Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The Stillwater Planning Commission meeting of July 7 is now called to order. It will be the process this evening to call for items on the agenda. The commission will hear briefly from staff first, then the applicant and or their representative, then open the public hearing and hear from those in favor and or in opposition to the request. When you come to the podium, please clearly state your name and address for the record. Then before closing the public hearing, both staff, the applicant, and or their representative will be provided an opportunity to respond, to provide additional information, and answer questions. After all interested parties have spoken, the public hearing will be closed, and then we will hear closing remarks and alternatives from staff. First item on the agenda this evening is a map amendment, and we shall hear from staff.

Yes, ma'am. 2606 or 2607?

2606.

Thank you. Sorry, I didn't bring my agenda. Okay, good evening. My name is Henry Beebleheimer with Development Services, and tonight we're looking at a MAP amendment for 524 West 10th Avenue. It's a request to rezone from two-family and multi-family to small-lot single-family residential, or RSS. Here's the property, Owland and Pink. This is on the northeast corner of Knobloch and 10th Avenue. This property currently has a single family house on it. The applicant is proposing to tear down the single family house to rebuild it. A single family house is not allowed in the RCM zoning district, which is what this property is zoned. So to build a single family house, they would have to rezone to a single family zoning district like RSS, which is on the south and west of this property, which is why the request is before you tonight. The comprehensive plan calls for moderate density residential at this location. Moderate density residential is primarily for missing middle housing, which is kind of your duplexes, your townhomes, everything between a single-family house and multifamily. As we can see in the second paragraph, single-family detached homes are most appropriate when they're on small and compact lots. Large single-family homes are not appropriate. As a quick comparison for this lot and whether it's considered a small and compact lot, we have the lot size table here. This was to show you that the RTM Zoning District requires 20,000 square foot lots. That's supposed to be a common, not a period. So in the RTM zoning district, the current zoning district, it requires 20,000 square foot. In the RSS zoning district, the proposed zoning district, it requires 5,000 square foot. The parcel is roughly 4,000 square foot because it's a 50 by 80, so it doesn't meet the dimension requirements of RSS or RTM. All that to say, the comprehensive plan is calling for moderate density housing, which RTM would be very appropriate for, but the lot is so small, it wouldn't meet the dimension requirements of RTM, so... We're rezoning it to RSS where it's still not a conforming lot. It's still smaller than we would allow, but it's closer to conforming. I'm open to answer any questions if you have any.

Well, if it's not in complete compliance even with the change to RSS, does that mean a variance will have to be requested?

No, sir. Since it's an existing lot of record, the lot would be allowed to remain. If someone were trying to create a parcel this size, then a variance would be required. We wouldn't be able to approve that. But since it's an existing lot that's already non-conforming, we would just be rezoning it to something that brings it closer to conformance, if that makes sense.

Any other questions for staff? At this time, we would offer to have the applicant come forward and provide any additional information.

Good evening. My name is BJ Bellatini, and my wife and I are wanting to have a place that we can come up and see the kids and visit and go to ballgames. So we've been searching for properties, and we were able to stumble onto this one. So we have purchased this property. like Henry said, in the hopes to be able to build a small single family home for us to use when we visit Stillwater.

All right. Any questions of the applicant? All right. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

At this time, I would open the public hearing and ask if there's anyone else in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this item to please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience in opposition of this item to please come forward. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing.

Is there a different time for questions?

Well, sir, there are. Do you have the agenda? OK. All right. Sir, do you have an agenda? There's one just outside of you. I just got it. All right. OK, so public hearing is closed. We will ask for staff to come forward and provide alternatives.

Yes, ma'am. The findings tonight are that Envision Stillwater 2045 calls for moderate density residential at this location. This parcel does not meet the minimum dimension requirements for the RSS district, but the map amendment would bring the property closer to compliance. The RSS zoning abuts this property on the west and south. Your alternatives tonight are to accept, deny, or to table this request. Staff recommends alternative to number one, which is to accept finding the recommend that the city council approve the proposed map amendment as presented. All right.

Thank you very much.

I move to accept the findings and recommend the City Council approve MAP amendment MA 26-06 as presented.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. We shall now vote. Motion passes 5-0. Next item on the agenda is a MAP amendment and this is MA 2607. And the address is 799 East Mercury Avenue.

