Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, this is a **Planning Commission** meeting (not a City Council meeting). The "Tony" referred to throughout is the City Planner (Tony Wippler), and the commissioners are identified by their last names during roll calls and discussion. [0:00] [Music] [0:12] [Music] **Chair:** Well, good evening. We'll call the meeting to order on behalf of the Planning Commission. I'd like to welcome our residents and viewers to this regular meeting of December 12, 2023. On tonight's agenda, we have three public hearings. We'll handle those public hearings as shown on the agenda. [0:59] **Chair:** Before we get into the public hearings, we have one housekeeping item to take care of; that would be the minutes from our November 14th regular meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? If not, is there a motion? **Commissioner McCabe:** I'll make a motion. **Chair:** We have a motion. **Commissioner Rody:** I'll second it. **Chair:** All in favor say "Aye." **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair:** Anybody opposed? All right, minutes are approved. With that, then, we'll open up all the public hearings at this time. As I mentioned, we'll take them in order as shown. The first public hearings are requests for two variances for the construction of additions to a detached garage at 6611 200th Street West. The applicant is Mr. Dave Donley. Tony, you'll take this. [1:44] **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, commission members. As Chair had mentioned, the applicant for these particular variances—two variances—is David Donley. The property is 6611 200th Street West. The first variance is to allow two detached garages in the R2 zoning district, and then the second one is to allow a 264-foot variance to allow a 1,688-square-foot detached garage, which would exceed the maximum square footage allowed for an accessory structure in the R2 zoning district. The property is zoned R2, which is our low-medium density residential. It is surrounded by agricultural uses. The property is just over an acre in size, contains a single-family home, and two detached garages. [2:31] **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** There's a 1,152-square-foot detached garage, which is located near the house, initially built with a permit in 1974, but it does appear that it's been added onto between 2011 and 2013. And then there is a 660-foot detached garage located in the northwest corner; it was built without a permit between 2011 and 2013 and encroached into the neighbor's property by about 2 feet. The property owner recently acquired additional land to the north and east to resolve that encroachment issue. The property owner started construction on additions to both sides of that northwest garage; it was done without a permit; therefore, a stop-work order was placed on the property for that work that was being done. [3:18] **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** Staff is currently working with the property owner on building and zoning issues, hence the two variances that are requested. This is the survey that was done for basically acquiring the additional property. It does show where the existing house is and the two existing garages. There in red are the additions that are being proposed on the existing garage. This is the work that has been completed to date. This was noticed, and therefore, that's when we issued the stop-work order. The first variance is for a number of detached garages. Per city code section 10-5-7 B2, the maximum number of detached garages on a property within the R2 zoning district is one. As mentioned earlier, the northwest detached garage was built without a permit and was never caught by staff. [4:05] **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** Now that additions are proposed, it's an opportunity for the property owner to bring this detached garage into zoning compliance by receiving the variance to increase the number of detached garages on the property to two. Staff is recommending approval of this particular variance. The second variance deals with the size of the structure itself, and again, per section 10-5-7 B2, the maximum square footage allowed for a detached garage in the R2 is the lesser of 1,500 square feet or the square footage of the principal structure. The home, which is considered the principal structure on this property, has a footprint of 1,424 square feet, making the maximum square footage allowed for that detached garage 1,424 square feet. [4:52] **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** The northwest detached garage is currently 660 square feet. There are the additions proposed on both sides of the garage: a 544-foot addition on the west end and a 484-square-foot addition on the east side. The total square footage of the detached garage, including both of those additions, would be 1,688 square feet, exceeding that maximum square footage allowed by that 264 square feet. The size variance is only needed due to the property being rezoned from A1 agricultural to R2 several years ago as part of the 2040 comprehensive plan. The detached garage existed prior to the zoning change and would be compliant in the A1 district, as there are no size requirements for accessory structures in that district. Due to the agricultural nature of the area, staff does recommend approval of this variance