planning but from a like a paperwork perspective I look at plat drawings for each each mortgage that comes across my desk because I have to review appraisals so I can come on to the planning commission with a general idea of how to read a a plat sketch and look at property drawings and make the decisions that are going to need to be made based from from my work experience there. Thank you. What interests you most about the planning commission's goals? Well, like I said, the goals of the planning commission are, I mean, essentially, it's to be a good neighbor. You've got to look at what's coming before you, not only from the idea of expanding our tax base, but what's good land use for the city as a whole? What's good land use for the neighborhoods that are being looked at? I believe in looking at the character of the neighborhood, not just the project that's being built, but again looking at things from from the purpose of expanding a tax base and getting good building done in Duluth is what I'm looking forward to the most. Thank you. How do you view the role of a board member? It's an interesting role because you are signing up for a lot of volunteer work and sometimes There's a lot of grief, but living in Duluth my whole life, I really do have a passion for the city. My wife and I chose to stay here for a reason. We really love where we live and serving on a position like this is kind of a labor of love and it's a labor of enthusiasm. So I really have a, I've always had a passion for wanting our city to grow and grow correctly, grow smartly. Not just looking at what is going to result now but what's going to result 10 years from now. Because those decisions that the Planning Commission makes are really going to have some downstream effects. But the role of a board member is that of just being enthusiastic and passionate about what you're looking to do. So coming out of the planning commission again, I've got a really great passion for the city of Duluth. I always have, I really, our city's got so much going for it and so much potential that the role of being on this board and commissions pretty critical because your hands are right on everything that's happening. So being, the role of a board member is just that of commitment of enthusiasm, passion, and being prepared and ready to go. Thank you. How can the board support the executive director? Well, a board can always support his executive director by first by being honest. If you've got... I don't know. Oh, sorry. No, the... There's not exactly an executive director, right? I know. That's okay. So take that question and then you would like. No, the best thing a board can do for an executive director, an executive committee, or whoever is in charge is just be honest. If you think you see a problem, bring it forward. Don't just sit on it because you think you might be causing trouble. Because whoever's in charge of things doesn't need to know that. And a lot of bad things have happened because people have just squirreled ideas away because they didn't want to be seen as making trouble. Well, I appreciate your flexibility and how to answer that question. Sure. How do you approach problem solving a decision making? Well, as a compliance officer, I need logic. I need things to make a lot of sense for me to make a decision. So I've always started with the end in mind. I like to reverse engineer things. I've always thought of it, almost like a game of pool. If you've got to look at where that eight ball is and just backtrack every single shot of how to make that eight ball. So reverse engineering a problem all the way back to the beginning is how I like to go about problem solving. Okay. What is your perspective on the importance of diversity and inclusion on a board? Having a diversity of thought is actually really, really important because that's how you don't exist in an echo chamber. Differing perspectives can bring about ideas that nobody thinks about sometimes. And if you've got a room full of people that all think the same way, you can end up just talking in a circle. And sometimes that circle is just a road to nowhere. And a diversity diversity of thoughts always going to bring up an idea that just sometimes nobody thinks about and you're not going to get that without a room full of diverse opinions. Tell me, do you serve on any other board, sir commissions? Yes, I'm currently the board chair for the Chester Bowl Improvement Club. Very good. Can you describe a time when you went above and beyond your duties to help an organization succeed? Yeah, absolutely. For Chester Bull, I have really stepped up to do a little bit more than previous boards have done just because the fundraising needs have increased. Every year for up until about 2020, we had an event called Ski S slices which was one of our main fundraisers we got all the pizza places in town would come in and give samples of pizza and the breweries would come and offer beer samples and that was our event. Well the pandemic happened and it kind of shut that down and we tried to bring it back but staffing levels for the restaurants weren't really anything that could support this event anymore. So we as a board had to decide, are we going to just do a silent auction online and call it good, or are we gonna try to have an event? Well, I wanted to have an event. So I just started looking for different things we could do. And last year we acquired the first rights refusal for the Warren Miller ski film. Which is if you're a skier it's really it's kind of a big deal. It's like the start of people's ski season. It was a risk. It was a lot of work. It was a lot of communication that I had to coordinate alongside of a silent auction and last November we broke our fundraising records from years prior. Good to hear. Before I open it up to Councillor questions, are there any other things you'd like to tell us about your background, your expertise, why you want to be on this commission? Yep. I want, like I said, I want to be on this commission because I really believe our need to expand into Luth, get proper housing built of all levels and increase in our commercial tax bases. One of the most important things we can do going forward. I believe it can serve as a hedge against potential LGA cuts that could always happen. You just never know. If that were to happen, having that solid tax base is just a nice security blanket for the city in case you were to lose other sources of funding. So just being on the lookout for projects that can assist in that and moving them forward in a smart and strategic manner is something that I'm all about. I would really love to serve in that capacity. Thank you. We have five minutes for questions. I'll call on Councillor Forzman. Thank you, President Tamanik and Mr. Bayou for your interest in the Planning Commission. I'll be brief. I think one of the greatest challenges for planning commissioners is balancing these overarching policy goals of the city like more housing with when there's a development proposal put forward the neighborhood concerns from those most affected. So I just wanted to hear your take on how you would balance those two things as a commissioner. Yep. As a commissioner, I believe you just got to look at the big picture and you got to just look at if that said development makes, first does it make sense for the neighborhood? Is the project even going to work? Is it financially possible? Is it too much of a detriment to the local environment? Is it near waterways? Is it going to pollute? And then you've got to look at the neighborhood aesthetic and you do have to take considerations from neighbors really, really seriously because at the end of the day they live there and sometimes they're not going to agree with you what the commissioner thinks should happen. And you've got to weigh all that and you've got to look at it just for what is best for the the community as a whole and Sometimes not now, but like I said 10 years from now So taking all that into account balancing it out and coming out with a solid decision is a way I would approach that thank you Thank you Councillor Forzman Councillor Randolph. Thank you so much President Tumonic I'll build upon that question that Councillor Forzman posed. Thank you again for applying for this post. Part of that decision making process as your role as a commissioner would be to uphold our comprehensive use plan, our governing building and zoning codes, and legally interpret really our current regulating authorities on properties when you make those decisions. That way they can be compliant with those codes. Because at times people can, like you'll see at 6 p.m., they can be a new appeal. And then we work as a quasi-judicial body to make sure that that happens. So what's your reaction to that role? And how will you prepare yourself to fulfill that? I'm a rare person who enjoys compliance work. I've worked in a compliance role for the last eight years. So what that means is interpreting rules and regulations and making a plan to go forward within that kind of a framework. So I bring a lot of experience to the table from that aspect. The trick to making that work is you've got to do your reading. You've got to do your homework. You've got to come to these meetings prepared and not necessarily knowing 100% of what you're talking about, but you've got to know the right questions to ask. And sometimes when you're not an expert in that field, it's one of the better positions to be in because you can ask the quote unquote dumb questions. But what we end up doing is making people explain their jobs in a low level of detail and you can flush out some potential issues that way. So just taking what I know about reading through regulations, complex or simple, breaking down what, you know, the purpose of those regulations are and bringing it to the commission in a thoughtful manner of a compliance person is the way I would definitely approach that. Thank you. Thank you. We have two minutes left and I'll call on Councillor Mayo. Thank you, President Smondak. Thank you, Mr. Baig, for your interview and thank you for your service on the Chester Bowl board as well. My question for you is kind of building Councillor Forrestman S. what I was intending to ask, but kind of building on that. Imagine Duluth 2035 that comprehensive use plan, the visioning document. your thoughts and kind of your approach to how that kind of meshes with some of our current standing ordinances and maybe zoning that we have in the city? I love the 2035 plan. I've seen a couple of images of what is possible and that is really going to carry the city forward in a meaningful way for both tourism and housing. You just, again, you've got to look at what is the best for the community as a whole. Is it going to disrupt neighborhoods in an unmeaningful way? Well, if that's the case, then maybe that's just not the greatest project in the world. But you've got to look at, again, how is this going to look 10 years from now or in 2035 which is 10 years from now. So just looking at things from a 30,000-foot view having that end goal in mind and just working your way backwards within city codes within current zoning laws is the way that a planning commission is going to have to approach that. I really think looking at what's best for the community and keeping that in the forefront of your brain is the best way that a planning commissioner can serve. Thank you, Mr. Bioquie, or out of time and we appreciate you coming for the interview. Thank you. We will shortly begin our presentation on the Leicester Park. If you're here to speak during public comment remember to sign up next to the clerk's desk here and you will have three minutes to speak at that time. Mr. Mayor, do you want to approach the lectern? Oh, Mr. Dukech. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Madam President, members of the council, I just wanted to take a moment before we begin here and give a little bit of background on the process. If that's all right. Yes, go ahead. As you were aware last year, the mayor created a working group charged with exploring year-round recreational activities, including but not limited to golf. They're also asked to evaluate nonprofit and alternative management models, or the city would retain ownership, but external partners would manage operations. This is similar to what the Lake Superior Zoo does. They're also asked to consider the potential for adjacent additional housing. And when I came on board just about a year ago, the mayor tasked me to work with and help support this effort. So this was no easy task. And we want to thank the members of various groups like the Duluth Area Outdoor, COGs, DXC, Dufta, Superior hiking trail, and friends of Duluth public golf who participated in and provided input throughout this process. We also like to thank the golf advocates, neighborhood residents, and lesser area business owners who participated and provided input throughout this process as well. And we'd especially like to thank Tim Meyer who took on the thank this task of trying to facilitate some very disparate interests. So what you're here is three different possibilities have developed and been explored, all of which require a relatively fairly substantial public or private financial investment. and we'll hear about each of those tonight. While it might be disappointing to those passionate about Leicester, that there isn't a clear path forward, or some big reveal tonight, as a result of the working group's efforts, key elements of a future master plan have become very clear as a result of their work. This includes green space, public green space, a building that can provide equipment rental, community meeting space, event space, food and beverage, a connection of all the adjacent hiking, biking and ski trails, and yes, your round activities including, but not limited to golf. And to hear more about this, Tim Myers here to talk about the working group and what they found. Thank you, Mr. Dukeach. Mr. Meyer, do you want to come up? We appreciate the amount of work that you have done on this, you and your committee. So on behalf of the mayor of the council and the citizens of Duluth, I thank you. You have a lot to present in 27 minutes. We'd like to leave the last five or ten minutes for council questions. So please go ahead. Sounds good. Thank you very much for having me this evening and thank you all of you for your service to Duluth. First, I just want to give a little background on my involvement in this when I ran for council two years ago. Mayor and I heard an awful lot from people in District 1, both golf course and the desire for the golf course to remain open or be reopened. As a result of that, the mayor contacted me after his election and asked if I'd be interested in chairing a group to study the reuse of Luster Park Golf Course. Before going into presentation on the options, I did want to thank Mayor Reiner for his listening, his wisdom, his courage, and support of our neighborhood that I know it took a lot for him to undertake this. And there's a lot of criticism in doing this, but I thank him for being brave enough to do this for people in Lakeside and Lester Park. I also wanted to thank John Dukech who is the mayor's policy advisor who helps steer this process. I also thank to our council liaisons, Ezraena Wall and Councillor Tamanik. I also thank to Duwockter, Councillor Wal and Mayu for attending our big community meeting this last May that kicked off this process. Also thanks to our executive committee chaired by Bill Olson, recreation committee by Ansel Schimpff and Hansi Johnson, Environmental Group by Carol Freeze, Finance Committee by John Lewis, Legal Representation by Robert Heller, DEI from Carl Crawford, and John DuKitsch. Also thanks to our earlier co-chairman, Dennis Eisner and Hagen and Connor Cook. The steering committee members are actually 25 members. That should be in your packet this evening, if you want to see which groups and which individuals were involved in this process. And this is, I think, made it a challenge. This year was the fact we had 25 people who were actually involved in on our committees. We also had over 150 volunteers who served on committees that had volunteered through the City of Duluth website. Tonight we have four proposed options that were the outcome of this process. A private development option by Tom Sunderborg, who's originally from Duluth. Can I interrupt for one minute? For those of you that are interested in this, what we're going to hear from Mr. Meyer, there's a one page summary at the back on that table if you'd like to follow along. Thank you, continue, I'm sorry. Sure. There also is a public nonprofit recreation based option. We also have a low cost start-up restart of golf option that was produced by Brian Liberty. And a proposal by barrier free golf of Chaska, Minnesota by Tim Anderson and the Excellency Excel CERBAY group. Also was to relay to the council this evening that our HR, HR A director Jill Kepers has offered to help in partnership with the city to do any master plan work relative to the housing aspect of whatever plan the council decides to move ahead with. To be accurate in terms of what we heard I'm going to actually read the notes here from our executive committee where our decisions were made in terms of which options we were going to present to the council. The first option we call the center board plan. This is a comprehensive plan that would significantly alter the landscape and use of the land and executed professionally. It would involve a hotel, two restaurants, shops, businesses, and a lot of space to hang out and enjoy the grounds. There's also a housing project and the ability to connect the trail system. There's nearly 450 housing units included in this private development plan. We saw the pros of this development being mixed use development that satisfies desiring mixed use housing and high quality hotel and conference area in eastern Duluth, which we currently do not have in our part of the city. Economic benefits that potentially generate over $10 million in tax revenue for the city of Duluth every year. A recreational link that would create a recreational link to the Lester River trails. Job creation, significant job creation during an after construction. Housing units, including over 455 new housing units in the Lakeside Lester Park neighborhood and no tip required. Their group has not asked for any incentives with respect to the Lakeside Lester Park development. The cons that we saw with this, that the land sale, this would require sale of the land or a long term lease to the developer scale. We had concerns that it might be too large and too overwhelming for the neighborhood that nothing like this has been undertaken. Affordable housing, there were concerns that it didn't represent enough affordable housing although the developer has offered a 10 or 15 percent component of workforce housing in the development. Connectivity we felt that it needed more trails and a connection to the late walk. The environmental impact there were potential environmental concerns with the size of the development. And in timeline, knowing that this is something that would happen over a long period of time. So the summary that we had, the Sunnaborg plan would be executed in three or more phases. It could include a bike path around the property and connection to the lake walk. The city would need the first right of refusal. The land is resold or the project goes bankrupt. The second plan in all transparency here, the COGS plan and barrier-free golf just recently had agreed to partner in this plan. Earlier these options were separate, but recently they have requested that this be presented together. The plan involves two nonprofits, barrier free golf and cogs in Duluth, focusing on creating a golf atmosphere for golfers with disabilities in a simple course no no traps for young and older golfers to enjoy We saw the pros of this plan is being less overwhelming More manageable scale compared to the Sunerboard plan the funding potential barrier-free golf Ames to raise over $13 million through connections with the USGA Minnesota Golf Association and other golf companies. Land lease proposes leasing the land rather than selling it or having a sale with the city. Community involvement, it may involve some city participation in this development. We saw the cons of this plan as being tax revenue, it generates little tax income for the city, and obviously would have some economic benefit. The plan does not include housing development, but housing could certainly become part of this plan. The timeline is that it would take three years or longer to complete the golf course. Fundraising may not be able to raise the amount needed, which we've estimated $10 to $15 million. Then control, a barrier-free golf would be in complete control of the golf course. It would be a very simple golf clubhouse. The third plan that we looked at, and this is, I think, kind of similar to a plan that I had described last spring when we had our community meeting at East High School and purely involved reopening of golf. This is the sort of low cost multi-use plan proposed by Bright Liberty who is a committee member. This flexible plan managed by one nonprofit aims to get a golf course operational quickly while allowing for future development of the remaining land. The plan would emphasize a low cost strategy to get started and invest in other needed areas as the funds are raised privately and by grants. We saw the pros of this plan as being immediate action. We can start the golf course immediately and evolve it over time. Multi-use potential could include housing, tennis, pickle ball courts, bike trails, hiking paths, dog walking areas, a hockey arena, disc golf, cross country skiing, snow shuing, and shared recreation centers. Cost efficiency initial expenses reduced by sharing equipment with the anger park golf course. Land lease, the land would not be sold, it would be leased from the city of Duluth. And then employees, past golf pro and green's keeper are interested in running the golf program again, meaning most of the employees would return to work at Lester Park. Community engagement involving creating jobs and volunteer opportunities, uniting the community development flexibility. This plan would would use