This transcript appears to be a meeting of the **Faribault Planning Commission**. Based on the dialogue, the context provided, and the specific names mentioned during the proceedings, I have identified the speakers (Commissioners, City Staff, and Public) as follows: **Commissioners:** Tina, Ed, Sam, Bart, Steve, Mike, and the Chair. **City Staff:** Harry Davis (Planning) and Leslie (Planning). **Public/Applicants:** Steve Underdahl (Consultant), Al Marada, Tiffany Sodto, and Sabrina Rooric. [0:00] **Chair**: 19th. Uh, item one on the agenda is approving our minutes from two weeks ago, the May 5th meeting. Tina's got a motion on the minutes as written. Ed's got the second. All those in favor of the minutes say I. Opposed? No. That carries. [0:18] **Chair**: Uh, for uh, every public hearing tonight, I'll just kind of say this now. This is how the thing is going to work. This is a big long agenda for us. So, even for us up here, this is going to be kind of a heavy lift. It's going to be a long night. This will be a couple hours. Everything on the agenda tonight is going to follow the same basic format. [0:34] **Chair**: So, there's three public hearings, but then each one of them has a series of resolutions that are that are embedded in the hearing. So, we're going to go over to our city staff. They're going to give us presentation, big picture overview. We're going to ask any clarifying questions we have. When that's done, we'll open up the public hearing. So, whether there's—well, yeah, I guess two of them have three motions and one of them's got six. But the presentation will cover, you know, everything in the public hearing. Uh so come on up. Uh we usually give the benefit to the applicant first or represent—uh representative of the applicant name, address, company you're representing, etc. Come up, cycle through one at a time, tell us your story. We won't interrupt you. You don't interrupt us later. That's the deal. [1:20] **Chair**: We'll give you at the beginning. Um when public hearing's done, then we'll come back up here. We'll discuss it. Somebody will make a motion to do something and we'll vote on the motion. We're an advisory board to the city council. So then that goes forward to the city council and you get to do the whole thing over again in a week and then we just move on to the next one. So everything is going to follow the exact same format. Here we go. Public hearing. First one up is the uh Blaze conditional use permit. That one has uh three resolutions to it. And we look to Harry Davis. [1:53] **Harry Davis**: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Working on it. It's taking a moment. I'm getting just the—So, I'll just kind of launch into it just a little bit. So, this is a item that is coming back to planning commission. Um, so the item was tabled at the very last planning commission. [2:14] **Harry Davis**: Okay. The planning commission supported or generally supported the request, gave staff some indications as to as to what they would like to see for findings. Staff has put together some amended resolutions, one amended resolution in particular. Um so the recommendations at this point would be to forward all three of the resolutions. Uh the first one which is the conditional use permit. Uh the last two which are for different variances. Um you know again city staff doesn't see a practical difficulty with this. So city staff can't support the request going forward. Um, but we understand that planning commission would like to see it going forward. [2:56] **Chair**: Do we have questions for Harry or Leslie? Sam. [3:08] **Sam**: Mr. Chair, uh, so none of this has been brought forward to city council because it was all tabled at the very last meeting. I think what you're talking about is that separate motion you had to get some direction. Yeah. That's not going to be coming for a while. That—that's not going to be in front of this. That's a separate discussion for later. It's not going to come before this. [3:32] **Chair**: Other questions for Harry? We'll open up to public input. Uh if we have Mr. for Blaze or any of the other neighbors. Again, public input on the Blaze conditional use permit and the CUP and the variance. Okay, then we'll shut down public hearing. [3:54] **Chair**: So, that's done. Back up here to the planning commission. There's three resolutions in front of us. The CUP, the variance for the front yard, and then the variance for the larger accessory structure than allowed. [4:10] **Tina**: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we send resolution 2025X approving a CUP for an accessory structure at 1216 First Street Northeast to the city council with the— [4:25] **Mike**: Second. [4:30] **Chair**: Mike's got the second. Tina's got the motion on the CUP as presented to us. We'll vote on them one at a time. All those in favor in the CUP say I. Oppose, no. That carries. Now the variance for the accessory structure in the front yard. Discussion. Motion. [4:45] **Tina**: Motion. [4:47] **Bart**: Second. [4:49] **Chair**: Bart's got the second on that one. Is there any discussion? We will vote. All those in favor say I. I. No. [4:54] **Chair**: That carries. Final one. [4:56] **Tina**: Mr. Chairman. Yes. I move that we send resolution 2025X approving the variances for a larger accessory structure than allowed and for more accessory use and structure area than primary use and structure, then send to the council. [5:15] **Bart**: Second. [5:20] **Chair**: Bart's got the second. Discussion on that? Did you have your hand up? It's fine. Then I'll go—I'll be voting against this one. Uh I was in favor when we talked last week I was in favor of creating a whole separate new zoning district that addresses lots that are larger than 5 acres and everything else. [5:42] **Chair**: We don't have that yet. So in absence of that, I concur with the staff report that there's not the variance requirements that we need to grant it. So that's—I just wanted to explain my vote before we voted on it. I'll be voting no for those reasons. Other discussion with the group? Steve. [6:35] **Steve**: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to vote yes. Uh, this has been before us more than once in my tenure on here. I can think of one is the Dubet um garage that was out on the southeast side of town. Probably wasn't as big as this, but it was close. Um, and I even had an extended driveway to get to the back of the uh residence. On my end of town, there's two homes with huge buildings. One was trying to be designated as a—as a horse barn and I know it was basically a wood shop. So you can say whatever it is but has it affected the neighborhood? No. Is it looks good? It's been up for sale once. The thing sold within a month. So I think it's in a great addition. Um the tax money that's going to be generated is going to help everything. So far as I'm concerned, yes. [7:22] **Bart**: Bart, I just want to clarify, is um Commissioner Green's question from last time going to be presented with this? I'll go to Harry with the clarification on—on how that's going to get in front of— [7:35] **Harry Davis**: Yes, Mr. Chair. So, uh this will be brought forward alongside these resolutions, that—that particular motion that was made. [8:00] **Bart**: I'm just wondering where the— [8:10] **Harry Davis**: Sure, Mr. Chair. I think that there is an issue with city council making a decision on a particular item before it's actually formally brought to them. So I think that's kind of issue one. Issue two, this is not something that we would, for lack of a better term, blindside city council at a regular meeting. It's more something that we would bring at a discussion like a—like a city council agenda session or work session. [8:51] **Chair**: Work session. Yes. Thank you. [8:53] **Harry Davis**: Uh that we would bring first at a work session or to talk through some of these issues before we went with some sort of formal vote. [9:02] **Chair**: Anything you'd like to add, Mr. Harry? [9:09] **Harry Davis**: Yeah, just based on my experience it could be a few months before that end because of the way their committee structure—you know the way their agendas are. I know the city administrators involved, the mayor's involved in the agenda setting for the council, but yeah, there's—I never had an expectation that it was going to be in front of the council before we saw that, that's just not how the city works. [9:39] **Harry Davis**: Uh Mr. Chair, just to go on a little bit further, so the city administrator wants to understand a little bit better about what's—what's going on an agenda before it even gets to city council. So there's some discussion internally within staff as to how is this presented? Is it presented in a certain way in order to try to have council, you know, for example, there's an EAW coming up. Well, we might want to explain a little bit more about what an EAW is before we even get into here's exactly what's—what's coming. So staff needs—needs some time in order to kind of work through any particular complications that might arise by just you know just taking a—taking a—a particular concept and then just kind of throwing it at city council. [10:19] **Tina**: Mr. Chairman, I made the motion because this is the way to bring it to the city council as quickly as possible because now they have to address our recommendations as they go forward and they're going to recognize that we don't have what it is that we need to pass it within our regular rules. And so by making the motion to approve it and send it to council, it introduces the concept and the idea to them and then can follow up. It leads into future work session. This is putting the—the issue front and center in front of council. [11:00] **Chair**: Other discussion? Sam. [11:10] **Sam**: I absolutely agree. [11:20] **Steve**: Yes. [11:25] **Ed**: Yes. [11:28] **Bart**: No. [11:33] **Chair**: I want to see that um—not wanting to approve it, but other discussion. I'll just add I'm not confused. I—I—I know what I'm voting on. I don't think it necessarily looks messy. I understand what everybody's saying. I don't think there's a great deal of contention here. And maybe we could have done a better job explaining it two weeks ago, but I mean, as I'm running through my head, DRC's got to look at it. It's got to wash through the city attorney. I mean it would just be weeks before—and maybe we could have done a better job of explaining—and you know I'll take the blame as that as chair you know when we process with a motion I could have done a better job setting the expectation on the time. So we've got the motion, we've got a second, we've had some discussion. Anything else? We're ready to vote. All those in favor of Tina's motion signify by saying I. All those opposed no. [12:16] **Chair**: Unless anybody thinks otherwise, it passed 5-2. We're done with 3A and that goes to city council eight days from now. [12:24] **Harry Davis**: Yes, Mr. Chair. [12:27] **Chair**: Excellent. 