as well. [6:25] **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** Within your packet, and always with any type of variance, there are nine criteria that must be met for a variance to be approved. Staff feels that all nine of those criteria have been met with this application. Therefore, the action that's requested this evening: approve both the requested variances to construct the proposed additions to an existing detached garage at 6611 200th Street West, contingent on the following: number one, all necessary building permits are obtained, and number two, the addition shall match existing structures on the property in terms of color and materials. Thank you. [7:11] **Chair:** Um, the applicant's here. Do you have anything to add to the staff report? I didn't hear you—do you have anything to add to the staff report? **David Donley (Applicant):** Okay. **Chair:** All right, we'll come back to you if you do. That's okay. Yeah, I have the same issue. It says "a public hearing." Are there any comments or questions regarding these variances? Seeing none... Commissioner Teske? [7:15] **Commissioner Teske:** You know, it's just one of those situations where I think the past is kind of coming to the future a little bit. Just a question on why such a large space for a garage? **David Donley (Applicant):** Because I want to put my camper in. I'd rather [not] have it sit outside. **Commissioner Teske:** No, I hear you. I just want to make sure it's not a dwelling space of some sort, so... okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. [7:58] **Chair:** All right. Commissioner Lato? **Commissioner Lato:** No questions, thank you. **Chair:** Commissioner McCabe? **Commissioner McCabe:** No, I don't have any further questions that weren't answered. **Chair:** Okay. You know, I'm a bit familiar with the area, and I think Tony's last paragraph that he read—you know, the rezone from Ag—because again, as Tony mentioned, all these would be allowed in the Ag, and this is really an Ag area out there. So, I don't have any issue with it. You know, if something were to develop in the future, maybe then it gets dealt with then, but I have no issue. Anything else? Do you agree with the conditions that were set by staff—that building permits, which you're going to need to do, and then all additions match existing structures—do you agree with that? **David Donley (Applicant):** Yes. **Chair:** Okay. With that then, I look for a motion to close the public hearing. **Commissioner Lato:** I'll make a motion. **Chair:** We have a motion. Is there a second? **Commissioner Rody:** I'll second it. **Chair:** Motion and second. Call the roll, please. **City Clerk/Staff:** Teske? **Commissioner Teske:** Yes. **City Clerk/Staff:** Rody? **Commissioner Rody:** Yes. **City Clerk/Staff:** Lato? **Commissioner Lato:** Yes. **City Clerk/Staff:** McCabe? **Commissioner McCabe:** Yes. [8:44] **Chair:** In front of the commission, then, are two variances, as Tony outlined, for additions to a detached garage at 6611 200th Street. Is there a motion? **Commissioner Teske:** I'll make a motion to approve. **Chair:** Have a motion for approval. Is there a second? **Commissioner Lato:** Second. **Chair:** Motion and second. Is there any more discussion? If not, call the roll, please. **City Clerk/Staff:** Rody? **Commissioner Rody:** Yes. **City Clerk/Staff:** Lato? **Commissioner Lato:** Yes. **City Clerk/Staff:** McCabe? **Commissioner McCabe:** Yes. **City Clerk/Staff:** Teske? **Commissioner Teske:** Yes. **Chair:** Thank you for coming, appreciate it. All right, we'll move into our second public hearing. This is a request to approve a setback variance for the construction of a new office warehouse at 100 5th Street. The applicant is Dakota County Lumber. [9:31] **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, commission members. Yes, we do have a variance request before us this evening. Dakota County Lumber is the property owner of 100 5th Street. They are requesting a variance from the side yard setback, which requires a minimum 50-foot [setback] if adjacent to a residential zoning district for either a commercial or industrial use. The applicant is requesting a variance of 35 feet in this particular application. The property is zoned B3, which is our general business district. Properties adjacent to the south are zoned RD, which is our downtown residential. The required setbacks within the B3 zone are 20 feet for front, 6 feet for side, generally 6 for rear yard as well. [10:19] **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** However, minimum side and rear yard abutting any residential zoning district requires a minimum 50 feet for commercial and industrial uses. The property contains approximately 2 acres, consists of four separate parcels. The site contains the former Landscape Depot building on the east side of the site. There is a 20-foot wide rail easement that runs generally east and west through the northern half of the site as well. The applicant does propose approximately a 21,000-square-foot office warehouse building located at the southwest corner of the site. The proposed setback is 15 feet from the southern side property line. In large part, that is due to the location of that rail easement. [11:06] **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** The railroad has indicated that they will not allow a building to be placed