one board with many volunteers enabling to the plan to evolve into a multi-use facility. The cons we saw in this plan were long-term deadline could take over 10 years to achieve all the goals of the golf course, fundraising needs, requires fundraising to start the golf course. Equipment sharing, we would probably need the city to share some of their maintenance equipment from the anger park golf of course. And the irrigation there is uncertainty about the cost of making the old irrigation system usable. I get to summarize all of the planning here. Each plan offers unique benefits and challenges. The center board plan proposes significant economic benefits and job creation but requires selling the land or a long term lease and maybe overwhelming for the neighborhood. The barrier-free golf COGS recreation plan is less ambitious and focuses on inclusivity but offers limited tax revenue and no housing. The Liberty Golf and Multi-U's plan is the most flexible allowing for immediate action and community involvement. But it requires a long-term commitment and fundraising efforts. Decision makers should wear these factors carefully to determine the best use of the luster park property. Thank you, Mr. Murray. Before we go to other concert questions, I have one. Could you tell us in the three plans how many acres or translated into holes each plan would involve? I can for a few of the plans. I don't have specifics on all of them. The Center Board plan utilizes roughly 75 acres for the housing units that were described. That doesn't take into account the 37 acre parcel that Rob Finnegan currently has control of so those units would be in addition to the units that Centernabork would develop. No housing was included in the low cost startup plan, although it could be included. And again, I mentioned director Kepers from the HRA has offered to do a master plan for the areas of housing that would include both public and private housing options in the areas that were not covered. This is also true in the COGS Barry Free Golf plan that housing could be included in that plan as well. We did not designate any certain area for housing. There's been talk about in that plan possibly utilizing the late nine for housing development, but there was no specific area referenced in their plan. And how many holes with barrier free golf be? We actually had options and this is with the COGS master plan of either nine or 18 holes. I think the steering committee had agreed that 18 holes are profitable, but if it came down to golf or no golf in the neighborhood that nine holes would be acceptable to have golf return to Lester Park in Lakeside. And can you also tell us the advantages and disadvantages of lease or sale of the land? Yeah, I think in this case I have talked to everyone who we worked with in terms of redevelopment plans. They are open to the concept of a long-term lease on either all or part of the land. When I say long-term lease we're talking 90, 100 year lease terms and scenarios where if the developments fail that land would go back to the city of Duluth. So the long-term ownership of that land would remain with the city of Duluth in a scheme like that. Thank you. We'll go to councilor Forzman. Thank you, Mr. Meyer. Thank you to all the golfers in the audience as well. I've never lost faith in this place, opening back up again. Also, it's a rare treat to have both bomb garnered twins the audience too, so I thought I'd call that out. Couple questions. First of all, I think there's a written report that goes along with the one-page summary that we've got in front of us. Is that how are we going to access that? Which report? Is there a written report from the committee that goes beyond? We just have the one-page summary, so I'm assuming there's more behind. I actually had emailed Alyssa. There are There are several reports from each committee. Each committee also had offered that they would come in and make a presentation to the council if you would like to have that. I can tell you each group back in January presented very detailed, very elaborate presentations on their options. I can tell you the Sunerboard Plan, and I know there's a few others in the room who've seen it, is very well thought out, very complex in terms of the thought that has gone into it. Same with the COGS Plan, I know I was very excited in receiving the plan from their group that there's a lot of thought that has gone into each of these. There is more detailed information that we can share with the council. Just let us know what you're interested in seeing and I'll make sure it gets sent. And then just to clarify the land sale lease, which I think is an important aspect and I'm glad you hit that So any housing at this site would likely mean sale because unless you're gonna build a house on a long term lease It seems like it would be correct So I if there's housing built into any of these plans. I look at it as that's acreage We would have to sell but I think what you said is for golf course property public property, all three are potentially open to some sort of a lease arena. That's correct. Yeah, and that was something that was specifically discussed with each of them that I think the steering committee saw this as a potential barrier to redevelopment of the golf course would be the issue of land ownership versus lease. It was a big concession, I think, to make for a few of the groups that, when we first talked with them, they were unwilling to consider a lease that they wanted to purchase the land. But I think they see the potential for the development and have kind of reversed that position and are not willing to work under a long term lease. Great. And I just have one final question. There are a lot of questions, but I know others do too. For number three for the quick start call, if it says that there's a single nonprofit that would manage it, does that nonprofit exist or is that something that would have to be created? not potentially it exists that we had discussions over either a single nonprofit or two non-profit exists or is that something that would have to be created? It does not. Potentially it exists that we had discussions over either a single nonprofit or two nonprofits that could manage the property in that case a golf nonprofit and a recreation nonprofit or form a single nonprofit that would operate both. We did investigate the Loppet Foundation and Minneapolis who operates the Worth Golf Course with the City of Minneapolis and some of you may be either played there or skied there. It's a very successful nonprofit operation in Worth Park. Thank you, Tim. Thank you, Councillor Forzmann. Clerk, Danem. Will this summary Ruby posted on the City Council webpage? Thank you. Councillor Randolph. Thank you so much, President Tumonic. Thank you, Mr. Mayor for all your work on this task force. My question is, we know what it was three or four years ago, Mr. Sonnenberg had brought a plan, this plan, a similar plan forward. How has this plan changed given the time that has gone by the change in the building landscape, the change in costs, the change in everything since I don't even know was it during COVID that he had brought this up? What has changed in this plan? Well, I think he's had a lot of input. I think that we have communicated with him through this process and given him feedback from the steering committee and the executive group just to with each of the groups so that they understand what we feel some of the issues for the city would be. I think he's more compromising now than I think he was back in 2020 when this was presented to DEDA. I think the concession of being able to work with a lease versus a sale is really significant because in that case the city would not have to sell the land or all the land as Eric had mentioned. He did request the last conversation we had that 75 acres of the course be sold to his group, but the remaining area that would primarily be the golf course would be least. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Randolph. Councillor Mayo. Thank you, President Spanick. Thank you, Mr. Meyer, for the presentation. All your work on this. I've been following this issue for quite a while, but my question is kind of around the collaboration with city staff, because I know we've had many presentations from a variety of different staff throughout the years about possibility and feasibility of golf at this site. And especially with like plan three, kind of collaborating with the city in terms of what maintenance equipment we might have. There have been any conversations or involvement with our park staff. I see Miss Peterson in the audience from our parks department and just kind of, if you can touch on the collaboration piece of that. Sure, yeah, and we have had recent discussions. I think beyond tonight's meeting, I believe it's the mayor's intent that Lester Park would be redeveloped under a public process, and that would obviously include parks and recreation and planning in terms of any redevelopment that might emerge from this study that's taken place. I believe the mayor wanted this to be primarily at this level and direct with the mayor and council but I think moving forward I think there's a desire to have collaboration between the city entities like Parks and Recreation and Planning and any housing development with the city and in conjunction with the city as this would move forward. I get asked a lot about the private option that if the city decides to go in this direction, will the city have the ability to monitor or help direct and from the days I served on the planning commission, there obviously there'd be a regulating plan that the developer would have to submit to the city and there'd be periodic reviews with the planning commission in terms of how they are developing and matching up with the plan they present to the city. If there's any major changes that are made, that would also have to be brought back to the city as well. Great, and I just had one follow up if I may. Sure. So in relation to especially that Centerburg plan, I know that the Finnegan option was discussed, that that's still on the table. Do you or maybe Mr. Duke, did you have any updates on the status of that? And is there a deadline or expiration to that option to build on that lower parcel? Yeah, I guess I can respond to it. Last I've heard that the Rob Finnegan's option had been extended to the end of the year. I can tell you I've talked to Mr. Sunnabork and he has been in communication with at least three developers in Duluth that his intent would be to put a consortium of developers both his group and local developers together so that there would be some local investment in the project as well. Thank you, Councillor Meil. We have four minutes left and three people in the queue. Councillor Swenson. Thank you, Councillor Meil. Councillors, we have four minutes left and three people in the queue. Councillor Swanson. Thank you, President Tamanik. Thank you, Tim, for being here and being so passionate about this project. Getting it move forward. My question is with options two and three, is there any intent with those to also bring on some other economic growth of hotels