3B. Mighty Fine Coffee. Comprehensive plan amendment, zoning map amendment, preliminary plat, final plat, variances, conditional use permit. And again, we look to Harry Davis. And before Harry even starts, a reminder Bart's got a conflict, so that's part of why he just left. So he won't be part of this discussion. Harry. [12:48] **Leslie**: Mr. Chair, I—Good evening, commissioners. Just presenting to you Mighty Fine Coffee at 127 34th Street Northwest. Before you, you will be reviewing and making um recommendations for a comprehensive plan amendment, a zoning map amendment, a preliminary final plat, separate variances and two conditional use permits. Applicant is—Mr. Steve Underdahl is here on behalf of Nathaniel Cunningham, owners of the property, to permit a construction drive-thru coffee shop. [13:49] **Leslie**: Note that the applicant property is within the context of largely um residential to the southeast, industrial to the developed two separate parcels. We combined the one—the eastern boundary—vacant for a few years. The part west was a site of a former businesses and has had very many proposals. A large portion of the property has impervious surfaces and drive-over curbs to access. As you can see, there is an existing sign that is to be removed. Um, the structure is proposed to be reused. Residential roof line which neighborhood which is faint. So I'm hoping you'll follow concept. This is—if I start—I'll start north and go to mention the previously um was to be removed. This would be green space. [15:35] **Leslie**: There will be East. The structure will be reutilized and reconfigured um with an internal for both the drive up access 14. There is a drivethru on the caration purposes and parking which would follow along to access parking for both customers. Need to exit the site directly westerly utilizing this drive-thru is the required ADA parking. It is very compactly. The particulars of the site which are going to be considered is due to um whether this is feasible. The typical setback for parking and drive aisles is 10 ft because of the design. This somewhat limits the ability to tighten up. So the drive pushed at the very tightest portion four feet to the property. Really is no wiggle room for that to accommodate between the adjoining residential properties. [17:47] **Leslie**: Uh put privacy fences. The balance of the site that is not is proposed to be landscape and to accommodate storm water management and in detail in your packet and by the city engineer. Further for your review in the site—as I great detail—there is an existing easement um private agreement easement between this property owner which is a residential property and the property in the property owners. And essentially what happens is there is parking that was previously agreed to um that is not um imposed on by the commercial aspect. So that is a standalone. What further constricts the—but there we have found that there has been some construction the residents over the property lines which is—so it's highly unusual sometimes—but the easement will allow we consider existing nonconformities to request before you tonight. [18:50] **Leslie**: As I mentioned, the comprehensive plan amendment will be the first recommendation we have is established residential neighborhood and we are proposing and the applicants proposing a commercial residential. And while one would say that the—the neighborhood is substantial um because established streets and so near other commercial and business properties kind of thread the needle and be a little bit of a—if you want to stop me anytime that's fine. Secondly, the variances because complexity and the order of stacking of this deck there are variances that must occur in advance of other motions. [20:00] **Leslie**: So in for the first two variances that we're proposing that you consider would be um prior to the preliminary plat which would be the—the variance issue is lot area that's smaller than the minimum. The requirement for the C2 um district is 20,000 however because of the nature of the construction there really is no additional land area the proposal is 16,800 which is a very square feet and staff properties also within the shoreland overlay district. There is a surfaces proposal right now with all of the the extra um impervious to this property is variance of 4,000 477. We also provided this table for you for your review. [21:07] **Leslie**: And if I can go—so as we've noticed the there is a—a we feel is necessary or should be considered because the area right now is already % impervious surface on it and you add impervious surface of the paved either parking or structure. If you were to look historically at the residential park parcel before the house there and just looking in consider places where people drive and parked and sidewalks that did need about a 25. You combine them and it reached 38%. So while the increase is beyond the 25% it's logistically only a 14%. And in your packet you'll see the the nature of the methodology that the applicant meet the storm water requirement and to meet and ex and exceed. Might I add they are here today should you have questions. [22:20] **Leslie**: Preliminary and final platination of these two parcels. Dedication of easements create one subdivision one lot from two. The zoning map amendment request to change the existing zoning from a C1 neighborhood commercial to a C2 highway commercial. The differences there is the addition of the drive-thru which um is the distinguishing factor in in changing that zoning district two which we bundled together. One conditional use permit is required for a conditional use permit in the C2 highway. So even though we requested the—the zoning map amendment, it isn't free and clear until the conditional use permit is applied for. The findings are there to be supportive of that measure. [23:24] **Leslie**: Additionally, a conditional use permits for a drive-thru which is required by the property being within the shoreline district. So if you see the map above right there is location of the property. So it's well within there. And last but not least, variances specific to the property that I mentioned earlier when we were talking about the site plan. The—is constricted by logistically show requirement of 20,000 square feet proposal 16,000 other the impervious surface ported in the—Hope I did that slide. Sorry guys. Um, so the other one is the less than 10 foot setback for parking and the reduction of stacking space. [25:00] **Leslie**: Now this is considered while one might say that well we probably could cram cars in and we could probably have another car in there. Um, our ordinance does restrict car lengths to be measured at a 20 foot length. So also we're requesting the request of variances three cars before so that cars are not allowed by the design of this site plan to park on top of the pedestrian walkways either entering or as I mentioned. This is the additional site is the exhibit of the easement from agreement which this is how this photo for um what is have occurring on site which will be largely allowed to remain. Seeks multiple approvals for the purpose of redeveloping property through these structures and applicant has provided a project site to demonstrate there is adequate program what they're proposing the vehicle circulation. [26:10] **Chair**: There's a lot to unpack here. There's six separate motions. Uh very thorough presentation. Do we have questions for Leslie before we go out? I don't mean to jump first. I usually wait. But so my question, can you pull up—is it going to be easy kind of an area zoning map? Uh cuz it's one of the lots is currently C1, one of them's residential and the request to go to C2. What I'm worried about is it a spot zone. What's the nearest C2? Harry might be able to answer it for me. [26:56] **Harry Davis**: Yeah, Mr. Chair, we can we can answer that. So Leslie actually found in the middle of that the other property was actually—both properties are—we don't really—if we get more into the spot zone if we talk a little bit more overall the land uses that are involved I—I think generally it's a little bit more