This transcript appears to be from a **Planning Commission** meeting. Based on the dialogue, the primary staff presenter is identified as **Harry** (likely a City Planner or Senior Staff member not explicitly listed in the directory provided, but referred to by name by the Commissioners). Other speakers include **Allison Harwood** (Consultant), and several Commissioners identified by first name in the dialogue (**Tina**, **Steve**, and **Ed**). [0:00] **Chair (Planning Commission):** For me. Yeah, you got to hit the G. All right. Are you ready? Yeah. All right. We're ready for tonight's meeting, August 4th, for the planning commission. Just so everybody in the public knows that we are recommending committee to the city council. Nothing really gets decided here. It just gets moved on to the city council with our recommendations. [0:24] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Tonight we'll have presentation from the staff and then the commissioners here we will ask questions of the staff or even the applicant and then we'll open it up to public hearing. At that time for those that want to come up and have questions or make comments you just come up to the podium state your name and your address and then you can ask the questions. After the public hearing is done, we'll come back here for some more discussions and then we'll go through motion. [0:54] **Chair (Planning Commission):** So with that number two, approval of the minutes. Do I have a motion or any discussion? Do I have approval of the agenda? [1:12] **Commissioners:** All in favor say I. I. All opposed. [1:15] **Chair (Planning Commission):** All right. Approval of the minutes. [1:18] **Commissioner Ed:** Second. [1:19] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Right. Any discussion? All all in favor say I. [1:29] **Commissioners:** I. All in oppose. It carries. Approval of the minutes for July 7th, 2025. [1:43] **Harry (City Planner):** Well, the approval of the minutes. Yes. All right. Public hearing, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. Um, did it get—Sorry about that. Technical difficulties. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [2:00] **Harry (City Planner):** Thank you, planning commissioners. So, the first item in front of you is um submitted by Rice County. Uh, it's for comprehensive plan amendment, zoning map amendment, preliminary plat, and final plat. Um the location it's between 4th Street Northeast, 2nd Avenue Northwest, 3rd Street Northwest, and 1st Avenue Northwest. Uh it's a um for a property that's located here. It's just north of where uh the um downtown jail is for Rice County. Um and next to a few uh adjacent offices uh one of them being the soil and water conservation district, the other one being uh Rice County Friendship House. [2:42] **Harry (City Planner):** Here are the properties that are sort of under review and then the zoning map for the properties. So most of the properties currently PI or public institutional. the uh exception are the two properties the offices that are in the are in the bottom right uh the southeast those are zone CBD for the central business district or the downtown zoning district. [3:06] **Harry (City Planner):** The comprehensive plan is to change the land use designation for some of the property from institutional to downtown. Uh the resoning would do the same to change from PI to C central business district or CBD. And then the plat reconfigures those existing 12 lots into five lots. [3:26] **Harry (City Planner):** And here's what that would look like. The um uh the institutional is this blue color. Uh that's where PI or public institutional would be. And then downtown is this pinkish color. And that'll end up being uh on our comprehensive map designated as institutional and zoned central business district. [3:48] **Harry (City Planner):** Then here's the new lot layout. So um lot one um is the intent for that lot is to eventually be a commercial property. So you know some sort of office uh maybe even a a a commercial retail use. Uh lot two, I think in the future, is is intended to be some sort of parking lot. [4:08] **Harry (City Planner):** Um we're currently in talks with uh the county in order to uh take over that that potential property uh and put a parking lot on it. Uh lot three would be the existing uh jail and and sheriff's office. And then lot four uh would be for one of those office buildings uh that were mentioned earlier and then five would be for the other office building southeast corner. [4:37] **Harry (City Planner):** So the comprehensive plan uh the comprehensive plan amendment so staff supports that change to go from institutional to downtown. It's in a downtown adjacent location. Um the rezoning—we do believe that central business district is compatible with the adjacent PI and with the properties that are across the streets from this location. Um for the plat meet criteria for uh approval and so no parkland dedication is requested due to previous development on these properties. If you recall back in I think it was uh might have been 2022 2023 that there were a bunch of buildings that were previously on these properties that the county took down. Um we're counting that as uh towards their parkland dedication. [5:22] **Harry (City Planner):** So in summary the the requests meet zoning and and subdivision requirements. So, we're recommending that you forward all of the associated uh resolutions and the one ordinance that are in front of you to city council. [5:44] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Great discussion, questions, right? We'll open up public hearing. Anybody like to come up and ask questions? [6:00] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Well, no one is coming up from the public, so we'll go ahead and close public hearing. [6:12] **Commissioner Tina:** I'll make a motion five to approve. [6:24] **Chair (Planning Commission):** We have a first and a second. All in favor, please say I. I I all oppose. Same sign. That carries. Number two. [6:35] **Commissioner:** I'd like to make a motion to approve ordinance 2025. [6:41] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Reszone the property at the corner to central business district. [6:45] **Commissioner:** Second. [6:46] **Chair (Planning Commission):** I'll second. Second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. [7:01] **Commissioner:** I'll make a motion going quick. Let us carry the weight. Giving you gentlemen the opportunity to do that. No. All right. I'll make a motion to approve the preliminary and final thoughts for Henry M. [7:18] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Ed has a second. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. All right. Resolution B. [7:34] **Harry (City Planner):** Oops. B. Oh, item B on the agenda. Item B. Thank you. I'm still a little nervous up here. New new topic. [7:59] **Chair (Planning Commission):** It was there once. [8:16] **Harry (City Planner):** Item 3B, resolution 20. containers at 1512 30th Street. Applicant Michelle Keller of Living Green Farms is here with us. [8:57] **Harry (City Planner):** fully occupied by Living Green Farms. equipment left the building and what has happened is there within storage containers left on the property. Now there's a new proposal. [9:16] **Harry (City Planner):** There's another this dispensary energize that building. But while they're we're in the midst of exit the equipment somehow from we would like for a period of two years with the in a reasonable manner. Use is supported by the zoning and the use permit meets the criteria ofations. [10:07] **Harry (City Planner):** We are hoping you would support as to recommend the planning commission the interim use permit for two years. [10:18] **Chair (Planning Commission):** We have any questions for staff? [10:22] **Commissioner:** in the picture there was a lot of— [10:25] **Commissioner Tina:** I'm sorry to interrupt Mr. Mr. Chairman, I need to previously that Michelle Keller a little bit about the project before we discovered that it was in Farbo. So, I want you to know we ceased the discussion really didn't have much but to disclose that I've had that information. [10:51] **Commissioner Tina:** Sorry to interrupt you. One comment in the picture. There's a lot of garbage around those trailers. Does that get picked up as— [11:03] **Harry (City Planner):** Yes. In the resolution. The conditions of approval is that all of the materials they're currently stored outside. [11:14] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Any additional questions? Right. We'll open up the public comments. Um, if anybody has any comments or questions, please come forward to the mic, we'll close the public comment portion and bring it back here. And do we have any discussion questions? [11:38] **Commissioner:** If I could ask, um, so I'm understanding the licensure for the cannabis THC's not— [11:47] **Harry (City Planner):** It's in process. So, thank you for that question. So, just to be clear, this is an interim use the site and the container aspirations of the— [12:13] **Commissioner:** just make sure I heard you clear. This this container is strictly for equipment use. [12:19] **Harry (City Planner):** Yes. [12:20] **Commissioner:** Any other questions for discussion? [12:23] **Harry (City Planner):** This is a standard use for construction trailers in commercial property. They are on site with it's the expiration beyond two years which brings it— [12:55] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Any additional questions? Have a motion. [13:00] **Commissioner:** Approve the interim. [13:02] **Commissioner Ed:** I'll second it. [13:03] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Got the second. All in favor say I. I. I. All oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Item C. [13:12] **Harry (City Planner):** Mr. Chair, just give me a second while we switch computers. [13:32] **Harry (City Planner):** Okay. I'll be taken over as chairman for just this uh item C resolution. Thank you uh Mr. Chair. So the item in front of you all uh is um it's for Hoffmeister. It's a comprehensive plan amendment, a zoning map amendment, a preliminary plat, and a final plat. [13:51] **Harry (City Planner):** Uh the applicant for this project is Steve Underdall on behalf of Anne Hoffmeister. It's for a location on the south side of Frederickson Drive between Airport Drive and Hansen Court. Um, its location is here kind of near the uh the Harley-Davidson dealership out on the other side of I-35 near the airport. [14:13] **Harry (City Planner):** And then here is the uh property itself. So, it's this triangle-shaped lot that's outlined in yellow. Property is currently zone C2. Um, and you'll notice that it it abuts this residential neighborhood that's along Hansen Court as it turns into Hansen Drive uh out there by Park Village. [14:37] **Harry (City Planner):** The comprehensive plan uh requests us to change the land use map designation of the western portion uh to commercial residential mixed use. Uh the rezoning is to change that western portion of the property to R3 which would be uh medium density residential and then the plan would be to divide the properties in—or the property into three lots. [15:01] **Harry (City Planner):** So where the property would change in terms of land designation and zoning is on this western side here on the left-hand most side. So that orange section would become commercial residential mixed use. Um and it would become R3. The intent from the property owner uh as we know right now is that they want to actually build their personal home on this lot which is why they want to rezone it to residential. Um they're rezoning it to the same uh residential zoning district of the homes that are along Hansen corridor Hansen Avenue. [15:36] **Harry (City Planner):** on the red uh the portion of the of the property on the uh to the center and to the to the right hand side to the east that would stay that commercial land use designation for our comprehensive plan and stay C2 highway commercial. [15:53] **Harry (City Planner):** And then here's the new lot layout. So, this this lot one where the applicant intends to put their home would be on this western most. And then lot two, I believe they intend to um create some sort of commercial storage building in order to uh help with the nearby Harley-Davidson dealership. And then lot three would uh be uh open for development uh just like the current lot is for the comprehensive plan. [16:21] **Harry (City Planner):** staff does support that change from commercial to commercial residential mixed use for that western part of the subject property. Uh it's still consistent with both the commercial land uses that are intended for nearby as well as the residential land uses that are existing nearby. R3 is compatible