or restaurants or something along those lines. That's a good question. It has not been specifically discussed but I don't see any reason why it couldn't be. It's not included in their plans but I think there's an opportunity to do that. I think any one of these I think in the end it's up to the mayor and council how you want to proceed from this point. I think there was some feeling too that moving ahead this might end up being where you take elements of one and work with elements of another to develop a redevelopment plan. So where we start out may not necessarily be where we end up that we know we want to be flexible in terms of what might happen. I know there's some huge opportunities for cluster park and lakeside in terms of economic development. I know that that has been discussed a lot both internally and with people in the business community and in lakeside. And there's very definitely economic development opportunities that haven't been discussed yet. Thank you. Councillor Kennedy, do you have a quick question? Thank you, President Atomic. Minus for staff. I'm wondering there was he mentioned the lower parcels would that go out for RFP or RFQ would we look at other developers that because I believe there was one outside of the loop that was maybe interested years ago. We wouldn't just accept a consortium without putting it out there for other bids. From the north, the Finnegan's rates to that part of the property, so that's something. I'm not sure if I can get a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a rights to that part of the property. So that's something I would have to take a look at what the process would be with regard to that. But I think what's been described here tonight is a very public process moving forward with the Planning Commission, the Parks Commission and the Administration moving forward with the City Council. Thank you. I wasn't asked because I join in to the project but I think it's an important one that we need to set that standard before as we start to move forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Kennedy. Mr. Meyer, I have four quick questions. Only one of them do I expect you to answer one, but I think they need to be answered. Will any of these plans require TIFF? And what about utilities? How are utilities going to get to the housing developments and other areas? We'd also like to know what is the projected effect on anger and golf and anger, but the one we do want unit answer is, where does the administration plan to go from here? With this plan? I think there will be a very public process moving forward. Again moving forward through the park board, through the planning commission and city council and administration working together in concert. Again, I think the public can anticipate many points of engagement and a robust public process. Thank you. Thank you. It was going to ask, answer your question on TIFF and other, you know, infrastructure or other incentives that I know. the center board plan we've had specific discussions about things like utility extensions and TIFF and any other incentives and to this date they've not asked for anything. Some of the other options I believe that they may they may ask. Thank you for all you're working for your presentation. Will you be available for further questions from Councillors? Right, thank you. Thank you. A reminder that if you want to speak during the City Council meeting please sign up at the sign up sheet next to the clerk. It is 6 o'clock. The meeting of the Zulu City Council now come to order. Will the clerk please call the roll? Councilor Loll. Councilor Derr-Walker. Councilor Forzman. Councilor Randor. Here. Councilor Kennedy. Councilor Meal. Councilor Swanson. Vice President Napio. Here. President Tamanik. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Oh, here. A Pledge of Allegiance to the delay of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it spans one nation under Ngaga, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you for being here. The agenda for this evening's meeting is on the bulletin board at the back and copies are available near the rear. For those watching on public access television, the agenda for this meeting is available on the city's website at www.luhthemen.gov. Livestreaming also can be found on our website under Council Meeting Media. Citizens in the audience who wish to address the council, please sign up the sheet near the clerk's desk. Please turn off your cell phones while in the council chambers. We'll now read the tools of civility and honor and memory of our past president of René Vanette. The Duluth City Council promotes the use and adherence of the tools of civility in conducting the business of this council. The tools of civility provide increased opportunities for civil discourse leading to positive resolutions for the issues that face our city. We know that when we have civility, we get civic engagement. And because we can't make each other civil and we can only work on ourselves. We state that today I will pay attention, listen, be inclusive, not gossip, show respect, seek common ground, repair damaged relationships, use constructive language, and take responsibility. We will now go to approval of the minutes. Is there a motion? Moved by Kennedy. Seconded by enforcement. Thank you all those in favor? Opposed same sign? Minutes are approved. And now reports from the administration, Mr. Sealing. Good evening, President Tumanic, members of the council. I'd just like to highlight one thing for members of the public. We are making a few changes to how we present the council packet to the public. We're starting to include a cover memo with the council agenda. The cover memo is intended to increase transparency with the public. The cover memo is designed to answer the why and the what for members of the public to really get into in a very basic way, explain to members of the public, what the business of the council is, why the council is taking up an item, this particular item of business, and then also explain a little bit of the history so that a member of the public, you know, just by reading the council, just by reading the cover memo can really understand what it is that the council is undertaking. We will move into a hearing and vice president nephew will take over for that. This evening we will hear an appeal filed by the property owner Justin Vogel which asked the council to reverse the March 11, 2025 planning commission's decision to deny an interim use permit for a vacation dwelling unit or VDU. State statute and our C code authorize the city council to hear this appeal and make a final decision on the application for an entry room used permit. An appeal hearing is different from our more familiar public hearing or public comment process. So I'd like to take a minute to orientate the council members on the city's role in an appeal hearing. When I am finished with this introduction, we'll hear from the applicant that is appealing the planning commission's decision and they will hear from staff supporting the planning commission's decision. We also have some time during this hearing to ask questions of the staff and the applicant. Consolors will then have the opportunity to discuss the matter during the regular council meeting when the two opposing resolutions are read. The council's role this evening is to function as a quasi judicial capacity. In this role, we are acting more like a court and we are using a more formal process. The council's role is to consider the facts presented in this hearing together with any evidence submitted as part of the record and apply the legal standards that is the Duluth City Code provisions to those facts. In reaching our decision, we will consider only the record before us, the evidence presented in this hearing, in the attachments to the draft resolutions and in the parties previous written submissions to council. After considering the facts presented at the hearing and in the record, we will need to apply a certain legal standard or legal criteria to those facts. Because this is an appeal of a request for an interim use permit, the legal standard we are encouraged to apply is from the Duluth City Code in the Unified Development Chapter or UDC Section 50.37.10 related to special use and interim use permits. The legal standard, as understood, is that we have to determine if the application for the interim use permit or vacation dwelling unit meets the following applicable criteria outlined in the UDC related to special use permits. Number one, the application is consistent with the comprehensive land use plan. And number two, the application complies with all the applicable provisions of the UDC in any use specific standards applicable to the proposed use. In addition, we are to determine whether the application for the interim use permit for vacation dwelling meets the following interim use permit criteria. Number one, a time limit is needed to protect the public health safety and welfare from potential long-term impacts of the requested use in the location end. Number two, the applicant agrees to sign a development agreement with the city. If the application for the interim use permit does not satisfy the applicable code provisions, we may affirm the planning commission and thus deny the appeal. This means that the application for a VDU is denied. If the application for the interim use permit satisfies the applicable code provisions, we may reverse the planning commission and thus grant the appeal. This means the application for the VDU is approved. We may also approve the application for the interim use permit with conditions. We'll make our decision on the appeal by passing the resolution related to the appeal during tonight's council meeting. In deciding the appeal, we'll set out the factual findings and legal conclusions that support our decisions. Either by passing a resolution and currently drafted or by amending a draft to conform to our findings and conclusions and passing the amended version. The applicant will have five minutes to present their case. City staff will have five minutes to present on behalf of the Planning Commission. Consolors will have 15 minutes to ask questions following the presentations. I'd like to thank the staff and the parties for participating in the process. All interested parties are welcome to speak again during the public comment portion of the council meeting tonight. We will be voting on the matter at tonight's meeting. So if I could have, do we start with staff on this or the applicant? Is the applicant here to come forward? Please come on up. Hello, I'm Justin Vogel. I did submit further a packet on the 21st by email that didn't make it into the agenda. I'm not sure why. Can I distribute that? I've got 11 copies here. Yes? If you give it to the clerk. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a give it to the clerk. Okay. All right. You will have five minutes and I'm going to go ahead and start it. That's okay. Okay. That's okay. Hi. I'm Justin Vogel. My wife, Melissa and I own 608 West Forest Street. It's a wonderful fourplex. Last than two years ago, the city approved her request for a unit in our building to become an interim short-term rental. Last month, we submitted a very similar application, but this time it was denied. The denial is based on a claim that front yard parking at our building is illegal. Because front yard parking has been prohibited by city ordinance in that's 1959. The city's main argument is that staff made a mistake in 1977 when they approved the building plans which clearly show the parking area they're relying on a 2002 court case Moly versus City of St. Louis Park which says that the staff mistake is not making a legal permit valid. However, our situation is very different from the molar case. In the molar case from 2002, all facts were known, a complete record of permit history was known. In our case, we only have the 1977 building permit, which was signed and approved by city staff. I've included plans of it and the permit in the packet. We believe there's two very more plausible reasons than this being legal. One, most likely, is that there was front air parking pre-ordereds. Buildings from 1890, there were 70 years to become have parking. And that by 1930, 60% of American families owned at least one automobile. And then with that, the MN statute 462.357 subdivision 1E says that it would be a legal, legal non-conforming use. So it's pre-existing, it's grandfathered in. Legal, legal non-conforming use wouldn't require a variance. The lack of a variance, which they're pointing to as evidence of a staff mistake, is actually evidence of it being illegal, non-conforming use. A variance is an adjustment to existing zoning, whereas legal, non-conforming use refers to a change in zoning that permits pre- use. The second highly likely seren area is, if parking didn't exist before 1977, a variance was submitted, approved, and lost. Currently Duluth City variance records only go back to 1994. So there's a number of years that they don't have any records of variances before them on their approved variant sheet So that's the second more likely scenario than this is illegal somebody made a mistake And then there's no evidence of a staff mistake Has him been called out hasn't been cited. It's just been assumed that we're going on this, throwing 1977 staff under the bus. So we are asked, we believe, respectively, that 1977 City staff acted correctly, that the parking is legal, is legal, nonconforming use. All evidence points to this scenario, including the lack of a variance because there shouldn't have been a need for a variance if it was existing. And we're asking City Council to reverse planning commission's decision, approve our short-term rental permit, and hopefully recognize our front yard parking as legal for both 608 and 608 and a half west four street just so we can make it on this list and stop having to have this conversation hopefully. Yeah, that's me. All right, thank you. I just go sit back down now. Yes. All right. Thank you. All right. Director Moses. Thank you, President Nephew and good evening, Councillors. I'm Jen Moses. I'm the manager of planning and community development. Section 50-20.3.V of the City of Duluth Legislative Code requires operators of one bedroom vacation dwelling units to provide at least one legally authorized off-street parking space. The application for 608 west 3rd street indicated parking in a paved area in front of the building. In researching the property, staff have made the determination that the parking indicated is not illegally authorized off-street parking space. And we recommended denial of the vacation dwelling unit permit. Planning commission concurred and voted on February 11th, 2025 to deny the permit. I'll share some details about the history of front yard parking regulations in Duluth and how it applies to this property. Starting in 1958, the zoning code stated that in all residential districts, no parking is allowed in front yards. 1958 zoning code was one of the attachments to the resolutions on tonight's agenda. Aerial photography is of course imperfect, but we have reviewed aerial photography from 1960 and 1970. It appears to us that the front yard was trees lawn vegetation. The first sign that we see of Frontier Parking being noted is that 1977 building permit for the property. I want to note that the building permit from 1977 was not a permit that asked for parking or retaining walls. It was a permit that asked for a building addition and a deck. However, a site plan that was attached to that permit did show parking located on the property. So this parking was created illegally since that 1958 zoning code had already established restrictions on the location of parking. It was common practice in the past for building permits that did not need extensive review to be handled by staff familiar with the building code, not the zoning code. It also is very common for them to look at what is on the permit and to review the addition and the deck, not a full site review. So we believe it was not reviewed for full zoning compliance. Even if a staff person did air in authorizing parking, that decision was not supported by law. Past errors of city officials do not legally justify approval of new or continued uses that violate the UDC. And the court case that we are looking at, in terms of looking at case law, is the case that the applicant, Mr. Vogel, stated, which is Molyr versus the city of St. Louis Park. The applicant did talk about parking variances. One thing I want everybody on council to know is that we do have a complete variance record of every variance that was granted by planning commission. It's true that we don't see parking variances on the list until 1993, but we do have a record of all the variances and this property is not one that has received a parking variance. As mentioned earlier, the planning commission adopted the staff findings and denied the application because it failed to demonstrate compliance with the parking standards in Section 50-20.3.V of the code. So before you tonight, Resolution 25-0363 is the resolution that affirms planning commission's decision to deny the application Resolution 25-0364 is the resolution reversing planning commission's decision to deny the application All right, thank you I'll open it up for Councillor questions. We will start with Councillor Randolph. Thank you so much. I have a question for manager Moses, if I could. Currently at that property we're seeing parking in the parking for what I would assume then to be for tenant parking. There are other apartment units in my district where we actually ticket when folks are parking in the front yard. Are these folks getting tickets currently? President nephew Councillor Randolph, I can't comment on that because that enforcement is done by the city's parking division, not by zoning, when they notify us that tickets have been issued we will certainly follow up on them. So I don't know what the practices in terms of what geography they are looking for. I will say that several times a year we have somebody come in that has a paved area in the front of the yard that maybe has been parking a car and never was aware that there is a prohibition. And generally what happens is when we tell them, you know, there is this rule against parking in the front yard, they say, okay, well, we'll use it for a turnaround space or we just won't park a car there. So right now folks are parking legally here in this property. That's correct. Thank you. Next we will go to Councillor Forzman. Thank you Chair Neff you. Two questions for staff and then I would invite Mr. Vogel up again to. First question, Ms. Moses. We did a parking reform a few years ago where we eliminated certain parking minimums. I know you said one bedroom VDU's do require one parking spot off street. Just wanted to make sure that that is the most current even after we did the minimum reform. President F. Eugh and Councillor Forzman, that is correct. We did eliminate general parking minimums that were found in Section 5024 of the UDC and those were largely by use. However, things that were in our use specific standards and a different article were maintained. In particular because of typical neighbor concerns about vacation dwelling units contributing to on street parking concerns, the parking requirements for vacation dwelling units was kept. Thank you. And then I was digging around through all of the materials and I didn't see any of those aerial pictures. Are they included with the materials that we have? It seems like the applicants argument is mostly based on when that parking structure was put in place. And that was my question for both if there was evidence to support either that it was or it wasn't in place before that 1958 law. Yeah, President and nephew and Councillor Forzman, I do not believe that that was included in the packet and I think part of that is because it was such an early on part of staff's due diligence in the initial review when we looked at the application. Thank you. And then Mr. Vogel, I would invite you up if there's any evidence you want to elaborate on when the parking structure was put in place. Thank you all. I must protest. This is the first time I'm hearing about the aerial photography. We've tried to find some, but it's very fuzzy and inconclusive. And if that's not included in the attachments, I would see that as not evidence. I would hope that would be presented and that would have been made available to me and and yourselves before this meeting. And then the statement on that there were no variances between 59 and 94. I don't how there's a list from 94 on. I don't see that being a really high likelihood and I guess I would question that. Yes, so we were not able to find our main evidence supporting that our parking structure existed before, since we weren't able to find aerial photography or shots of driveway back that far over 50 years ago, is the lack of a variance requirement and the approval for the permit. So the permit was for 25,000, which at the time of 1977 was half the price of your typical home in America. So this is a substantial permit. It qualifies for the prints. It says, construct addition to convert to three family dwelling plan on file. I don't see how that can be construed to say this is for an addition index. The first file image which shows the site where clearly shows new foundations being poured retaining walls being built. It's not just additions index. It's substantial. And then we've got our approval stamps on page three. Page three calls out, hey, the parking call out is there approved by Dell Olsen at the time. And then these are all files that are on the microfilm for construction construction services. There were three pictures to permit and these two site plan, these two plans. And then page four shows the overall site plan and shows all that foundation work, all that concrete. Because this is a very built structure. And somebody inspecting, went to show it up and said, hey hey, what you doing here? This is called out on the prints. And then on the page that says parking slab and retaining wall, like that is the situation. It's not a snuck in driveway. So I guess I would question this claim of aerial photography evidence that's never been