Here is the transcribed townhall meeting with speaker names added based on the context of the dialogue and the provided official list. *Note: Based on the transcript, the lead staff member is identified as "Dave" (Dave Maroney, who served as the Community Development Director), and the Planning Commission members present are Commissioner Longton, Commissioner Hema ("Emma"), and Commissioner Schlobohm ("Showblom").* *** **[3:28] Chairperson:** At this time I'd like to call the Monday April 14, 2014 Planning Commission meeting to order. The first item on the agenda is roll call. [Chairperson] here. Price? [Absent]. Longton? **[3:48] Commissioner Longton:** Here. **[3:49] Chairperson:** Hema? **[3:50] Commissioner Hema:** Here. **[3:51] Chairperson:** Schlobohm? **[3:52] Commissioner Schlobohm:** Here. **[3:54] Chairperson:** That brings us to number three which is the approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion? **[4:02] Commissioner Longton:** I move that we approve. **[4:04] Chairperson:** I've got a motion by Mr. Longton, a second by Mr. Hema. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. That brings us to number four which is the approval of the minutes from the March 2010 Planning Commission meeting. Do I have a motion? **[4:25] Commissioner Schlobohm:** So moved. **[4:26] Chairperson:** I've got a motion by Mr. Schlobohm and a second by Mr. Hema. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. **[4:45] Chairperson:** That brings us to number five, which is public input. Citizens may speak to issues not on the agenda. Before speaking, please give your name and address for the record and limit your comments to three minutes. I don't think we have anybody. Anybody looking to actually make a comment? Anything not on the agenda? Very well. That brings us to the public hearings. **[5:14] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** We have the recessed public hearing from the preliminary plan for Mulvihill. As I pointed out in the staff report, Mr. Mulvihill is in continued conversations with Goodhue County relating to their interest in purchasing some additional property on the east end of his proposed development. A couple of you, as you came in this morning, or for the evening tonight, you saw on the back wall, which you can probably see from where you're sitting, Goodhue County has presented three alternative design options to connect County 25, which is on the left side of the aerial photograph, going to the right to Highway 19, just east of the school. So those are three different options that the county is evaluating. They had a public informational meeting last Thursday. I was there, was pretty well attended by interested property owners, et cetera, and the county will now move forward and select which of those three options is their preferred alternative. Relative to Glen's interest, kind of on the right side, or the east north side I guess if you're going north, south, east, west, but on the right side where it actually does connect to Highway 19, that borders the east line of Glen Mulvihill's property and exactly how much right of way the county really is going to need to construct this, how much right away they're willing to or they're able to work through with Glen Mulvihill remains to be seen. So until that happens, we're recommending that we recess the public hearing tonight until our meeting in May, see if Mr. Mulvihill and the county have made progress at that point, and if they have, we'll talk about it at that point. But clearly, on the assumption that the county will acquire some property from Mr. Mulvihill, that will affect that preliminary plat that we saw at the original public hearing and I know that he's working with his consultant on alternative designs just to kind of evaluate what the impact of this road will be but it is going to change the second phase of that preliminary plat. So once he and we learn more about what's going to happen with the road he can make his decisions and then bring the revised preliminary plat back to us. But at this point I'd recommend we recess it to the May meeting and we'll see what happens between now and then. So if you're in agreement, just a motion and a second to recess it till 6:30 on May 12th. Is anybody here in attendance for that public hearing? No? **[7:56] Commissioner Longton:** Okay, I move that we recess. **[7:58] Commissioner Schlobohm:** Second. **[8:04] Chairperson:** Got a motion by Mr. Longton and a second by Mr. Schlobohm. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. We will recess the public hearing for the Mulvihill property. That brings us to number 6b which is the conditional use permit variance for Mayo Clinic signage. **[8:35] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** Maybe, there you go. A little bit easier to see. Thank you. As always, Bill will assist me with the lighting. Because we do have a number of exhibits to go through with the Planning Commission because we have the number of signs that we do and the graphics that were provided to us. I chose not to include them all with your information, but I'll go through the sign proposal in its entirety. Phil Priest is here tonight representing the hospital. So if there's any questions that you have of him, he's here to answer those. And if I make any mistakes, he'll correct me, I'm sure. Well, I want to start out with the public hearing. This is a combined conditional use permit and variance application relative to the sign code. Remember we rezoned that property to the Southeast Campus Planned Unit Development? That particular zoning does allow signage, obviously as an accessory permitted use, but it refers it back under our current sign code to the planned unit development provisions of the sign code which then refers us back to the most restrictive zoning that might apply in this case. So that's where I went back and evaluated this sign proposal against the standards for the B2 Highway Commercial District. So we're able to get there, but we're only able to get there if we're going to approve these proposed signs through zoning, at least in the sign code by conditional use permit and variance. The variance requirements are two. One is there's more sign area proposed for this particular project than what would be allowed by the B2 sign code. Okay, so there's a variance requirement for area. There's also a variance requirement for the placement of one of the signs, which I'll go through in my presentation, which is going to be on the south side of the building, the entrance to the building, which does not face a public right-of-way. It faces a private access drive into the property itself, kind of like the Brewster's sign that we reviewed. Our sign code requires that signs face a public right-of-way, and one sign in particular on the south side of the building does not, so there's a variance requirement for that. The conditional use permit relates to—our code does allow signs to face Highway 52. We approved the one for Casey's that was a sign like that, and the existing hospital a couple years ago, we approved the emergency sign there under the sign allowance for signs that face Highway 52. So we do have a conditional use permit requirement for that and we do have some signs facing Highway 52. So the short of it is: conditional use permit and variance in order to process this application. The first exhibit that I've got here is just an aerial photograph of the hospital building itself, kind of superimposed on the site. Here's the building and the parking. The yellow on the east side is the new County 24 Boulevard, and of course here's Highway 52 over in this area. The hospital site is basically like this. Some 50 acres of land that encompass the 88,000 square foot hospital building that's well on its way to completion. I bring that to your attention because one of the things in our ordinance, this isn't a perfect fit in terms of the site. It's a large site. We don't have any other 50-acre developments out there that I'm aware of and we probably won't in the future. So it's a large site and the building is 800, 900, 1,000 feet off of Highway 52 up a pretty significant hill. So there's some unique characteristics of the location of the building and the site which bode well in terms of our ability to process a variance request. Similarly on the east side, the building sits quite a distance back of County 24 and again there's quite a bit of elevation difference between the top of the hill where the hospital sits and where the new County 24 Boulevard is being built. When you get a chance to get out there—I wouldn't go out there when it's wet—but if you get a chance to go out there, you can kind of physically see the lay of the land. And you can see that in this case, I mean, there's some unique circumstances related to the site and obviously a hospital use. East side over here is County 24 Boulevard, west side down the hill over in this area, quite a ways down the hill is Highway 52. So in the gold area, that's the hospital. You can see the parking areas. This is this main access drive that goes over to County 24 Boulevard. So that'd be the main access to the hospital and then parking in the rear. Here's the heliport. I'll be showing you in a second, there's an entrance sign out by County 24 Boulevard. There's some interior signs on the site, which really are directional signs under ordinance. When you get into the site, you want to know where to park, you want to know where to go to emergency. Those are the kinds of signs that go there. There will also be an emergency sign, generally in this area on the building. There's an entrance sign in this area, that's the south side of the building, that's one of the variance requirements. And then on the west side there's also signage. So in total I think there's seven signs that are proposed throughout this site. And I won't go through all the dimensions unless you're exceedingly interested in them. But this would be the entrance sign that would be out on County 24 Boulevard. So when you're coming from the