This transcript appears to be a **Planning Commission** meeting. Based on the context provided and the dialogue, I have identified the speakers. **Note on Identifications:** * **Chairperson:** The lead official running the meeting. Based on his slip-of-the-tongue at [10:30] ("Council... not council, commissioner"), he likely serves on the City Council as well. * **Diane Johnson:** Identified as the person providing technical zoning and code reports. * **Derek Lundell:** Identified as the commission member referred to as "Dirk." * **Matt Findlen:** The applicant for the rezoning (referred to as "Matt" and "Mr. Finland" by the Chair). * **Dawn Lanning:** The neighboring property owner. * **Kelly and BJ Elvestead:** The owners of the Darien. * **Bruce:** Most likely **Brice Miller** (Fire Chief), or a commission member named Bruce. *** [0:00] **Chairperson**: City Councilman Montgomery to have an approval of the agenda. [0:04] **Derek Lundell**: So moved. [0:05] **Mr. Hema**: Second. [0:06] **Chairperson**: Approved by Derek Lundell, seconded by Mr. Hema. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Approval of minutes—everybody’s chance to read the minutes from last meeting. [0:40] **Derek Lundell**: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. [0:43] **Diane Johnson**: Second. [0:44] **Chairperson**: Motion by Lundell, second by Johnson to approve the minutes. Is there any discussion? All in favor? Oppose? Motion carries. Public input—there's no public input, so we won't even go to that. The next thing on the agenda is a public hearing on three-zone and a lot combination of parcels 525300020 and 010, currently zoned Urban Reserve, and is being proposed that they both be rezoned to B2 Highway Business District and combined into one parcel. Diane, can you enlighten us on that? [1:33] **Diane Johnson**: I'm going to give you a little bit of background. According to the land use plan, the B2 Highway Business District is appropriate at this location. Highway-oriented use is also compatible according to the comprehensive plan as stated below: The businesses should be those that benefit from Highway 52 visibility and the high volume of traffic between Rochester and the Twin Cities. The area should accommodate primarily retail and service uses rather than manufacturing and production businesses; it could be located in the city's industrial park. The area should provide the buildings that are too large and incompatible with the smaller scale commercial uses in downtown and convenience commercial areas of the city. And finally, the code states that the size of the lot meets the minimum requirements of the B2, which is 20,000 square feet. [2:35] **Chairperson**: Thank you. At this time, I'm going to open up the public hearing. Anybody wishing to address this rezone and lot combination, please come up to the mic and fill us in. [3:01] **Dawn Lanning**: All right. Dawn Lanning, and I own the property adjacent to the one larger parcel on the south side of it. Actually, this is kind of a rehash of a meeting we had two months ago when banks owned the property. You know, at one point that parcel was one big parcel that went across the service road, and the agreement that came out of that public hearing when banks owned it was that that parcel would be split between the east side of the service road and the west side of the service road, and that the east side of the service road would be zoned B2, which makes sense—it's next to Avalon, it's right next to the freeway like Diane said. But the parcel that was created on the west side of the road only two months ago would stay Urban Reserve because it is right between residential properties. The property to the north of this property is a residential property; that property owner hasn't been there that long, maybe two years, three years. He's put a lot of work into that property. I don't know if he doesn't know about this or doesn't care. I don't know how he feels. I don't go rallying around my neighbors; I don't have time for that. But I know how I feel, and I still feel the same way I did two months ago. It makes more sense—I totally understand a B2 district on the east side of the road because it's already kind of developed and that's fine. But to put B2 in between two residences devalues those properties in both respects. Whether I would ever want to make my land commercial, it still wouldn't have the value because it's a residence; they'd have to tear down a bunch of structures, they'd have to redo a bunch of stuff, they'd have to tear down a bunch of trees for me to use it as a business kind of district use. So there's no value there. And now if you put businesses right next to my property, it devalues my property as a residence because part of why I bought that place is I'm in the middle of a bunch of pine trees—very private. But when you put a business right next to my property, now it doesn't make it so private, so it would make it difficult and it lowers my