could become... IT'S PROBABLY TOO SMALL FOR A BUILDING, SO IT COULD BECOME A SIGNAGE AREA FOR COLOGICS, FOR EXAMPLE. IT COULD BECOME A CELL TOWER. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT PROPOSING THAT, BUT IT IS A SMALL LOT. IT ALSO MIGHT BE NOTHING AND JUST BE ABSORBED BY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST AS WELL. WE HAVE NO... intentions or planned use of that in the short term right now. We would love for LRE to jog again so that we can have some more usable acreage, but that's just additional costs for LRE every time they have to jog its additional holes in the ground. So we are willing to kind of sacrifice that little part.

Yeah, because obviously if you own those others, it's the same owner in the other three lots. It would make it a lot easier for you. You could just go straight over, but I love that it's in the middle.

It probably makes it most valuable to the other neighbors to potentially absorb that site.

Yeah.

Is there a potential for that to happen in the future to where we might come back at this again? Because then you'd want to go over to Clover Valley and... Like these three plots that are over here, this makes more sense to just go straight over, right? Because then it leaves you open to the main plot all the way across.

Theoretically. Now, yes. LRE wants... The immediate goal is to establish a legal parcel so that we can complete the land slot. Now, if LRE decides to change the routing of their transmission or distribution lines, they could either get an easement along those parcels to the west, or they could acquire and establish a new a new parcel shape, as long as the parcel has frontage to a street.

Okay, so these will also have poles going along this jagged line then, not just the substation here. We're going to have poles all throughout this.

Likely, yes.

So it's I don't know. I can't tell you guys what to do, but if it were what you've already done, you probably could have already approached these people about their plot. I just think that sucks for them to have a bunch of poles in their backyard at this point. And if they're willing to make something work, then that works a little bit easier for all involved on this.

Oh, yeah. You guys have heard us say this in the past. We can't really comment on negotiations with landowners.

I know some of them don't want to sell. I've seen some of that around. So if that's the case with them, then I guess if you've offered us on them, it's not one of those that it hasn't been offered up.

Like I said, the primary goal was to... Originally, the primary goal was to move the substation away from Duncan Plains in May. Yeah. And because that was serving Collogix, so it was kind of a win. We thought it was a win-win for LRE, Collogix, and the city to kind of clean up that.

Yeah, it's much better to be in the middle of this.

Now, having to create a landlocked parcel, we couldn't really do that. So that's how we ended up with sort of a funky shape because a lot of the economic development projects we're also considering right now are looking for 100 to 150-acre sites. And if we brought that straight down, it would have split the 100-acre site that we're considering selling for economic development projects. But I already was supportive of the design and the relocation. They've actually, like I said, they've started construction already on the substation.

Yeah, this is a few homes left down there. No other comments? I'll make a motion to approve application 5-16-26, lots of it, subdivision Greenchapel Road. I'll second that.

Steve Dyer.

Yes.

Kyle Cook.

Yep.

Todd McConnell. Yes.

Yes. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. Application 5-19-26, home occupation permit, 54 North Oregon Street. is our applicant here tonight. Would you please come up, tell us your name and talk about

My name is Doug War. I own the Horn Associates currently at 82 South Main Street. Basically all I'm looking to do is move into the 54 North Oregon Street, which is my childhood home. Oh, wow. Both my parents were now deceased and I already own it. It seemed like a good way to use it. To be strictly for that, other than the back part of the house is going to remain residential, be for personal use only. I'll be asleep there during tax season. Who knows? That's pretty much it.

The number of vehicles coming into the neighborhood?

Give me a time of year.

Peak tax season.

It's hard to say.

About six months from now?

Most of them are by appointment only. There's not going to be like 50 people there at one time. I kind of control the traffic in and out.

And to the point of traffic, speak about your current parking situation.

THERE IS NONE.

HE'S ACTUALLY NEXT TO PLAZA PIZZA. AND HE'S GOT ONE, TWO SPOTS? TWO SPOTS RIGHT THERE. YEAH. YEAH, YEAH.

YEAH, SO IF HE'S OPERATING THIS TRAFFIC FLOW WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, RIGHT? IT MIGHT TAKE YOU 20 MINUTES TO GET OUT OF THERE.

BUT NOW YOU HAVE A DRIVEWAY. AND YOU'LL INSTRUCT YOUR CUSTOMERS TO PULL IN THEIR STREET PARKING.