with the adjoining residential subdivision as it's the same zoning district as well as the other land uses nearby and their zoning districts for the plats. The plats do meet criteria for approval and no parkland dedication is requested for this plat as the previous plat Hoffmeister uh third edition and the previous editions uh satisfied that requirement. [17:09] **Harry (City Planner):** So in summary, the projects do meet zoning and subdivision requirements. So we are recommending that you forward um the resolutions to city council recommending approval as well as the one ordinance. Uh the resolutions would be to change the comp plan and to approve the plats and then the ordinance would be to approve the R3. [17:30] **Commissioner:** Any questions for staff? R3 is that single family residential? Multi-family, right? [17:41] **Harry (City Planner):** So R3 is uh medium density residential. So, it's the same zoning district as the homes that are along Hansen Court and Hansen Avenue. [17:48] **Commissioner:** Oh, I'm just curious why it's if it's a single family residential, why is it...? [17:55] **Harry (City Planner):** Yeah. So, the whole reasoning behind that is because those adjacent properties are are zoned R3. Just mention it. Yep. It's it's just using the same zoning district as what's nearby to be consistent with those adjacent properties. [18:09] **Commissioner:** Any further questions for staff? I have one question. Is if this is single family dwelling that's going to be on here, is there any drawings to where the entrance to the property would come from to access the the the structure? [18:25] **Harry (City Planner):** We were able to look at some early conceptual drawings for it, but we don't—we don't have anything that's uh set in stone yet. I believe the applicant is still working on that final layout. The other part that really limits these properties is that they have a very small amount of impervious surface that they can even use across even just the larger triangle. So they're really trying to trying to be efficient with exactly how much impervious surface the home will take up the storage building and then what they think eventually might go on that smaller uh triangle lot. So they're very heavily regulated by that. any amount that they would have to go over, they would have to do some additional storm water management. And as far as I understand, the applicant is not interested. So to answer your question, no, they don't know yet, but they are very limited. And so they're they're they're changing their plans to try to make it work. [19:20] **Commissioner:** Thank you. Any further questions before we open up the public hearing? [19:25] **Commissioner:** Just for clarification purposes, with a lot size that small, how many units— [19:35] **Harry (City Planner):** Sure. That's a great question. I can do a little bit of research and then come back if that's appropriate. [19:42] **Commissioner:** That's okay. [19:45] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Any further questions? All right. We'll open up to public hearing. Anyone that wants to make a comment, please come up to the podium and state your name and address and love to take your input. You got to come up to the podium, sir. [20:06] **Arnold Gillan:** Thank you. My name is Arnold Gillan and my address is 2711 Hansen Avenue. Um, our property adjoins the back side uh of the current proposal here on the triangle. Can you tell me first off um property that would be the longest... I think it was parcel one. The longest piece, how wide that piece is. [20:47] **Harry (City Planner):** I can pull that up here. Mr. Chair, if it's okay that I answer questions as we get them, that's fine. [21:06] **Harry (City Planner):** Mr. Chair, I don't have the exact measurement, but we're looking at somewhere probably around 250, maybe 200 feet of street frontage. [21:20] **Arnold Gillan:** Thank you. That'd be on the north side of it? Is the 250? [21:22] **Harry (City Planner):** Yeah. Along Frederickson Drive. [21:22] **Arnold Gillan:** Thank you. So the purpose of this is to rezone—Hoffmeister is looking to build a home there in that... do you know there's a there's a tree line there uh between our property and hers about half and half roughly... you know if that tree line is going to remain? [21:51] **Harry (City Planner):** Mr. chair. So, uh, the applicant has indicated so far that they really want that that tree line to remain. Um, they don't want to take out any of those trees if they can avoid it. Um, so that's that's what I understand currently. [22:05] **Arnold Gillan:** Okay. Um, along that line, tornadoes hit there several years ago, several big down trees in a portion of that. any question or this goes through that that could be cleaned up a little bit. It's her property, but it kind of infringes on some of our properties too because those big trees, some of them are dead, some of them are down over onto our property is going to cause damage on our side. [22:45] **Harry (City Planner):** consideration to doing that, Mr. Chair. So, you know, generally when it comes to trees between property owners, that's typically a private property issue um to be dealt with between those two property owners. Um we can try to talk to the property owner and their contractor as they go through the construction process about any of those trees. Um but at—you know generally at the end of the day it is—is between two private property owners. [23:17] **Arnold Gillan:** So the the middle section is going to be used storage of her business there. Yep. That's what was described. Yes. And the third the smallest triangle portion of it is just helping to develop. Yes sir. [23:40] **Arnold Gillan:** There's a few folks here that live along Hansen Avenue. I don't know if anybody else has any questions, but that's what I had. So, thank you. Appreciate it, sir. [23:54] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Any further comments? This is your chance. We welcome. And if anybody's got a comment, this is the time before I close it. Seeing no movement, I'm going to close the public hearing and move it back to the commissioners for discussion. [24:09] **Commissioner:** I would like to wait. [24:27] **Harry (City Planner):** Yeah, Mr. Chair. So um there there are a few things to note specifically about R3 is that it is medium density. So we we are not actually talking about like a—like a full apartment