property value as a residence. So I'm still making the same case that I made two months ago about not changing that property to a business zoning. The other problem with combining those two lots that have road frontage... there's also a third lot involved in this sale that he bought from banks, and that third lot is actually up on top of the hill. It is landlocked and it is zoned A2 in Cannon Falls Township. If you combine those properties and re-zone them as business, what happens to that lot in the back? There's no access; it's landlocked. Two different, totally different uses. So again, it doesn't make a lot of sense. There's a lot of trees; for any business to go in there, they'd have to tear down a lot of trees and I'm thinking that would be an environmental issue too. I don't know what Goodhue County's policies are, but I know when we were in Nininger Township, Dakota County had all sorts of things to say about removing a bunch of trees. It doesn't make a lot of sense on that side of the road just because of the way it's laid out. The residences that are on both sides of that property... it just doesn't make sense to make that a B2 district. Any questions? [7:29] **Chairperson**: Nope. All right, thank you. Anyone else here to address it? Matt, do you want to say anything? [7:44] **Matt Findlen**: Um, first just want to say that the reason we bought that property was to find some additional hunting land for my boys; I’ve got three sons. Realizing that the 13 acres is in the township of Cannon Falls and the 7.16 that I'm trying to rezone to B2 is in the city of Cannon Falls... so we can't hunt in the city of Cannon Falls. And therefore, you know, we did get an access point—a rough access point—approved by the county to go through the commercial property up to the township of Cannon Falls property, the 13 acres. And that's what we'd like to try and do. I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here, just if we can't use it for hunting, I'd like to see if there's something else we could do with it. [8:48] **Chairperson**: Come on up. [8:57] **Dawn Lanning**: To my new neighbor's point: I get that he wants to do some hunting; he can still do that without a B2 rezone. And he can still access the property on top of the hill without a B2 rezone. So the idea of rezoning this for hunting access again doesn't make a lot of sense for the rezoning. [9:30] **Chairperson**: So, as you stated earlier, it isn't landlocked then, correct? [9:34] **Dawn Lanning**: Yes, it is. The piece he wants to rezone is in the front of the piece that he wants to go hunt on. So he owns three parcels right now. Correct? So he wants to rezone the two parcels that are along the road, but he's not combining the township parcel because then he wouldn't be able to hunt the land at all. I think the B2 rezone doesn't accomplish what he bought the property for. If he bought it to go hunting, he can do that without a B2 rezone just as easily as he can now. So the rezone doesn't accomplish the purpose of the request. That is really what I'm getting at. Thank you. [10:30] **Chairperson**: Anybody else want to address the Planning Commission on this issue? Second call for anybody wanting to address this issue. Third call, anyone want to address this issue? I will close the public hearing. Council... council, not council, Commissioner... what I would like to say is: Matt—I shouldn't call you Matt, I should call you Mr. Findlen, right? [11:18] **Matt Findlen**: Tell me whatever you'd like. [11:20] **Chairperson**: Um, you have applied for a rezone, is that correct? And he got all the information paperwork filed? [11:26] **Diane Johnson**: He does, yes. [11:28] **Chairperson**: Under the laws or the guidelines of our comprehensive plan, would it be under that? [11:34] **Diane Johnson**: Yes, and the code. [11:36] **Chairperson**: We cannot turn him away—well, he meets all the criteria. [11:42] **Diane Johnson**: It meets all the criteria. [11:43] **Chairperson**: Okay, that's a good way to put it. And so by not allowing it, boy, we don't have any reason not to allow it because it fits in our plan, correct? I know, Dawn, I understand where you're coming from, but he has made his application legally just like everyone has to do. If anyone else or the rest of the commission wants to have their input? [12:50] **Diane Johnson**: With the application rezone, I know I have this concept plan or something here. That's just an idea, or is that actually...? [13:00] **Chairperson**: That's just an idea. So we're not actually... for any building permits or... no, that's just a kind of... [13:07] **Diane Johnson**: So it could turn out to be anything that is allowed within... basically what it shows, Diane, is that there is access. Yes, he did get a hold of the county, he got all of his permits for access, and that's kind of what that's showing you is he does have access. [13:25] **Matt Findlen**: As far as I did speak with the county and they said, "Yes, that