Yes, ma'am. So this is a request to rezone the property from CS Commercial Shopping and NTZ Neighborhood Transition Zone 2RT, Residential 2 Family. This is an outline of the area of the property, which is outlined in pink. This property is a quarter mile east of Perkins and roughly a quarter mile north of Lakeview. As we can see, the pink outline does not match the blue lines. The blue lines are the current property lines. Let me just explain that real quick. A minor subdivision has been submitted and is in the approval process that would change the lot lines that we're seeing right here. So, to make this make a little more sense, this western pink line going up and down would be a property line. All of this property to the west would be one lot, and then there's one lot that would split this pink property in two, creating two parcels that would be zoned RT if this were to be approved. That proposed minor subdivision would have to be filed with the county so these lot lines would be changed before it is presented to city council. So, just... An update there on the proposed minor subdivision. Here's the zoning of the property which is CS for the northern portion as well as this western lot and NTZ neighborhood transition zone. Just a little context of NTZ as we don't see this one very often. I believe this is the only property in Stillwater zoned NTZ neighborhood transition zone. So the goal of this is, as kind of in the name, to transition from the commercial to the single family. What's allowed by right would be single family homes, duplexes, either townhomes by right or by specific use permit. So it allows very similar uses as what is allowed by right in the RT or residential two family zoning district, which is why if the applicant were to request to rezone to the RT residential two family zoning district, since they have similar allowed uses, that neighborhood transition zone would no longer be required. as the intent is to transition from the commercial to the residential. That's kind of the explanation of why they would be requesting to rezone the whole parcel to RT. This western parcel, again, the lot line would be right here, so this would all be one parcel, would have two zoning districts. We have a legal description that defines this NTZ, the Neighborhood Transition Zone, and the CS, Commercial Shopping. Both those zoning districts are proposed to remain and would not change with this map amendment request. The future land use map does call for moderate density residential at this location, which does align with the rezoning to RT residential two family. As once again, that moderate density residential basically supports all of that missing middle housing from anything between single family and multifamily homes. So your duplexes, your triplexes, your townhomes, stuff like that. I'm open to answer any questions if you have any.

I do have just a quick question. If you could put up the diagram where you were outlining the property lines. Yes, ma'am. So it looks like you're talking about three properties now. Yes, ma'am. And it's getting rearranged to three different configurations of properties. So the long, thin NTZ, that's one property now, and it's going to be absorbed into two others? Okay. Okay.

Yes, ma'am, that's correct. There are three existing parcels, one, two, and three, and they're proposed to be three parcels, one, two, and three. They would all have lot lines running north and south splitting this long one into three. And like I said, that would be required to be approved before this could move to city council.

You answered my question. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify. Any other questions?

Thank you. Yes ma'am.

So at this time we'd offer the applicant an opportunity to come forward.

Good evening, Commissioner. Steven Gose with Gose & Associates, 113 East 8th Avenue. As Henry stated, we've got a developer client wanting to build some duplexes in town, and so that piece is there. The three parcels has to do with a 10-acre remainder track that the owner is going to retain. And our client's proposing to take this down in two tracks. That's why it's that. I know that's not relevant to the zoning, but just to give some context of why there's that. They want to do duplex, which is the RT, kind of fits in with the NTZ, and then would replace the commercial with the duplex. So if there's any questions now, or we can wait till after the public hearing.

I don't see any. Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time, I would open the public hearing and ask if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this item to come forward. Seeing none, I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak in opposition of this item. And if you have a question, sir, on this parcel, you may come up and state your name and address for the record, please. Thank you very much.

My name is Travis Rollins, and I'm one of the residents of the neighborhood that's immediately to the south of this. We have a homeowners association, and it appears I'm the only member here today representing our HOA community. Yeah, we do have another homeowner back there. I'm one of the members of the board of our HOA. And we do have some questions. So first of all, to give a backstory on why there's an NTZ there.

So, sir, I'll just let you know that we'll have an allotted amount of time, and we're at five minutes. Okay.