presented to me or you in this quasi-judicial hearing. I would expect to see it. I think you would too. And then this saying that, hey, variants of, variants have been allowed and recorded, but We never, we didn't get any in the first 30, 25 years, but we've gotten 15 the last 25 is, doesn't see part of. So I guess I would ask why is that being said. Sorry, I'm nervous. Yeah, and then these parking spaces are right on. Our for long-term tenant uses have been recognized by life safety as legal spaces. So I don't have to pay for street parking for those units. Those are done in three year increments. What else can I talk to or ask on? Sorry if I overspoken or under. Thank you. We will next go to Councillor Mayo. Thank you, Chair and FU. And I have a couple of questions for manager Moses. My first is have we given the applicant alternatives to help gain compliance with the front yard parking because it looks like there's a driveway on the eastern I believe side of the property that could potentially accommodate some vehicles there that would maybe comply with the front yard ordinance. President and FU and Councillor Mayue, it is true that the parking on the side of the property is legally allowed. There is no alternative at this time for somebody to get front you're parking the only options that are laid out in the code for them to apply for A variance is when there is no on street parking allowed within I think it's 150 feet of the property. So the idea there is if you have your own house or a rental property that you can only apply for the variance for front-end parking if there is no on-street parking. Of course, in this particular instance, it's for a vacation dwelling unit and the use specific standards for a vacation dwelling unit has a higher standard for parking. Thank you. And then my follow up question for the build date of the parking pad from my knowledge doing site visits and I have a lot of front yard parking instances in my district. Does the bill date get taken into account typically when we're considering these front yard parking violations? Because there have been some instances I think in the past that build date has come up in this type of conversation about front yard parking from a planning perspective do you take that into account or no? President Neff you and Councillor Mayhew of course we do if there was evidence that this had had been in place prior to 1958, we would have considered it a legal nonconforming use. Thank you. Next we'll go on to Councillor Kennedy. Thank you, Chair, and my questions are for the applicant. If you will, please. They're not very long questions. What is the current use of the VDU space? The current use is a long-term rental in that unit. The folks that are living there now, would they have to move? No, no. I like my tenants. The plan is to keep them as long as they want. It's been about a four-year process to get this far. So I'm interested in securing the short-term rental. I believe I've got licenses for both and then keeping them happy and in place until the opportunity arises that they're ready to not renew their lease and move into most of my tenants end up moving into their own homes eventually. Thank you for providing housing. My other question is when is your ownership date of that property? 2020 2020. Yes 2020 and Who lived there before? Was it any relative or? No, it was a listed, it was on the MLS. We purchased because I have a lot of fond memories of coming to Duluth as a child. It was individually owned by a couple called the last names, Dums. And they are, I believe they're out on, they've got to the East Coast. Thank you, I didn't need all that information. This was good, but thank you so much. Sorry, thank you. Thanks for going to President Tamanik. Thank you, Vice President Nafu. I have a question for manager Moses. Can you tell me how many parking variances has the city given to other property owners? President Tamanik, I do not have the list with me. It is all fits on one page in a memo. So probably somewhere between 15 and 25, but I don't have the list with me. And is that per year or over the course of decades? Great, thank you. All right. Next we will go to Councillor Randolph. Thank you so much, Vice President. If you, I have a question for the applicant. Thank you so much, Mr. Vogel. You mentioned that you purchased it in you said 2020. Yes. Was it a rental unit at that time? Yes. Were they parking in the front? Yep. How many years did they run it as a rental? Since before my time I am not positive. I mean did they only for multiple years? Yes. I believe they purchased the property in 2012 and they were using two of the units to live in and the front two were rentals being used using those parking spaces. Thank you. And I might be overstepping, but I do have a parking variance list in my packet. Thank you. We'll go to Councillor Dure Walker and keep it short. We just have a couple minutes left. Thank you, Vice President, nephew, and thank you, Councillor Randolph, you asked my question. So, but I now do have a question for planning manager Moses, if you may? My question is, is there a difference in, is there any sort of difference in parking limitations between a long-term rental and a VDU? And so long-term, if you may. Sure, Councillor Dauwakter, the parking for long-term rental is government-ungual rental code. So when life safety is the one that oversees that code and issues rental licenses, they have different requirements for what constitutes parking, and they often allow parking, particularly stuff that was legally non-conforming to take different configurations than we would allow in the zoning code. So just like I don't go into a building and review it for fire safety, life safety also doesn't review projects for zoning compliance. So they are different codes with different rules. The vacation dwelling unit under the zoning code has to have parking that is the off-street parking, particularly for the vacation dwelling unit. In the rental code, there is an option that if people don't have off-street parking, they can pay extra fees to the city. Can you move that? Okay. Thank you. And then I have one last question. There's three units in this building. Is that correct? And two of them already have vacation and they already have the vacation rental licenses. So the third unit is the one that we're discussing today. I see the applicant's raising his hand too. Vice President, after you, there's four units. Four units, thank you. And they have vacation dwelling unit permits for two of them. This is the third one. So the parking has already been approved for the two units. Now the third one that's up for potential vacation dwelling unit is the one that now the planning commission has decided the parking doesn't comply. The first permit staff found the information about the parking recommended denial planning commission recommended approval. The second permit, they show the parking in the area to the side of the property that Councillor May you noted and that does meet the requirements so staff recommended approval and planning commission approved it. And in this instance the planning commission said that they were siding with staff and adopted the findings of staff that that was not legal parking and then just one last question How many parking spots are there on the side of the property? I'm sorry. I do not know I don't have the site plan in front of me I know that the it is not enough to provide parking for for vacation drilling units And we ask them to show what parking spots they will allocate to each of the vacation dwelling units. Okay. Can the applicant quick answer that question? I'm just curious. There are three parking spaces. It's enough. There can be sears. So that's not how to use. Okay. There are no digging. It's filled without any problems. All right, all right. Thank you. And that wraps up our hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Vice President Neffi, we now have the opportunity for a citizens to be heard. Clerk, Danem, will you call the first person to speak please? Our first speaker is Robin. I live at 121 West Breadwing Street. And this is regarding the property located at 2732 Woodland Avenue. I'm sure by now you all know where I stand on this issue. The Planning Commission has already approved the change in zoning from our one residential to the RP residential plan. Does this property meet the criteria required for altering the current zoning code? I don't believe it does. The zoning code should never be changed to allow for grossly inappropriate architecture of the size and height that is being proposed within a quiet residential neighborhood. The construction of luxury condominiums is not consistent with the neighborhood's unique character and landscape. And now is the time to be good stewards to protect the integrity of our exceptional amenities for future generations. There are many suitable creative options that could be implemented that would provide housing that would marry any potential structures with the unique nature of this parcel of land that is basically on a curve, on a hill, on solid rock. However, not at the expense of an entire community. So basically what I'm trying to say is, you know, what can we do to make this a win-win for everybody? I think that it would be great if the developer could work with the community to create some kind of a feasible solution. I don't know whether he would be willing to do that or not, but I really think that that would be the way to, I think that something needs to be something we need to talk about it before there are any permanent. Well, I'm sorry. I'm really tired. But basically I just really think that we need to have some further discussion regarding this matter. Thank you very much. Thank you. Clerk denim, can you call the next speaker? Our next speaker is Matt Baumgartner. Good evening, President Tomonic and Councillors. Matt Baumgartner, President of the Duluth Area Chamber of Commerce, lifelong Duluthian 55804. Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and thank you to Councillors for your selfless service to our city. Those who are staying on the council, those who are running again and those coming off the council. Thank you for your service to our city. I also want to just recognize briefly that it was Workers Memorial Day, and I know a lot of people took place in those activities. I want to start by saying, I believe we can all agree on the importance of ensuring tenants are informed and empowered when maintenance issues arise. Yet I'm here tonight to express serious concerns about both the tenant right to repair policy proposal, and more importantly, the process being used to advance it. Allowing a small minority of voters gathered from a fraction of our last municipal elections turnout to bypass this council and directly create binding city ordinances is a fundamental threat to representative democracy in which we are all here tonight in support of. Our system of government is built on electing leaders who can weigh complex issues, balance competing interests, and make informed decisions on behalf of our entire community. Turning over that responsibility to a small self-organized group without the checks and balances of our Public Curings Committee work and broader input, risks setting a dangerous precedent for how Duluth governs itself. This is not just about this singular policy, but it's about protecting the very foundation of public trust in how we govern. We already have many protections for tenants in place. Regular safety inspections for all rentals. Tennis can report repair issues to life safety and they'll be addressed in a timely manner, the tenant landlord connection, free mediation and the education program through one roof community housing. There's also the ability to escrow rent through state statute which is included in the tenant's rights and responsibilities, book of state statutes, and a tenant can sue their landlord under the tenants from mediations Act. There's no need for duplication. Duplication causes increased expense, it causes increased to time, and it's confusing and convoluted. Why not work with the numerous and robust policies that we already have? Beyond the process concerns, the proposed policy itself could have serious consequences. By imposing additional costs, risks, and administrative burdens, particularly on small-moment pop landlords, we risk accelerating the exit of local property owners from the rental market. Enacting a policy like this would reduce the overall supply of rental housing and eluth at a time when we can least afford it. We have all talked about the need for housing across all income types and the need to expedite that. This policy would hurt the very tenants it seeks to help. Preserving a healthy, affordable housing market requires encouraging responsible ownership, not pushing local providers out through policies that make it harder to stay in business and just open the flood gates for more corporate landlords. I'm going to finish where I started. I believe we can all agree on the importance of ensuring tenants are informed and empowered when maintenance issues arise. Rather than enacting a legally problematic ordinance through a petition process, I'd encourage the City Council to take a more balanced approach, one that strengthens tenant education without undermining property rights or democratic norms. I urge you to consider passing an ordinance requiring landlords to post information on existing resources, particularly the TLC program administered by OneRoof. I've got to jump to the end here. Thank you for your service and consider it a path that protects tenants, strengthens housing availability, and upholds the health of democracy. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is John Lewis. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you for having me, counselors. I was on the working group and I'm here to support Tim and kind of talk about my overall thoughts on that. You know, he did a great job of giving you a basic overview of the plan. And as a diluthian, as a golfer, and as a biker, and my kids even swim in that stream there, I kind of have some general thoughts that me and some other people on the group kind of liked. You know, the first plan with Liberty's plan, I think it's a very good plan. I think that that'd be a good start and that any plan including liberties and the other two would probably we'd want to involve COGS because it wouldn't take much for the exterior of the golf course to add trails for biking and walking. I think with the Bear Free Golf golf plan, that's a great plan. Tim and I went down to their golf facility down in Chaska, and it was awesome. Nine hole course, very good for older people and people of all different types. Young, very good for young people and disabled people. So I thought that was great, we were a little concerned about the funding on that. I mean, but you could potentially use Liberty's plan until they got to the funding part of, you know, the very free, then have them maybe take over at that point. And then, you know, just for our working group, just to kind of explain it, we had people that were, you know, from the biking community and the golf and the finance community. And we're all trying to work together to try to figure out this issue or, you know, what to do with this land. And I think that represents the United States really well. If you were to do, um, non-for-profit, I would suggest a single non-for-profit. I would suggest people from different viewpoints being part of that. The last plan was Sunnabird and a lot of people were concerned at first, but I think if you negotiate with him There might be some real benefits. You know such as like we got to the points of Elise Well, I think Elise for the hotel part and then maybe a shorter lease for the golf course portion, maybe like 15 years or something, might be beneficial. Additionally, if you could somehow get funding to extend a lake walk up to the Sunerbergs plan or maybe any of these plans, I think it'd be beneficial. I think it's kind of a difficult road for people to ride on or walk on. And those are kind of my main points that I just wanted to work through this I just wanted to get to the council. So I really appreciate your time. Thank you. Our last speaker is David Higman. Thank you for taking the time and appreciate the work you are doing. I am a retired Lutheran minister and chaplain at the Minnesota Department of Corrections at Will River in Lus Lake. live at 729 West Second Street, which is next to the property owned by Justin Vogel and his wife, Airbnb. His property building is literally six feet away from my building, where I've lived for 23 years. I'm just here to speak on behalf of Justin and his efforts. I don't understand all the parking stuff that's going on at his other property. All of this reminds me of the many committees I set on in the Minnesota Department of Corrections for 12 years. And I just want to wish Justin and his efforts wish them well because Justin's had been a really great neighbor, even though he doesn't live there. He's there quite often taking care of the property. He bought the property in 2023, which was two units as my building is. And he converted one of them, actually bought the property in 2020. I'm sorry. He converted one of the units to Airbnb in 2023. And just last year converted the other one to an Airbnb. His guests need to use my backyard to go to the property, because it's on the hillside, and it's quite steep there. And so, everyone parks are all of our deliveries, FedEx, UPS, mail, all come to our back doors. And so his guests need to use my neighbor's yard and my yard to get to Justin's property. And I can say in the years that he's owned a building, it has been a pleasure working with Justin and his guests. I have never had an issue with any of his guests coming through our property and it's just been a good working relationship with Justin. I tell friends that I have a good neighbor even though he lives in the Twin Cities and owns this property and was renting it out now uses for Airbnb and it's been a pleasure working with him. We've worked on ideas with the yard and the building. Our building is 130 years old and it's just- You have 30 seconds. Thank you. I just want to say that on behalf of Justin and the work he's doing, I really appreciate working with him and having him and his folks as neighbors. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Sir, Danem, that's our last speaker. Okay, thank you. We'll move on to the consent agenda. Is there a motion to approve? So we'll get you in. Yeah. Uh, moved by Randor, seconded by Nephew, Councillor. Oh, I'm sorry, seconded by Kennedy. Councilor Forzeman. Thank you, President Smannock. I would like to stand for resolution 347, just due to the nature of my employment. Minnesota Power, thank you. Thank you. Any other discussion? Those in favor of approval? Say aye. Opposed? Same sign. Motion to prove the consent agenda passes. 9-0. 8-0. 1 absent. I'm sorry. Oh, on one item. Yep. All right. Moving on to resolutions to be considered. Vice President Nefue. Item number 29. Thank you, President Tamanik. Item 29, resolution 328, resolution authorizing an agreement with the Duluth 1200 Fund Inc to transfer 1.4 million for the purpose of administrating a historic fund program. So moved. Is there a second? A second. Moved by nephew, seconded by mail. And we have comments. Councillor Forzman. Thank you, your presence. I actually don't have a comment on this other than great job to the 1200 fund for putting this together. But the point of order on the appeal, it's not on our agenda for the rest of the meeting so it's just wondering when we're taking it up. We will take that up after we read these two. Okay. Three. Three after we read those. Okay. Councillor Kennedy. Thank you, President Tumonic. I want to just read what I had written about this. I have pulled this one and I have been really vocal about some concerns in making sure that we're pulling in all the neighbors more specifically Clayton Jackson, McGee Memorial. So thank you, Councillor Swenson and manager Hobbs for taking the time to pause and ensure we're moving forward with everyone. I do plan to support this resolution. I pulled it from consent because it's important that we get this right and talk more about the neighborhood, not just the buildings. In doing this work as a city councilor, working in community on impacts of health, focused on the social determinants of health and community impact development, many times we see this as how gentrification can start and begins. In my view, the lawsuit falls short by only mentioning buildings in this historic area of town. To me, it seems like CJMM was overlooked even though it sits directly across the street from the foe, from the former foe. While I I understand the intent and the legal law description of historic buildings and contributing buildings, CJMM has a historical recognition and as a cornerstone to our collective histories. It brings in tourism and it's used by organizations like the Chamber as part of their leadership Duluth curriculum. CJMM board members do more than just service stewards of the monument. One of the board members I have seen works in the community with the Etha Family Freedom Center, the other serves on our boards and commissions here for the City of Duluth. CJMM provides scholarships as well as drivers education. Both of these programs helps to support the need for our next generation of workforce. So as Councilor Swenson, myself and city staff explore options aside from this fund, you may see a resolution in the near future that sets forth support for any CJMM needs through other city funding mechanisms to help support them to do their work in the community for generations to come. Lastly, language and policies matter where you live, work, play, grow, and age makes a difference and how we move forward with everyone. I will yield and I will support this resolution tonight. Thank you, Councillor Kennedy. Councillor Forstman, did you have something else? Councillor Derr-Warter. President Tamanikin, thank you, Councillor Kennedy, for your work on that. And I really appreciate everything you just said. And I look forward to whatever you come up with on a resolution going forward. So thank you. Thank you Councillor Derwocker. Any other questions or discussion? Seeing none will call for a vote. All those in favor of resolution 328 please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed same sign. That passes 8 to 8 with one abstention with one absent Next, a councilor male public works and utilities 43 authorizing a temporary construction agreement with the Regents of the University of Minnesota for improvements along Junction Avenue Buffalo Street and West St. Marie Street at no cost to the city And I will be abstaining due to my employment with the University of Minnesota for improvements along Junction Avenue, Buffalo Street and West St. Marie Street at no cost to the city. And I will be abstaining due to my employment with the University of Minnesota. Do we have a motion to move? Second. Second. Move by four's been seconded by Randolph. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor? Say aye. Opposed? Same sign. That passes 701 abstention 1 absent. And go ahead, Councillor Meil. Next, please. Thank you, President Smonock. Item 31, resolution 348 is authorizing agreement with the University of Minnesota Duluth for Joint Construction of Sidewalk along Junction Avenue Buffalo Street and St. Marie Street. And I will be abstaining from this one as well. So your motion to approve? So moved by Councillor Derwockter, seconded by Randolph. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. The resolution passes 7 with 1 abstention and 1 absent. Next we'll go up to item number 3. Having spoken to the City Attorney today, we will be using only Resolution 363. We will not be using Resolution 364. So we will have a vote on affirming the planning commission's decision to deny an interim use permit for a vacation dwelling unit at 608 West Forest Street Unit 3. And you may want to read that second resolution. We will not be voting on that. Any, is there a motion? I'm going to have the city attorney. Thank you, President Tomonick. What we discussed is that the council would be voting on one of the two resolutions. So you would be voting one of them up either you would be affirming the planning commission's decision or you would be reversing the planning commission decision. I vote on yes on number three or resolution 363 will be to affirm and a vote of no is to not affirm. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Correct. Councilor Forza. Thank you, President Tumayak. Just to further beat this dead horse. Does it make any difference? It logically to me it would make more sense to vote on reversing because then we either do or don't if we vote not to affirm that doesn't necessarily translate to voting to reverse. So I just I'm throwing out there one more time to make sure we're voting on the right one. I'll turn that back to the city attorney. President Tamanik, Councillor Forcerman, I can't tell the council which resolution you should be voting on upper down, but if you vote on one of the resolutions depending on which one it is, then you may not have to vote on the second one because it gets kind of confusing with you voting something up or down. So for example, if you're voting to reverse the planning commission decision, then that would be the one that you would vote in favour of if that is your decision, and then you would not have to vote on the other resolution. Councillor Foresman. Thank you, President Mike. I would pose a recommendation because the body of the reversal contains the logic for why. I think we would be missing something if we only voted on affirming. If we vote to deny a reversal, it would fall back to why it was voted on at the planning commission the first place. So I think there's a difference, but I could be saying it not clearly too. Is there any other council discussion on this? And I will read in Resolution 364, a resolution reversing a planning commission's decision to deny an interim use permit for a vacation dwelling unit at 6 away west 4th street, unit 3. Any further discussion? Okay. I will agree with Councillor Forzman. We could take each one as it comes. We've done it in the past. It's clear and it just makes nice clear sense. It doesn't take much time. Thank you Councillor Forzmanoresman, Councilor Mayo. Thank you, President Monk. Are we on to discussing the actual resolution now? Yes. Oh, we are. Oh. Did we read the first one in supper? We read the first one. We read the second one. OK, so now we're going to decide. We need a motion. OK. Can we take one at a time? Can we start with number three and stay with three? You can leave. Yeah, I'll move it. I'll start this. Okay, so now we start with number three and stay with three? You can leave. Yeah, I'll move it. I'll second. If we're on number three. OK, so now we're on number three. Because we're going to vote. If we're only going to vote on one of these two resolutions, do we want to be discussing item number three? One at a time. Let's just do them both. You decide. President decide. You can decide. I'm gonna go back to the city of attorney. President Tamanik, you can do it however you wish. I just thought as we talked earlier, it might be easier to just hold on one resolution, but what the Council is talking about tonight kind of makes sense. So maybe it makes sense to take each resolution by itself motion and a vote. Thank you. Sounds like it's the will of the council to read both. A two vote on both so we will do so. I believe Councillor Maher? Oh, I'll move through a resolution 363. Is there a second? I'm sorry. I on to the table to talk about it. Is there a second moved by Mayo seconded by nephew is there further discussion? Yes. Yes, Councillor Randolph Thank you so much, President Monk Thanks to both city staff and for the applicant for speaking tonight and for the clarity on this. This one's a hard one. Very complex. When we look at the legal standards for our rentals, they're not as strict when it comes to parking. So I get it that this illegal parking in the front yard has gone unnoticed or perhaps a variance, a missing variance. But our legal standards for vacation dwelling units is a higher standard and that is on purpose. We have several items that we add to for compliancy on our VDU. So when I take a look at from a quasi legal standpoint, what were the legal standards used to make this decision? I would agree with the Planning Commission. It needed to follow the Land Use Plan. And one space of off street parking is required. In this case, we don't have it. So I recommend that we affirm the Planning Commission's decision to deny an interim use permit on this vacation property. And I encourage my fellow Councillors to do the same. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Render. Councillor Mayo. Thank you, President Tamanik. I'd like to also thank City staff for all their work on this as well as Mr. Volga, the applicant. And it sounds like you've done a lot of great work to that property and thank you for your investment in Duluth. I concur with Councillor Randolph's assessment of the situation here and just going back to the front yard parking issue and the parcel identified for parking on this property. And I think when we look at the previous decisions for the interim use permits and other units here being that one of them identified that side parking area did legally comply But this area does not and so Don't want to set a precedent that we would approve something that is not legally front yard parking and also don't want to set up a situation where the property owner could get fined as well as the park, the person parking there because back in 2016, 2017, the council passed a resolution or a new ordinance kind of updating front yard parking, which allows a $200 fine to be assessed to the property owner as well as the person that parked there. So in concurring with the planning commission's decision I would encourage my fellow councillors to also affirm the planning commission's decision to deny this interim use permit. Thank you Councillor Mayo. Councillor Foresman. Thank you, President Simoneck. Yeah, I would largely echo comments here. I think there's a really well put together appeal. First of all, I think it's great that a neighbor came in support of the applicant. Has that been paging through it? I can see the logic for the argument on the two reasons why the applicant believes that this should be approved, but I don't see clear evidence supporting it either I think the closest we get is in the 1977 Document with some of the notes, but I think without having something more concrete than that I would also Lean towards sticking with the planning commission decision, which was close, but I fair. So I'm going to be also supporting to a firm tonight. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Forzman. Any other discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote. All those in favour of resolution 328? No, wrong one. 343. No. 363. I'm on the wrong page. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed same sign? And that passes 821 abstent. One absent. I'll get it yet. All right, next we're reading resolution 364, a resolution reversing the planning commission's decision to deny an interim use permit for a vacation dwelling unit at 608 West 4th Street Unit 3 is their motion. So moved by Rander of Seconded by Swenson. Yes. All those in favor. Say aye. Remember how we're voting on this. This is reversing. So, if you voted aye on the first one. Yes. All those in favor of reversing the planning commission's decision? Say aye. Opposed same sign? No. No. All right. That resolution fails. 0 to 8, 8 to 0. However you want to look at it with one absent. Okay. Now we will go down to ordinances to be read for the first time. Clerk denim. Ordinance, eight, an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the city of Duluth to reclassify the parcel described as 010-4680-01265 from residential traditional R1 to residential planned RP. Ordnance number five in ordnance authorizing an electric line easement to Minnesota Power, a division of elite ink upon over under and across real property in the Kenwood neighborhood for nominal consideration. Ordnance number six in ordnance authorizing an electric line easement to Minnesota power, a division of elite ink upon over and under, and a cross real property in the Kenwood neighborhood for nominal consideration. Ordnance number seven, an ordinance authorizing electric line easement to Minnesota power, a division of elite ink upon over, under and across real property in the Duluth Heights neighborhood for nominal consideration. Thank you, Chris. Clicked on a Mr. Any discussion on those? No, seeing none. Time for concert questions and comments. As Mr. Baumgartner mentioned, today's workers Memorial Day, many of us were at that gathering this morning. It was very poignant because the city of Duluth did lose a worker this year. And the unions gathered together for prayer in a time to plant a tree in memory. It was a very moving ceremony and time to be together. Anything else? Questions, comments? No. Preview of upcoming business. Seeing none, is there a motion to adjourn? Move by Render of Seconded by Kennedy, all those in favor? All right. Meeting adjourned.