should work." I didn't get any permits—oh, sorry about that—but they did set that point. It will work; it's 500 feet from another roadway, it's 200 feet from another driveway, so it will work and they will grant an access point there, but I did not get any permits or take it anywhere. [14:15] **Chairperson**: Okay, thank you for clarifying that, Matt. Thanks, Matt. Okay, so if we actually get to the point where we want to build something there, then it's another process that begins, right? So this is just a lot combination and a rezone. Diane, I thought the County does combinations, correct? [14:32] **Diane Johnson**: We send it to the Recorder's Office, yeah. [14:45] **Chairperson**: And I, of course, personally would love to see everything remain agricultural, but I understand that we are a city and therefore things like this happen. Anything, Dirk? [15:10] **Derek Lundell**: No, I mean, I think the lot combination just makes sense to put them as one. And yeah, if I don't believe you have anything planned per se, it's just for the future in case you were to want to. So yeah, I mean, seems fine. [15:35] **Dawn Lanning**: Just out of curiosity, if I ever decided I wanted to rezone my property to B2 if it gets annexed into the city—which eventually I'm kind of thinking I'm going to be fighting that battle as well—is a residence an allowed use of the B2? [15:52] **Chairperson**: Well, you'll have to make the application and then we go through the whole process the way we're doing it now. [15:59] **Dawn Lanning**: I'm asking for an answer to that question—whether I could still live there. [16:03] **Chairperson**: I can't answer that. [16:05] **Diane Johnson**: I'm not sure about the conditional use, Dawn, but that's something I can definitely give you a call tomorrow and we can talk through that if you want me to. To live in a B2 zone... the B2 ordinance is pretty big, but you and I can go through that individually tomorrow. [16:30] **Dawn Lanning**: And I can still live there? [16:32] **Diane Johnson**: We can talk about that tomorrow. [16:34] **Dawn Lanning**: And isn't Urban Reserve also an allowed use for this? [16:38] **Diane Johnson**: Urban Reserve is like a holding zone for lack of a better word. It's usually what they plan, but it is up to the individual owner. I know back in January when this one came up, that parcel still belonged to the banks and they had not sold it yet, but it has since been purchased much like the lot on the other side of the avenue. And the combination is just for the two parcels along the road and not the township parcel on top—it could not be combined with the township parcel. [17:37] **Chairperson**: Any other comments? Bruce? Pretty quiet. Well, I'm going to make a motion to the City Council that we accept Resolution 2022-06 to rezone it to B2 and to combine the lots. [18:13] **Derek Lundell**: I will second that. [18:15] **Chairperson**: Motion by Chairperson, second by Lundell. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carries. Okay, the next thing on our agenda is the Darien request. Kelly Elvestead is going to explain some ideas that she has for the Darien. Kelly, do you want to do that at this time? [19:11] **Kelly Elvestead**: Hi, I'm Kelly Elvestead and I'm here with my husband, BJ. So, I don't know if some of you know, we put the Darien on the market to sell earlier this fall. It did not sell, so we will be opening it up again. We have a few things that we would like to do. Originally, we were thinking maybe we should get a liquor license and all that kind of stuff, because that's what all of the buyers that wanted to buy wanted—was to make it more than it is, to give it more of a four-season life. From our understanding and talking with Diane, the conditional use that the property is on won't allow for any expansion also because of the zoning, which I totally understand, and also just the setbacks of the tiny little lot we have. We understand that it is what it is and that it would be spot zoning and all of that. So we are trying to give it new life with keeping with what it is, which is an ice cream shop. Personally, I don't really have a desire to run a grill anymore. We had an accident a couple years back that was super traumatic and I just don't want to have fryers anymore. One way that we can make okay money with just the ice cream, but to bring more people in, we've thought of bringing in food trucks. I don't know if you have some of the layout ideas that we've come up with, but we want to expand our eating area, our outdoor eating area to the south of the building towards our grassy area, and then the hope would be to bring in food trucks either as a semi-resident—you know, whether they'd come for like a week or two—to have that food truck park feel. I have gone through your food truck ordinance; a lot of it pertains to public land. In protection, a lot of these food truck ordinances are to protect restaurants from having competition park right in front