south-north, the north-south on the east side of the building, this is the sign that you would see out by County 24 Boulevard. As you drive into the building... where the parking lots were that I showed you a second ago on the site plan, you'll see a sign like this. It will direct you to the emergency area, the main entrance, patient visitor parking, and receiving. So you'll have what we call directional signs once you get onto the site itself. And there's basically three of those, two of which look quite similar. Another directional sign. And then the final directional sign is kind of on the north end of the site. If you were delivering some type of product to the hospital, you would come in off of County 24 Boulevard into the main entrance, come up towards the parking lots, go north, and deliver into the back of the north side of the building. So this will help those who are looking to make deliveries to the hospital find their way once they're on the site. The emergency entrance, again, on the south side of the building, here's the sign in particular to call your attention to. Pretty straightforward. We've seen those before. But obviously that's there as much as anything for public safety purposes to direct those bringing patients in need to the right location or those who are coming to the hospital looking for the emergency entrance. That's what they would see and that's what they would look for. On the south side or the entrance to the building, our Mayo Clinic health system and logo on the front of that building—that's the one that faces south, the one that doesn't face the road, faces obviously the parking lot, et cetera. But obviously when you get to the parking lot, if you follow your signage in and you park, you'll see that you're in the right place if you're looking for the Mayo Hospital. And this gives just a little bit more specific detail about what that sign looks like and the size of the sign. The big one is about 24 and a half feet wide by five feet high. The logo is a little bit bigger but the main lettering part is five feet. Let's call it 25 by 9 to put a box around it. And on the west side, I think that dirt pile is maybe gone. The west side facing Highway 52 there will be a wall sign on top of the building and just for purposes of measurements it's 44 feet wide and let's call it 9 feet. The logo measurements here are about 9 feet so 9 by 44; that's the largest of the signs. So again that's the one where you're 800 or 1,000 feet from Highway 52 up the hill. So that's why I'm sure it's been sized a little bit larger. So in summary, we've got a variety of signs. I've reviewed them all under the ordinance. Some of them would comply with the ordinance as it's written, but the sum total of the parts does not in terms of area and again the placement of the south side sign. But I think again, as I said in my staff report, I don't think we're going to see another hospital in Cannon Falls, or at least I wouldn't expect that we would bring another hospital to you and ask you to review signage. So I think it is going to be a fairly unique land use on a site which, again, has the type of characteristics that if we wish to recommend approval of variants, I see no issues with doing that, if that's your pleasure. I haven't made it a point to question the Mayo folks as to the individual signs themselves—the message, the color, the area. I'm pretty comfortable that they're in the business to know what signage works for them and so I've kind of taken that position to the Planning Commission tonight. Phil, is there anything else that you'd like to add or correct? **[19:13] Commissioner Hema:** Will the boulevard sign and the sign facing the west be lit? Will it be floodlit? Is that how you're going to light them? Are you going to backlight them or what are you going to do? **[19:29] Phil Priest (Mayo Representative):** Floodlit. It would be floodlit. **[19:39] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** That would be backlit if it's from the inside. Yeah, backlit or frontlit from the inside. Pretty typically, I think these signs are the same, essentially, as all the facilities that Mayo has that I know of, anyway. I'm looking for the detail on the lighting. I wasn't sure that these were lit. **[19:54] Commissioner Hema:** No, just the big one, the freestanding. **[19:57] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** Freestanding or wall? **[19:58] Commissioner Hema:** Freestanding and the west. **[19:59] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** Okay, the west is a wall. That will be the one that will be easily seen from a distance if someone's looking at it. **[20:01] Commissioner Schlobohm:** Boy, they've got a lot of signage there though. I think it has to do with the intersection being so close. It seems like gardens of signage everywhere there. This looks like it's not overdone; looks good. **[20:20] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** These ground signs are lighting optional, so I'm not sure what their—maybe Bill's not sure either—these ground signs aren't lit now. **[21:43] Chairperson:** Does anyone have any questions about the signage? Do we have any comments from anybody on the signage? At this time I'd like to close the public hearing for the conditional use permit variance Mayo Clinic signage. That brings us to number 7A which is resolution number 2014-5, conditional use permit variance for Mayo signage. Do I have a motion? **[22:43] Commissioner Hema:** I motion to approve. **[22:45] Commissioner Longton:** Second. **[22:46] Chairperson:** Got a motion by Mr. Hema and a second by Mr. Longton. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. That brings us to item discussion item 7b, Lookout Point development concept. **[23:51] Joe Wheeler (SEMCRA):** Thank you for allowing me to come in front of you this evening. Prior to us moving ahead with any—in fact our board meets on Wednesday—so prior to any action by my board, I wanted to kind of feel you guys out here a little bit of what's being proposed. I did provide Dave today a full copy of the assessment, which is not a full-fledged market study. It's kind of a quick assessment of Cannon Falls and what the housing needs are within Cannon Falls. And it takes about a 15-mile radius is what it's looking at when it's looking at what the needs are within Cannon Falls. We completed a market study on elderly, so we already had that information. So what we were really after with this particular assessment was to take a look at what is the excuse me, low moderate income and market rate need for rental in Cannon Falls. So that's what that needs assessment does. Now prior to us or any for-profit or non-profit that we may work with, if this project moves forward, when we start really zeroing in on what we're looking at, then we do finish it off with a full-fledged market study which is used primarily to satisfy your financing people that there most certainly is a strong need for it and that's getting specific to the project itself. The assessment talks about the demographics to Cannon Falls and talks about the current developments that are here now. You're going to notice that that does not cover elderly because we have that covered someplace else; it's really looking at general occupancy housing for Cannon Falls on the rental. So based on that summary that I provided, the basic need for Cannon Falls right now is a total of approximately about 100 units over the next five to 10 years. 29 of those are recommended as subsidized—that would actually be like a tax credit project or where you'd have rental assistance available. "Affordable" is not subsidized, but making the units semi-affordable and you're using other mechanisms to try to keep the rents affordable. And then market rate is exactly what that is; these are completely unsubsidized. Families pay 100% of the market rents. Our office does not move ahead unless we know we at least have a need for housing within the community. So our next step actually, and one of the reasons why I'm here in front of you today, is the next step: it will cost somewhere between five and ten thousand dollars to do what you guys refer to as a sketch plan within your planning and zoning process—a concept—and then actually have an engineer take a pretty serious look at the concept and some tentative cost of what it would cost to put that infrastructure in, which would include the storm drainage and roads. The plans that I provided you... we purchased this property back in 2003. It shows the parcel and how this property is currently platted. And it's approximately about 28 lots. Now if you look at it, I think this thing was platted like in the late 1800s, early 1900s. So they got lots going up the hills. I don't think they paid a whole lot of attention to the demographics or the geology of the site itself. The second photo that I provided you gives you that layout of the current site. This was done approximately about the same time in 2003, and it gives kind of tree location on the site, the elevations and so on. It kind of gives you a pretty good show of the property. Now I'm sure, at least the last time I was back in on the property, there's a lot more trees that are down. Anyways, what SEMCRA is currently looking at developing on this particular site is a townhome concept development. They would be one, two, three-bedroom townhomes. They would be rental. The next step for us is to find out how many townhomes you could comfortably get back into that development. I can't tell you what that number is; we know we should be most certainly be able to get 36 townhomes in on this site. But it could be as high as 50. We don't know until the architect has an opportunity to do the concept and then our engineer has a chance to take a look at what we need for stormwater ponds and roads and those types of things. But that will kind of give us an idea what the site can bear and then we can actually literally start moving an application forward. So with that, I'll open up for any questions you might have. Dave, did