generally when we're looking in terms of spot zoning. [27:34] **Chair**: Can I still see a zoning map though? Because I—I want to see what the old Farbo Foods is. What Farbo Woolen is? I just—I Are you able to see it? Okay. Is that—is that the best we're going to get? Okay. So, yellow is our what? Probably R2. And the light purple, which appears to be Farbo Foods, is light industrial. So, there's no C2 anywhere in the neighbor? South maybe. I'm curious. Oh, what is—remember we did the—the old Kwik Trip which is now under construction as a laundry mat. Is that a C1 or C2? [28:13] **Harry Davis**: That is C1. [28:15] **Chair**: Okay. Thank you. That's—helps me. Okay. Other questions for these folks? If not, we'll go out to public hearing, public input. I know Mr. Underdahl is here. I don't know if the applicant's here. Oh, right in front of us. Uh, that podium right there. [28:49] **Steve Underdahl**: I'm representing your project here and I put the—and for any questions that you might have. [29:00] **Steve**: Uh, Mr. Chair, question about a C2 to the north where the Kwik Trip is right now. [29:07] **Harry Davis**: That is a C2 zoning. Closest one I can think of right now. [29:15] **Chair**: Do we have any questions for Steve while he's up here? Thank you, sir. Anyone else from the public that wants to talk to us about this one? [29:26] **Shep**: Sir, Jeep. I'm a resident here in Faribault and thank all of you for considering it. Been amazing representing. Probably would have left by now if—I just want to see their business do well and I want to encourage all of you to do whatever you can. [29:55] **Chair**: I just need an address for the minutes. [29:58] **Shep**: Oh, I'm at uh 112 3rd Street. [30:00] **Chair**: Okay, thank you. [30:01] **Al Marada**: Hi, I'm Al Marada. I'm on 14th Street, just a few doors down. Uh 17 to be exact. Uh just to shed some color commentary on—on the area there. Uh I drive it every day. Uh constantly aware of traffic in there. This would just be a dramatic improvement to the entire area that quite frankly that building right there is an eyesore right now. It's allowed to be run down and up and down the street. There's positive feedback for uh coffee. Thank you very much. [30:44] **Tiffany Sodto**: Um we're residents of 111 4th Street. Um, and we're in favor of the coffee shop. Um, our concern would just be during the construction. Um, at what point would the fence be put up? Um, we have children that live there as young as 2 years old. Um, so we're just wondering like as far as when the—the fence would go up, could it go up before any of the big machines and construction start? [31:13] **Chair**: I'll let our staff try to answer that. Usually the fences are more towards the end, but it can vary. [31:25] **Leslie**: I'm actually gonna pivot that to the—the applicant. If it's a decorative fence, those are put up as part of the finishing requirements before the building interior remodels would get a condition—a certificate of approval. However, if there is any protections or construction fencing, I'm sure the applicant would be willing to consider something like that. [31:45] **Tiffany Sodto**: Yeah, we—he's right there. Perfect. Um, we—we host a lot of events. That's—um—that's my parents' house and we host a lot of events. Um we have the—the large yard that is—um—and so we do have a lot of people come over. So if it—if that is something that can be— [32:10] **Chair**: Before you leave, I just also need your name. So, one person gave me a name, no address. Now, I got address and no names. I just need both. [32:20] **Tiffany Sodto**: Tiffany Sodto, thank you so much. [32:25] **Chair**: Uh, and also for the record, there was a series of head nods uh in—in basic agreement to that part of the conversation. But, uh, okay. Other public input on this one? Want to shut it down early. Good. Once the door is shut, it's shut. There you go. [32:36] **Sabrina Rooric**: Sabrina Rooric at 318 Central Ave. You're welcome. Um, Mighty Fine Coffee. I've only known about them for about a year, but I do know that they're military. I had no idea about most of the veteran projects and ideas within Faribault, similar to my friend Shep. Didn't really want to stick around Faribault, but these guys have made it a bit more of a home. Plus, coffee. Can't really go wrong there. Um, so I'm in favor big time. Thank you. [33:20] **Chair**: Anybody else? Okay, now we're going to come back up here to the planning commission. Thank you on public input. I doubt we're going to go back out now. We got six separate resolutions. I don't care how we do it and what we can discuss everything globally, but we need these resolutions in that order as Leslie laid out when it gets to do that—of discussion. Steve. [33:49] **Steve**: This is for staff. Was there any discussion about—this intersection is highly—is a high amount of traffic and you have a warehouse across the street that semis actually go out into 14th Street to back up into the loading docks. And my concern is this um drive-thru is less than two car lengths away from the—the uh the entrance to the intersection or the crosswalk. And I just—I a lot of times I can see three to four cars backing up on the stop sign and I'm wondering how this is going to work. Is—is there a point at some point to restrict this to a right turn only or that's not even been thought of? [34:35] **Leslie**: Restricting traffic onto Second Avenue or restricting—you mean the exit drive onto Second Avenue? [34:55] **Steve**: This is—this is exiting onto 14th Street, correct? [35:00] **Leslie**: The exit from the drive-thru exits onto 14th Street. The exit if it were to—if they were to pull out of the drive-thru lane or leave the parking area, they would exit onto—onto Second. So, there's two egresses, right? Here, you go out. This is Second. This is 14th. [35:25] **Steve**: But she's saying there's two. But the door to pick up your coffee is—if you're going to pick up the coffee, you would have to exit onto 14th. [35:35] **Leslie**: Correct. That's correct. That is correct. [35:38] **Steve**: Through the drive and that's where 90% of the traffic is going to be. I mean, you're not—let's face facts. [35:45] **Leslie**: So—so staff did you know have some discussion about this at our—at our review committee meetings and the primary—while that—that is one consideration too, having a right-hand turn only was not a discussion. We did talk about having additional signage to make sure that there is adequate um caution in exiting the drive-thru since it is somewhat of a blind corner the building. That's was another concern too. Um but your point is—is taken. So that is—has not been—was mentioned by the city engineer or—because just it's an extreme concern because part of the issue is you go—it's that area to the north is a racetrack and then it goes to a left turn and right—the right lane is supposed to go straight ahead. [36:32] **Steve**: And I—I'd say on—on a month I see six to eight cars that are in the left turn lane well over 30 miles an hour rocketing right through that left turn lane and signage and direction is poor at the—at the least. But the amount of traffic that's on 14th Street and the amount of is unbelievable. I mean, people use—they'll cut up and go through Central to avoid Second, and they'll go up 14th Street to go Shumway to avoid the city. So, there's—I mean, I like every aspect of this thing except for that fact that it's exiting on a really bad intersection. [36:54] **Tina**: Mr. Chairman. Um I was actually quite thrilled to see the redevelopment of this parcel. I have traveled this road frequently um getting out to the fairgrounds to the ice rink to Menards to the—the Kwik Trip and um I think that they've been creative in finding a solution for um redeveloping a to me a blighted parcel and I appreciated the fact that the DNR wrote a—that are saying that the—the variance request for impervious surface that they were okay with that because that's not common for them to agree to changing impervious surface. And so I just felt like there was um a lot of effort put into this to put it together um the concept of redevelopment. How do we make this work? And I just want to say kudos to staff working with the applicant and packaging it together for redevelopment of what is a blighted parcel. [38:16] **Sam**: I got a question. A couple questions about the location of the—would be the uh order space where you drive up and order. Um since these do they do tend to make a lot of noise and they are surrounded by houses on three sides. That brought up by anybody or any concerns from any city residential units there that the speaker going off at 6 in the morning—five in the morning—is going to make a lot of noise? [38:40] **Leslie**: So the discussion was held with the applicant's representative about noise. So by our ordinance the speaker has to be positioned so that it's away from the residential neighbor and so if you look at it it's positioned toward the building. Um they have the ability with the technology today to monitor the sound transference from the order board itself. They're simply approving a loudspeaker and them having the opportunity to have a voice command doesn't mean it has to stay that way. You know, if you—there are other opportunities in other drive-throughs where menu boards are simply that, a menu board and then you drive up and order. They would like the opportunity to be able to have the lead time to prepare the coffee. Um, you know, and one thing also to consider is because it's a coffee shop, it's a little bit