This transcript appears to be a meeting of the **Planning Commission**. Based on the roll call at [6:53] and the names provided in your context list, I have identified the speakers. Note: While the provided list mentioned Brian Douglas and Isaac Naatz as Planning Commission members, the transcript roll call identifies **Luke Neal** as the Chair, and members **Duncan, Hammock, Lindell, Christensen, and Matson**. **Sara Peer** (City Clerk) provides the staff/procedural guidance. *** **[4:53] Luke Neal (Chair):** That's interesting. **[5:28] Unknown Speaker:** It's there. **[6:30] Luke Neal (Chair):** Okay. **[6:40] Unknown Speaker:** Go ahead. No, nothing yet. There's nothing yet, Neil. **[6:53] Luke Neal (Chair):** Go ahead. All right, let's uh start the meeting of the Planning Commission, the September 13th, 2021. Start the call to order. Roll call. I'm here. Mr. Duncan? **Mr. Duncan:** Here. **Luke Neal (Chair):** Mr. Hammock? **Mr. Hammock:** Here. **Luke Neal (Chair):** Mr. Lindell? **Mr. Lindell:** Here. **Luke Neal (Chair):** Mr. Christensen? **Mr. Christensen:** Here. **Luke Neal (Chair):** Mr. Matz? **Mr. Matson:** Here. **Luke Neal (Chair):** Everybody's here. Before we go to the approval of agenda, I've got uh an issue with that. I believe the public input should be put back up here where it's always been. There was never anything mentioned by the Planning Commission to switch it till after the adjournment. **[7:39] Unknown Member:** I—I believe the City Council made that change for all committees. **[7:45] Mr. Duncan:** That's just City Council. Mr. Duncan, we're the Planning Commission. We're a separate entity. **[7:51] Luke Neal (Chair):** Yes, I think it needs to be moved up there also. I would agree. Sara, what's your opinion on that? **[8:05] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** I would say unless the City Council put it specifically in the bylaws and bound the Planning Commission to it, then the Planning Commission gets to make that determination. **[8:15] Luke Neal (Chair):** So let's go uh—we're done, we can't really approve the agenda yet either because there's two other items I think need to be removed. We've doubled up in the public hearing and the discussion items on item B. In both instances, we should be doing just the rezoning this evening and have nothing to do with the Planned Unit Development. We can't really make any judgments or any discussion on the Planned Unit Development until the City Council has either denied or granted the permit. **[8:50] Luke Neal (Chair):** Anything we would discuss at that point would be nothing more than theatrical and I don't know if we need to waste everybody's time on that. **[8:56] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** Uh, the rezone is actually part of the PUD. What'll eventually—if this is adopted—what will eventually be adopted is an ordinance that rezones the property to R4-PUD. So it is one package item. Um, so there's really no way to split it because once the rezone is approved, that approves the PUD as well. So it really does need to just be discussed all as one item. **[9:24] Luke Neal (Chair):** So if what you're telling me then is if the rezone does not pass this evening, then there would be no discussion on Planned Unit Development? **[9:36] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** No, because all that the Planning Commission does is make a recommendation to the Council. So if the Planning Commission elected to recommend denial of the rezone, that would still go to the Council for final decision. It's because of that I would recommend the Planning Commission discuss the PUD as well because if the Council disagrees with that recommendation and approves the rezone, they would also then be asked to approve the PUD and they wouldn't have any of the Planning Commission's comments on that. My recommendation would be if the Planning Commission is inclined to deny the rezone, have that conversation and then have a hypothetical discussion on the PUD so that the Council has all of that information when they go to make a final determination. **[10:19] Luke Neal (Chair):** Hypothetical. That's the same as theatrical, is it not? **[10:23] Mr. Lindell:** So really the conversation we would have would take us nowhere except that it would give the City Council something to consider if the Planning Commission doesn't—if the Council disagrees with the Planning Commission's decision to rezone. They will then also make a decision on the PUD. If they don't have any comments from the Planning Commission on the PUD piece, then they'll make their own determination. So if the Planning Commission decides not to discuss the PUD pieces tonight, then the Council would have to make their own determination without any input from the Planning Commission on that piece. Well, then I see a motion with the Commission as to whether we should or shouldn't. I'm kind of seeing this your way, Mike, that these are two separate issues: the rezone and then the Planned Unit Development. I'm not seeing them as one either. **[11:05] Mr. Christensen:** I agree also. I think we need to split those apart. **[11:09] Mr. Duncan:** Is that as a motion? How—how would that affect the Council? As a Council, next week we're going to—we're going to deal with both of those issues at once. So whether they—whether we deal with that tonight or not is irrelevant. **[11:22] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** Yeah, there's two pieces. The first is a public hearing has been noticed, so the public hearing would still need to be held to discuss both pieces because that has been published in the paper and there are people here to discuss that. So we would need to hold the public hearing. If the Planning Commission then elects to divide the item and only discuss the zoning, that will go to the Council and the piece on the PUD would go to the Council as a "no recommendation," and the Council would then handle that piece as they choose without any comment from the Planning Commission. **[11:58] Luke Neal (Chair):** You have a motion to divide still? **[12:05] Mr. Christensen:** Um, I make a motion that we divide these. **[12:08] Luke Neal (Chair):** Is there a second to that motion? **[12:10] Mr. Lindell:** I'll second it. **[12:12] Luke Neal (Chair):** Motion's been made by Mr. Christensen, seconded by Mr. Lindell. All in favor? **Members:** Aye. [Three votes] **Luke Neal (Chair):** Opposed? **Members:** Nay. [Three votes] **Luke Neal (Chair):** All right, three to three vote, so that's a no. So we will not hear the Planned Unit Development this evening? **[12:35] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** No, no, no, no, no, no. The motion failed, so the item has not been divided. You'll hear both tonight. **[12:42] Mr. Lindell:** Excuse me? **[12:43] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** Because the motion was to divide it, right? The motion failed. It was a three-to-three, right? So that's a failed motion. So the item stays together as one. **[12:51] Luke Neal (Chair):** Okay, then we need a motion to approve the agenda. **[12:55] Mr. Christensen:** Uh, the public input still hasn't been decided on. **[12:58] Luke Neal (Chair):** Oh well, it should have never changed, so I don't think there's a decision that needs to be made. **[13:05] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** According to the way it's laid out, you would have to have a change. **[13:10] Mr. Christensen:** So then what you're saying is we can't approve the agenda? **[13:15] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** But if you approve the agenda as put, public input will remain item eight. **[13:22] Luke Neal (Chair):** No, we need to move number eight back up in between