building. you know, we're talking about something where generally the limited um what I would say would be the maximum would be is uh eight units um within one particular building. That could be attached town homes, that could be, you know, some sort of stacked uh setup, but that would be that would be eight units. Um, you know, the the limit for the entire property would be about 31 units across 3.5ish acres. [25:14] **Harry (City Planner):** Um, the thing that I'm I'm calling out here between the size of the property, the limitation on the number of units within one building, um, and you know, kind of how this works within our code is that if you do have multiple buildings on one lot, at that point, you do have to go through what's called a—a planned unit development or PUD. So, that actually is another public hearing. That's another set of requirements. Our code specifically does not allow multiple buildings, multiple residential buildings that are primary uses on one property. So, if this did become an apartment complex, I would imagine that they would not just do eight units and then call it quits. It's 3.5 acres. They would probably want to utilize more of the property. Um, so at that point, it would—it would go through as a PUD. There would be more review. there would be a full plan that would be reviewed. We're talking it's essentially coming up with their own zoning district. So, city council would be able to weigh in specifically on this plan. Public comment would definitely be taken during the public—answer that perfectly bigger in the future. [26:34] **Commissioner Steve:** Mr. Chairman, Harry. So I heard you talk about impervious surface. Um it's in shoreland overlay districts. So they only have a limitation or you talked about—So talk about impervious surface a little bit more. [26:50] **Harry (City Planner):** Yeah. So we're just talking about storm water uh and storm water storm water. So this is um you know part of more of—more of that side of it. It's not like—we're not even talking about zoning regulations. [27:01] **Commissioner Steve:** I was going to say I didn't think I read about shoreland overlay and so I was trying to impervious but it's part of the storm water management. [27:08] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Any further questions? We know I have—do we have a—a elevation diagram of this—this property because before that the—where this property's been before us before there was quite an elevation change and they were going to put in some fill. So, I'm just kind of curious where this elevation change in this—this property is, especially the lot one. [27:34] **Harry (City Planner):** Sure. Uh, Mr. Chair, I can pull up what we have uh with Beacon and and Contours. Is that kind of what you're looking for? Okay. Yes. Let me pull that up really quick. [28:17] **Harry (City Planner):** That's pretty. Sorry, Mr. M and C. You're doing good. I changed my settings, but I guess I did. Um, so I believe the contours I think are either every—they're every two feet. So what we're looking at is actually a pretty—pretty flat property where the elevation changes maybe the most is probably here along the property line where the trees are. Um, but generally, you know, looking pretty flat. [29:05] **Chair (Planning Commission):** All right. Thank you. That—the reason I asked for that is—is because it appears to me that I'm just guessing that Frederickson Avenue would be the—the point of entry to that, but that could change. [29:15] **Harry (City Planner):** Yeah, it looks like where Frederickson uh Drive is in the middle of the property's frontage, that looks like it's probably the highest. um but not by much compared to the rest of the property. [29:30] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Great. Thank you. Any further questions? Seeing none, I'm be moving for— [29:35] **Commissioner:** Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2025, a comprehensive plan amendment to guide certain property. residential mixed use. [29:56] **Commissioner:** Is there a second? [29:57] **Commissioner Ed:** I'll second. [29:58] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Been a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. [30:03] **Commissioners:** I. Opposed. [30:06] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Moving on to uh number two. I'd entertain a motion. [30:09] **Commissioner:** I make a motion to approve number two. Approve of rezoning. [30:15] **Commissioner:** There a second. [30:16] **Commissioner:** Second. [30:17] **Chair (Planning Commission):** There's a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. [30:21] **Commissioners:** I. Opposed. [30:24] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Passed. Resolution number three. [30:26] **Commissioner:** Make a motion to approve the preliminary. [30:30] **Chair (Planning Commission):** It's been moved and seconded. There any further discussion? Seeing none. All in favor say I. [30:43] **Commissioners:** I. Opposed. [30:45] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Carried. Uh, looking for the regular chairman and we're moving on to D. [30:52] **Harry (City Planner):** Uh, yeah, I can grab the chairman. There you go. Been so kind to me. [31:21] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Right. Item D. [31:22] **Harry (City Planner):** Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the uh last item for public hearings would be uh this ordinance to approve some zoning text amendments to the accessory structure requirements. Um this is a um request by city council to have staff and uh planning commission review uh discuss and recommend some changes to our accessory structure ordinance. Um this is coming from some recent variances that we've received uh that the city has granted. Um and city council have requested that we incorporate in some way uh these variances so that they could be by right um and that they be potentially uh allowed on on some larger properties that you might find uh in different parts of Farbo. [32:08] **Harry (City Planner):** Um there are a few other changes that staff has recommended and that we've reviewed at previous uh work sessions. Um some areas where staff has had some issues administering the code. Uh that applicants and the public have had issues trying to understand what the code is asking for. And so what we're hoping is that between uh the requests specifically from city council