different than a food generating restaurant where you're going to be having a little bit longer lead time. So hopefully we're considering the idling time of—of an engine to be somewhat limited or reduced than a typical drive-thru restaurant. But um your point is well taken and I'm—if I'm understanding the applicant from what they've suggested to me that they wanted to have the latitude to keep the ordering portion of the board. But please remember our ordinances do touch on becoming a nuisance to adjoining neighborhoods. So should it ever become an issue, it can be brought back to staff and to our code violation officers and we can investigate and have more discussions. [40:50] **Chair**: Other discussion? I'll go. Um, doing this long enough, always in the back of my head, I just kind of have this motto: Try to find a way to Yes. I'm trying to get to yes on all six. Having trouble with some of them, but I want to get there. You helped me quite a bit on the rezoning. Uh, because I would have preferred to see it stay C1, but if it's got a drive-thru, it's got to be C2. I hate spot zoning, but where else in town would you be across the street from Light Industrial? So that—that gives it the uniqueness, I think, to get me to Yes on that one. [41:28] **Chair**: Uh, as far as the comp plan stuff, I mean, I was in all those meetings. That has been a business my entire life. I don't know how long it was a laundromat, but was it like neighborhood grocery store or something? I mean there that has always been some sort of business at that corner. So comp plan, that's an easy yes. I'm just kind of you know checking the boxes. The impervious surface, I think Tina made a good point. If DNR is fine with it I'm fine with it. I usually kind of really dig my heels in on that. The rezoning I'm getting there and if I get there on the rezoning then everything else falls into place. Uh, I also think had there been a handful of neighbors showing up saying, "I don't want cars idling. I don't want the noise. I don't want this. I don't want this. I don't want this." If I heard those, that would have influence on me. But I heard the opposite. I heard neighbors saying, "Hey, this is going to help fix the neighborhood." There are times this system works, and today's one of them for standing up and saying so, thank you for coming down. I think I'm getting to yes. Tina, go ahead. [41:52] **Tina**: Mr. Chairman, I—I think to maybe to answer the question on the noise, that privacy fence being as tall as it is is going to be a shield because the noise is going to bounce back. I think that's really going to help with the neighboring. That and the fact that um the one neighbor mentioned that they're—they have a large yard in between them and where the drive-thru is. So yeah, so I think that helps is the—the fence. And I like the—personally I like the idea of being able to order and—and not have to wait and hold the whole line up because I think that backs it into the street. But if you can order, by the time you get there your coffee's ready, pick it up and go. [43:08] **Ed**: Ed's got his hand up. Just to piggyback on that just question is what's the general hours of operation? [43:24] **Leslie**: I say it was—there will be some time that staff is there fairly early part of the roasting, thinking the typical 6:00 a.m. to—I want to say no later than 8:00 p.m. at night. [43:41] **Chair**: Okay. Uh other—I guess I'll just take the floor real fast before other discussion. I heard Steve's point on the traffic at—at Second and 14th. Closest I ever get came in my life to getting flattened on my bicycle was that intersection. Exactly what Steve was talking about. Somebody straight through the left turn line. That intersection is terrifying. But I don't think we can expect these guys to fix that. That's not their problem. But I—I hear Steve and—and I think where I would take solace is if there are people pulling out of that drive-thru and it's kind of a blind and they're getting people smacked, if they're seeing their customers getting hit or there are problems with the sidewalk blockage, just trying to kind of play worst-case scenario here. But if there are those problems, that can be revisited as we—as you know, it would be something the business would revisit, but they clearly don't want their—their customers getting hit pulled out of the parking lot. Other discussion with the group? There are six motions. We should divide the labor. Sam. [44:57] **Sam**: Move to approve the comprehensive plan amendment for the property at the corner. [45:10] **Chair**: That's the motion. Second. Tina's got the second. That's on the comp plan amendment. Discussion on that motion. All those in favor say I. No. That carries. Now the resolution. That's the variance on the impervious surface and—oh, of course the coverage. Thank you for that. Yes. [45:35] **Sam**: (Motions for approval). [45:45] **Steve**: Second. [45:51] **Chair**: Steve's got the second on that one. That's the impervious surface and the always important cover. Got a motion. Got a second vote. All those in favor say I. Post, no. That one carries. We're done with that one. Now this is the rezoning to C2. [46:11] **Tina**: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to um send for approval ordinance 2025X approving the rezoning certain properties at the corner of 2nd Avenue Northwest and 14th Street Northwest to C2 Highway commercial. [46:27] **Sam**: Second. [46:29] **Chair**: Sam's got the second. Got the motion and the second as presented. That one on the rezoning. All those in favor say I. Those no? [46:42] **Steve**: No. [46:45] **Chair**: That carries it for the rezoning. Now preliminary and final plat. Harry just—can I get some clarification on the no? Steve had the no. Doesn't have to. [47:00] **Steve**: I don't have to, but I will. The—the traffic I think is—is a serious consideration and given the C2 and the fact that nobody addressed the issue of the traffic, that's why I'm voting against that. [47:12] **Chair**: Okay. Now, preliminary final plat motion. [47:15] **Mike**: Make a motion to approve. [47:20] **Ed**: Second. [47:25] **Chair**: Got the plat motion. Ed's got the second on the plat motion. Discussion on the plat motion. Vote on the plat motion. All those in favor say I. No? [47:40] **Steve**: No. [47:42] **Chair**: That carries. Steve's got the no for—excuse me. That was four. Five. Now we're at the conditional use permit uh for C2 and Shoreland Overlay district. [47:50] **Sam**: (Motions as written). [47:55] **Tina**: Second. [48:00] **Chair**: Tina's got the second. We're clear on the motion. Is there discussion on the motion? We'll vote on the motion. Say I. All those opposed? [48:05] **Steve**: No. [48:06] **Chair**: No. Carries. Final one. Variance for parking area setbacks in drive-thru stacking spaces. [48:10] **Tina**: Make a motion to approve a variance. [48:15] **Ed**: Second. [48:20] **Chair**: Ed's got the second on it. I'm trying to get to Yes. I forgot about this one. Leslie, just remind me how—how big is that variance again? Just give me the variance overview. [48:29] **Leslie**: The setback. So there's a 4 foot setback instead of the required 10 feet. And then the stacking—so it requires four and and they can squeeze three. [48:52] **Chair**: Thank you. Okay, we've got the motion, we got the second. Is there discussion on it? We'll vote on it. All those in favor say I. All those opposed, no? [49:10] **Steve**: No. [49:12] **Chair**: No. Motion carries. Thank you folks. Same thing eight days from now. City council. Final one up this evening. Malica Auto Body out on 20th Street. This one's—Bart needs to come back in for this. Bart, go hunt down Bart. Thank you. [49:49] **Chair**: Okay. So, Malica Auto Body, uh, it's a vacation preliminary final plat. There'll be three resolutions there. Uh, I will just tap dance momentarily since we're losing about 80% of our audience and we're still looking for one of our commission members. Oh, okay. where we did find Bart. I honestly forgot about you, sir. It's a good thing that they mentioned it. I would have left you in the hall. [50:05] **Chair**: Okay, we're back to a full body. Malica Auto Body. I just mentioned it. It's a vacation preliminary final plat. Harry, you got this one? [50:18] **Harry Davis**: I do, Mr. Chair. Okay. So, the uh items in front of you are from Malica Auto Body. It's vacation, preliminary final plat, and conditional use permit. Um Steve Underdahl submitted this on behalf of the property owner, Malica Auto Body. Um their location is 190 20th Street Northwest. Here's kind of a like a general Google's map location map. Uh then the sorting of an aerial with the parcel lines outlined in yellow and then the zoning map. The properties are again outlined in yellow. [50:53] **Harry Davis**: Uh so it's right there at the corner of 20th and and 2nd Avenue. The request in front of you all today is—uh—the first one is to vacate a drainage and utility easement that's along the northwest uh property line between the two properties that they want to combine. Uh the proposal to combine those two properties. Um, you probably the easiest way to show would be these—these two yellow boxes uh to the north-northwest as well as this larger auto body shop uh parcel. And then the conditional use permit is for major auto repair uh which is only allowed by conditional use permit in C2 as well as within Shoreland. Uh this is just an exhibit just to show where the vacation area is. It's this—this hatched area. [51:40] **Harry Davis**: Um, and you can kind of tell