YOU COULD PUT FIVE CARS IN THERE EASY. NOT THAT I WANT TO USE IT, BUT IT'S OLD MIDDLE SCHOOL PARKING LOTS HALF A BLOCK AWAY, WHICH IS NO DIFFERENT THAN WHERE I'M AT.

YEAH. parking, Johnstown.

And for the most part, most people were there in 20 minutes for the most part. Some were longer.

Dropping off, signing, leaving? Dropping off, picking up.

There'll be very few while they're sitting there. And after April 15th, that's almost nothing. Todd? Good.

No questions? Nothing from the city. Nothing? All right. I'll make a motion to approve application 5-19-26, home occupation permit. I'll second.

Steve Dyer?

Yes.

Kyle Cook? Yes. Bob McConnell? Yes. Mark Sullivan?

Yes.

Thank you, Doug.

All right, tabled Chapter 1165, Plan Development, Text Amendment. Recommendation needs to be made within 30 days. Just so everybody's aware, that could be our next meeting. It could be our next meeting or it could be this one right here. This was brought to planning and zoning by the city or by the council.

You're going to discuss it. Can I ask that you take it off the table?

Yes. I'll make a motion to take it off the table. I'll second it. Come on. It's not. Aye.

Aye. Yes. Aye.

Aye. Thank you. Sorry.

Okay. I thought.

Sorry to interrupt.

Okay. Yeah. No, this is a council.

Yeah. Council recommend pass for it to come through.

Correct. Oh, right, because of the process.

Right, so it comes through us, and we're just a recommendation to council, and council's going to make the deciding decision.

I just want to say that out loud. And this is a recommendation to where the mechanism is in place. It does not necessarily mean that if we recommend to council, the council has to do that. But if they do do that, to allow the mechanism to be in place, it also does not mean that any of it will ever happen. It just opens up the possibility for it to happen. As muddy as that sounds.

Okay, so can anybody recap the last meeting? We came, we talked about it for a long time. We had a lot of people come up and speak. We know that the school's concerned about a number of students coming here. I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth. If I speak incorrectly, let me know. Worried about who has control over these housing banks, some of the legal parameters behind it. And what else am I missing? I mean, that's the two nails that you hit right there. The two main parts. Mm-hmm. So we do have people who want to speak on it. I think we should start there, or should we start with the applicant? Let's start with the speakers. I think let's start with the speakers. That's fine. All right. Oh, yeah, who would like to speak? We're not doing speaker sets. I'm sorry.

I wrote it down this time because I want to talk about something a little bit different than what you just talked about. All right, that's perfect. Thank you. So I just want to briefly tell you the following. So NACO currently has an option to build housing on the NACO property. NACO does not want to exercise this option. So typically when you have an option and you don't exercise it, the option has no value. So what NACO is asking is to change that option into something that has value, which is a housing bank. And then what they want to do is they want to sell that housing bank to other developers. So all the proceeds from the housing bank sales, as I understand today, go to NACO. It does not benefit our community. So my question to the zoning, and I'll have the same questions to the council when it comes to council, is how does that benefit the community?

Mm-hmm.

How can NACO sell to developers that do not meet the minimum acreage requirements? Because they've mentioned that, you know, that they want to sell to maybe Wilcox, to Kiberon, other landholders that are in the area. The only one that meets the requirement is Green Chapel, right, which is the Dunn family. So how does that work? If you don't meet the minimum requirements, does that mean that the property that they sell the housing bank to automatically gets annexed into the city? Is that a way to annex property into the city? What happens if I'm the Wilcox and I buy 50 units, but I want to develop 200 units on the property? Does that mean the entire property gets annexed into the city and I can then... I can then build my other 150 homes that I want on that property. So these are all questions that I just ask. And I ask, how can we make a decision when we don't really have answers, or at least I'm not aware that we have answers to it. You all may have the answers, and you may all feel comfortable with all of this. But if something has value, which is a housing bank, I don't really understand why the city doesn't own that housing bank, and the city doesn't decide, and that's a way for the city to generate money. Or at the very least, if you're going to use a housing bank with NACO, that the city also gets some kind of percentage of the sales from NACO, and that should be part of the agreement. You know, you're taking something that has zero value and you're going to create value out of it. And I just want to make sure that the community, whether it's the city or the greater community, gets a benefit. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Tim Swalger, Johnstown. Good to see you guys again. Along those same lines, I feel like we're giving away a bargaining chip for free. We're giving them something that they can later bargain back to us for no cost or no value. So from my standpoint as a community member, I don't understand why would we give somebody that bargaining chip. That's the thing. To me, there should be some type of bargaining prior to approval of this. Second thing is I looked around. I could not find a housing bank anywhere that wasn't already owned by that same property owner. any city so you know I caution how that legality of that works and whether or not you can actually transfer a force and the legality that you could be possibly opening up to if if I get denied housing because I didn't buy houses from them you know I mean does that now do I use that against you and say hey you're only denying my annexation or my development because I didn't go to them for the housing So I just caution on the legality side of make sure you're talking that it isn't used against you for other developers that don't get what they want. So thank you. Thank you. Anybody else?