So previously there was a... There was a previous attempt to build an apartment complex in that same area, and it was determined due to a combination of traffic and the inability for the intersection of Marine Drive slash North Grandview Drive and Lakeview to handle that amount of traffic for an apartment complex that there was an NTZ built there. Because if you look at the statistics of traffic incidents that happen on the combination of Marine Drive and North Grandview with Lakeview, there's more traffic accidents that happen there than Perkins and Lakeview. That's a staggering statistic. And that's because there's a lack of visibility on that intersection. So due to the combination of the fact that that road is not built to handle the increased traffic, and then also due to the fact that if you look at Lauren Lane, all those houses to the south are downhill from that. from that area. Along with the fact that those houses were built with large windows facing to the north, there's a privacy concern as well. And then tertiary to that, there's also a drainage problem because the Lakeview Ridge is downhill, there's already instances where there's been minor flooding into houses. and the concern with the apartment that was previously submitted was that there was going to be an increase of flooding due to the lack of proper drainage so I think our HOA has more questions than concerns but there was a very valid reason why our hoa put up a significant effort to get that ntz put there due to the combination of drainage lack of traffic ability to handle on that road of north rain drive and north grandview with lakeview and then also privacy that's why that ntz exists there And that reason still exists. I don't think that many of our residents, knocking on doors and talking, have a major problem with duplexes going in. But I think the vast majority of us would like to keep that NTZ established if there's a way to amend this and still make both parties happy. So with that in mind, I'll go ahead and sit down, and hopefully the applicant can answer some of those questions. I thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. At this time, I would ask if there's anyone else in the audience that would like to speak in opposition or have any other questions from public. Please come forward.

My name is Sherry Boleyn, and I also live on Lauren Lane, pretty much just right across the street from Travis. I know that he addressed the fact that there is an elevation difference from the proposed area down towards us, and that continues on down to Lakeview Street. And we already see quite a bit of water in the, I don't know, we call them barges that run along Lakeview in that area. And I'm just afraid that if, especially if the NTZ is taken out, it's going to increase those flooding issues. I'm also, you know, the green areas reduce heat in our neighborhoods and they will provide a noise barrier from a large density building area to our tiny little neighborhood. And then, and it's like Travis had said, taking the NTZ out will change the character of that neighborhood because even though I'm across the street from Travis and my property doesn't abut that, I do have the birds and wildlife that migrate over into my yard and feed in my yard. We have blue indigo buntings and turkeys and ducks that... I don't know a lot of other birds that live in this area. And so I just, it would be a shame to take that out. I think that's it. You have any questions for me?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak in opposition of this item?

yeah i think so yeah so hello my name is colton herzog um i moved in to 910 lauren lane in about 2022. um i'm not really on the opposition or four side i guess my only comment is the amount of water that travis had mentioned uh in that ntz zone is since i've been here there is a pretty large amount of flooding in the back there so maybe a more concrete plan before we just kind of start combining zones is all i have to provide um but my neighbor just to the east of me she sure gets a lot more water than i do so there is a lot of water pooling right behind my house there that's all i have to provide so do what you will with that information thank you thank you

I wasn't expecting to come up here, so I'm a little nervous. You'll be just fine.

If you could state your name and address for the record.

Yes, I'm Cheyenne Gonzalez. I live at 910 Lauren Lane with Colton. And I moved in same time as he did. I'm going to mirror a lot of what everyone else has said. So flooding is definitely a concern for me. With our recent storms that we just had, we had a lot of water pool in our backyard, just standing water pool. So we definitely do have a flooding issue already. So I know that with potentially like a housing development or something going in, in place of the natural landscape that is there currently, there is going to be increased flooding. Another thing is Travis mentioned the intersection of Marine Drive and Lakeview. Just in the last two months, I want to say, I've seen at least three accidents there. People getting T-boned because of a vision impairment. When you're you can't really see over the hill very well. So there has been an uptick in the number of accidents there. So I'm definitely concerned that with the addition of a new housing development, those incidents might occur more frequently. And then the traffic going through our neighborhood too, I'm also concerned about. And Sherry did mention some of the wildlife. So just in my backyard, I have a hen right now, a turkey hen with, three poults she's got babies that have been using my backyard as like foraging habitat and i'm pretty sure they're roosting within the property right behind us that is potentially going to be rezoned we also get lots of migratory birds like mississippi kites we had i don't know there's at least probably five that have been kind of circling the area behind our house And I'm assuming that they were probably roosting and nesting there. Indigo buntings, painted buntings, we've had western kingbirds, we've had some scissortail flycatchers using just my backyard. So there is a lot of wildlife that is using these areas that I'm also concerned about. I think if we can potentially leave some of that habitat, I think that would be a good idea. So yeah, that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Dennis Roost. I live near the Mercury Avenue property. Some of you may know that several years ago, we successfully, with great difficulty, opposed another company from coming there and building three-story apartment buildings. It was an out-of-state company that had a rather bad reputation. And it was hard to oppose it. I hope we don't have to go through all that again. If the developer wants to build single-story duplexes, which was my impression when I first read the letter, Great. I'd be glad for the new neighbors. But if they want to stack a lot of people and make a high density neighborhood, I'm not for that. Because I've been there and I've done that before. There's a high density neighborhood right across Marine Drive from it. And I heard they have more police calls there than any other area in the city. I'd rather that not be right behind, that kind of neighborhood, not be right behind our backyard. I'm not saying that housing means kind of people that are going there. I'm just going by history. So if we're going to have families going in there, especially families who might stay a long time, grow up their families, I'm all for that. I know that, as I've heard before, if you buy a property near an empty lot, you can't count on the lot staying empty. But you hope they don't put in a sawmill or high density housing or something behind it. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in the audience this evening that would like to speak in opposition? Did you, do you have, let me just ask, do you have a topic that has not already been discussed? We've heard about privacy and the water runoff and the traffic concerns and the wildlife and noise. Is there anything else that you'd like to add? I was just going to submit a letter that one of my neighbors. Yes, you could give it to our clerk right here. I had another one, but he sent it to me in a comment.