over that easement, and they've also indicated that at this time they're not looking to relinquish that easement either. So all the other setbacks are met on the site. Lot coverage would be approximately 29% with the addition of the proposed building; the maximum that's allowed in the B3 zone is 35%. Off-street parking is not currently shown on the site plan. Supply yards require one stall per employee. All parking areas must consist of concrete or bituminous. A revised site plan will be necessary to show that and be resubmitted to staff for that. [11:52] **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** Building elevations indicate that the proposed building will be finished with metal panel sidewalls. The property is located within our downtown commercial overlay district, and because of this, code does require new construction to provide 70% or more of the total surface area of any building facade fronting a public street or open space to consist of a mixture of two or more of the following materials: clay bricks, stucco, natural stone, or ornamental concrete. So the building elevation, similar to the site plan, will have to be revised to reflect that code requirement as well. [12:40] **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** Per city code section 10-5-13 B1, the minimum side yard setback abutting a residential district for commercial or industrial use is 50 feet. The request is to reduce that to 15 feet; this would require a variance of 35 feet. At this time, staff recommends approval of that variance. Similar to the previous variances that we looked at, there are nine criteria, and again staff feels that it meets those criteria. The action as requested is to approve the requested variance to reduce the required side yard setback within the B3 zoning district from 50 feet to 15 feet contingent upon the following: number one, all necessary building permits and fire permits be obtained; two, the subject parcels are combined through the county's lot combination process; and three, revised site plan and building elevations shall be resubmitted addressing off-street parking and building elevation materials. [13:30] **Chair:** All right, thank you, Tony. There is a representative of the owner. Do you have anything to add to the staff report? **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** Um, you want me to step up? **Chair:** Would you please? Yeah. **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** Yeah. Um, I guess I would just add a little bit of context. You know, we're hoping to expand. I've been before you guys before and hoping to continue our trajectory of growth in the community. We clearly have the property that's adjacent to this at 288th Street and have grown kind of as much as we can on that property, and that's why we bought this 100 5th Street property—so that we can continue to grow while keeping our business in the community. So we feel pretty strongly about doing this. The intended use is a window and millwork warehouse and then some corporate office space. [14:10] **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** So, you know, like my office would be over there—executive assistants, billing, that sort of thing. The way that we have it laid out right now on the building plan is so that the use that would be closest to the residential district would be office space. Just, you know, kind of trying to be a good neighbor and thinking about making sure things are as quiet as possible for the neighbors and that sort of thing, and keeping the dock and truck traffic as far away from the neighbors as possible. So, situating the building in the corner where we have it drawn on the variance application is, you know, what we feel like is kind of the best-case scenario for everyone when we think about traffic flow and the use of the property. [14:55] **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** And then I would just say, you know, we are very open to whatever, I guess, requirements for building materials and that sort of thing. This is a sort of preliminary drawing. You know, it's kind of one of those "chicken or the egg" problems: how much do you invest into the drawing before you know if you can actually build it there? So the reason why it's drawn with metal and without parking spaces and all that kind of stuff is we basically wanted the layout and the footprint. So if anybody has any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer. [15:42] **Chair:** Sunny, as long as you're there—because you've got some interested residents that live close—hours of operation? **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** Yes. So, um, they would mirror what we have currently at our current location, which is 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Our truck traffic is about 7 to 4:30 in the summer, and then we cut our receiving hours to 3:30 in the winter. **Chair:** Okay. How about lighting of your facility? **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** Yeah, we have—like in our current yard—we have some security lighting. Definitely, that's out there so that we can see things, but we are happy to, you know, cut it off when we need to and work with the neighbors on that. **Chair:** You need to have a safe environment there, but you know, it shouldn't infringe on the neighbors' yards or anything like that. So that'll be looked at also if