Nobody else? Before I bring the applicant back up, I'd like the board to talk about we've had the option to sit on it for two weeks. I'd like to say where my head's kinda at, I think it disproportionately benefits a land developer, I do. But I look at the benefits from the city. What are the benefits from the city point? And I'm kinda thinking about it kinda helps gives us more control about where to put housing. So instead of this land is tied to this zoning, it's almost like this area is best for housing. I think that gives us more control. Is that worth it? Some of the risks are who's making those decisions? Who's on city council? Who's on zoning? And who's on this board? This board that's going to decide the housing bank. Last it was four to three, four city. I think those numbers need to change. I mean, I don't know. Honestly, after listening to the speakers, I don't know why we can't all be sitting on that board to decide where it goes. That's where my head's at. Our attorney's here, so that's great. Any thoughts on where I'm at and what you guys are thinking?

No, I'm along those lines. I do have some questions for the applicant, just to make sure that it's clear. But I do feel that the level of control that we feel like we're losing in this, I feel like we're actually gaining a little bit more. And I feel like it gives us an opportunity to control the amount of housing that comes in instead of being tied to a specific unit on top of what also might be on the forefront. But I do agree with both of them when it comes to bargaining chips. And that said, I think that's more of a council conversation than a planning and zoning. Because, again, all we're doing is approving, we're recommending a mechanism to be approved and leaving that up to council to discuss what that looks like. But that's my two cents on that.

A couple of things that you had mentioned off as well, like a restriction of land area. If somebody doesn't have the 400 acres that it currently states for them to have in a PDE, Basically, this helps alleviate that requirement because they're adding to that existing PD. So really, it's a total where we've got 450 acres, right? 450 for something at this point with the potential for another 99 to come in. But this would basically anything within a two mile radius would add to. And obviously, in order to do that, we'd have to have a landowner who approaches us and requests an annexation for that as well. So there is a lot of where the city is going to eventually just gain land there, right? Gain a different position for where housing could be that could be more beneficial and could be less dense as well is kind of where my thought process is. Currently where it sits is 1,200 units inside of I think 110 acres. If we do the math there, that's kind of high density. So it's something that could help benefit there if we're able to spread that out a little bit further and does allow for those multiple owners that you mentioned to potentially all come in with being able to market their property the way they may want to that's been talked about that way.

Okay, so. Welcome.

Thank you. Sorry, a little traffic, more than I anticipated.

Yeah, that's all right. It's busy traffic. Our streets are not busy. They're all open. Jesse, I emailed three questions. Yes. I was wondering if you could just briefly speak about those.

Sure. And I think Yaz got them too, but just to sort of talk in person back and forth about them. On the housing land bank, our quick review in the office was – No, we don't. We don't know of another municipality that has something like that set up within a zoning district. There are certainly county land banks that sort of take dilapidated homes that are torn down and then they kick it back in, but certainly nothing like this. And so it's almost kind of separated my head from what I think of as a traditional land bank versus a housing bank. But to answer your question, no, we don't know of another one like it. The next was, is an arrangement like this permitted under the revised code? And I know Yaz had chimed in. I agree with him that because you're a charter municipality, you sort of have the rights to set up your own processes and procedures. And this would meet that. Our rezoning processes would dictate. And since these are proposed planned districts, that gives the city sort of maximum flexibility to impose conditions in the development text. So you do, the city council or you guys, when you come to see something, you're basically creating your own zoning district as you go, rather than being constrained by an existing zoning text.

The people who are on the board at the time. That's right. Yes, I'm sorry. Yes, whoever may be sitting there. That's right.

Yep. That's the risk. And then the other was just sort of generally does this consolidate a lot of power in a single landowner or a private company that may have rights to those? And I think that the answer to that is yes. In one sense, yes, you do have that just based on sort of the conditions on the ground right now. But on the other hand, it permits other outside interested parties to utilize the same process and to work sort of to pull from the housing bank to separate it up within the footprint based on the replacement PD tax.