I wasn't able to open it. I just wanted to, I guess, demonstrate that there are more people.

No, you're fine.

You know, there are more people.

I'm just going to copy. And then the letter that I was able to download is also.

Is there anyone else that would like to come forward to speak in opposition? Says We could have the applicant, if you want to come forward and address any of the questions that have been raised. All right. And I think we have staff who wants to explain a couple of things.

Yeah, I just, I'm going to go over, I don't have the comparison table to compare the NTZ and the RT, but just to explain kind of that comparison.

Henry, can you speak up a little bit?

Yes, ma'am.

I don't know if they can hear you in the back there.

So the allowed uses in RT are to build single family homes and duplexes. or two-family residences. The allowed uses in NTZ are to both single-family homes, two-family homes, and townhomes. So the allowed uses in NTZ is not designed to be a green space. It is designed to be a transition zone where you're allowed to build lower-intensity housing compared to that commercial that you're buffering. So I just wanted to clarify the intent of that NTZ is not to be a blank, empty space. It is intended to be a buffer that is that low-intensity residential, which can be single family homes, duplexes or townhomes.

So then is the purpose of changing the NTZ to the RT with everything else just to create uniformity basically within that, as opposed to having the north side being RT and then leaving NTZ as is?

I believe so. The representative might confirm for sure, but yeah, I believe so. Either way, if they were to rezone, I could say if they were to rezone the northern portion and leave the NTZ, they could still do duplexes on the full parcel. If that makes sense.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

In my quick review of the NTZ, just looking at it as the discussion was happening, the setbacks in NTZ are 20 foot from adjacent residential neighborhoods. The standard in the RT are 20 foot front yards, 20 foot rear yards. So that's similar. It allows up to 10 units an acre for residential projects. Right now, you'll see after, should this MAP Amendment move forward, we'll come back with a preliminary plat and a preliminary drainage study that we'll work through with staff. And then through platting, should the preliminary plat get approved, we'll come back through platting with improvement plans and final drainage studies to address drainage concerns and really focus on how that water is leaving the site. The current plan, just from a density standpoint that we have working right now, is four units an acre versus the 10 that's in the setbacks, or the 10 that's in the NTZ. So hopefully that addresses the high level, what NTZ allows versus what the RT allows. My opinion is the RTZ is a little more restrictive, bigger lots, that kind of stuff. The setbacks are the same. And then to address the drainage and traffic concerns, again, we'll come back with a preliminary plat that will have that preliminary drainage study. And right now, we're planning on having two detention ponds on site because there's a high about 2 thirds of the way through the middle of it. So there'll be a pond on either end. And there are drainage easements in the adjacent neighborhood in those low points to accept that water.

Am I correct on a drainage, on a project like this, the drainage cannot increase the likelihood? Is there some wording?

The way the code's written is you cannot increase the flow off your site. So we usually calculate that in CFS, cubic feet per second, and you design it in Stillwater for about six different storms, everything from the one-year to the 100-year storm event, and we look at all of those.

Will you be doing a traffic study?

Right now, with the number of units, we've got about 73, 75 lots on the proposed preliminary plat, which doesn't trigger a traffic study per the way the code's currently written. So that's a discussion we'll have to have on the preliminary plat.

Do you happen to know if the developer plans any two-story duplexes?