I miss anything? **[30:11] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** No, I received... Joe said he sent me a copy of the market study today. I haven't had a chance to go through it but I will and we'll make either the whole document available to you or I'll select some excerpts out. But as I mentioned to commissioners, currently part of this property appears to be zoned R3, part of the property appears to be zoned R2. I haven't gone back and verified—guessing this happened maybe in 2006 when the city adopted their citywide new zoning ordinance. We'll take the GIS at their word right now. So we have a combination of R2/R3 zoning. If you've been back to look at the site, it's pretty clear that there's a lot of topography, there's a lot of woods. There's essentially single-family development around the north and west sides of the property. It's predominantly vacant to the south and to the east. Greg Jablonski owns a fair amount of property that borders this to the south and the east, so essentially undeveloped. It appears that the area including this property is guided for some type of mixed land use development and/or public parkland. In and throughout that area, including Joe's property that's owned by SEMCRA, it looks like it's been guided for some type of planned unit development. The R3 zoning for a project that would propose townhomes would allow them to be built under a planned unit development. It's a density zoning now and it requires 6,000 square feet of land area per unit. So a 40-unit subdivision there is going to require five or six acres of developable land. The question posed to the Commission is about land use guidance for Joe. This site clearly, with the topography and the access in the neighborhood, it's not a simple proposition to develop this land. To really figure out the feasibility of development of that site is going to take obviously some work. **[34:06] Joe Wheeler (SEMCRA):** Just bringing it back to 2003, that's what we were proposing for the site back at that point in time, which was a low-rise of approximately 60 rental units. It was a combination of one, two, and three bedroom units as a general occupancy. But it ran into a lot of opposition. There were some other things going on with the co-op then at that time, so we decided just to shelf it. We just haven't done anything with it since that time. What I always liked about Maxfield [the market analysts] is they're not afraid to tell you if there isn't a market. They're suggesting if a project like this is needed, especially on the market rate side, that the more general we are the better. So if you have kind of a mix of affordable market and some elderly in the first phase, between 36 and 50 units would be a good mix. But it would be nice, they said, if you had a large enough site where you could accommodate a 40 or 50 unit elderly development for the baby boomers sometime down the road. I don't think this site's going to be able to handle that aspect of it, so we're kind of really zeroing in on just the townhome type development for this land. **[36:09] Commissioner Hema:** Are you talking about similar types to what's over by the creamery in that area? **[36:20] Joe Wheeler (SEMCRA):** You know, that's really up in the air right now. I know we're looking at one, two, and three bedrooms. Some will be two-story, some will just be one-story. And it'll be interesting to see what the architect comes up with. You'll see the lower part of it is where the building would take place, and then you could obviously do some ponding up a little bit higher to catch some of that water that's coming down. Our intent is to preserve as much of that timber as possible. **[37:50] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** Joe, is it reasonable for me to show that there was a single family plan? **[38:05] Commissioner Schlobohm:** Could you also show the relationship to City Central here? Where this is from the city? **[38:13] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** It is hard to see. If you were to keep going on 19... right there? **[38:20] Commissioner Schlobohm:** You went east to Elm and go south on Elm, not even a half a block. That's going to put you right about here. Or let's use this map. That's going to put you right here. Move your finger. Oh, yeah, I got you. So straight east? And then up on the top. East and then south. Is that a block, two blocks from you? Yeah. I see a birdhouse right there where your finger was. That's the Allen birdhouse right there. Okay, that helps. Thank you. **[39:36] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** The south side of there is where the proposed road would come in. This is not the plan that's being proposed; this happened to be single-family lots that's circled. **[39:55] Commissioner Schlobohm:** Elm doesn't go all the way through there, right? It only goes like a block or something? There's a house that sits up here. So, yeah, it stops right in here. **[40:10] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** Yep. It