it's approved. **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** Absolutely. Okay, yep. [16:28] **Chair:** All right. And if you stay available for other questions... Anybody from the commission at this time have questions for... no? Okay. **Commissioner McCabe:** Yeah, I just... okay, go ahead. I just wanted to ask—as far as the off-street parking—do you have an idea how many employees will be [there] and how many parking stalls will be required? **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** Um, yes, it's a little bit of a work in progress as far as like the office space goes and that sort of thing, but I believe that the maximum that we would office out of there would be about 20 employees. We also—and I don't know exactly how the parking requirements work—but we have property across 4th Street as well that could be like a detached lot, and we might only need to bring our handicap spots over close to the office that we don't have any intention to build on, but right across the street, right across the driveway. **Commissioner McCabe:** Okay, thank you. [17:21] **Chair:** If you stay available because I—you may have some other questions, at least you will from the commission. This is a public hearing. We have some residents. Did you have any questions? Yes, sir. **Bruce Beter (Resident):** Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, thank you for hearing me today. My name is Bruce Beter. I'm here with my wife, Julie. We own the home at 407 Main Street, which is on the one of several properties on the southern border of this lot in question. And after hearing some of the statement... are you Sunny? **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** My wife... okay. **Bruce Beter (Resident):** Hi. Just, I wanted to make sure because my wife has spoken to her in the past. Um, and she's alleviated some of our concerns because we welcome the development of this property. We really welcome them as neighbors, knowing that they've been longstanding corporate citizens and good in the community. We just want to express our concern about having a building that close. We have gardens coming right up to that northern lot line. And so, whatever happens is going to happen, and of course, we'll gladly accept that, but we want to express a concern about having something—a building that large—within 15 feet of our property. We were hoping—and this does may not seem like much—but we were hoping to have a distance of 20 feet between us and the closest building. So that was just the only thing that I want to say. At this point, I don't have any questions. We can always talk to you if we need to. We want everything to work. So, I think that's everything I have to say. **Chair:** Is that everything you have to say? **Bruce Beter (Resident):** Yes. Okay. **Chair:** Thank you much. Thank you very much. Do you have any comments? [19:19] **Brad Keefe (Kemps):** My name is Brad Keefe. I'm general manager of the Kemp plant just to the north. I represent Dairy Farmers of America, who's our owner in Kemp LLC, out of St. Louis Park. So, the structure—I hadn't seen the plans until just now. Sunny and I have talked about this before. The structure—I don't see that as impeding whatsoever on our operations. I'm not concerned about the setback variance whatsoever. We're more concerned about—and this is what I've talked to Sunny about—is the north side and the grass and access to our permanent south-side docks on our building. So, you know, my concerns are probably not... don't have anything to probably do with this setback. Again, I hadn't seen these plans until just right now. So, I'm... you know, we want our neighbors to prosper and another large employer here. We're very concerned that, you know, their needs be met and they're able to continue to grow just like ours. [20:06] **Brad Keefe (Kemps):** I, you know, obviously they're going to need a fence around the structure, the property as well, for security reasons, and we recognize that. Sunny's already assured me that, you know, they'll be able to make accommodations so that it doesn't... so we're able to continue our... we have truck flow in as well and want to make sure it looks like it's all going to be on the same side there, and I understand why you want to do that for sure. So, um, that's all our concern is just the truck traffic. I'm not concerned about the truck traffic itself, just in terms of access to our docks. We have some trucks that we park back there sometimes, and one of our docks kind of angles towards the Dakota property. And so, I... this is the first time I've got to take a look at those plans, so I really didn't know if we were talking about a structure close to us or on the south side. But anyway, Dakota and Kemps have talked about this a number of times, so we're not concerned about this particular variance. Thank you very much. [21:00] **Chair:** Um, go ahead Sunny, go ahead. **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** Yeah. Um, that is another reason why we want to situate the building where we're situating it: because Kemps clearly has a lot of truck traffic that flows on the north side of our property. If we were to—like, there may be ways to fit something on the property, not to the size that we feel like we need in a different area—but it would also affect you guys as well. So this just seems like what we felt was the best scenario for