Right now, their plan is to do single-story duplexes, three-bed, three-bath duplexes, single-story.

Will there be any type of buffer, any easement between the north edge of the Lauren Lane houses and the south end of the new development? One of the questions that was provided to us in this letter was regarding the trees on the south end of the property that are currently there. So that'd be on the north side of their backyards.

So that's something we'll have to address with the preliminary plot right now. I mean, we're going to have to shed water to these detention ponds. So there'll be some grading along that back property line. Whether it's right up against it or further off, I don't know. But those lots... I mean, there's going to be a drainage easement more than likely, probably 10 or 15 feet. And then there's the building setbacks per code that are 20 feet.

So with the question, Stephen, the drainage easement, does that count as part of the aggregate with the setback?

Where would it be? The way the code is written, it's from the property line. The building setback is. Okay, so... It starts restricting what you can do in your backyard if you eat it all up with easements.

So we're talking a 20-foot setback?

That's code.

Code, mm-hmm.

And those lots more than likely end up being a little deeper along that south property line just to accommodate the grade change and stuff.

What do you mean by that, they'll be deeper?

The standard right now, it's a 7,500 square foot minimum lot size for RT. We've got 60 foot lots. So that depth, I can't do the math right now, but it's like 120 feet, 115, something like that. The way the whole thing shakes out, those may end up being 140 foot lots just to accommodate design.

You're talking north-south, 140 feet?

North-south, yeah. Again... I mean, this is a map amendment. You know, this really isn't, we shouldn't be talking about all these, but that's the general plan right now.

So I think, again, just kind of looking at a high overview, there's a setback of 20 feet from the adjacent property that would provide, that would be the buffer that would be provided per code.

Correct. And that's what an NTZ is a 20-foot buffer. RT is a 20-foot setback as well.

So it's essentially the same.

Yeah.

Just to restate it differently, is there anything that changes if you leave that as NTZ versus RT?

I could do townhomes by right, and my density could be double what we're planning on. If it's NTZ.

If it's NTZ.

And I think the other thing, if I understood correctly, so for NTZ, you could do a single family, you could do a duplex, and you could do a townhome. By right. By right. And for the residential, it's single family and duplexes.

For the RT.

I'm sorry, for the RT.

So you're electing to do it more restrictive. In my opinion, yes.

So is it your opinion that I don't know how to state this. Leaving it as NTZ is no benefit to the neighbors to the south.

In my professional opinion, I don't feel that it is. OK. We wouldn't be opposed to it, but Henry doesn't like two zoning districts and one parcel. That's me. Via the city attorney's office. City attorney's office.

Why was it decided to go to a RT zoning?

Because they're proposing duplexes, which fits in with the comprehensive plan. The current zoning's on the majority of its commercial shopping. And our client doesn't do commercial projects. They do residential projects. OK, thank you.

So you could do the whole area as NTZ?

In the new code, we're trying to do away with NTZ.

I said this is the only one we currently have and I don't believe it's it's it's in the new comp plan said correct recognize this particular zoning so it's a standalone as is a little bit of an outlier.

I started last question but yeah. If you have a little thing is really we would not be able to be all that's left in the city. If we do this.

Yeah, that's not what we're considering this evening. Any other questions for the applicant?

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. At this time, we'll close the public hearing and ask staff to present findings and alternatives.

Yes, ma'am. The findings tonight are that the proposed map amendment aligns with the vision still water 2045. The RT zoning district provides an appropriate buffer between the RTM zoning property to the north side of Mercury and the single family residential neighborhood, but in the southern edge. The alternatives tonight are to recommend the city council accept, deny, or table a request. Staff recommends alternative number one, which is to accept findings and recommend that the city council approve the proposed map amendment as presented.

I do think that this would be an appropriate use for the property. It would be a good transition from the single family of the neighborhood to the south to duplexes to the larger apartment complex to the north of that. As far as all of the concerns brought forward to us tonight, those are concerns that would be addressed on the preliminary plat, the drainage, the traffic study, the All of those things will be coming back to us for preliminary plat and final plat. So those could be addressed then. But as far as what we're talking about tonight, is this an appropriate use for this area? I think that it is. I think that it makes sense. And I would say go ahead and getting rid of the NTZ and moving it all into one RT zone makes the most sense.

I would agree it makes more sense than the commercial shopping in this area.

Yeah. I would just remind the neighbors who appeared at tonight's meeting to be sure to appear when the preliminary plat is presented so we hear these concerns again and what the response of the developer is.

