Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker identifications. **Note on Identifications:** This meeting is a **Planning Commission** meeting. While the prompt provided the City Council and Department Directors, the speakers include Planning Commission members (Tina, Bart, Steve) and Planning Staff (Leslie, Harry) who are frequently referenced by name in the dialogue. *** [0:04] **Brad Phenow (Communications Manager):** Okay, we're live. [0:04] **Technical Staff:** Got it. Standing by. [0:16] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Yeah. Okay. Call the meeting in order of planning commission for Tuesday, September 2nd. We usually meet on Mondays, but we're here on Tuesday because of the holiday weekend. Item one on our agenda: approving our minutes from the last time we gathered on Monday, August 18th. [0:40] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Tina's got the motion. Bart's got the second on the minutes as presented. All those in favor say I. [0:40] **Commission Members:** I. [0:40] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Those no. That carries. We have two public hearings this evening. Uh there's one member of the audience, but in case anybody had tuned in, uh expecting to see a discussion on Ivy Hills—there was a letter that had gone out to the neighborhood that there was going to be a hearing on that tonight. Uh that has been continued to October 20. So it's not being discussed here. There's no motions, there's no discussion, there's no activity at all. That has been postponed to October 20th. There will be another notification going out to the property owners within the proper amount of feet from the property as dictated by state law. So you'll see that, but again, October 20th. So if you're here for Ivy Hills, you can—that’s it. Two public hearings. This first one up: preliminary and final plat on V and B Venar subdivision, and I have Leslie is for you this evening. The applicant is— [2:16] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Hold on. [2:16] **Leslie (City Staff):** Have a PowerPoint. Did we— [2:16] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Did it get it on? I'm sorry. [2:16] **Leslie (City Staff):** It's not a—It's working. [2:16] **Chair of Planning Commission:** It's just such a delay. [2:16] **Leslie (City Staff):** Yeah, we've got the logo. [2:16] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Are you connected? Is it connected? [2:34] **Leslie (City Staff):** This content. Well, let's just move on. [2:45] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Wait, because we don't have the information in front of us. [3:02] **Leslie (City Staff):** Not quite sure. Let's try this. There we go. [3:02] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Just in time. [3:02] **Leslie (City Staff):** My Apple... probably um... So before you the request is to subdivide to create two... to serve portion of that. There was the road to go further north into the property developed in a different way and longer needed. So this final plat shows a little bit more has been proposed. [5:26] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Do we have questions for Leslie? [5:34] **Tina (Commission Member):** Um, I remember probably about a year or so ago, we had this um up street that would go through. Don't recall what the city council decided. [5:54] **Leslie (City Staff):** Well, it depends on what the city council... So, that will commitment as part of this recording. Typical fashion... use that they could um provide more and they feel... wetland delineation. Anything additional? [6:51] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Other questions? I'll open up public hearing. Again, there's one member of the public here tonight. Both public hearings are going to follow the same basic format. We have a presentation staff. Uh we ask any clarifying questions that we may have. Questions. We open a public hearing. It's part of the process. We're the ones that officially host the public hearing process. Uh people come up, name, company they represent etc. Public hearing's done, that gets shut down, then discussion, eventually somebody makes—do something, we talk about that motion for a while, we eventually vote on that motion. Then we're a recommending body that goes—everything on the agenda tonight exact same format. That said, I'm asking for public hearing and I've already gotten the headshake of no. So public hearing is open; public hearing is closed. We're back up here and out of— [7:40] **Steve (Commission Member):** Chairman. [7:40] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Yes. [7:40] **Steve (Commission Member):** I'm going to move for approval. This is really a no-brainer. I mean, they're just splitting the property. There's adequate access. Um, and then they can develop it. I mean on that site what used to be there was a electrical wholesale house was Minnesota Electric that used to be—if you look at the previous slides that there was—there's a marking that was the parking lot to the place. The building is gone, but I think the parking lot is still there. Or yeah, the parking lot is still there. So yeah, I'm totally in favor of