as well as some—some uh—I would say needed changes that are viewed at the staff level—viewed and requested by staff—that we would be able to—to bring forward a set of changes to the accessory structure ordinance that would hopefully make a whole lot more sense to people. [33:00] **Harry (City Planner):** So starting out uh the changes. The first one is to clarify what is area when reviewing principal and accessory uses and structures. So making sure that it is focusing on floor area and exempting uh some of the weird bits like—me—mezzanines um from being counted as floor area. We're just looking at essentially the footprint of either that floor or of the—or of the house. [33:28] **Harry (City Planner):** Um the second change is that there's allowance for the city planner to w—uh wave and I apologize I p—drave should be driveway requirements uh for accessory structures that are not built for vehicular access. Uh we've had a few issues with that where we've required somebody to build a driveway all the way to a structure that's never intended to have a vehicle inside of it. Uh they might want to use it as like a studio or something like that. [33:55] **Harry (City Planner):** Um, next change would be that there's an exception for accessory structure positioning on lots if there's significant shoreland, flood plane, steep slopes or bluffs on its backside or if the principal structure is more than 200 ft from the right-of-way. So, the accessory structure at that point could be closer to the road than the house. [34:18] **Harry (City Planner):** The next change is for property owners to have the ability to remove their garage. Uh which we have a lot of issues currently at a code compliance level. Um where code compliance would require that somebody remove their garage uh especially if it becomes dilapidated or—not safe to use. Um but our ordinance requires that they have a garage. But there are a number of people that are running into potential uh financial issues with that requirement and a number of people trying to—you know just be able to use their property uh in a way that's safe. So this allows for that and that would be unless they're going to remodel more than 50% of the floor area of that house or uh the 50% of the assessed value of that house. kind of two triggers that would require them at that point to bring a garage back onto the property. [35:19] **Commissioner Tina:** Mr. Chairman, I have a clarification. Go ahead, Tina. Harry, I—I—I might not have heard you correctly, so I just want to—under the clarify area when reviewing principal and accessory uses, I thought I heard you say area, floor space versus footprint or square footage. And so the footprint of a building could be different than the square footage depending on layers. So which one are you talking about? [35:50] **Harry (City Planner):** Yeah. And and I must have misspoke. I I just I couldn't—I was you were going so fast. I was like, "Okay, what did I hear?" So yeah, we had we had we had a lot of discussion about this. Uh it should be floor area. I apologize. So square footage as a whole versus—So whether it's one, two, three stories, I'm just saying, right? Yes. Versus the footprint. So we wanted to declarify area as the square footage of the entire home. Yeah. And that should be—that should be how it is written within the draft ordinance as it's proposed. [36:17] **Harry (City Planner):** You—the next set of changes. So uh clarification of requirements for different size accessory structures including greenhouses. So clarifying what are I guess the tiers of—of review intensity for an accessory structure. Um, as well as just clarifying that greenhouses actually can be different looking than the house. Um, which has historically been an issue. Um, clarifying what counts as a membrane covered structure and how that differs from carports. Uh, that's more of a code compliance thing. Um, but we've had a number of issues with people confused on this section of the code. So, this hopefully clarifies it for them. [37:02] **Harry (City Planner):** Um, another clarification regarding area when it—when we're reviewing attached accessory structures and uses. So, again, you know, making sure that we're reviewing it based off of floor area. Um, and that there is an exemption for larger lots to uh allow an attached accessory structure or use more to be larger than the home. Um, and then the very last uh brief change that I want to go over is the removal of the restrictions on wall height for accessory structures. [37:28] **Harry (City Planner):** Um, the two largest changes that—you know are probably of—of most interest to—you know plan commission members of the public that are here um and anyone that might be at home would be these—these two tables that I'll show. This first table is showing uh just detached accessory structural requirements uh sort of summarized for all residential districts. Um and it has a column there for one or two family residential uses, one for multifamily and then one for uh non-residential uses. [38:02] **Harry (City Planner):** So you know we've—we've talked about this a little bit as a part of our—our work sessions, but the number of structures has increased. the amount of floor area for accessory structures has increased. The maximum height uh for—for some of this has increased as well and making sure that the side rear and between structure setbacks are still appropriate. So um you know there is an exception there when we're talking about ADUs. ADUs end up being a different part of our ordinance. Uh but just making sure that it's sort of consistent across our ordinance that yes, you could have a second story ADU. Um that would allow you to go up to two stories. [38:48] **Harry (City Planner):** Um and then there's some clarification in here regarding when you have one accessory structure. As soon as you're at 1,000 square feet or more, you may have additional building code requirements that jump in as a part of being able to just build that accessory structure. So at that point, we end up deferring a little bit to building code, but we're essentially prompting people or warning people ahead of time, hey, there might be additional requirements if you go this route. [39:14] **Harry (City Planner):** And then the second—the second table which is added to the ordinance would be for detached uh accessory structure allowances for uh large single family lots. And so this applies