four and five. I don't think that should take a motion because it was never changed, it was never voted on by the Planning Commission to put it where it is now. **[13:38] Mr. Lindell:** Yes, that would be correct, Mike. We never changed that. **[13:42] Luke Neal (Chair):** No, we should have handled this last month when we got here and noticed what was—what was going on. So let's uh—let's put the public input back up between four and five: Approval, Amendment, Minutes, and a Public Hearing. If we can do that, then I think we're looking for an approval to the agenda. How do you want to handle that? **[14:13] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** I would request an approval of the agenda with item eight moved up to item—what did you say it would be? **[14:19] Luke Neal (Chair):** Essentially 4.5. Previously, it had been between four and five. **[14:24] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** Yeah. And so that would be the motion to approve the agenda with that change. **[14:31] Luke Neal (Chair):** Do I hear a motion? **[14:33] Mr. Lindell:** I'll make a motion we—we approve the agenda with uh number eight moved up between four and five, the public input. **[14:40] Luke Neal (Chair):** A second to that motion? **[14:41] Mr. Christensen:** I'll second that. **[14:43] Luke Neal (Chair):** Do we move that up? Motion's been made by Mr. Lindell, seconded by Mr. Christensen. All in favor of moving number eight back to where it was? **Members:** Aye. **Luke Neal (Chair):** Opposed? **Members:** [None] **Luke Neal (Chair):** All right. All right, so two to four—back up it goes. At this point, then I guess we can uh approve an agenda. A motion to approve? **[15:08] Mr. Lindell:** I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. **[15:10] Mr. Matson:** I'll second it. **[15:12] Luke Neal (Chair):** Motion's been made by Mr. Lindell, seconded by Mr. Matson to approve the agenda for September 13, 2021. All in favor? **Members:** Aye. **Luke Neal (Chair):** Opposed? [None] Moving on. Approval of the minutes of Monday, August 9th, 2021. Do I hear any additions or corrections to the minutes of Monday, August 9th, or a motion to accept? **[15:48] Mr. Duncan:** I'll move to accept the minutes. **[15:52] Mr. Lindell:** Second it. **[15:54] Luke Neal (Chair):** Motion's been made by Mr. Duncan, second been made by Mr. Lindell. All in favor? **Members:** Aye. **Luke Neal (Chair):** Opposed? [None] Okay, so at this point, we'll have the citizens—may speak to the agenda things, things not on the agenda. Please approach the microphone before speaking. Give your name for the record. The limiting part—there is no limit. Okay. **[16:20] Doug Retsico:** Because of the—Doug Retsico from Triangle. Um, because I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to speak on or not, I guess... **[16:30] Luke Neal (Chair):** Well, it's items that are not on the agenda, Doug. **[16:34] Doug Retsico:** Okay. Well, if I'm speaking about something not, please stop me then. I apologize if I am. Uh, in the past we've talked about uh these same issues that keep coming up and up and again. I believe everybody has been in favor of this project except the location... **[16:51] Luke Neal (Chair):** Hold it, hold it, hold it. You're speaking toward an item that's on the agenda. Um, talking about the rezoning or whatever—uh, we're going to have the public hearing next. **[17:03] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** Right at this point, I'm sorry, Mr. Retsico, we're talking about anything that is not on this evening's agenda. Uh, neighbor's got a problem with your dog, that type of thing. **[17:15] Doug Retsico:** Can I use anything that is? Please forgive me. Okay, I'll be back up. Yep. I will uh—so we can talk about just local things? **Luke Neal (Chair):** Yep. **Doug Retsico:** Do the—do the bikers have to stop for stop signs or can they go through stop signs? Or do they have to obey the same laws? Because I just about hit somebody the other day and he didn't stop for a stop sign or whatever. **[17:34] Luke Neal (Chair):** I do believe they have to abide by the same laws as everybody else. **[17:38] Doug Retsico:** He um gestured me. I don't know if he thought I was number one or what the deal was, but... and so I—sorry, I'll be back up. Please forgive me, I'm not that smart. Thank you. **[17:56] Luke Neal (Chair):** Thank you, Mr. Retsico. **[17:58] Babe O'Gorman:** Babe O'Gorman. Where there's public comment, things really oh, struggle, isn't it? Um, I was sitting in a Council meeting here last week. We get to listen to Mr. Duncan there talk about how stupid people are that don't get vaccinated and that they're un-American. How stupid is it to not have public input at a public meeting, and wouldn't you call that un-American? I sure would. We listen to Mary Jill's dog bark at public meetings. Why can't Babe bark a little? After all, we know what this is all about, don't we, Bill? The city does not want to be challenged, and you're starting to see that and you're going to learn a lot more about that. **[18:49] Babe O'Gorman:** And it was fascinating to listen to Mr. Retsico talk about the biker. They have to follow the same rules, don't they? Why don't we all have to follow the same set of rules? We're going to learn a little more about that too. You sure you don't want to stop me, Bill? That might affect something that's going to happen tonight, I'm not sure. Bruce, I met you at the Ace Hardware and I'm not picking on you and I don't mean to single you out, but you did say something. We've been friends a long, long time. Our families used to golf with your father many years ago, had a lot of fun. Bill's grandpa. **[19:35] Babe O'Gorman:** Um, but you mentioned something that really stuck with me about how Cannon Falls has gotten a little more unfriendly, and it has. And I wonder why. Well, I have my opinions about it. Rick Knowlton's sitting back there and so is our City Attorney. We had a Council meeting here about a month ago when she was keeping time and the Council allowed it in two minutes and she was continually interrupting whoever was at the podium about how much time they had left. And it's not legal, and it's certainly uncalled for, and it's certainly unfriendly. And I don't know where she got the authority to do that, but that's what she was doing. **[20:20] Babe O'Gorman:** So she also claimed that there's no such thing, or almost no such thing, as a—or variance. It's almost impossible to get a variance. Well, we've given out dozens of them over the years. But Rick Knowlton was singled out, was taken and put in a separate line item on the agenda rather than the consent agenda and was picked apart and denied a simple variance up on the end of town where nobody goes. Mary Jill had to have a seeing-eye dog to find the place. So why is that? Obviously, the Administrator had it in for him and I don't know why. **[21:06] Babe O'Gorman:** But I've talked to a few of you and you all see it the same way and it's just a little odd. Because if you go right back there, the next house over, you'll see two garages that are literally touching, okay? One's really old, the other is fairly new—four, five, six years. The new garage actually hangs over the old garage, so there's literally no lot line. There's no setback. No setback. Excuse me, but Rick Knowlton couldn't have his with a six-foot setback? Why? Because he said so. And because he has the attention of six or seven people in this town that apparently are in charge, but don't have enough common sense or whatever it is to speak their mind or to think things through by themselves. They're just listening to him. **[22:04] Babe O'Gorman:** But anyway, there's also a garage up on the west side. It's within