developing it. [8:10] **Chair of Planning Commission:** I've got a motion. Is there a second? [8:10] **Bart (Commission Member):** I second. [8:10] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Bart's got the second. Discussion on the motion. [8:26] **Steve (Commission Member):** I just have a followup. I just want to be sure I'm clear on it. Never been a fan of shared driveway easements. But this hotel's 20-some years old. That is the driveway as we're seeing in the preliminary. Is it—is that road essentially then just going right down the property line? And so there's zero setbacks. And so the planning department is okay with just how this road is come together. [8:53] **Leslie (City Staff):** Two had similar the hard English that's in, but the function of the access easement does follow very strictly what's already been... that time at site development phase you know we will be looking at traffic there's any adjustments that are needed purpose right now. [9:33] **Steve (Commission Member):** Got it. Thank you. [9:33] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Steve. You had— [9:33] **Steve (Commission Member):** Yeah, if you could—there's a slide that showed the parking lot. It isn't this slide. I think it was one previous. [9:33] **Leslie (City Staff):** Yep. Right there. Now you can see it. [9:50] **Steve (Commission Member):** Yeah. So I—the fact that it's coming onto a state highway. I know there's limited access that the state says you can't do it. So they're going to have to modify it a little bit with when they—they do develop it. And that would be when we do the—the final plat. And so I'm very comfortable with this. [10:07] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Well, final plat tonight, too. [10:07] **Steve (Commission Member):** Oh, yeah. Okay. [10:07] **Bart (Commission Member):** His hand up next. Yep. It's—it's just the same thing. I know for a fact that on a high access, they like to limit it. State, county, or city. There's just too much traffic to add. I do appreciate that they've stopped the road because I think that discourages pass-through traffic. I appreciate the fact that they did. [10:41] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Got a motion. We've got a second. Any other discussion from anybody? Vote. All those in favor say I. [10:41] **Commission Members:** I. [10:41] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Post. No. That carries. Next up tonight, the zoning tax amendment. We touched on it last week. We discussed it. Uh the nonconformities in residential districts. And set up. It's going to be Harry this time. [11:10] **Harry (City Staff):** Thank you chair. Um we're set up. Just want to make sure. Yes. So the um request in front of you is uh by staff to make changes to our non-conforming chapter. That'd be chapter three. This would be regarding non-conforming lots. Uh it's actually a little interesting. This particular uh chapter did at one point have some non-conforming lot language. It was taken out in a larger bid in order to kind of fit with some of the more recent changes at the state level regarding non-conforming lots and just non-conformities in general. But what we are finding now is that how—how we structured some of the changes back then have not helped us allow for redevelopment of some. So, you know, looking at some areas across town, here are some lots where, you know, under our current code, they wouldn't be allowed. Uh, we for one reason or another have a—a—a series of requirements within our zoning districts that say, "Hey, you need to have X amount of square feet to your property and X amount of lot width." So in a lot of these cases for pretty much all these lots in front of you, they either wouldn't be able to be developed or they wouldn't be able to be redeveloped. So the changes that we're proposing are to allow some of these non-conforming lots developed going into the future. So, as long as that structure conforms to setbacks, height, and lot coverage, then the project would be able to go forward. If the lot doesn't meet lot width or it doesn't meet square footage, it would still be able to move forward. Uh the lot has frontage onto a public street whether it's paved or unpaved—which we were able to clarify with the city engineer and public works that—you know, if it's—if it's on a public street, it's on a public street that they a whole new street out of it—then making sure that lot has access to. And then the very last one is that have at least 50% of the required lot width and area. Um I currently have in here down to a minimum of 40 ft wide and 4,000 square feet. So, you wouldn't be able to develop a property that's smaller than that. And that's to just ensure that there are lots within a neighborhood that are not too out of the normal for lots you would find elsewhere in that neighborhood. So, you know, we do have some lots that get down to say 30 foot wide. Would it be better for those lots to be pulled in as a part of a lot next to it? I think that that's—that's something for the plan commission to consider. This is what I currently have in there just to make sure that we're allowing lots that are still pretty comparable to the