when we start talking about lots of two acres, lots of five acres. uh those are kind of the two different thresholds. Um and so you know very similar things the number of in—structures goes up when we start talking about uh properties that are five acres or more. uh the amount of uh combined size, the amount of combined floor area for these structures is—it—it goes up from there and then the maximum height also does increase for these structures. [39:57] **Harry (City Planner):** Um because these structures can potentially be larger, there are uh larger setbacks assigned to um accessory structures that—that—that get to this point. Um, and then, you know, again, there's a—there's a note in here about, you know, accessory structures. Even if—even if we're talking about somebody's single family home, and, you know, it's not—not like a barn or anything. They just want a, you know, a big garage for, uh, a bunch of ATVs and a boat or two or whatever. You are still having to abide by building code. And so that 1,000 square foot limitation—u either as a—as a module as a part of a larger structure or—or when you're just exceeding that 1,000 square ft that—that still applies. [40:49] **Commissioner Steve:** Mr. Chairman, yes Steve question on this—on—on the rear of the structure, you got to limit it to 15 feet. If you're at—if—if you're going along the sides and you're 15 feet and if you have a—a roof and the maximum height of the building is 20 ft, how does that work? Because the peak of your roof is going to be 20 foot at the rear of the building. [41:09] **Harry (City Planner):** Sure. Commissioner White, when you're looking at side and—and rear, are you thinking that those are not setbacks that those are—those are talking about—Oh, I'm sorry. Setbacks. Okay. Sorry. Yeah, it's all good. I just—I just want to be sure where you're coming from. I was looking at height and I just went down. I'm sorry. It's all good. Uh we initially did have wall height, but we did talk uh planning commission uh in a previous work session about potentially removing that. So that is a part of the—the—the request in front of you. [41:44] **Harry (City Planner):** From the comp plan perspective, you know, it allows residential property owners to expand and invest in their properties um and their accessory structures with limits still. Uh so it does balance what we believe is uh property rights with community interests or to make sure that accessory structures don't dominate a property. And if you do have very large accessory structures, okay, well just make sure that you have a large lot. Um and that way the impact is lessened upon adjacent property owners. So it from the zoning side it does remove or minimize some barriers for property owners um but provides uh appropriate limits for those structures. [42:36] **Harry (City Planner):** So from a uh zoning perspective, from a comprehensive plan perspective, we do feel like uh it—it meets both. So we are recommending that you forward this ordinance to city council recommending approval. And I'm happy to take questions. [42:36] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Thank you, Harry. Any questions for city staff? [42:50] **Commissioner Tina:** Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. [42:53] **Chair (Planning Commission):** That's okay, Tina. We're excited. We like that. Pardon? You're excited. We like that. Just so everybody knows here, we've had a lot of discussion on this. That's why we're kind of excited to finally—Thought we'd already done the public hearing. My apologies. I'll open it up for public hearing. Would anybody like to come forward? All right, I'll go ahead and close public hearing and any discussion, questions, Mr. Chair. [43:17] **Commissioner:** Make a motion, please. [43:19] **Chair (Planning Commission):** We have a—We have a motion to approve ordinance approving a zoning text amendment to accessory structure required. We have a second. [43:32] **Commissioners:** Any more discussion, questions? All those in favor say I. I. Same. Any opposed? Same sign. Motion carries. All right. Item four, request to be heard. [43:48] **Harry (City Planner):** Uh, Mr. Chair, we currently do not have any requests to be heard tonight. [43:52] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Item number five, resolution for finding in fact records on Archer Data Centers. [44:00] **Harry (City Planner):** Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so you know just for clarification for everyone here tonight. So this is—this is a public meeting to review this um item. The chair does have the ability to open up for public comment. Uh but again just to clarify for everyone this is just a public meeting about this. Um and again this item is—or this—this body is a recommending body to city council. If there are members of the public that are interested in—in you know potentially asking questions uh there is another chance at city council in order to ask these questions and that will be next Tuesday. Correct. That is correct. Yes, Mr. Chair. [44:48] **Harry (City Planner):** Thank you. Um with that I am going to um hand it over to our consultant that reviewed the EAW that was submitted by Archer Data Centers on our behalf. [44:55] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** Thank you. My name is Allison Harwood. I am with WSB and I worked with the city to review the EAW for Archer Data Centers and bring it through the process. And so I'm just going to go through um a few of acronyms or terms that you might hear. Um been a little while since you've been through an environmental review. Um, so EQB is the Environmental Quality Board and they're the state in—they're the um body that oversees the state's environmental review program, though implementation of the rules themselves is passed down to local governments or responsible government units. [45:38] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** EAWS or environmental assessment worksheets um are a type of environmental state and environmental review that are typically completed for um projects that individual projects that have defined concepts—defined concept plans that exceed um some sort of designated threshold that the EQB and state statute set. [45:59] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** An EIS or an environmental impact statement um are—is another type of environmental review. It's a—a more rigorous type of environmental