two feet of the property line, was put up in 2015, still has Tyvek paper on it. Why is that? Has anybody been up—well yeah, you all have been up there. Rick told me he took you all up there to show you what has been going on up there. Look at that place. I mean, it's pristine. I'll go over here on the north side or the west side or even the east side in certain parts of it and look around and see what you got. So about all I got is: Why don't we try to be friendly and kind and consistent? Something we haven't been for many, many years. Thank you. **[23:05] Luke Neal (Chair):** Thank you, Mr. O'Gorman. Anyone else from the public to speak on things that are not on the agenda? Yes, please come forward. **[23:18] Diane Johnson:** All right. Diane Johnson. Two things. One, has it always been the policy that there's no public input on things on the agenda, or is that a recent change on the Planning Commission? **[23:36] Luke Neal (Chair):** It was only last month to my recognition. **[23:41] Diane Johnson:** Recognition. Okay. And then I guess the question is, it's kind of hard to comment on things that you're going to be talking about if we're not allowed to talk about them during the public input. It just seems rather odd. Yeah, just uh—just an opinion there. Sans—okay, it's Sandstone Ridge up on 25. Obviously that's been around a while. It now looks like some kind of a ghost town. Because that's where my sister and I walked their dogs for a while. Sounds like the Southeast Minnesota whatever group wasn't able to get that developed. The original developer couldn't finish the project because of something to do with the land, or am I mistaken? **[24:34] Luke Neal (Chair):** That could possibly be one of the issues, Diane. **[24:37] Diane Johnson:** Okay. Because I—I guess I'm just curious as to: if the original developer couldn't finish it because it wasn't buildable for some reason or another, and then that Southeast Minnesota whatever group couldn't get anything going, and now we have it back—what are we thinking we can do with it if nobody else has been able to do anything? Just—and that's not on the agenda, so I guess I can talk about it, correct? Okay, thank you. You guys can't answer questions now, right? Excuse me, when we ask questions, you can't really answer, right? **[25:17] Luke Neal (Chair):** No, it's just—so it's not a discussion. It's just your input to it. Matters not on the agenda. **[25:23] Diane Johnson:** Okay, thank you. **[25:25] Luke Neal (Chair):** Any other citizens to speak on anything that is not on the agenda? Hearing none, we'll move along to the Public Hearing. First portion—excuse me, first portion of the Public Hearing is going to be consideration A: A consideration of an ordinance of the City of Cannon Falls, Minnesota, amending City Code Chapter 152 related to sexually oriented use being allowed in the I2 General Industrial District. Public hearing is open. Anyone to make any comments, suggestions, discussion? **[26:02] Diane Johnson:** Hearing none... I'm sorry, I am! And I didn't even know where to look. What's being changed, or what's—what's there that you want to change? Uh, Diane—could you address that? **[26:10] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** Just this one. I can speak to that. I'll just give a brief background. The city is required to allow adult uses or sexually oriented uses somewhere in the city. We can't prohibit them entirely. We had a property owner recently request to start one, and when we looked at the code, we found that they weren't allowed anywhere. So all the definitions are there, all the details are there, all the licensing is there, and it just never got put in the zoning code. So this is staff's proposal. It would put it in the I2 General Industrial District along with a list of conditions. **[26:48] Diane Johnson:** Uh, that's where staff thought it made the most sense. And where are those districts in town? **[26:54] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** I2... I even have a map prepared for that. Uh, mostly it's up in the northern piece and then there is a small chunk... **[27:03] Diane Johnson:** I don't suppose you have an example of what's there. **[27:05] Luke Neal (Chair):** South of town, the old uh—Tom Cadillac area? **[27:10] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** No, it's Lawrence Meats area up in there. Does that help? **[27:15] Unknown Member:** Industrial park. **[27:17] Diane Johnson:** Industrial park. Is there still one somewhere on the south side then, or not? **[27:21] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** There is not. There are no current, that we're aware of, such uses in the city. **[27:26] Luke Neal (Chair):** Anybody else from the public uh—I'd like to have a conversation about Part A? Anything further from the city? Let's move... close the public hearing on Section A then. Consideration of the ordinance change Chapter 152. That brings us down to B: Rezoning at the 415 Hickory Drive, the Cannonball lot. Open the floor for public input. It's your turn now, Doug. **[28:22] Doug Retsico:** Okay, I didn't want to get up. Doug Retsico from Triangle, next-door neighbor. So uh, I find myself probably repeating myself a lot. I've learned a lot since the first time. Um, my couple of things that I don't like talking about is politics. And this is somewhat what has gotten so political. Contrary to I think what Babe said, I—it sure would be nice if we could all get along and work this out without being enemies or whatever. So that is my wish. **[29:08] Doug Retsico:** With that being said, I'm just concerned. I—I'm going to bring up some of the concerns if this—just on the whole rezoning, the county and the traffic situation. I have talked to the county. They would not uh—give me, you know, legal authority to talk or whatever. I'm just—so this is basically hearsay, I guess, is what I'm saying. I'm very concerned about, you know, the extra—maybe you've addressed this, but I'm just kind of putting it on what I—one of my concerns is about all of that extra traffic going through there. Certainly the taxes situation, whether that's going to affect me or go up, down, uh—you know, what have you. **[29:53] Doug Retsico:** My biggest concern is uh, again, um, you know, rezoning this and then putting that residential there is we have not one extra parking spot there. By—I believe that that was your comment, that you have zero. And last time I mentioned, you know, jeepers, Grandma even comes over and visits—we have no parking spot for her. Nothing to say about, you know, maybe Christmas and Easter and on and on it goes. **[30:26] Doug Retsico:** I did talk to some of my customers today. I go all over the country delivering uh—to mechanic shops and that type of thing. And I—I just happened to get in a conversation with one of my customers and he says, "Yeah." I said, "Where do you live?" and he says, "Well, I live in the apartment down..." and this is a Savage. And he says, "Yeah, I'd live in a two-bedroom apartment." And I said, "Oh, we're—they're trying to build one next to my shop." And he goes, "Oh great." He says, uh, "Yeah, my mom and dad live there and my wife and uh—me, and we have two kids." And I said, "In a two-bedroom?" I go, "Wow." **[30:57] Doug Retsico:** And he goes, "Yeah." And I said, "Well, so what—who takes care of the kids?" And he says, "Well, we take him to daycare." And I says, "Well, where do you park?" And he says, "Well, we all four got cars." I—you know, she goes to work, I go to work, Dad goes. And I said, "Well jeepers, we—they're proposing a 1.725," if that's correct, parking. So less than two cars a family. Again, this was just a casual conversation. **[31:25] Doug Retsico:** But then as I talked to one of