us, for the neighbors, and for Kemps as well. So hopefully we're, again, trying to be a good neighbor here and find the best solution that hopefully works for everyone. **Chair:** Well, from my time on the commission, both Dakota Lumber and Kemps have been very good businesses and very good neighbors to the residents within the area, so I haven't heard of any issues. So, and I don't expect any coming from this. But having said that—and we'll get into it with the commission because I know more than one commissioner has mentioned this—is usually when we have such distinct zoning areas next to each other, we like some kind of buffer. So you know, Tony, um, you know, before we get into it too far, do you want to outline what some of the buffers we've used in the past [are]? [22:23] **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** Absolutely. Um, in certain situations, we've done where it's been landscaping—where it's, you know, arborvitae, things like that. Things that, especially when you have confined spaces, arborvitae seem to be the most appropriate because they don't get very wide, but they get tall. Um, we've done landscaping, we've done a combination of landscaping and fencing; so whether that in this instance would be like a vinyl fencing or something like that in addition to landscaping, that could be a possibility, or it could just be fencing. Any of those combinations, um, from a code perspective would be acceptable. **Chair:** Mr. Beter, from that standpoint, would that relieve your concerns a little bit? **Bruce Beter (Resident):** Yes. Okay. **Chair:** Yes. All right, we'll talk about it and then we'll talk with the applicant regarding that. We'll start with Commissioner Lato. [23:08] **Commissioner Lato:** Um, I don't have anything else. That was my main question. Thanks. **Chair:** Commissioner McCabe? **Commissioner McCabe:** Yeah, you said that you had, you know, considered other property lines. What would it do to your operation if you were to make it smaller so there was less of a setback there, or more of one? **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** I mean, yeah. Um, so I, you know, I'm thinking of business growth and our trajectory and that sort of thing, and you know, I expect us to outgrow this building probably in 10 years, and if we had to size down, that runway is just a lot shorter. Um, you know, we might have to look for a larger warehouse space outside of the community because we've kind of exhausted what's available within Farmington right now, unless somebody wants to like build a business park; that'd be fine. But yeah, it would be a challenge. Um, we're also super low on office space that exists right now, and we're having to kind of play the game of who has to work remote today and jump seating desks. So being... what we would probably end up doing would be taking the office space out and having to figure out offsite operations and that sort of thing. It would be a pain point. [24:41] **Commissioner McCabe:** Okay, yeah. And then the other thing that I had written down was the fencing or buffer, but that was already answered, so I think that would be a good thing to add for sure to differentiate between the two. **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** Comfortable with that too. I mean anywhere that... especially since we are planning to put some office space in there and not just have it be, you know, an industrial building, anywhere that I am going to potentially have a builder come in or have somebody come in for a meeting... we sell to residential building contractors and they expect things to look nice in a certain way. So, you know, we like our office space. Our sales office right now has half-log siding and stone and shake, and you know, we use it as an opportunity to show off what we sell. So, fully comfortable making sure that the building looks nice and that the landscaping looks good and maintaining it, all that kind of stuff. Not an issue. **Commissioner McCabe:** Thank you, that's all I have. **Chair:** Yeah, you shouldn't have trouble finding the product, right? **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** Exactly. [25:26] **Commissioner Teske:** Yeah, my question was just around the size of the building as well. Is there any way to tighten up that layout on the interior to even give a few feet in addition? I've laid out a lot of pallet racking in my life, and I know you need the clearances to move equipment, but I'm just wondering if there's any way to even tighten that up a little bit? **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** Yeah. Um, so the plan that we have drawn is... we've been working with like the leading company in the country that lays out industrial racking for our industry; it's CT Darnell Sunbelt Racking. And again, the intention is windows and millwork. The way that windows are stored right now in our industry, the kind of newer way that we're doing it is... they're called "stacks," so they're like a 4x8 basically palletized rack with walls on it essentially and forklift pockets that you can stack on top of one another, and it creates like the tightest, most efficient layout that we can. And I believe that he has it drawn as tight as possible because we want to maximize what we're able to do, and he also wants to sell me more racking, so he's trying to fit as much in there as he can. [26:58] **Commissioner