Do I hear a motion?

I would motion to approve or accept the findings and recommend that City Council approve the proposed map amendment as presented. Second.

We have a motion and a second. We shall now vote. Motion passes 5-0. The next item on the agenda is to receive public comment regarding a petition to annex ANX 2601. And the address of this is 5599 West 19th Avenue.

Yes, ma'am. Tonight we're looking at an annexation for 5599 West 19th Avenue. This is a request to annex approximately 33.64 acres and zone the property as small lot single family residential or RSS. Here's an area of view where you can see the property outlined in pink. A quick explanation of this area of view. It looks a little different than our normal ones. I had to make the blue lines a little smaller so that you could see the red more prevalently. This red line that is kind of moving across the top and down, that is our city limit line. So to just follow that through, we're looking at this red line as our city limit line, which abuts this pink outline or the proposed property on the north, the east, the diagonal line here, as well as the south. So this property is surrounded by city limits on three sides. This property is about a quarter mile south of 19th Avenue and a quarter mile east of Range Road and it's just south of the Golden Oaks development right here. This property is owned by the same property owner as Golden Oaks and it is proposed as an expansion of that neighborhood which is why the applicant is requesting to zone the property RSS or small lot single family residential which is the same zoning as the existing Golden Oaks neighborhood. Well, I say the same zoning, same zoning district. The existing neighborhood does have a PUD or a plan unit development on it as well. That's not being discussed with the annexation tonight. If a PUD or plan unit development is required for the proposed development that would come before you at a later date for further discussion. There is RSL or large lot of single family residential to the east as well as to the south with some agriculture here on the southeast of the property. The future land use map has land use destinations for all property within city limits. It does not include property outside of city limits, so if this property were to be annexed into the city, we would be giving the land use designation of low density residential to align with the RSS zoning district that would be given with this if it were to be approved. So the property would be zoned RSS and then be given the future land use designate designation of low density residential, which aligns with the property to the Northeast and South. Low density residential is primarily for single family houses. I'm just going to read through this first paragraph here. The future land use category committees development of conventional suburban neighborhoods in which predominantly single family detached detached homes face onto local streets. I'm hoping to answer any questions if you have any.

Any questions for staff? Thank you. At this time, we offer an opportunity for the applicant to come forward.

Good evening, Aaron Ferguson with Bancroft Design at 923 South Lowry and like staff said, this is owned by the same owner who owns Golden Oaks and it's just planned to be an expansion of Golden Oaks. There's already a PUD where Golden Oaks is and this will eventually just be an expansion of that PUD.

Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. At this time, I'd open the public hearing and ask if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this item to please come forward. Seeing none, I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak in opposition to this item to please come forward. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and ask staff to present findings and alternatives.

Yes, ma'am. Your findings to that are that the petition to annex includes 33.64 acres, which abuts the city limits on three sides. The applicant is requesting the subject property be zoned RSS or small single family residential to align with the zoning to the north of the subject property. If annexed, the future land use map of the Envision Stillwater 2045 will be updated to designate this property as low-density residential. Your alternatives tonight are to recommend the City Council accept the deny or to table a request. Staff recommends alternative number one, which is to accept the findings and recommend the City Council approve the proposed annexation as presented.

Thank you. Anyone entertaining a motion?

I'd like to make a couple of comments. I think that the annexation is probably a good idea because there were discussions when we had the citizen advisory committee regarding the new comp plan. How are we going to accommodate more housing? And one of the suggestions was made there may be necessary to annex. And I think that this is a step in that direction. But my other comment that's specific to this area of town is Range Road, which is in very poor condition. And that's probably an understatement. I've had some discussions with city engineering about that. And that's no reason not to approve this. But I think I would like to hear some comments when we see a preliminary plat by the city How they're going or what the plan is to improve range road to accommodate the addition of?

households and traffic I Think that they're accessing this property from 19th through the north that not over to range I

That's the hopeful plan, yes. Right. But inevitably, there will be more traffic on range.

I move we accept the findings and recommend the city council approve the proposed annexation as presented.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. We shall now vote. Motion passes 5-0. Next item on the agenda is miscellaneous items from staff, planning commissioners, or the city attorney for discussion and possible action. The next regular meeting is July 21, 2026. And the last thing on the agenda is adjournment. Do I hear a motion to adjourn?

So moved. Second.

We have a motion and a second. We shall now vote. Motion passes 5-0. We now stand adjourned.