does not go through the right of ways there. There's a drainage swale that comes down through this area now. And I'm guessing that's kind of the alignment of this proposed road. My concern is drainage. Everything's coming off the top of the plateau up there and coming right down the street. So with a townhouse proposal, my guess is that there might be a similar kind of road alignment here with townhomes built off to the side. Because again, we have a lot of grade in here. **[42:15] Commissioner Schlobohm:** So we're seeing one way in, one way out. **[42:18] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** That's correct. **[42:30] Commissioner Schlobohm:** Is it all going to go in at once or is it a piecemeal deal, one unit at a time? **[42:34] Joe Wheeler (SEMCRA):** No, it wouldn't be one unit. You'd probably be looking at a minimum of 24 initially. **[42:45] Commissioner Schlobohm:** Okay, so that's all. There's not going to be another bigger apartment type unit? I think that was one of the issues that we talked about before. So these like twin homes would you call them? **[43:00] Joe Wheeler (SEMCRA):** Well, no, townhomes can come in different sizes. I guess you can go twos, fours, sixes, eights. So I'm kind of interested to see how the architect will lay it out. We're preliminary right here. **[43:35] Commissioner Schlobohm:** Is there any opportunity for another access other than what you're looking at right now? No place to go to the east? **[43:41] Joe Wheeler (SEMCRA):** Well, you know, anything's possible, I guess. You could put a road with some blasting. We've seen that right out here on 52. But cost would be prohibitive. **[44:09] Commissioner Schlobohm:** Joe, what kind of timeline would you do? **[44:26] Joe Wheeler (SEMCRA):** In an ideal world, you'd like to actually start construction mid to late summer so you're leasing up by spring. For sure we're into 2015 before this would actually get to the groundbreaking. **[44:34] Commissioner Schlobohm:** Do you have a price point on these homes? Are they low-income housing, or what is this? **[44:39] Joe Wheeler (SEMCRA):** This is rental. This is rental property. **[44:45] Commissioner Schlobohm:** And it's approved for rental property up there? Is it zoned for rental? **[44:50] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** The R3 allows townhome development under a planned unit development concept. A 40-unit townhome development would take in that five to six acres of land. The R2 is limited to single family. So probably what I would recommend to Joe, if they wanted to do multi-family, we would just look at rezoning it all R3. **[45:50] Commissioner Schlobohm:** Did I hear you right here—you're looking more for seniors? **[45:58] Joe Wheeler (SEMCRA):** This would be adult general occupancy for family and elderly. And, again, what we like about the townhome concept, they could be sold down the road. But right now our basis coming in is this will be rental. **[46:58] Commissioner Schlobohm:** How much construction to put a road up in there? And is there sewer and water already up there? **[47:18] Joe Wheeler (SEMCRA):** I can tell you on that concept Dave just shared with you it is around $40,000 per lot. There's not sewer and water up there yet. My engineer's already given me a heads up that it's changed. This all has to be re-evaluated. **[47:26] Commissioner Schlobohm:** And soil boring has been done? You know what kind of soil you're doing? I've heard that before and it ended up being clay and sand. Because it's awfully close to the up on top up there. **[47:44] Joe Wheeler (SEMCRA):** It was done back in 2003. It's primarily sandy soil. **[48:15] Joe Wheeler (SEMCRA):** So my question to you guys is: do you think this is something that SEMCRA should move ahead? Is it something that the Planning Commission would be open to? **[48:30] Commissioner Schlobohm:** I have questions about drainage, of course, because you've got a lot of runoff coming down there to the point where with some rains, even on 19 by Main there, you can't park on 19 because I'll guarantee you the water will come down fast enough to be over your bumper. We've seen that on more than one occasion. If we're looking at more rain water freely running off the top of that hill then we might be dealing with more than what we have in place can handle. Just being able to get up there—how big a hill do you have to go up to get what's yours? **[49:40] Joe Wheeler (SEMCRA):** It's pretty steep to get there. There's about five or six acres of the site that is buildable. What our intent would be is that it's going to be better when we're done for water flow. You have to hold that water back. **[50:18] Commissioner Schlobohm:** Well, I'm wondering if the city is going to have to provide some kind of holding pond for the water that's going to come down off the top because right now there's... **[50:47] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** We would expect the developer to provide that onsite drainage. In this