between the lot that's on the outside of lot one block one. It's lot three. Um, it's the hatched area in between that and lot one block one. Uh, on the left is the preliminary plat. So, it kind of shows a little bit about uh the existing conditions for the property, but then final plat kind of clears all of that. It's really just focused on the property lines. It's actually really good representation of the difference between the two. And then this is a site plan and some building plans of the addition that they want to put onto the property. Uh it's not an addition to the main building. It's just an additional building. Um what they would like to do out of this building is do uh alignments for vehicles. Um they're looking at an addition of maybe—maybe a couple new employees. Um they are providing parking enough to satisfy that additional building as well as the existing uh development. [52:55] **Harry Davis**: Generally with uh the vacation there's uh really not a whole lot of issues with this. Staff—staff supports the request. Uh the preliminary and final plat uh we went through uh some iterations with the applicant and we've come to a—a conclusion of no issues with the submittals. Um, one thing I do want to note is that we are not recommending parkland fees for this. Um, not to get too far into it, but when you do the calculations of the additional commercial area and the removal of a house, which would normally be, I think, a grand in parks fees, uh, it's actually less of an impact for parks fees. So, we're not recommending—Yeah, I know. I could—I could get into it a little bit more if needed, but um... [53:40] **Tina**: Now I'm confused. [53:42] **Harry Davis**: Yeah. So, uh, generally we're just not asking for parkland fees as a part of this request or we're not requesting it or that we see a need for it. MnDOT does support the plats and has no issues with the plats as they're brought forward for the conditional use permit. The conditional use permit does meet the criteria and that's both for a uh normal conditional use permit within our own code as well as the heightened conditional use permit criteria um required for any property that is constructing within Shoreland. This property just barely gets within Shoreland and so we are applying those heightened criteria. Um, but luckily it meets all of those. In fact, the DNR has responded that they don't have any issues with the conditions. In summary, it meets all of our zoning requests or zoning requirements. [54:35] **Harry Davis**: So, we have three motions uh today for this particular item. The first one is to forward uh the ordinance, which is to vacate the easement. Uh, the second one is to forward the resolution to city council and that would be for the preliminary and final plat. And then the last resolution would be to forward uh the conditional use permit for major auto repair. Happy to take any questions. [54:55] **Chair**: Do we have questions for Harry on this one? Tina. [54:56] **Tina**: I do. Mr. Chairman and Harry, could you go back to the vacation plat where you showed the hatch line? So, it's been my experience that, you know, we see block one and it's lot five, lot four, lot three that they all have—they should have reciprocal easements for utilities so that in their lots also. So, shouldn't we be vacating the easement in lot three? Isn't there an interior easement in lot three on its um southern and and eastern boundary? [55:38] **Harry Davis**: Sure. Yeah, Mr. Chair. I can kind of answer part of that and the other one I'll actually direct towards the applicant. Um, so some of these older plats that we do find across Faribault actually don't have any—okay—easements on them. And so I think that this is that particular case. Uh although I will defer some of that question to the applicant just to kind of clarify and make sure they did their homework on it. So—but that's—that's generally what we're finding with—with these plats. So the older plat doesn't have a—a utility easement on it, is correct? [56:15] **Harry Davis**: Yeah. In fact, um building the Malica auto body shop here, they had to plat these properties. And so the—the easement that they're vacating, I think was put in maybe two years ago. Uh it's a little bit similar to those that have been on the commission a little bit for uh CNS Vending where they platted an easement and now they're removing it even though they did it to themselves. This is kind of similar to that. [56:35] **Chair**: Other questions for Harry? We have the Malicas here and Steve still here. [56:46] **Steve Underdahl**: Yeah, that just made your life a lot easier again. Now I'm representing Malica. Uh yes, it was referenced here back in '22. Uh we were before planning for the original development but really the same requests. So in a sense this is just expanding to this additional property. Kind of on the easement, we have done you know, on the acquired property that's there and it is actually a city ordinance that all new plats establish easements for going forward. That's why you get—so there's going to be a lot of places around the community where you're going to have half an easement. Project we had just before us is going to be the same property. [57:56] **Chair**: Not—does this have anything to do with the old 218 right of way? I mean, it's every time we do anything in that neighborhood, we're tripping over ourselves with easements. All go back to the original sin of the 218 very old plat. It goes back to the '90s. [58:16] **Steve Underdahl**: Yeah. I—I don't think we do anything in that neighborhood without vacating a— [58:20] **Chair**: Okay. Thank you, Steve. Do we have other questions for him? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay, that's it for public input, public hearing. Now we're back up here to the commission. [58:35] **Tina**: Chairman, I'll move that we pass the ordinance for vacation and drainage easement. [58:45] **Ed**: Second. [58:50] **Chair**: Got a motion and a second on vacation of the drainage utility easement. Discussion on that at all? Vote. All those in favor say I. I. That carries. Number two then now is the preliminary and final plat. [59:00] **Mike**: Make a motion to approve. [59:03] **Ed**: Second. [59:05] **Chair**: Ed's got the second on that. Uh, any discussion at all? We'll vote. All those in favor say I. I. No? That one carries. Finally, the conditional use permit amendment for major auto repair C2 Shoreland District. [59:20] **Tina**: (Motions for approval). [59:25] **Ed**: I'll second this. [59:30] **Chair**: Ed's got the second. Thank you. Got a motion and a second on the CUP. I know there hasn't been any discussion on this, but as it was presented by—this just falls right in line. Much of what I was reading is just—it's a continuation of what we saw in 2021. Great that things are going well there. So that's why these went kind of without discussion. It seemed—I've got a motion and a second and the conditional use permit. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed, no. We're done with that. Thank you, folks. Final one this evening. It's an ordinance zoning text amendment to allow proof of parking in the commercial districts. [59:59] **Harry Davis**: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, uh, this is actually a—uh—staff initiated amendment to our parking section, specifically when it comes to proof of parking, which is a concept that we've used—um—that we're currently using with industrial properties. Uh what we've received is a lot of interest from—uh—site redevelopment as well as—uh—just generally commercial properties to allow something very similar to what is currently allowed in industrial. In industrial you can do proof of parking for sort of an uninhibited amount. Um as long as you are providing enough parking spaces for what then staff is the ability later on—like let's say—uh—there's an industrial property and industrial use that—uh—people are just parking all over the grass or they put down a bunch of gravel illegally and now people are parking on that. [1:00:55] **Harry Davis**: Well, staff has the ability at that point to say, "Well, you provided this proof of parking during the development side of things. Um, and you've shown where you could put some additional spaces. You're now parking on top of grass—what have you—you know, this is the zoning violation that's needed in order to make sure that you build out the rest of your spaces." It's a very similar idea with commercial. Um the concern—um—that some people had is that you know commercial properties might take it a little bit far at least initially and so staff is recommending instead of an uninhibited amount of proof of parking that you go to 30%—uh—30%—so that if a commercial property needs to provide say 10 spaces, they only really need to provide seven spaces and then provide proof that they can build another three spaces. [1:01:50] **Harry Davis**: So, it lowers the amount of—uh—initial investment into the property so that the business could potentially get in there and get going. Um, you know, I just have some small diagrams as to how it would work. So, you know, if we—if we run into a situation where there's new retail being built, there's enough room for storm water. Um, you know, we see this kind of parking area. And I'm sorry I crudely did this—uh—this morning, but all of the different color blocks except for the smaller green one—smaller green one is the dumpster. The other ones are for cars. Um, you know, this is kind of either a new development or—or—or kind of a redevelopment for