the council members, they said that—they mentioned that they figure that there will be professional people, whatever professional is—I guess doctors, lawyers, and that type of thing living there. And I said, "Well, if you really believe that, then you better switch from 1.725 to more than that with zero overflow parking." Because they said if doctors and lawyers and that type of thing are going to live there, they're certainly going to have more than one and a half cars or one-three-quarter cars. **[31:56] Doug Retsico:** So that is a huge concern of mine. And naturally the parking. I don't know, if I was a McDonald's guy, I'd be nervous, but you know, they might park on the Subway lot, this—that. I know that the state owns that property across the street, but how about if they put up a fence? Um, you know, what concerns me about this whole project is when we sit there and do this with no overflow parking, we have no way to correct the issue. Because the state owns the property across the street, there's no—nothing else for sale. Uh, the road to the—I understand does not belong to the city. Not that you can put parking on the street anyway. **[32:45] Doug Retsico:** So with, let's say, a mistake of no parking—not even one extra parking—and I know, you know, just like this instance I just—it happened to fall on my lap. There's no way we can correct this. I mean, okay, I make mistakes every day—I just made one about five minutes ago here. But we can't go, "Oh well, there's a huge problem. Let's buy the property across the street," unless the state is going to sell us that, you know? So there's—there's just a terrible um, parking situation. Uh, the policies—who's going to pilot, you know, who's going to watch the overflow parking, the dead cars, that type of thing or whatever. **[33:31] Doug Retsico:** You know, naturally we still have the no room for kids, no land. Again, we got to walk across State or they can go over there or down in the ravine. You know, since the last time I have talked to—last time I said "hundreds" and I was joking, I said it probably was about 10. I have talked to a couple hundred people now. And I've talked to doctors, lawyers, bankers, workers, men, women—you name it, I've talked to them. And I have not got one—and I swear to you on my grandchildren's lives I'm telling you the truth—I have not heard one person that said, "Wow, that is a good place to build a building." **[34:14] Doug Retsico:** Everyone is just about aghast that we're even considering building in that lot. And you know, what concerns me is that, you know, I think somebody has been sold a bill of goods. I know that the Council is hell-bent on building this there and everything else. And you know, so they build this and then we are up for 25, 30 years—whenever, you know, this thing 50 years, who knows—with no way to correct this. It just is very, very concerning. And you know, some people said, "Well, vote the Council out." Well yeah, we can do that, but not for this project. **[35:05] Doug Retsico:** You know, I was so thankful that a few people up at this board at least expressed interest to even listen to us and bring up issues of parking, of kids, of um, you know, just the area that it's in. Rezoning to—from commercial to residential. I was so thankful for you guys at least acting like you—you cared about the people that voted you in or the people that from Cannon Falls. I just think that this thing—uh, again, I've talked to so many people. You know, I think it's just kind of like a piece of pie, you know? It looks good and so you have a piece of pie and then you spend the next month trying to shed the pounds. Um, you know, a guy told me that I was fat and I said, "Yeah, you're right I am, but you're ugly. You're going to be ugly the rest of your life. I can lose the weight." I think this is going to be ugly for the rest of our life. Thank you. **[36:10] Luke Neal (Chair):** Thank you, Mr. Retsico. Um, did you want to have your letter that you submitted to the commission read, or...? **[36:17] Doug Retsico:** I thought you were going to read it. **[36:19] Luke Neal (Chair):** You can read it or one of us will read it. I just wanted to make mention of it. **[36:23] Doug Retsico:** Yeah, go ahead now. He's calling me a goat head. So I sent this letter to John Althoff, Luke Neal—I believe you got it today too, right?—um, and Mike. And I'll just read it the way it was because I wasn't sure I was going to be able to hear—be here. "Mike, if I'm not able to attend the Planning Commission meeting on September 13, '21 to read this during the public input, I'm requesting that you read this letter into the public record instead of me, just like the Cannon Falls Economic Initiative letter that John read at the City Council and the McDonald's letter I understand included in the package for Monday night." **[37:18] Doug Retsico:** "I want this to be part of the same public record. I want to go on record that I do not support the proposed zoning change: B2 Highway Business District to R4 Residential. No residential island zone has a place in this area. It does not meet the standards of the city's comprehensive plan. Does my matter—opinion matter? And that is a really, really good question right now. I [own] property the development [abuts]. My businesses directly impact the property and my use of the business district impacts any new business. A new business in that lot would be fine, which I have stated a hundred times. Apartment building is not, and the tenants will not appreciate the things that I do there." **[38:15] Doug Retsico:** "My business is near the entrance and from their windows and the views overlooking my operation—believe me, I don't have a pigpen there, I try to keep it very, very nice, but we are a business and we take care of a lot of people. So does my opinion matter more than McDonald's?" And this isn't me against McDonald's here either, please. I'm not trying to think that I'm—I would really, really, really love to get along with everybody. I do get along with the guys from McDonald's and stuff. "So their opinion shouldn't matter more than mine. Let's put this into a tax perspective. I just showed what the McDonald's here—you'd think that McDonald's is paying huge taxes in Cannon Falls, but in fact McDonald's pays twenty-four thousand seventy-eight bucks to Goodhue County. City gets seven thousand seven hundred and three. School district gets thirty-four hundred." **[39:15] Doug Retsico:** "My property um, adjoins it. I pay twenty-two thousand one hundred and seventy-two. I pay 4,900 to the city, 2,339 to the district—school district. Keep in mind all—keep in mind, and keep in mind that my brother Randy has property in the B2 Highway District. Combined, our taxes—the contribution to the city school district and county are well over what McDonald's pays. So moving down: you need to [realize] that this is a decision. And decisions about rezoning—it's just a bad place to rezone and spot rezone, especially one with dozens of people. Build it somewhere else and work with the McDonald's to find out a better use for the property and partner and put the needed apartment somewhere else." **[40:10] Doug Retsico:** "It's better, safer for the neighborhood, safer for the kids." That's not in there, sorry. "And listen to the surrounding businesses." And I will add: I think surrounding Cannon Falls—I would love, and I know we're not going to, I would love to take a vote of people if they really said, "Do you think that that's a great place to build this?" I couldn't possibly imagine what the vote would be. We are all for you to build this—I know you look—everybody's looking at me like what a jerk this guy is, but um... it—I just—everybody's just—just—I—I don't understand it. So thank