rest of the neighborhood. And then the last bit of this is that corner lots use a side setback of not smaller than 10 feet. That's only for lots that are taking advantage of this particular—now again, all of this is just for existing platted lots. None of this is talking about properties that are replatted and you know taking into account development that happens away on the—just existing legally platform. So, first example would be a lot that's R2. You know, code requires 66 foot and 8,500 feet for a single family home. 50% would be 33 feet or—uh under the minimum 40 foot and 4,250 ft. So, this property that's uh to the right on 13th Street Northwest, uh that property would be able to be developed or—or would be developable. [15:09] **Tina (Commission Member):** Could you Mr. Chairman? [15:09] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Yes, please. [15:09] **Tina (Commission Member):** I—I got a little confused. If you go back, keep talking about minimum of 40 ft, but here you have a 33 foot lot width, right? [15:28] **Harry (City Staff):** Yep. [15:28] **Tina (Commission Member):** Okay. So, one of the questions I had is you talked about, oh, that should be consolidated with—what if there's not the ability to consolidate it? Yeah. No, that's—I mean if—if that's already developed on both sides, there's no—so would that be a variance request? [15:48] **Harry (City Staff):** It would be. [15:48] **Tina (Commission Member):** Okay. That's— [15:58] **Harry (City Staff):** Yeah, that would have to move forward as a variance. And that's why, you know, I think as a part of this discussion today, you know, hey, if we look at the 40 foot wide and 4,000, you know, what if we just, you know, encompassed a lot more than that? Sure, we can—we can have a larger discussion on it. Um, you know, just kind of looking at how it's currently written within code, this is what it would be. So, 40 foot minimum, 4,250 foot. [16:20] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Yeah, Bart, I see that your hand is up. Just—just let me let him finish and then we'll come back up here for questions and we'll start with Bart. [16:20] **Harry (City Staff):** Yeah, there's—there's—there's not a whole lot more to this, but the other example I do have is—is C1. So, um, code requires 100 uh foot of width for a C1 property and 10,000 square feet. Uh 50% would be 50 foot width and 5,000 square feet. So this property that's along Willow—you kind of more on the—as you get farther out towards the edge of town, uh getting the—the nursery. But so this property is currently being used as a—as a house. If it were to be redeveloped into a business, you know, this would allow this property to be which would fit its underlying zoning—uh zoning uses. But you know, generally this—this change is to allow property owners to invest in their property, to redevelop their properties, balances some property rights with some community interest, making sure that we have a good amount of housing stock, that we have uh properties that are able to be redeveloped uh without going through additional entitlements. From a—from a general planning and zoning standpoint, it does meet our criteria for a zoning text amendment. So, we are recommending that you forward approval of this ordinance to that. I'm happy to take questions. [17:57] **Chair of Planning Commission:** The presentation. Thank you. [17:57] **Bart (Commission Member):** Uh only reason I was bringing this up was with Tina's question. So, if we had someone—uh we had this airer, two lots, two small lots homes out of it. Would this fit into that desk design designation as well or would this—because it was a great idea and so that's why I was just curious. [18:28] **Harry (City Staff):** Yeah, Mr. Chair. So, you know, again, this—this is only dealing with an existing lot. So Eric Warner took two lots and he replatted them into twin home lots to allow, you know, sort of one home on one lot. Even though it's a duplex, you just be one home, one lot even if—so because he replatted them, he's lost that non-conforming set. So this—this code section would not apply to that development. [18:59] **Steve (Commission Member):** Just a comment. I think your numbers that you come up with for me, I think are great. And the fact that there is—you're going to go any smaller or any other dimension other than that that you'd have to have a variance, so you'd be able to review it, I think is perfect. So this—I can support this really easy. [19:22] **Chair of Planning Commission:** I have one question before we go to public hearing. Want to be sure. So on page 29 of 29 of the packet, section 3.60—that's all that—that's all that's changing, right? I mean that's the language. [19:41] **Harry (City Staff):** Yes, that's what you went through in the PowerPoint, but it's you know 1 ABC pretty easy read. It's not a huge heavy. [19:41] **Chair of Planning Commission:** I just wanted to verify that I was reading the packet. Okay. Public hearing, same thing, same speech. I get the same head nod. No. So we have open public hearing. We have closed public hearing. It is immensely easier when there's one person. That said, we're done with public hearing. Back