particular property. Let's say, okay, well, they're getting a lot of interest. People start parking just to the south of that parking lot. So they're parking on grass, they're destroying the grass, they're destroying landscaping. [1:02:55] **Harry Davis**: Staff would have the ability to say, "Well, this is a zoning violation. You're not parking surface. You're not parking in your parking lot." And then make them go through and put in the rest of the parking. So that's kind of generally it. You know, the comprehensive plan supports this kind of idea and sort of a mix between looking at—uh—the broader goals of the city um and trying to get redevelopment, trying to work with property owners and sort private property interest. Sort of they having an understanding of how many employees or how many customers that they're going to have over time, be able to build the amount of parking that they need up to that point. And if they need more, then they'll build more with zoning criteria. Uh the criteria are also met for this. Um it supports redevelopment projects and small businesses and so—uh—it staff does feel like it does meet the comprehensive plan and zoning criteria. So we are recommending moving forward with this ordinance to city council to allow proof of parking up to 30%. [1:04:15] **Chair**: We have questions for Harry? Bart. [1:04:18] **Bart**: Um, so if we were—okay. All right. I was just needing that context. So, would this have kept them? [1:04:30] **Harry Davis**: Yes, Mr. Chair. I can—I can answer that. So when we're looking specifically at the ordinance, it is just for commercial zoning districts. So if it's a residential zoning district, it would not apply. Um I also—uh—was taking a look at this and I think that there is some concerns over reducing the amount of parking for residential uses currently. So, um, with that in mind, you know, even looking at a residential use in a commercial zone, say like Central Business District or, you know, Midwest Flats is actually on C2, but it's next to Midwest Storage out there on Fourth or Highway 60. Um, the reduction would not be allowed for residential uses. So, it would not apply at all to what we consider to be more of a residential. [1:05:27] **Steve**: So how would that work? [1:05:35] **Harry Davis**: Yeah. So how it would work with Divine Mercy is that Divine Mercy—um—the urban flea market property, whatever you want to call it, that would still need to show, "Hey, you know, we have, you know, all of this room that's available for parking." And then they would be able to reduce that down to 70% of what's needed at the time that they're going in and operating. Then sort of over time if it's determined, "Hey, you need more parking, you're, you know, causing some sort of traffic issue regarding parking," then they would have to build out either all or at least part of that. So you still need to show that you can provide all the parking that you need on your property. It just reduces the initial investment needed in order to get going. [1:06:40] **Chair**: Other questions? Steve. [1:06:56] **Steve**: I understand the concept and part of it, but you keep going back to when they're parking illegally. And I come back to—um—if the business really gets going and the cars are parking and disrupting the other businesses by parking in front of either the on-street parking or parking in their parking lot, when does—what is the avenue to get them going? [1:07:08] **Harry Davis**: Sure, Mr. Chair. So, you know, on-street parking is—you know—it's free for anyone. So, if as long as on-street parking is allowed on a street, someone could use that parking. I don't think that there are currently really any ways—and I've never seen a situation where the city has been able to tightly control that outside of say a permit. So, it would be really difficult, I think, for the city of Faribault to do that. We haven't done that before. [1:07:45] **Steve**: Sure. Well, we've kind of have because we restrict parking around the—the—u—the senior high school during the days and to otherwise students park in the neighborhood. And that's when we were talking about Divine Mercy. That's what—let's just say he didn't have to have enough parking. Now you're really um frying all of the neighbors with parking cars there. Is there an avenue for the—the—the people there to have let's say a time limit or something on the—the on-street parking so it allows them to at least have guests come over and park in front of their house? I understand that. But Divine Mercy is right next to a neighborhood. You've got residential right across the street. [1:08:10] **Harry Davis**: So Mr. Chair, you know, again on-street parking as long as it's allowed there is free for anyone to use. If I wanted to, I could go park in a neighborhood and then walk to work. I understand all that, but... Right. So, you know, if—if as long as that's allowed there, there's very—you know—unless we go to some sort of permit system or engineering and public works and fire deem, you know, particular route not viable for on-street parking. There's very little room that we have there. Um, you know, again, staff could also look at a situation where if we get enough complaints, maybe we do bring this back and maybe we do take a look at, you know, is there—is there—is there a particular issue with that—with that project? [1:09:15] **Bart**: Would this be a conditional use then if they were going to undersize their parking lot or is this just at staff's discretion? [1:09:20] **Harry Davis**: This is—Yeah, this would be currently as it's written would be at—at staff's discretion. So, if we see an issue where we—you know—an applicant comes in and they're a particular business and we know that they're going to need all of—all the parking that's required because we have other good examples of, you know, some sort of traffic or some sort of parking issue with very similar uses. We can tell them, "No, you're going to do all of this." And through the appeal process, they would have to come through planning commission and city council to appeal that decision. [1:09:47] **Bart**: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, do we have many—you don't need to tell us which ones—but have there been many situations for applicants? Not—or is this something we're just looking forward to in the future to make this available? [1:10:00] **Harry Davis**: Sure. I can give you one really good example and it's something that we're still currently working through which is the Madich implement dealership where they know how many employees they have and they have a very nuanced understanding about how many customers that they're going to get in on a daily or even a weekly basis. Uh I mean they're—they're farm implement dealers. They—they kind of know who's around here. They are required to put in—I think it's somewhere around 70 spaces for their entire property. They do not need 70 spaces and so this would actually if they were to take it they would reduce it down to somewhere around 55 which even then is potentially a lot more than they really need. It's more of a trying to balance between some of the concerns, very real concerns for commercial properties just not having parking even though they have all this room where they could put parking and you know a situation where requiring more parking than somebody really needs. So this kind of like the 30% we can—we can move that around. We can massage it a little bit. Staff doesn't really feel tied to 30%. It's just kind of an idea start. So this is—this is kind of an issue like one such issue that we're running into. [1:11:30] **Chair**: Hey, I just want a clarifying question. This is a public hearing? [1:11:35] **Harry Davis**: Correct. [1:11:36] **Chair**: Correct. I'm—I'm—I'm—I'm with you. I hear that and I respect that. Uh if we're done with questions, we do have Mr. Underdahl still in the crowd. Steve, you got anything for us in public input? [1:12:00] **Steve Underdahl**: Also consider—this is an opportunity to raise into greens determined that there is actually a need to have that is the entirety of our public... [1:12:30] **Chair**: That was public hearing. We've closed public and now we go to Leslie. [1:12:35] **Leslie**: I just wanted to answer the question you had. It addresses a specific circumstance and I think we—we can probably the professional standards for parking is this is something that's being explored um right-sizing parking as a phrase and trying to understand the nuances of what—like Harry said—this is typically a challenge for development sites to begin with. We want to be able to give the opportunities for some also give credence to those businesses who develop in other communities nationwide who know their parking statistics down to the so the staff consideration was we obliterate all parking requirements the applicants decide or do we look at our standards to be amended when this potential this is the solution that we best service for the community. [1:13:55] **Sam**: Um, so I've actually been on had the same—is I've seen that be effective and different. Um I love love love. I've seen it work in other communities. And to point, yeah, Divine—I'm one block away from Divine. There's a big band concert, they're parked at my house. So, I—I understand that concern. I don't think that's going to be a—of um—if it's not used, it's green. Um but it's still there if we have that all is always empty. So, I think this is a—and lovely initiative. [1:15:20] **Steve**: Steve. And then Bart. I like the concept. Part of me wants to