Great. Thank you. Any questions for him from the board?

So I don't have it with me, and I apologize. I had it last time, but I didn't bring it back. There's something that I believe that I read, maybe 1121 or 1131, 1132, that said that there was a time frame, a certain specific time frame that buildings had to be done. And it was like a 36-month, or it was like three years or something. I don't know if you know anything to that.

I do not off the top of my head. That is a pretty common condition of development when you pass a development text or you get certain permits, you have X number of time until it is completed or else you have to come back and reapply. So that wouldn't shock me at all if you have that issue.

And the reapplication piece that you just mentioned is exactly part of that text that I read. So that's where if... if this applies within that, which I'm pretty sure it did because I was trying to follow the trail in the codes. So if that was the case, then within a three-year time period or within a specific time period, that building would have to occur or the applicant would have to come back and reapply for that. So does that mean we would have to, whoever would be sitting on the board, would have to then re-review everything for this 1165, for this application? Sure.

Good question. Teresa raised a good point. So that deadline that you have currently is in the pre-existing zoning code. And so what you could do through the development text process for each of these different rezonings or developments is impose your own It's basically like a brand new set of zoning rules for it. So you could impose 24 months and then however the city wants to, or the village, I'm sorry, wants to tie it back.

And that was one of the questions I had for the applicant. Steve, you're cool if we go ahead and bring him up?

Yeah, I have one more question for Jesse. So you talked about transferring units from one developer to the other. Are they selling the unit? Is there a financial benefit to somebody?

I did not see that in the text as it was presented. I don't know how that works on the back end. I think they probably could, but again, I think as the village works through the development text, you can sort of suss that out. I don't know if you could just outright prohibit the private transfer of land, but whoever would be buying it would also be overbuying it or being... HAVING IT DONATED TO THEM FOR WHATEVER PURPOSES WOULD STILL BE CONSTRAINED BY YOUR TEXT. SO THAT WOULDN'T BE DIRECTLY ADDRESSED IN THE CODE OF AMENDMENT GRAPH. THAT WOULD BE LATER? YEAH. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT, ARE OUR APPLICANTS HERE?

HELLO, EVERYONE. AARON UNDERHILL, 8,000-ROLL PERKWAY IN NEW ALBANY, REPRESENTING

Yeah, so to Todd's point, I think it's a five-year shelf life.

I know that the, so there is an underlying zoning code requirement. I don't know that one off the top of my head. I believe there was a requirement in our PD text that requires us to start within a certain amount of time and also finish. I don't know off the top of my head. I feel like the finishing timeline might be more like eight years. Or it might even be in the PD code itself because I remember talking about this at the time. But it is not forever.

And what Jamie was saying over there then in this situation, we'll be rewriting new code for each development that we go into so the shelf life can be discussed with each one.

That's right.

I wanted to just be sure on both ends. The council still has say over what housing goes in and where the housing goes from that, correct?

That's correct. So this is not asking any units to be put in the bank today. This is a code change, as you eloquently point out, to put a process in place. So if this were to be approved, it is not putting anything into a housing bank. It is not transferring anything to another property right now. That would have to be a specific application telling you exactly... how we're proposing to do either of those scenarios. And I think one of the reasons the housing bank itself is a good tool is because, you know, if we have an economic opportunity and we're getting knocks on the door all the time and we have to figure out do we want to, you know, that's probably good for Johnstown. We've got to ask ourselves is that good for us? Is it better to develop multifamily or is it better to do an economic development project? And I guess without the housing bank, the circumstances that we're in is we're going to have to identify another property right now and try to jam the units on that and try to get you to agree to that. If that's not right for an opportunity now, we'd like the ability to address that in the future through another application. So let's say in the circumstance where we get this economic development opportunity, we want to put those units into the bank. We do put those into the bank, and we go through a zoning process to do that. We would then need another zoning process, so a second bite at the apple for the Planning Commission and the Council when we identify another property. So that's actually a fail-safe in two regards for the city to have two reviews if we go the housing bank route rather than just a straight transfer to another property. So there is a board.

I know a lot of concern has to do with the type of home that's coming in. What was agreed to was small square footage to limit the amount of students that would be added to the system. Why not just put that in the bank?

That would be something as a part of this conversation. I would say that what we would likely propose is if all the multifamily units were going into the bank as multifamily, we would make those same commitments and just put them in the text again.