of them, and ours is kind of the opposite request—we want to bring them in as part of our business. I think the only one that I could find is 121.14 which talks about licensed mobile food units operating on privately owned property located in a residential business district. Is that correct, Diane? [22:45] **Diane Johnson**: Yes, so that includes us. [22:47] **Kelly Elvestead**: So, a couple questions. With the food trucks, there are codes in here that talk about no overnight storage, but it does specifically state on public land. We want to make sure that we would be able to allow trucks to come in and park for a week or whatever amount of time we contract on. So that's the first one. Should we just talk about each point? Does that work? [23:36] **Chairperson**: Okay, so does the commission have a problem with the food truck staying there overnight? [23:50] **Diane Johnson**: It's 21.07; that's the one that talks about overnight storage. We don't allow that now on a public street. The one that we found that maybe we might have to tweak would be 121.17: "Mobile food units may not be located within 100 feet of any food service establishment." And the Darien, having a small restaurant license, would definitely qualify for food service. So it would be something where I don't know if you would want to get the temperature of the Planning Commission and determine whether or not you would want to do an ordinance change or request an ordinance change. Staff would recommend inviting all the restaurants in town to participate in the discussion, but that would be an option. [25:24] **Kelly Elvestead**: So in order to have a food truck on our own land within a hundred feet of our own restaurant, we would need to have a variance or an ordinance change? [25:35] **Diane Johnson**: Well, when Neal and I talked about it, we thought maybe it should be an ordinance change. The problem that we have is you're in a residential business district, but mobile food units cannot be located within a hundred feet of any food service, even though it's your own. There's where we would have to make that change. [26:54] **Kelly Elvestead**: It seems like it's not right, but that's what it says. I believe we are the only restaurant in a residential business district in the city. So, however is the easiest way to do it. [27:40] **Bruce (Brice Miller)**: So you would be the one operating the mobile truck? [27:44] **Kelly Elvestead**: I would contract with food truck operators. I would probably start with people in Cannon Falls trucks that already have licenses through the city. Start conversations with them: "Would you like to park here for a week at a time?" One of the things that interests them most is that it's not a "pick up and go" every day—that they can come plant their truck for a week between festivals. That's why food truck parks are popular. [28:40] **Bruce (Brice Miller)**: So the existing building would just be ice cream? [28:43] **Kelly Elvestead**: Yes, and then you would figure out what kind of food you wanted out of the mobile truck. It would rotate, which is part of what makes it appealing. People get variety. We want to keep that iconic Darien tradition alive, but to run a kitchen out of there for five months a year just doesn't work. For honestly, our accident changed a lot for us for me personally; I just don't want to run a grill anymore. Simple as that. [31:33] **Diane Johnson**: Since you're a non-conforming use, if you don't use it as a restaurant for a year, you lose your non-conforming use. [32:00] **Kelly Elvestead**: So by not running the grill, does that mean no one can ever run a grill ever again? [32:15] **Diane Johnson**: Kelly, I would not think so. We'd have to double check with our attorney, but you would still be serving food and you would still have that small food license. I can't see where that would cause you to lose that. [32:56] **Chairperson**: Concern is—and as you can see, I'm not against eating—if we decide to go ahead and change the ordinance and somebody comes up and buys it and turns it back into a grill, all of a sudden we're dealing with a different ordinance that we really didn't have in place in the first place. Changing it just for this one situation, I have a little bit of an issue with that. And you're talking a one-time thing and you're hoping to sell it, correct? [33:43] **Kelly Elvestead**: Yeah, but food truck parks are very popular. I can see how us making it that would be appealing to people because running the ice cream is a fraction of the headache of running the food. And being able to outsource that side of it and still be able to draw people in... and the fact that we would have a bigger eating area and all of that kind of stuff that food trucks can't have. The hope for us would be that having it be a food truck thing with the ice cream would be appealing to a different buyer. [35:05] **Chairperson**: BJ, you're here so you must want to say something. [35:14] **BJ Elvestead**: Basically, it's too small to really scale. You can't expand it. So the kitchen is... you can't find solid people that are going to run the kitchen because it's seasonal. You can't afford to pay them what they pay in any other restaurant. Everyone knows food prices are bananas, wages are bananas. The kitchen for us is almost a break-even. If we can figure out a way to still bring the people in for food and kind of off-hand that part of it to somebody else, we can compliment each other. We can keep it going. [36:00] **Chairperson**: So you need to figure out how many food trucks you can put within a hundred feet or outside of a hundred feet of the building. [36:12] **BJ Elvestead**: Zero. Our lot is so tiny; there would be no part where you can do that. [36:15] **Chairperson**: The bottom line is how do you... you can't really have food trucks unless you have the space and you don't have the space to get them outside unless we change that rule. And I see why we have the rule—you've got to be able to get a fire truck in there if there's a fire. [37:33] **BJ Elvestead**: I think the nature of the ordinance is to protect restaurants. That hundred-foot rule is to protect restaurants. There are no other restaurants to protect in that area. So if we're bringing it in, it just seems like without opening up other restaurants to having that issue... [38:18] **Diane Johnson**: We could make it specific, but again, it would have to be an ordinance change of some sort. We would have to go through the process. You guys do variances too. [39:05] **Kelly Elvestead**: Here you're looking to rent them space to be able to park; the whole point is to bring them. [39:20] **Chairperson**: It doesn't look like... having been to the Darien many times... is there any room to even put these trucks? [39:53] **Kelly Elvestead**: Right now our parking spots are straight in. The thought is to put this eating area over here so that when kids go over to the grassy area, they're not crossing through traffic. We would gain a parking spot with the way that it's set up this way. We could either put the food trucks right in here, or we could put them across here. I'm thinking two to three at a time. I don't want like eight food trucks. [42:11] **Chairperson**: My biggest concern is... yes, I know you're a taxpayer, but there are a lot of restaurants in town that would... while they're going to go out there and eat off that food truck, the food trucks are paying a $250 city license. I would like to see a blessing from all other establishments in town before I go ahead and make any decisions. [43:00] **Kelly Elvestead**: We already are competition! We already have a restaurant and we're just trying to replace that. [43:41] **Derek Lundell**: As a citizen, I think I would go there all the time because food trucks are the best. As a councilman, obviously there are issues with the ordinances. One thing—it's already the middle of April. If we're talking about changing ordinances, which takes time, we might not even get this done until their season's close to done anyway. And if brewsters or chuggers says, "We think we'd do better shutting down our kitchen and bringing a food truck in," is this going to open the door to something like that? [44:27] **Chairperson**: There was a big discussion a couple years ago when the brewery first came into play. All the restaurants downtown—Mill Street, Dudley’s, Brewster—said no food truck downtown. This food truck ordinance was a big compromise; it took a long time. We all love the Darien; we're just trying to figure out a legal way to do it. [46:44] **Chairperson**: Let's talk to the city attorney on that. There are a lot of rules on variances. Kelly, I'll call you or email you tomorrow. We all understand. [48:16] **Kelly Elvestead**: We have to figure out something or it's gonna close. And then who knows what it will be because there are so many restrictions on this property. Many restaurant owners were interested, and you just can't make it work. This is our idea to make it work. Either way, I do want to do the patio. Can we talk about that? [49:02] **Diane Johnson**: That's a zoning issue; you just have to fit the setbacks. [49:47] **Chairperson**: We would have to double check with the city attorney and see if we could make a variance work with this. I'm not sure to be honest with you; otherwise, we would have to probably do an ordinance change. [50:32] **Kelly Elvestead**: As a business owner, I feel like a variance protects the businesses better rather than changing it for everybody. [51:19] **Bruce (Brice Miller)**: I think it's a great innovative idea. You've got to be creative and try to make things work, and we'd like to see things work. [52:53] **Chairperson**: Anybody else have anything? [53:34] **Mr. Hema**: I’ll make a motion to adjourn. [53:36] **Derek Lundell**: Second. [53:37] **Chairperson**: Motioned by Mr. Hema, seconded by Mr. Lundell to adjourn. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.