see this as something when it comes—if you're going to redevelop something, you'd probably have a public hearing on it because they'd have to either replat it or—you're saying no? [1:15:51] **Leslie**: Mr. Chair. There are some sites that come before you where they're approved with the zoning district for the use that they're—they're proposing. So not every single application development site would come before you for consideration. Yes, there would be some. [1:16:14] **Steve**: Yeah, I'm good. That's fine. All right. Thank you. [1:16:18] **Bart**: Um, so someone does this and let's say we give them 30%. Then they sell the property to somebody else then have that in front of us again because at this point it could be a different business with a different use there. So um... [1:16:45] **Harry Davis**: I think part of that includes an assumption about that the project comes before planning commission anyway. You know, yeah, sure. If it—if it—if it does potentially, like if they're trying to change some bit—some bit pieces of it, let's say, for example, Malica Auto Body, you know, builds um their other building and then they say, "You know what—what—if we just went somewhere else and then someone else comes into that property and they want to expand it and they also want to utilize this 30% uh reduction of parking." Um, you know at that point yeah you would be able to review it alongside the other considerations to it which would be the conditional use permit. That kind of answer your question? [1:17:35] **Bart**: We've talked about different situations with other properties and how so that's why I was kind of interested how... [1:17:40] **Harry Davis**: Yeah, a—a change in ownership wouldn't necessarily bring something like this to the planning commission but some other applications would. [1:17:45] **Tina**: Tina's got her hand up. I—I applaud staff. I think Sam is spot on. I love the phrase "right-size parking." I think that every project and application is unique and for staff to take the opportunity to evaluate whether or not a farm implement company needs 70 parking spaces or not, right? I—I just feel like um there's—there's opportunity there. So, I appreciate movement in this direction. [1:18:18] **Chair**: Other discussion? [1:18:20] **Tina**: (Motions for approval). [1:18:29] **Ed**: I'll second it. [1:18:35] **Chair**: Got a motion and a second on what was presented to us. Any discussion? We'll vote. All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed, no. That carries. Now, that's it for the public hearings. Uh, some housekeeping stuff. We'll combine requests to be heard. Item for discussion. Harry, do you want to take the lead? Do you want me to take the lead? How do you want to enter this? [1:18:50] **Harry Davis**: Sure. Um, Mr. Chair, so we—we have a request to um make our next two planning commission meetings virtual. Um there are some reasons as to why a planning commission might allow virtual meetings uh or to accommodate somebody that might be running into some sort of medical issue or they would like to uh you know still be a part of the planning commission but unable to physically be there. Uh there also might be some you know circumstances where planning commissioner is elsewhere but there's a really important planning commission—perhaps one that is—we have quorum or not. So, you know, we could run into these potential situations. Um, we can have a meeting be virtually attended. There is an opportunity for that. Um, there are some things that we would need to nail down too and to completely understand. Some of these things would include um meeting some of the Minnesota statutes. There's a particular statute on if we are going to have a meeting virtually uh what the requirements would be. I'm trying to think of like where else—the other thing... [1:20:10] **Chair**: Then the advice of—the advice of the city attorney was that it the first hurdle is the planning commission needs to discuss it and then we vote whether we do that or not. [1:20:25] **Harry Davis**: Correct. Yes. Thank you. [1:20:30] **Chair**: So even though it's not on the agenda, this is going to be one of those rare times that there'll actually be discussion and a motion and a vote. So there's a request. Ed, go ahead. [1:20:37] **Ed**: Question. Is that specific to planning commission or all commissions and city council? [1:20:45] **Chair**: Any and all boards, commissions, councils, tendencies, but each individual board would vote. So like if this came to the park board, they'd vote. [1:20:53] **Ed**: Okay. So it's each board's going to vote in, right? We're not telling all the other boards. That's why I'm asking. [1:20:55] **Chair**: Okay. That's what I thought. Steve. [1:20:56] **Steve**: We did it in the past. It worked. I'm totally in favor of it. [1:21:05] **Chair**: Question. When did we do it? You forgot uh we had COVID. Oh. Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay. I guess now that I have the floor and that's actually a good tea. Yeah. When there's COVID—and we had to do it all remotely. Yeah. Uh I'm just going to speak as just kind of my preference here now. And tonight's a good example—chairing a meeting. There's a lot of body—hands up. There's a—I don't like chairing a meeting where I have people in the room and I got one or two people on a screen. Hard meeting to chair. And since we're an advisory committee, it'd be different if we were the council and they're kind of elected to be there. We're an advisory committee. You know, I would just prefer not to. That's my personal point. [1:22:05] **Sam**: I wasn't going to make it right now, but that was a good point. Yeah. If it's something like COVID where we're all on a screen, yeah, it works. I mean, a broken leg, somebody that's just given birth—having a kid—and they can't come here, why not? I mean, they're doing it—they're doing it in the US House of Representatives and they can make it work. So, the hell with it. We can make it work. So, sorry. [1:22:30] **Bart**: Yeah. Go ahead. Um, when I... [1:22:33] **Harry Davis**: Mr. Chair, yeah, I can jump in on that. So, uh, under the current Minnesota statutes, you do have to have at least one person be present. [1:22:45] **Chair**: Okay. So, that changed after COVID then? [1:22:48] **Harry Davis**: Well, COVID might have been different. That might have actually been emergency rules put in place. So, you know, I can kind of go through some of the—some of the requirements here. So, all members of the body participating in the meeting uh wherever their physical location can hear and see one another and can hear and see all discussion and testimony presented. Members of the public present at the regular meeting can hear and see all discussion and testimony. All votes must be conducted by roll call and each location of which a member of the body is present must be open and accessible to—kind of for people personally what I've seen in other jurisdictions kind of been the kicker—like do I really want people in my home? [1:23:45] **Harry Davis**: Yes. Was medical—their personal—but if it's a medical—so there is—there is an exception. So, a member that's been advised by a healthcare professional against being in a public place, personal or family medicine. [1:24:05] **Ed**: Question. Are you asking that our next two meetings or for the whole... [1:24:10] **Harry Davis**: It would have to be for—so, here's—here's—here's—here's the nuance to that is that there's some logistics that staff would have to figure out. I don't even know if we can under this new setup. Like that's—that's part of the issue is I first have to understand, "Okay, what are the limitations?" And part of it is going to be having either you know whether it's one camera or multiple cameras kind of facing every planning commissioner, mics associated with that. There would have to be a very clear—I mean you'd have to have a good internet from wherever you're trying to virtually come in from. Have to have your camera open for that, your microphone. There are probably things that I don't even know about this particular room, how easy it is or how—I think that this is at least for me just trying to say, "Okay, is this something that the planning commission is willing—will do their best to figure out?" I don't know if it's even possible. [1:25:03] **Bart**: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I think we would be ill—ill-sighted not to have this in place especially with you know cold and flu season comes up, SARS outbreak or you know maybe three of us are sick with—with something communicable. And I think having something already set in place already ready would then allow us to you know if something occurred like that or the chair finds himself in another surgery, you know, he can still chair the meeting if he wants to after, you know, he's sitting there. So, I think it would be something that we could have in place and so that way if an emergency or a bad situation with a communicable disease, we already have all these things in place. So, we're not trying to scramble. [1:26:00] **Ed**: Are you suggesting in place ready to go just in case? [1:26:14] **Bart**: So, with Ed's question, I think that it—the chair had already brought it up that it's not just—not just because someone's not feeling well or they're on vacation to use it unless it's something that they really need to be on, but that would have to be something planners... But this would be more of a situation where we already have all these in place. So that way when we need to use it, it's already solved. The