Teske:** Awesome. Yeah, my other questions were just around that partition or berm easement to the property and just the sight lines to that, so I think we've already addressed that. **Chair:** I always find it's better to get those things out front for the residents to hear, maybe like Mr. Beter said, release them a bit. Um, so... oh, I have one other question. **Commissioner McCabe:** Go ahead. As far as trucks—full-size trucks for both Kemps and Dakota, right? Like 53-foot trailers? **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** Yeah. Our longest is about 48, but some of the vendor semis that come in might be 53. **Commissioner McCabe:** Okay, yep. Um, is there going to be conflict between the two businesses throughout the day, or...? **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** I don't think so. I mean, like, we've seen your truck schedules. Our vendors come at more specific times, so you guys have more traffic than we do. Our vendors come in and have to sit for longer while we like hand-unload things. So I think that we can work together just fine. **Commissioner McCabe:** Okay, sounds good. That's all. [27:44] **Brad Keefe (Kemps):** [Kemps is] comfortable to be more on the north side. The larger trucks that are coming in... it's our trucks that are sitting on the south side; they tend to sit there sometimes for days. **Chair:** Okay. So really, we have... the hours are the same as the other business; it's not lengthy. Lighting will be monitored so it doesn't infringe on the residents to the south. And we have a resident to the south and we have a resident to the north here, and neither one seem against it. They just said, "Okay, you know, how can we modify it to help relieve some of the issues?" And again, the transition is something that we always look at. And with the commission's permission, I'd like to leave that transition up to staff to work with the applicant and find out what works best. Or Tony, would you like a direction? I don't know which way would be the best for the residents to the south at this point. [28:29] **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** Right. What I would say is let's add a fourth condition: that the applicant work with staff on a landscaping/screening plan along the southern property line. **Bruce Beter (Resident):** Question: so in that 15-foot barrier between the properties, would that be unused then? It would be landscaped, it would just be a barrier? Is that right? Okay, thank you so much. [29:16] **Chair:** That's what it would be with something they come up with. So, you know, I'd be comfortable with that. You know, I know it's changed, but it's kind of gone through the whole gamut because years ago—maybe not in the exact parcel but just to the east—I believe that's where your father may have started. So I mean, it's come around. **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** That exact [parcel], yeah. **Chair:** Okay, so I mean... and that was 40 years ago. **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** Almost, yeah. **Chair:** So yeah, so I mean it's come around. So it's been that; it's been a Landscape Depot, and so it's going back to it. Um, I think it would fit there. I mean, Kemps to the north, you know, they're busy, and you have the... you know, I've got several relatives that live just north of your property and, you know, they don't say much or complain about it. So I mean, you get along. And as we always say, you know, be good neighbors to each other and be good neighbors to the residents of the south. I mean, it's a new business, and um, it's different, and change is sometimes difficult. All right, was there anything else from the commission? Sunny, do you agree with the four contingencies? Because we added the fourth one. **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** Yes. **Chair:** And I don't know if I need to read them, but really the last two about the building elevations, the off-street parking, and then the landscape screening plan. You agree to all those? **Sunny Humphrey (Dakota County Lumber):** Yes, I do. [30:50] **Chair:** Thank you. With that then, I look for a motion to close the public hearing. **Commissioner Teske:** I'll make a motion. **Chair:** We have a motion. Is there a second? **Commissioner Rody:** Second. **Chair:** Motion and second to close the public hearing. Call the roll, please. **City Clerk/Staff:** McCabe? **Commissioner McCabe:** Yes. **City Clerk/Staff:** Teske? **Commissioner Teske:** Yes. **City Clerk/Staff:** Rody? **Commissioner Rody:** Yes. **City Clerk/Staff:** Lato? **Commissioner Lato:** Yes. [30:50] **Chair:** All right. In front of the commission, then, is a variance to reduce the required side yard setback within the B3 zoning district from 50 feet to 15 feet, contingent upon the four things that we outlined and that I read and that the applicant has agreed to. Is there a motion? **Commissioner Lato:** A motion to approve. **Chair:** I have a motion for approval. Is there a second? **Commissioner McCabe:** I'll second. **Chair:** Motion and second. Is there any more discussion? If not, call the roll, please. **City Clerk/Staff:** Teske? **Commissioner Teske:** Yes. **City Clerk/Staff:** Rody? **Commissioner Rody:** Yes. **City Clerk/Staff:** Lato? **Commissioner Lato:** Yes. **City Clerk/Staff:** McCabe? **Commissioner McCabe:** Yes. [31:35] **Chair:** All