review that is typically reserved for um projects that have the potential for significant environmental impacts. So some examples of projects that have gone through—envir—um EIS processes include things like the the Viking stadium um interstate pipelines or large minimal mineral processes. [46:31] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** And then finally the term significant um in the context of this review means that it cannot be undone or addressed through other formal review processes. So the EAW or again environmental assessment worksheet um is a state environmental review document. Um it's a made up of about a standard 20 questions about basic project analysis and the purpose of it is to determine whether or not significant environmental impacts will exist as a result of the proposed project. Um and if significant environmental impacts do exist. Um the EIS process can be ordered or if they don't exist, if they can be um mitigated or minimized through other processes, then the EIS not necessary. They can also be used to identify mitigation measures for potential impacts. Um inform future permitting, planning and zoning decisions. And um an important thing to note is that an EAW or any environmental um review process does not approve or deny a project. It again is really simply a document. [47:47] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** So state statute, more specifically Minnesota rule 4410, requires environmental review for various types of development projects based on the type of development and the density for Archer data center. Um it specifically exceeded subpart 14 which is for industrial, commercial and institution. There are other um subparts um related to other types of development like residential or um water appropriations, things like that that also may require environmental review. But for this project specifically, it was industrial. [48:28] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** For that particular subpart, the city is the responsible government unit um and the owner of the document and then responsible for ensuring the completeness and accuracy of that document. The mitigation measures if there are any identified by the document um may be the responsibility of either the developer or the city as determined at the time of plan review. [48:54] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** So in general the EAW process consists of about four steps. So um the first step is that the responsible government unit identifies that a mandatory EAW is necessary. Again for this particular project it was um the industrial subpart that was exceeded. Um after that the RGU prepares or reviews an EAW. In this case the project proposer prepared it. The city reviewed it and determined for it to be complete and then that document is sent out for a 30-day public comment period. And for this project, that comment period occurred between May 20th and June 20th. [49:37] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** Following the close of the public comment period, the RGU then reviews—reviews the comments, prepares responses, and then also prepares what's called a findings of fact document. And then finally, the RGU makes a decision on whether or not the project requires additional review through that environmental impact statement. And that is either through a positive declaration, meaning they do require an EIS, or a negative declaration, meaning that not require an EIS. [50:12] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** Now, there are several topics that are covered in EAW. Um they range from everything from land use and water resources to wildlife habitat um to utilities and the transportation network. And during EAW development, there may be various studies and reviews such as traffic studies um that help identify the potential for impact. EAW might also identify the need for additional or future studies um that can be carried out then by the developers during preliminary and final design of the project. [50:51] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** So for Archer Data Center, this project covered approximately 84 acres and the proposal includes up to 500,000 square feet of data center buildings which would include up to six one-story buildings, parking lots, u utilities, storm water management ponds, a substation, and various landscape improvements. The construction would be expected to last approximately three years. [51:20] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** Um on these next few slides, I'm going to cover um not all of the topics that are covered by an EAW in detail because those are um included in your packet. I will cover some of the resource topics that um the city received comments on. And so the proposed development as you can see from this slide which shows the the general cover types on the site and then the um their acreages before and after the proposed project. Um you can see that the proposed development would primarily impact crop land and impacts to some of the other resources such as wetlands um woodlands and then the increase in impervious would be regulated by multiple governmental agencies. [52:05] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** In terms of water resources, that covers a variety of water resource categories such as wastewater, water use, storm water and wetlands. Um both wastewater and um water demand would depend on the type of cooling technology that would be used for the project would which has not been determined yet. Um depending on that technology, waste water could be minimal or close to nothing or they could um require waste water to be discharged from the site. In terms of wastewater, if there was waste jut water to be discharged from the site um as again to be determined through uh preliminary and final design, then additional water quality and quantity data would be submitted um to ensure that thereact to the wastewater systems for water use. Um the demand again would depend on what type of cooling technology would be used for that data center and the project is anticipated to utilize the water services. As noted there would be an increase in imperous surface and therefore the project would require to required to meet storm water management rules per both city and state standards. And then there were also some wetland impacts proposed which would need to be permitted and mitigated through