case, because it's being built in a significant drainage area, there's going to have to be improvements made to control the existing drainage. That's a cost issue to the developer. **[51:30] Joe Wheeler (SEMCRA):** There's already a drainage issue. I think the city has already put a storm drain up on top but that's not big enough to handle what's coming down right now. The city came in and did some work back in there. They're looking for a permanent solution. **[52:50] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** On our GIS system, the drainage comes right through like this. You can see it on the topo line. It is going to take some careful engineering and there's going to be a cost associated with it. This is a little bowl that kind of sits right in here which is where the developable area is being proposed. **[54:30] Chairperson:** Any opportunities to comment tonight? This is just a preliminary concept, right? Can we allow the public to comment? **[55:20] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** If you would feel better and Joe would feel better, we could do something less formal than a public hearing only because there's been a history in this area. This is a development piece of property zoned for development. The question to the Commission is: what do you feel is a reasonable land use in this area? **[56:55] Commissioner Hema:** I think if it wasn't rental, there wouldn't be so much question. **[57:25] Joe Wheeler (SEMCRA):** Well, even if it was for-sale townhomes, it would probably be the same concept. The good news is you have demand in Cannon Falls. Two or three years ago, builders weren't game for doing "blue collar" workforce housing because there's no money in it for them. But if you can provide an affordable lot, they'll do that. **[1:01:31] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** My suggestion, Joe... I would go back to report to your board that the Commission certainly has some questions about how this might work. I sense some hesitancy in terms of not having more design or more detail here. Whether you want to go ahead with anything specifically at this point, that's your choice. **[1:03:06] Joe Wheeler (SEMCRA):** Let's say it turns out to be 36 townhomes and engineers have worked out all the water flow. I know you're going to always run into opposition from people within the neighborhood. I want to be ready when we get to public hearing. I'm prepared for that. **[1:04:40] Commissioner Schlobohm:** Basically, if there's 36 townhomes, you can average 75 to 100 cars? And three or four trips a day. We're not sharing the wealth here real well; it's just one street in, one street out. I don't like that. I don't like that at all. **[1:05:46] Joe Wheeler (SEMCRA):** Okay, thank you very much for your time. **[1:06:27] Commissioner Schlobohm:** How much smoke are we supposed to see from the industrial area during the day out there because of the fertilizer processing? Coming in today on 52, it was like a smog layer over the city of Cannon Falls. It was very noticeable to the point where I thought maybe there's a fire going on over there. It seemed to blow right into town. **[1:07:05] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** Now that City Council has authorized the odor study evaluation at a staff level, we've met with the consultants twice. They're coming back May 6th and will be trained as staff to do odor monitoring specifically related to Sustain. We'll be in a position to monitor and evaluate odors throughout the community. We'll be taking readings as well as consistently recording the days where we've had issues with smoke and vapor. Administrator [Radermacher] and I are meeting with the representative of Sustain to continue those conversations. For the first time, the Council agreed to do that and we are now moving forward with specific evaluation of that situation. **[1:08:45] Dave Maroney (City Staff):** Just as a follow-up before we adjourn, regarding the property next to Senate's... everything on the survey confirmed what we needed to have confirmed, so I authorized them to go ahead. Also, the Council did table the recommendation on the rezoning of the Creamery at first, but they did approve the first reading of the rezoning since that time. I shared some information with Joe Wheeler; he came to you and asked that their tenants be given the opportunity to provide comments. I sent Joe the zoning enforcement information, he reviewed that with his folks, and he sent me a letter. They have no more questions. They own the townhouses south of the Creamery. Tomorrow night they'll have the second reading so I presume that property will be rezoned and purchased by Steve Ogier and the Lawrences. **[1:11:40] Chairperson:** That brings us to number nine, which is adjourn. **[1:11:44] Commissioner Hema:** I move to adjourn. **[1:11:46] Commissioner Longton:** Second. **[1:11:48] Chairperson:** All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. That concludes the Monday April 14, 2014 Planning Commission meeting.