right. Well, thank you Sunny. Thank you to Mr. Beter and for Kemps to come out for our meeting tonight. Appreciate your input. All right, we'll move into our third public hearing. This is an application to amend the comprehensive plan from High Density Residential to Commercial and to rezone the properties from R4, which is high density residential, to B2 downtown business. Tony? **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** Thank you. I will take that from here. Yes, the city is seeking to amend the 2040 comprehensive plan and rezone the properties at 109 and 113 Elm Street. These are the two properties in the City Center North area. So, it's the post office site and then the other commercial site where the former liquor store used to be. Back in—well, back in 2016 when we approved the downtown redevelopment plan—as part of that, we looked at a number of parcels including these two, and as part of that plan, it was looked at for redevelopment of those potential sites for high-density residential. [32:23] **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** What we're asking tonight is to basically revert those back—specifically those two parcels—back to commercial land use designation and B2 zoning. In large part, being that both buildings are fairly new. The B2 does allow for apartment buildings as a conditional use, so we still have that potential there, but it would take full redevelopment of those two parcels in order for that to happen, and with the age and condition of those buildings, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Um, on top of that, we have talked with the owner of the former liquor store building, and they're having a real tough time leasing any of that space just because of the zoning. [33:09] **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** So, going back to what it was before specifically for those two parcels does help them in the long term, and short term for that matter of fact, to lease and have that building be utilized again, because right now it is completely underutilized. So that is the request that is before you this evening: to recommend approval of the resolution amending the 2040 comprehensive plan to change the land use designation for the properties addressed as 109 and 113 Elm Street from High Density Residential to Commercial, and to recommend approval of the ordinance rezoning the properties addressed as 109 and 113 Elm Street from R4 High Density Residential to B2 Downtown Business. [33:55] **Chair:** All right. Thank you, Tony. Um, just to note, this is a public hearing. We have no residents or guests in our audience to hear comment from. So we'll start with Commissioner McCabe. **Commissioner McCabe:** No, I mean, this makes sense to me for those two. I don't really have any issue with it. **Chair:** Mr. Teske? **Commissioner Teske:** Yeah, I have no concerns or questions. **Chair:** Mr. Lato? **Commissioner Lato:** Yeah, this seems like a good idea. Thank you. **Chair:** Yeah. Yeah, Tony, I think it's a fine idea. I mean, sometimes you do—sometimes you overthink things, and I think that was the case here. **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** It could be. [34:42] **Chair:** But regardless, I know... and if on secondary if it, you know, helps utilize those buildings presently, then that's... that's even better too. So, yep. Any other comments from the commission? Do you want anything else? **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** I have nothing, sir. **Chair:** If not, I look for a motion to close the public hearing. **Commissioner McCabe:** I'll make a motion. **Chair:** Have a motion. Is there a second? **Commissioner Rody:** Second. **Chair:** Motion and second to call the roll, please. **City Clerk/Staff:** Rody? **Commissioner Rody:** Yes. **City Clerk/Staff:** Lato? **Commissioner Lato:** Yes. **City Clerk/Staff:** McCabe? **Commissioner McCabe:** Yes. **City Clerk/Staff:** Teske? **Commissioner Teske:** Yes. [35:27] **Chair:** In front of the commission, then, is a recommendation to our City Council to amend the 2040 Comp Plan for properties at 109 and 113 Elm from High Density Residential to Commercial and also the rezone of the same two properties from R4 high density to B2 downtown business. Is there a motion? **Commissioner McCabe:** I'll make a motion to approve. **Chair:** We have a motion for a favorable recommendation to our City Council. Is there a second? **Commissioner Lato:** I'll second. **Chair:** Motion and second. Any more discussion? If not, can I call the roll, please? **City Clerk/Staff:** Rody? **Commissioner Rody:** Yes. **City Clerk/Staff:** Lato? **Commissioner Lato:** Yes. **City Clerk/Staff:** McCabe? **Commissioner McCabe:** Yes. **City Clerk/Staff:** Teske? **Commissioner Teske:** Yes. [35:27] **Chair:** All right, that concludes our agenda. Tony, was there anything from staff? **Tony Wippler (City Planner):** I have nothing, sir. **Chair:** Anything from the commission? If not, I'll remind the commission that our next regular meeting is January 9th in 2024. And with that, I look for a motion to adjourn. **Commissioner Teske:** Motion to adjourn. **Chair:** I have a motion. Is there a second? **Commissioner Rody:** Second. **Chair:** Motion and second, and all in favor say "Aye." **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair:** We officially adjourn. Thank you. [36:25] [Music]