problems already—already ready. We already know what we need to do. And that way we keep that continuity going. [1:26:53] **Tina**: And I'm happy to disclose I made the request. I have to travel for work. I'll be in Georgia on June 2nd. And then I'm having knee replacement surgery and I won't be able to attend in person on the 16th. I didn't want to miss two meetings in a row. It's not that I'm going on vacation. They're just—I have a work trip and then I have some surgery. So, I made the request. We're for my planning commission—we're all virtual. We do it through Teams. There's a monitor on the wall and—and so um I didn't know it would be this type of a thing, but we're just—it's a different county, right? So, um, but I appreciate the consideration and if staff is—if you're okay with it and staff can figure it out, um, it would be great. If not, it's okay. I'll just bug you all about what you did while I wasn't here. FOMO is real. Um, and—and then also the—the re—the other part of that is—is I still have an opportunity to contribute my thoughts in writing if I'm not able to attend. So I just wanted to not miss... [1:28:15] **Chair**: Are—so to Tina's point, it's not the entire body that will be on virtual. I think for these next two weeks the specifics, but we would be establishing a policy going forward. I think—I think our feeling was is that we would all be virtual for the next—that's how I think it was... [1:28:35] **Ed**: No, this would just be— [1:28:38] **Chair**: That's what I was saying—that there'd be six of us here and one of us on a screen. [1:28:44] **Steve**: I'm still in favor of it. I think it should be an option. I like what you said it very well. You could have a cold, the flu. The flu is coming back. There's no point in showing up and snuggling all over and giving us all of that treat, but your input's still worthwhile. I mean, it's to me it's—it's a no-brainer. It's—we should do it. The technology is here. We've done it before during COVID and it worked. There was nobody that—I don't see anything that was wrong with it. You have a medical exception. If your doctor says medical exception, I don't think you're going to get anybody that's going to show up at your house. It's possible to conceive. [1:29:20] **Chair**: So I—now there's a lot of cross conversation here and points are all well taken. Uh I think—well I don't know I was—I'll stop. So but we do need a motion and a vote to do real... [1:29:35] **Bart**: One last question. Um will we set what the medical exception is or is that something that's in the state statute? [1:29:45] **Harry Davis**: No, I'm so sorry. Let me rephrase. So, when someone calls you and says they have a medical reason why they want to stay, that would be sufficient. Correct? Sure. I—I have no clue. And at—at that point, I'd want to talk to the city attorney about what in defense for that so that we can figure out—I'm sorry because we—if—if someone is going to be virtual and they're coming in from a location, we have to notify and include that as a part of the public. [1:30:35] **Chair**: All I was going to say is in defense of Harry, we got this this morning. So there's a couple emails with the city attorney. So, there's a lot that Harry doesn't know and let's not blame him for that. This is just, you know, we're kind of drinking from the fire hose on it. Yeah. Did you make a motion? [1:30:45] **Steve**: No, there—there's not a motion yet. [1:30:48] **Bart**: Bart still got the floor and then it... [1:30:50] **Ed**: Mine's just a simple question just because it came up and you don't know this yet. I will not be able to make it to the next meeting because I'm going to be out of town for family reasons. I don't know if I could dial in if it's virtual because I don't know the schedule. It's not my place to determine the schedule. So if I—I was going to talk to you later. Is my—something that would be counted as an—say that I will be out of town. Not that it matters, but the reality is what are the rules of engagement? By the way, get in the corner upstairs in the bedroom and get my computer and go on. I'm just asking out of here. She's—sounds like she's going to be gone next week. [1:31:35] **Harry Davis**: Yeah, Mr. Chair, I would need a minute to pull up her new bylaws because they did actually before they were based off of excused and unexcused. Give me—give me a second to pull up. [1:31:55] **Steve**: I—to just get—get this over with is I'd make a motion that we allow staff to explore the opportunity to have a virtual meeting and if it's possible, we can meet the requirements, do it. If we can't, well, it's the way it goes. Staff is the—is a key word. [1:32:14] **Ed**: Second. [1:32:15] **Tina**: I agree. I knew where you were going. [1:32:18] **Harry Davis**: Okay, Harry. Mr. Chair, I think the city attorney in the discussion that I had with him, um, I think that he asked that you focus on specific dates so that you kind of decide ahead of time that you're going... So the—the—the motion would need to include next—next two planning commission. [1:32:56] **Steve**: So you're saying the motion needs allow then it's almost like a trial run, see how it goes. Sure. That—that still meets the—you're good with that. Two meetings. [1:33:20] **Chair**: Anybody else want to add another date on there? [1:33:25] **Harry Davis**: Mr. Chair, uh I will just very quickly note so state statute allows up to three of these. Only three. Yes. [1:33:40] **Ed**: By each member? [1:33:42] **Harry Davis**: Oh, three for each member. [1:33:45] **Tina**: Tina's using up her two. [1:33:50] **Chair**: I still have three in my like a body. Good question. Yeah, that's—that's the way that I understand that. Okay. So, I think Steve's motion everybody understands the intent. Got the second. I—I'm—I'm not trying to rush it here, but are we ready for a vote? Anybody got anything else? I'll meet at Tina's house in Georgia. [1:34:10] **Tina**: I'm going to be in Georgia. [1:34:15] **Chair**: Okay. So, I've got the motion. I've got the second. Are we ready to vote? All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed, no. I'm the only no. Okay. Motion carries then 6-1. We're good. Okay. Um, board and commission, city council staff. [1:34:30] **Harry Davis**: Yeah, Mr. Chair, just super briefly because I know that it's been a longer meeting and we'll probably want to go home, but at the last city council meeting, uh, there were a few items that were brought forward. One of them was the shoreland ordinance that you all voted on at the last planning commission meeting that sailed through pretty easily. There's a lot of interest in it and making it easier for applicants to submit projects within Shoreland. Uh so that—that went through. Uh there was another item for a—annexation which annexations—uh—historically for Faribault have skipped planning commission, gone straight to city council. So I apologize about that. Uh, but it's an—it's an annexation on the north side next to the northern industrial park. The kind of little—is it like—island that we have on the north side. So, it's just north of that. [1:35:17] **Harry Davis**: Archer Data Centers has—has bought that property and they want to do up to 500,000 square feet of data center. And so, because it triggers an EAW, it has to be brought before—it's currently going through the 30-day review period. There will be—um—between now and when it comes to planning commission, it will go to the environmental commission for review and recommendation. After that, it'll come to planning commission after the 30 days after they've made revisions based off the comments and then eventually... [1:37:36] **Steve**: Dave, go ahead. One quick comment would be is—is this going to go all the way up to County Road 9? Is it going to affect any future development of County Road 9? Let's ask that question or you don't even have to answer me, but that would be my concern. The Archer Data Centers project. [1:37:55] **Harry Davis**: Yes. Uh so that I believe they're utilizing both sides of that little creek that runs through that property. So yes, I think eventually the idea is to have development kind of on the south side right next to the industrial park and then kind of flip it over to the County Road because that's where there's a proposed interchange there. [1:38:13] **Steve**: That's why I'm asking the question about County Road 9. [1:38:20] **Harry Davis**: Sure. You know, maybe I can bring up the map and then proposed. [1:38:25] **Chair**: They spent a lot of money so far already. Uh going rate for a diamond interchange and a freeway is about 40 million and they haven't identified a... Can talk an awful lot, but 40 million's the get in. [1:38:40] **Steve**: Understand? You never know what happens. Just saying. I see you put in a interchange for a golf course in Austin. So, I think we could eventually get one here. I don't know if we have it. [1:38:50] **Harry Davis**: I don't know what you guys can see. Uh, we got—we got the giant Faribault logo. We see—oh, there we go. Now something's happening. So, the annexation location. So that's actually this property right here. Future interchange is going to be right here. Dykin is just to the south. Archer Data Centers—they're wanting to use this. They've first talked about putting in a building on the south side and then I believe they eventually want to go up here on the... [1:39:40] **Chair**: Are we done for the day? [1:39:45] **Bart**: Make a motion to adjourn. [1:39:50] **Sam**: Second. [1:39:55] **Chair**: Sam's got a second. All those in favor say I.