you. **[40:53] Luke Neal (Chair):** Thank you, Mr. Retsico. Anybody else to speak on this issue? **[41:00] Babe O'Gorman:** Mr. O'Gorman. Well, I do understand it. This deal was done before you even knew it was happening, and believe you me, it's going to get shoved down our throats. I can show you in print where Cannon Falls is in favor of affordable housing and supports new housing. But I just got done talking about Rick Knowlton not getting that little simple variance out in Timbuktu. Those people moved to Dennison. Rick's still building the house; it's over in Dennison. We're going to start next week. **[41:42] Babe O'Gorman:** So who got the shaft here, folks? We all did. And why? Because somebody decided that he didn't want that variance up there on a road that was [Music] supposedly closed. Did you know that three days after you were told that that road was closed that the city gave Rick Knowlton's daughter a letter informing her that her driveway was not in compliance? That road comes off on the Sandstone road. How can you be out of compliance on a driveway that goes to a road that's closed? It's not possible, is it? **[42:29] Babe O'Gorman:** Anyway, in your pictures here—as you people probably all checked all this out, right? What a farce. There's a green space down behind Subway, north side of Subway, down in the hole. It's on city property, right? And there's a pretty little line drawn down around there. I don't think anybody knew that there's like a 20-foot cliff in the middle of that sidewalk going down there. But anyway—anyway, it's floodplain, right? It crosses MnDOT land. And the Administrator told all of us here at a public meeting that the city owned the road to the mall. **[43:15] Babe O'Gorman:** Well, it just so happens tonight I saw Todd back here. He's the guy that's been plowing that road for years and years, not the city. And I have talked to Ed that owns the road, and he's been paying Todd there to plow it. That means the city doesn't own it. So I don't know how you're going to get this land that is required to be on the property of this new apartment complex that is owned by the city down in the hole with like three parcels of property between it with three different entities. It's kind of hard to do, especially if it's required. **[44:02] Babe O'Gorman:** Um, the Administrator also talked about putting floodproof play equipment. How many of you guys want—because you're all old—how many of you guys want to send your grandkids down in the floodplain on floodproof equipment and let them play? Just wondering. What are we thinking here? There's also easements that have parking on them, a dog park on them, and to my knowledge all of those easements are to be unencroached. And there are easements that are not built on and not used, and that's going on in several spots there. To my knowledge, from what little I can take of this—I—I don't think a lawyer even could go through all this to you. I'm sure you all had a little trouble going through this and understanding it, because I sure did. Anyway, thanks for your time. **[44:54] Luke Neal (Chair):** Thank you, Mr. O'Gorman. Anybody else to speak at the public hearing for this issue? **[45:03] Diane Johnson:** Diane. Pretty soon you're going to get and want me not to come at meetings, but... and I—you know, I don't believe it's the right location for this apartment building. And I must admit, I love the drawings. I love the concept. I love the idea of having that complex in our town. I think we can put it across the street from St. Ansgar's over there. We could put it up—well maybe in Sandstone Ridge area if we can ever figure out how to build up there. **[45:41] Diane Johnson:** But I—the letter in the letter to the editor and the Beacon about pollution, and I hadn't even thought of that. And yet I thought—coming out of Chicagoland area where basically going out of your house and breathing the air was enough to kill you and I come home to Cannon Falls, I'm thinking, "Good, I don't have to worry about being contaminated with pollution." But there are indeed semis and—and traffic on Highway 52, and that is close enough to where that apartment would be built that that is going to... you know, you've got both roads going by, you've got traffic and you've got big traffic. I mean, we've got semis go through town and that's not going to... you know. And as the town gets built up, that eventually is really going to affect the health of the people that live there. And I think, as Doug said, once we build it, you can't undo it. **[46:42] Diane Johnson:** And so I would really encourage us to think about the fact that it is a commercial area. It is subject to pollution that can be harmful for the people that will live there. There is no easy access to walk to that property and get back downtown to where all the action is. Um, I know I've tried with the dogs. Um, I made it, but sometimes it wasn't easy. So you know, not that you guys have any power, but at least to consider it. Thank you. **[47:06] Luke Neal (Chair):** Thank you, Diane. Anyone else in the public to speak to these issues? **[47:11] Heidi Lund:** Heidi Lund. Um, I also read the thing that whoever wrote that in the Beacon last week... Excuse me, could you pull it down a little bit? We can hardly hear you. Um, I also read what the person wrote in the Beacon last week about the—what's under—under the ground, and that's—that's legitimate concern. Um, the other thing is if the—if the builders think that the wealthy doctors and lawyers are going to live there, I think they're deluded because they're not going to. They're going to sell as a business restriction. We don't want to be in a business district for living. We don't want our children to be there and get run over on—on that road that's 45 miles an hour that frequently is 50 miles an hour. **[47:56] Heidi Lund:** Um, with no place to play except in the ditch down there like he was saying of the floodplains. Uh, crossing that road there isn't any place for kids to play. And the wealthy people, they're not going to go there. They're not going to—they're not going to buy into that. It's going to be lower income winding up there. And it sounds like you're letting in a place for lower income because they're lower income and therefore they can't argue anything. It's just—it shouldn't be there. There's plenty of places, open spaces in town where you can put this. It just feels wrong that it shouldn't be there in a business district. You're changing that for a person—a builder—to make money. So let's not line that pocket. Let them buy—build somewhere else. Thank you. **[48:43] Luke Neal (Chair):** Ma'am, would you state your name please? **Heidi Lund:** Heidi Lund. **Luke Neal (Chair):** Anyone else this evening like to speak towards the issue? **[48:58] Pete Beaudet:** But I have another minute and a half or no? Let me just give you... Pete Beaudet. People that Best Buy Liquor, Subway building. Um, I've been back and forth in this thing when they first came up with it, and along with a lot of other people and it's—uh, been for and against it. I think my—the main thing like you talk about is the parking. I don't—I don't think there's enough parking for the larger concept. I was—I'm more for the original concept, the smaller unit—57 unit I think it is. Still need to have more room for parking. **[49:39] Pete Beaudet:** I think these things always happen. They'll start out—it'll be a great idea and it looks great, and then we decide to take it to the next notch and stuff as much in there as we can, and then we kind of ruin a project. My other issue is out—we've been out there for 35 years and see the Subway or the Cannonball dilapidate and go unused and rotting and no one doing anything about it. Nobody