And I guess the only other question, it's not meant to be rude, but if these aren't needed anymore, why not just do away with them?

Well, we think they're needed in the respect that the It's part of economic development. It's housing. And so being able to demonstrate that there are opportunities to house workers is an important component. And so I think having those available and to be able to say, look, we do have some ability and we've worked with the city before. Here are the parameters under which Our previous PD was allowing us to use these units. Now we have them at a bank, for instance. But if we can make these same commitments, we may be able to find another location for them to help your workforce. And so we think they're valuable as a part of the whole economic development planning for the area.

That answers my question because it sounds to me like the city still has full control over what goes where and when. That's the biggest aspect of it.

It allows the PD to expand, right? Because then it's within a two-mile radius. So let's just use an easy example. We have 300 acres. They're going to use 200 of them for housing. That additional 100, they could then add to the PD in a different... section of the PD. It could be commercial then at that point. So then it could be a mixed use development that may not be easily done through the methods of other zoning that is in place rather than the PD. The PD has looser zoning, right? Or more availability of zoning options.

It provides for more flexibility but it also... As opposed to like a straight zoning district code change, which you all have probably been used to for years and years, right? Where it's a take it or leave it proposition. This allows the negotiation and the back and forth between the city and the developer. We both give some and we both lose some and win some. But yeah, we think that that's exactly it. And if there are other opportunities identified, then we're going to have the same conversations we were having when we did this the first time.

So I have a question. This sounds ignorant, but I'm going to say it. So is there another board that's being created to decide what's happening with these housing banks?

No.

No. Okay. So the decision to decide this housing bank is between city council? And planning and zoning. And us. Okay.

Yeah.

And I think that's sufficient. I mean, we already have. Right.

Even thinking of the NCA. Yeah.

Yeah, and there's also a board that was created under the PD district for big economic development opportunities to try to expedite reviews, and that's, we call it the CODA board, but it's not the CODA board. Design Review Board or is that AARP?

Administrative Board of Review. She almost said AARP.

That does not allow for housing decisions to be made through that group. It has to be an economic development opportunity meeting certain investment or square footage criteria. Okay.

There's a question that when you brought up part of the discussion, like the type of units, how that's defined, whether it's multi-family or single-family units. Because there's a definition in the code that talks about units, different units.

The conversion rate. Is that what you're referring to?

Yeah, I guess I kind of want to nail down, if it's possible, the type of units that are being discussed here. or if it's based on the conversions, or it could be in the future conversions.

And if it is conversions, then that conversion table needs to be in the proposal to council.

I would agree with that. And then what that change would be, because I know at the last meeting it went from 300 acres to 450 acres, so I know the conversion there increased the number of units available. So whatever those units are, whatever that conversion factor is, whatever the acreage is, if in the future there is additional land that is attributed to that, to increase that, where that would fall, how that would come into play.

What I think we would have the opportunity in that point then to also, do we have to stay with that conversion? We're talking 1,200 units. Can we just stick at 1,200 units?

I think the city would have the control to make the changes.

Right.

Yes, I mean, if you said, look, to expand the PD district, we're going to stop this three times the amount of eight, you know, I think you... Yeah, because we're to that point to where if we're being asked to annex more property, then we don't want to continue to add more housing every time we annex.

Right. I highly doubt it's the last time we have a conversation about it, right?

And that's exactly why I wanted to bring that up, because I feel like some of the conversation has been having... is the expansions, it's going to add more land, therefore the conversion is going to be shifted.

Good point. And so this proposed code change will We neither allow that to continue nor prohibit it, and those details are worked out in the zoning text, which is, you know, that 80-page document that I had the pleasure of drafting and working with the city on a few years ago. But we'll have something else like that. And I had a vision, if this were to come to be, that when we're asking you to put units in the bank, that we're going to have two or three pages of rules for how this is all going to work, and that could be one of them. You know, we're going to. We're going to leave this at the number of units we have today. We're not expanding any further. If you're ever going to convert these to a different type of unit, here's a calculation we'll use. So you get, you know, for every multifamily unit you put in, you get point something of a single family unit or something like that. And I think the schools need to be part of that conversation. Yes. And I think we can go, we would go sit down and talk with the schools before we just plop something down everybody's desk and, you know, hope for the best. I think we can continue those conversations. Sure.

Is the plan to be able to sell the units, or is there some monetary exchange for these units that you're planning on?