uh both state and federal processes. [53:29] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** In terms of wildlife habitat, um there were proposed to be impacts to um certain types of habitat such as um forested areas and wetlands and those impacts would be minimized to the extent feasible and if needed there would be coordination with the wildlife service and DNR um to further ensure that those impacts are minimized. Proposed revegetation of areas uh would include native and non-invasive species which would promote um habitat availability to the wildlife that would return to the area. [54:02] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** Um the air quality analysis—will be completed during final design when they have a concept plan that um includes the locations of things like the backup generators. And depending on that analysis, the project could um require some additional permits through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for air quality um and could also include additional need for environmental review on um the results and outcomes of that air quality analysis. [54:35] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** Uh the project is anticipated to generate some noise by um a variety of means um both through construction as well as through traffic um the use of backup generators and then the ventilation systems themselves. And again there will be additional additional noise study that will occur um during final design once build project plans are available. And based on the results of that study, there would be noise attention measures designed to make sure that state and local. [55:11] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** The project would also generate traffic, but mitigation measures such as stop controls, um, turn lanes and traffic signals at various intersections and entry points would mitigate for impact any impacts to the traffic network. And then the project will um involve quite a bit of earth work about 93,000 cubic yards of earth work across the 84 acres um which would require an NPDES construction storm water permit from the MPCA and then also require the use of erosion control best management practices to from the site. [55:52] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** So, in summary, the EAW was determined um to be complete on May 14th, was then available for the 30-day public comment period between May 20th and June 20th. During that time, comments were received from nine members of the public and two governmental agencies, which included the control agency and the DNR. comments focused primarily on water resources, wildlife and habitat, air quality, and noise. And um an extension on the EIS need decision was ordered to ensure sufficient time for the proposer in the city to address those comments. [56:35] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** So based on the review of the EAW and the comments um the city's determined and found that the future reviews and approvals will be needed from a variety of agencies including core of engineers, the pollution control agency, department of natural resources, department of health, rice county and the city and through coordination of those permits and and approvals the city feels that impacts will be minimized at appropriately. [57:03] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** City staff further determined um that information available in the EAW and the response to comments has generated um information adequate to determine the potential that the cumulative impacts from this project as well as surrounding projects can be anticipated and controlled. that the government reviews and approvals mentioned uh will ensure again that the project is designed and implemented to minimize the potential for impact and that those impacts um that can be anticipated can be controlled um based on the environmental review as well as similar um experience on similar projects that because of that um significant environmental impacts are not expected as a result of this and I'm happy to take any questions on the EAW process. [58:05] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Um, one of the—any questions for staff or for the consultant? Go ahead, Steve. [58:11] **Commissioner Steve:** Just to get—and you said the EIS is not uh needed, but given the u fact that the plans have not been finalized for the backup generators, would that trigger the pollution control agency to approve any emissions off of those backup generators? [58:28] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** So that would be dependent on the results of that um air quality analysis that I mentioned. And so um depending on that air quality—a need for additional environmental review if it exceeds um thresholds that the PCA sets and that is the case then the PCA would initiate additional questions. [58:58] **Chair (Planning Commission):** We will not be opening up to public discussion at this time as—so again if you have any questions—items for discussion— [59:16] **Commissioner Tina:** I thought staff and consultant did a very good job of it. Um, it was a lot of pages to—what I mean my mind was thinking the same. So, I'm I'm happy with that. I'm really happy that we're—we're not the the final say. the reviews needed and we're just the first. I appreciate that questions. Want to say thank you so much for being so easy to work with. Wonderful presentation. I'll make a motion to approve back and record of— [1:00:32] **Commissioner Ed:** Second. [1:00:34] **Chair (Planning Commission):** All in favor say I. I. All oppose. Same sign. Yay. Have it. Routine business. Same thing. Mr. Chair. [1:00:48] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Oh, routine business. [1:00:50] **Harry (City Planner):** Uh, Mr. Chair, we do not need routine business tonight. [1:00:53] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Wonderful. Any board and commission updates or reports? [1:00:57] **Harry (City Planner):** Uh, Mr. Chair, at this time we don't have any updates. Uh, I imagine probably at the next planning commission meeting. Uh, once council's had a first stab at a few of these ordinances, I'll have more to report and ordinances and resolutions, I'll have more to report. [1:01:14] **Chair (Planning Commission):** All right. Do we have a motion for adjournment? [1:01:17] **Commissioner:** Move. [1:01:18] **Commissioner Ed:** Ed's got the second.