looking at buying it or putting their business on it for how many years. That's exacerbated by the fact that we moved since they took the at-grade intersections away out there and they were originally going to put the um overpass right there. **[50:31] Pete Beaudet:** And when we did the comprehensive and the zoning—I think it was 2004—and we did—we did all that, that was considered you had access commercial highway retail. It's not really the case there anymore. Um, you go up to the next interchange which isn't safe at all, but apparently we got Caseys stuffed in there with just a regular hazardous beehive going in there, but they're not going to come where we are. Why? Because you're a mile from the interchange. So we need to consider that, I think, with the zoning and the possible use or consideration of—of—of changing, you know, like we're talking here. **[51:13] Pete Beaudet:** I think we absolutely need the type of housing that you're talking about. Um, not everybody—um, you got different levels. You got Section 8, you got—you know, people that get subsidized and so forth, and people with children and single parents and—and this and that. Whereas uh—like you say, you got young people that want to come to town. Um, we need help. A lot of—a lot of uh businesses in town need help. They can't afford a single-family home with a big backyard and a sidewalk down to the park. That is not something that should be guaranteed by a city or a project that everybody can ride a bike to a park. **[52:05] Pete Beaudet:** If you go into larger cities, there's a lot of downtown apartments above the uh—downtown. Our downtown, we've got apartments above down there. Yeah, there's a sidewalk. You don't put your kids out there. I did when we had the hardware store downtown—we—we ran, you know, ran all over and jumped the curbs and get away of stuff back then. But I don't think they should have to prove that's going to be safe. As far as I understand, you know, the other large unit they have over in Red Wing—but I've heard them—correct me if I'm wrong—there's only like four kids in that project. Very few. I—and I don't know, I mean... it'll be up to everybody to figure out what kind of attraction this is for who. **[52:51] Pete Beaudet:** You know, if it's—if it's families, I doubt flats and single bedrooms are going to be families and children. Um, and you know, again they can put them in the car and bring them out to Lake Byllesby—that splash pad and beach and all that out there. I just don't think to hold that or, you know, a sidewalk and a safe, you know, ride to town for children, I don't think should be part of uh—you know, be demanded by a developer. But I absolutely would like a smaller version. The—the—the parking to me... um, I've been lucky enough to be able to have a garage most of my life, but there's people that can't afford it. That's what this project speaks to. If you want to make it affordable, they can all have a garage and a backyard? It's a different kind of housing. We've got to understand that. **[53:46] Pete Beaudet:** And does the city of Cannon Falls need that? I mean, we haven't done—we've got a lot of Section 8, we have senior housing. But if you have a daughter that's 35 years old and single, making forty-five, fifty thousand dollars a year and—tell me where she lives in Cannon Falls. Can she buy a house? Is her apartment for her? No, because she don't qualify. So there should be a stepping stone for—for other housing, get them into something like this. I—I, you know, I struggled with, you know, where this is and everything, but I also struggle with the fact that it's ever going to be utilized. Nobody's knocking down the door to put a retail there. **[54:43] Pete Beaudet:** And for even on the other side, the hotel belly up—now it's a recovery center. It's great, they're doing great, worked out perfect. It's fine. The new hotel went down where? Why didn't they build next to us? They want to be next to the—they want to be next to the interchange. People got to realize that. Retail commercial—that's what this is zoned. It's not zoned industrial, it's not light industrial. We have a little piece over there. So we do work with people and businesses and want to make sure that Doug's business—absolutely, you got to sell that business someday. He don't want to be, you know, hog-tied and you know that he can't sell his business with somebody saying, "Well, you're not going to be able to do that because you're an apartment there." I get that and I agree with it 100%. So anyway, I think that's all I got. I just like it smaller and make sure there's plenty of parking and—and uh—that's about it. Thanks. **[55:40] Luke Neal (Chair):** Thank you, Mr. Beaudet. Anybody else to address the issue? **[55:45] Doug Retsico:** Mr. Retsico. Once again. Once again. So a couple things. Number one, somebody said earlier that, you know, "Tell this guy to go someplace else," and I don't want to! I'd love to help him look for property in the correct spot. I'd be a fundraiser for you. I'd be your best candidate, serious. Um, but on the side note, and Mr. Beaudet, the motel did ask to build on my property between me and the bank. So—but they were a cheaper bidder, that's how they got that property. And the reason that this gentleman—what's your name again? Bob? Uh, probably wants this property is because it's cheap. **[56:41] Doug Retsico:** I mean the city—it's tough for me to sell the property across next to me because I have four acres there. Um, a beautiful building spot, but I'm not going to ask 150,000 for it. He's getting this property cheap. So that's why. And I applaud you for the sign—that's great. But so it's tough for us guys that are trying to sell property when, you know, the city is selling it cheaper. Uh, which is fine. I have—you know, I don't know if this is true or not, but I have checked with my friend up and he says that to open this up every four years, we can argue for opening that back up on—off and on-ramp. Um, and he's up at the Capitol and he's in—now you guys would know this better than I would, but he says every four years you could get a chance to fight for this. **[57:33] Doug Retsico:** Now, I'm not saying that they're going to do it, but he said you have to go and sell this idea that you need this on- and off-ramp again. Don't know if they're ever going to do it, but he said every four years you get to fight for this. 150 people there? Yep. Well, yeah. Well, so anyway. Um, and then I did talk to one of the firefighters that does work for me and he said—I showed him the plan and everything else and he said, "You know, again, how many fires do we have or whatever? It comes back down again to, you know, the parking." Are they going to have enough parking or whatever? Maybe they're going to go park over in Subway. **[58:12] Doug Retsico:** If I was the McDonald's owner, I'd be very, very concerned with no overflow parking. You know, where they're going to go? Then they're going to go across the street and whatever. When I was watching them this weekend, what was there? How many cars was in there? Yeah, 15. And then there was about five or six motor—not motorhome sorry, campers, and then there was two or three semis and they were all parked there going to McDonald's or whatever. So I—you know, the McDonald's—I don't know for sure how his business is going to be impacted. Naturally the people there might go over for a hamburger. **[58:49] Doug Retsico:** So anyway. Um, i just—i just want you guys... and again, maybe to go in the middle. Who's this smart aleck? He thinks he knows more than me. I have just been told this by my friend up at the Capitol that you can go for this on-off ramp and it comes up every four years. That would change everything. And I would