There could be, yeah. I mean, no doubt about it. There are also, you know, it remains to be seen, going back to the economic development component, that if we see another opportunity and we say, hey, it's important for us to lure an employer here that there's some housing, I mean, maybe it doesn't have to be money exchange, but there could be.

I also wonder if we could get some extra green space for the city off of that.

Well, I mean, there's room for negotiations, right? But that's city council. Yeah. Any other questions?

Any other questions?

Not this time. Thank you.

Thank you. So a couple things, right? I couldn't find it anywhere where it existed. So, I mean, that tells me this is kind of risky. We're taking a... This seems pretty risky. But... What's that?

Well, you know...

For better or worse, New Albany is always our example. The New Albany company in 1998 asked for development. Basically, what was the entire community then? It has a housing bank in it, and we have a running chart. It looks like Greek when you first look at it, but there are probably over 1,000 units still in that bank in New Albany that's part of it. PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT, WE CALL IT PD HERE, BUT THAT'S THE ONE EXAMPLE I CAN GIVE YOU, AND THAT'S HOW THE COUNTRY CLUB IS DEVELOPED. THE COUNTRY CLUB AREA, WHICH WE REFER TO AS THE GEORGIAN BRICK, THAT'S THE AREA, BUT THAT ACTUALLY HAS A LOT OF EXCEPT UNITS IN IT THAT HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN USED ALMOST 30 YEARS LATER.

So there's an example. Didn't they own all the property?

There was no one else that owned any of the property.

They already owned it all. I don't.

I don't. In a very similar situation to this at the time, we did own the property and put it into this bank, but over time we have acquired additional property from other landowners and moved units onto those properties. Do you ever sell any?

And that's the question, is that if they own the property, then transfer This is going to another entity, and that's where the problem arises.

Well, we haven't had that application come through yet. We don't know that it's going to a different entity.

We can assume, but we haven't. And they own the property right now that they have 1,200 units that they can have on there.

That's correct.

And then it would be up to us to...

If they want another property to develop it, then there would be no question.

Well, they would still have to come to us to develop that property.

I have a question, and I'm out of order.

I can...

I'm your neighbor down the street and I've already been a part of New Albany and the planning and how they use your land and decide how you're going to sell it. I want to ask if you have ever or do you have any memory of the Licking County or the Western Licking County Accord Agreement? Any of you familiar with that?

Yes. Yes.

You remember that part of that shows another level of how people are able to talk to your local authorities about your land?

Collaboration.

Yeah, it is collaboration, but who has the final say? Who had the final vote in that? It did not pass. They did not go forward with the Western Licking County Accord, but who had the final say? Well, it did but the stronger entity is New Albany And I'm not opposed to what we're doing, but I sure hate to see our community giving up our power Yeah, that's what I hate well and to your point.

We will have the majority on the deciding factor here Good luck with that Thank you. Thank you Ruthann

because it's referencing this piece that helps reassert that. You say it all out. So I'll just read off of something that came over from legal that we would add into the recommendation if we send it up to council. That also calls out if, and it's highlighted in here, if city council approves, there's a recommendation to change in accordance with applicable procedures, be changed to in city council's sole discretion. So we would reference city council's sole discretion as every single possible spot that we can in there. So if city council would hold final say, we would hold everything in there. And I'm sure that even though it's just that planning and zoning for the recommendation side of things, we had legal review this. And so there would definitely be another legal review when it goes to council to be utilized to ensure that that's covered as well.

Listening to our conversation, Jesse, do you have anything to add?

No, I can certainly understand that. I know New Albany has done it, obviously, now I know that. But it is somewhat novel, so I can understand sort of some hesitation on it. But I think as drafted, it gives you a lot of flexibility and it maintains control with the village, which is what I think the most important thing is. It's just a way to rearrange pre-existing...

Yeah, I agree. Well, it's newish. It's kind of risky. There's a lot of dependent factors. But I also think we're growing at an extraordinary rate. I think that's something to recognize. Like if we didn't have Intel next door, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So any thoughts, gentlemen?

I got all my questions and everything out. Is there any motions? I can make a motion for a recommendation to council to approve the PD text amendment with the addition of Verbiage that says in accordance with applicable procedures be changed to in city council's sole discretion.

And that the proposed plans for conversion be added. Yes.

I have a motion.

I'll second.

Is there a second?

Kyle.

All right. Mark Solonzuski.

Yes.

Steve Dyer?

Yes.

Kyle Cook?

Yes.

Todd McConnell?

Yes. Other business? Seeing none, I'll make a motion to adjourn. I'll second.