love to help market that or sell it in any way to help you put a good business to our business that deserves there. Okay, thanks. **[59:22] Luke Neal (Chair):** Thank you, Doug. Anyone else? Anyone else? No one else. I have—Mr. Steve Bauer addressed a letter to the commission. Addressed it to me at the beginning. "Mike, I want to include this as part of the public record for the September 13, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. If there was any doubt when I got up at the meeting a month ago or so about the proposed apartment building and highway business district, let me say it again: I am dead set against it and you shouldn't rezone it to R4. You need to put it in a better place—put it in a better place in town." **[1:00:01] Luke Neal (Chair):** "This is a spot zoning to specially accommodate someone. Spot zoning—zoning in increases the tax value of the property—does not pass in the courts. Why chance it? Are you just going to toss out the comprehensive plan? Question. Good. Because I want to buy the land next to City Hall and sell some John Deere from there. Why not? Question mark. Anyway, isn't the City Council and some Planning Commission members listening to us taxpayers? Businesses that line the road that actually knows what it's like there on a day-to-day basis. Why is it—also a question mark—why is it they think that a developer knows better than us? Question mark." **[1:00:46] Luke Neal (Chair):** "Kids and a bunch of tenants running around are the worst ideas. Sandstone, the mail area, or the area out by the school and the new County 24 all make 100 times more sense. Plus someone wants to give the developer variances to cram in an apartment building too big for the lot. We have—parentheses—that's called 20 pounds in a 10-pound bag to me—in parentheses. Hand them three million six hundred thousand and more in tax increment financing and have a 26-year spread. Kids not yet born will be dealing with this generations from now." **[1:01:25] Luke Neal (Chair):** "I thought variances can't be granted if they are caused by the builder. Isn't that what our City Attorney told us? The lot of the lot and anything planned should be around the lot, not make the lot work for what the builder wants to do. We hear one thing and then suddenly it's okay and the same rules don't apply to this? Question mark. It is always good for the city to listen to the taxpayers and ongoing variable business. Listen to the local business that line the corridor of the highway business district." **[1:02:00] Luke Neal (Chair):** "It's nice to listen to McDonald's—we don't want to lose them—but remember they are a business from far away Wisconsin and headquarters in Chicago. Are they going to expand in Cannon Falls and have another location and franchise? Question mark. No, the Cannon Falls market isn't large enough for two, so they are what they are. I'm local, as you know. Am I more likely to expand my business here than they are? Question mark. Chances are better, but there are no guarantees if the city makes bad decisions." **[1:02:40] Luke Neal (Chair):** "Let me give you a little perspective and feel free to look it up if you don't believe my numbers. Yearly taxes and assessments I pay for my properties here: one hundred and one thousand one hundred and sixty dollars. Amount that goes to just the city of Cannon Falls: twenty-nine thousand five eighty-eight—and then in parentheses—is more than McDonald's total bill—in parentheses. Amount to the school district and other levies: 14,259 and the rest goes to Goodhue County and the state. Let that sink in a bit. I pay more directly to Cannon Falls than McDonald's pays totally. That's about as local as it gets. It—it's always good to tend to your flock and listen to the guys across the street and just down the street from City Hall. Signed, Steve Bauer." **[1:03:45] Luke Neal (Chair):** Anybody else address this issue? Close the public hearing in that portion. So now we're at the discussion items. Consideration of the ordinance of the city of Cannon Falls amending City Code Chapter 152 related to sexually oriented uses being allowed in the I2 General Industrial District. Additions or corrections or conversation from the Commission? **[1:04:41] Mr. Lindell:** I say that's where it should be, on the industrial zone. Correct. **[1:04:47] Luke Neal (Chair):** Yeah. So that's where I think it should be also. My—I guess my question, Sara, for you: we don't have an actual ordinance or number or anything. So if we were to move forward, we'd just say we're in favor of putting it in the I2 zone or...? **[1:05:05] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** I believe—I don't know if it got a number, but there is a draft ordinance. I see the draft ordinance may not have a number yet, so you could just—if you—if you like that ordinance, you could just recommend that that ordinance in the packet be adopted. **[1:05:21] Luke Neal (Chair):** Okay. Any further discussion or a motion? **[1:05:26] Mr. Duncan:** I'll make a motion to accept the ordinance that is in our packet to be forwarded to the City Council. **[1:05:32] Luke Neal (Chair):** Second to Mr. Duncan's motion? **[1:05:35] Mr. Matson:** I'll second it. **[1:05:38] Luke Neal (Chair):** The second has been made by Mr. Matson. All in favor? **Members:** Aye. **Luke Neal (Chair):** Opposed? [None] Okay, now we're down to B. The rezone issue at 415 Hickory Drive (McDonald's/Cannonball lot). Discussion by the commission. **[1:06:11] Mr. Christensen:** Like, why do we want to rezone this to R4? We've heard from Doug Retsico, who spoke for Randy also. We've got a letter from Mr. Bauer. Joe McGowaris as competent... Heidi Lund... [Pete] Beaudet is for it, but at a smaller scale. From my point of view and the emails I get, the people of this town do not want that rezoned. And I don't believe it meets the comprehensive plan for—for zoning. **[1:06:51] Mr. Duncan:** Can you elaborate a little bit on that comprehensive plan, Mike? Whether it does or does not. **[1:06:57] Mr. Christensen:** Well yeah, the comprehensive plan is pretty clear that they want to keep the zoning the way it is, separating high density with industry commercial business district. **[1:07:17] Luke Neal (Chair):** Oh, has anybody read the comprehensive plan or have a little...? I—I myself think that's enough, that it doesn't meet the comprehensive plan. That's what I'm wondering—if it does not meet the comprehensive plan, does that not shoot it down just for not meeting that? **[1:07:44] Mr. Duncan:** Yes. Well, I—I disagree. The comprehensive plan is almost 20 years old. I—I believe Pete mentioned about the direct road access that was in place at the time, so that's changed the whole uh discussion on that. Um, I also want to address a number of things here that not just tonight, but in a lot of our previous public hearings, public comments, and social media. People who are not citizens of Cannon Falls or do not have a physical business—and a few people here tonight do have that. The people that do not meet that criteria, such as Mr. Gorman, should not be interfering in the internal affairs of Cannon Falls. He has no business doing that, and many others. **[1:08:49] Mr. Duncan:** Second, during this—this whole discussion going over multiple meetings, I've heard things about how this will bring a higher crime rate, how it'll be done on the backs of the downtrodden, lowlifes, others, scum, not wanted people, and recent immigrants. And of course my favorite: "south of the border." I—this—these are all code words for racism. I certainly hope that is a very small percentage of this community that feel that way. God, I hope that's the case. If not, maybe we need to change the name of Cannon Falls to Racist Falls. Third, all our commissions—the Planning Commission and all our other committees—are advisory only in nature. The Council and the staff support this project. And fourth, I have yet to hear one good reason why this should not go forward. **[1:09:44] Luke Neal (Chair):** I guess I could address that, Mr. Duncan. The Cannonball development does not comply with the Cannon Falls Comprehensive Plan. There is only one plan. It may be old, but it exists and it should be adhered to. It was the basics of all zoning ordinances. Just a few things to consider is: any zoning decisions must be in some way related to protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Does changing a small parcel of land to residential within a large area of Highway Business District zoning do that? I think not. There must be a rational basis for this decision. Is there a rational basis for this decision? I think not. **[1:10:35] Luke Neal (Chair):** The city can deny [a] CUP if the proposed use is: one, not consistent with the city's official adopted Comprehensive Plan; two, endangers or is not compatible with the health, safety, and public welfare. Does the proposed development do this? I think not. Variances can only be granted if the landowner's issue is caused by the unique attributes of the property. There's nothing unique about the Cannonball—it's a known thing. The developer is just trying to cram ten pounds in a five-pound bag and created situations itself. **[1:11:27] Luke Neal (Chair):** This concept requirement to deny variances was covered in person by the City Attorney when she attended the City Council meeting to convince the Council to reverse the Planning [Commission's] decision to grant Knowlton's variance requests. Cannonball developer's variance requests are no different than Knowlton's. The situation is created by a design that is too big for the lot. The lot didn't cause that. Variances should be denied by the law and the City Attorney's counsel—the same standards apply here. **[1:12:02] Luke Neal (Chair):** Rezoning must be based on rational basis, once again related to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Rezoning to R4 does none of those. It creates more public safety issues and contributes nothing to general welfare. As the document says: rezoning should further the city's comprehensive plan. Rezoning commercial property to residential because it will have a great value is not a basis for rezoning and could be challenged in court. This is what's known as spot zoning. The request to rezone a small island of property to residential in the middle of a commercial Highway Business District is the poster child for spot zoning and something extremely dangerous and undesirable. It sets on a slippery slope of procedures for the next rational request. **[1:12:57] Luke Neal (Chair):** It has been literally in court—litigated in court. The cities should avoid a spot zoning. See the court cases listed, which are many. It is considered spot zoning when there is no rational basis to support or promote public welfare. The rezoning would establish and use classifications inconsistent with standard use and create an island of non-conforming use within a large zone district. Period. That's a few of them. Do we want to create that? Do we want to create issues for generations to come? No, I don't believe so. Just how much of this are we going to rezone? Is this considered the spot zone? Are we rezoning the entire business district area? **[1:14:03] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** This is just a proposed rezone for the parcel in question. However, it does not qualify as spot zoning. I heard that this had been a concern, so I pulled up the League of Minnesota Cities statements on spot zoning. And it is rezoning residential property—or a property—from commercial to residential. However, you noted uh—has no supporting rational basis. And in this case, the rational basis is—consensus seems to be that this type of housing is needed. **[1:14:41] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** The second is it establishes a classification inconsistent with surrounding uses. That is certainly one that's debatable. That would be one the Planning Commission would need to decide. But the third piece that makes it spot zoning is that it dramatically reduces the value of the use specified for the zoning ordinance. Spot zoning is usually—spot zoning gets challenged because someone owns a piece of property and the city rezones it, killing its value. If we rezone this property to R1, no one's going to put a house there. You can argue an apartment building might make sense sometimes—they are mixed with business, that's a thing that happens—but no one's going to put a single-family residential house there. So if the city were to rezone it R1, it would absolutely destroy any value that lot had. Rezoning at R4-PUD, making an apartment building, doesn't do that. So pursuant to the League standards, this is not spot zoning. And that isn't an issue as to whether it's appropriate; that's a different question. **[1:15:39] Luke Neal (Chair):** Yeah, I think probably the rational basis is—you know, it's kind of a gray area. I mean, there's other places that this—this apartment complex could be built. **[1:15:52] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** Where would that be? **[1:15:53] Luke Neal (Chair):** Well, there's several places around town. I'm not here to sell property. No, I'm here—I'm here to have a rationally think about what we're doing. Spot zoning in the middle of a commercial facility. This is going to have repercussions down the road. We were just told that this is not spot zoning; it's a gray area in the courts, I think is what she really means. **[1:16:17] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** Nope, it's not. **[1:16:19] Luke Neal (Chair):** I think also it does not meet the comprehensive plan as you worded it. Excuse me, it does not meet the comprehensive plan as worded, right? **[1:16:29] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** So I have the comprehensive plan up in front of me. The area is... hold on, I had it right in front of me. Uh, it's zoned—or it's directed Highway Commercial and the highway-oriented use. The objective is a commercial district that serves Highway 52 travelers and provides for large-scale uses that are incompatible with the city's other commercial areas. And the point was raised earlier by the public that with the zoning—or the, I'm sorry, the entrance ramps and exit ramps moved—um, I think there's a fairly reasonable argument here that this doesn't really apply accurately anymore. Again, that's a question for the—for the Planning Commission and then the Council to consider. Uh, but it's certainly—I wouldn't say prohibits you from—from rezoning the property. **[1:17:10] Mr. Duncan:** Well, I'm going to cut to the chase here and make a motion to accept approve Resolution 2021-11. **[1:17:16] Luke Neal (Chair):** Motion has been made by Mr. Duncan. Is there a second to Mr. Duncan's? Is there a second? **[1:17:28] Mr. Hammock:** I'll second it. **[1:17:31] Luke Neal (Chair):** Second's been made by Mr. Hammock. All in favor? **Members:** Aye. [Three votes] **Luke Neal (Chair):** Opposed? **Members:** Nay. [Three votes] **Luke Neal (Chair):** Motion fails to pass. All that means is when it goes to the Council, it will be without a recommendation, correct? **[1:17:47] Sara Peer (City Clerk):** Correct. **[1:17:48] Luke Neal (Chair):** Be further discussion by the Commission this evening? **[1:17:54] Mr. Lindell:** Entertain a motion to adjourn. **[1:17:56] Mr. Christensen:** So moved. **[1:17:58] Luke Neal (Chair):** All in favor? **Members:** Aye. **Luke Neal (Chair):** Opposed? [None] Evening.