here to the planning commission discussion. Steve—Bart, excuse me. [20:05] **Bart (Commission Member):** Oh, I'm making a—a motion that we approve the ordinance as read. [20:05] **Steve (Commission Member):** I'll second that. [20:05] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Got them a second. Bart had the motion. Discussion on the motion. Vote. All those in favor say I. [20:21] **Commission Members:** I. [20:21] **Chair of Planning Commission:** So done with that. That goes to city council. It'll be next Tuesday, a week from today. Yep. Copy. That's it for public hearings. Uh now just to wrap up the routine issues, request to be heard. Is there anything? [20:37] **Harry (City Staff):** No, Mr. Chairman. [20:37] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Items for discussion. You got anything for us? [20:37] **Harry (City Staff):** No. Again, Mr. Chair, [20:43] **Chair of Planning Commission:** I'm assuming there's no routine business board. Oh, Tina. Yes, [20:47] **Tina (Commission Member):** Mr. Chairman. I just have a question. I'm sure joined the commission. I saw in the paper where the city of Farbo wrote a letter to the county regarding solar ordinances and it talked in the newspaper article about going before the planning commission. So, if you could just give me a really brief recap so that I know what our position was. [21:12] **Harry (City Staff):** Sure. [21:12] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Well, just I mean, you know, I didn't get what the newspaper article was kind of, you know, stir the pot. I just want to know. [21:29] **Harry (City Staff):** Yeah. And Mr. Chair, this is going to be part of my boards and commissions update anyway. So, it's fine. [21:29] **Chair of Planning Commission:** So, let's just say we're going to segue into the board and commission update. [21:29] **Harry (City Staff):** Okay. Yeah. So, you know, we can—we can hit that first. So, uh I actually drafted most of that letter. I've been um probably the one in most communication with Rice County. Uh when they said planning commission, they actually meant Rice County's planning commission. Okay. All right. Not our planning commission. Otherwise, you guys would already be very familiar with this, I promise. Uh, basically what is—what has happened is that there's an area um—and I can pull it up if we—if we want to take a look at it—but it's a—it's an area out in the county. Um, the only two uh areas where uh what they call urban reserve industrial—this new zoning district that Rice County has adopted in their most—or as—as a part of the most recent comprehensive planning update. The only two locations are essentially where we've identified industrial areas, industrial expansion. So, one is in that Highway 60 area that we had that small area plan not too long ago. And the other one is on the north side in between uh one part of the northern industrial park and our little enclave that's—that's kind of out in sort of where uh Meccon and Dyken are. So urban reserve industrial based off of what the county has put together has said, "Look, you know, this is areas where uh a nearby urban area—in this case Farbo—there's nowhere else in the county that uh URI or urban reserve industrial exists um—has—has indicated that this area is for industrial expansion." So in a way this is kind of a hold where the current owners can continue farming, using the property as they otherwise would. Uh but in the uh sort of eventuality that hey, you know, we wouldn't be able to do anything new here. You know it—it—it really regulates or or sort of restricts the amount of uses that allowed within URI. Uh there are areas currently that have solar uh right now, but that was under some—some previous code um when it was just urban reserve. Urban reserve industrial does not allow solar farms at all. Uh what an applicant uh on behalf of some property owners that are zoned urban reserve industrial has done is that they've requested, "Hey, um we would really like to have a solar uh farm on our property. What if we change the code to allow this as an interim?" So, um they've gone through part of that process already. Uh they've already gone to one planning commission at Rice County. Um we were able to just kind of under—under the wire—just, you know, give them an initial letter from the city regarding this. Um, and then at our most recent city council meeting, we were actually able to get city council's blessing on a—on a letter and then signed by the mayor. Basically, that letter says, "Look, you know, urban reserve industrial, as you guys have put it, both in your zoning code and in your comprehensive plans, this is—this is protecting this area for potential city annexation and industrial development. Um it's not a good idea to have solar farms at that point." We're talking about leapfrogging development and potentially extending utilities a significant way in order to uh accommodate potential, you know, high water or high sewage uh users. And then on top of that, solar farms do break up uh the amount of developable area. Uh they like to be in flat areas. They can be on topographically difficult areas, but obviously that has some additional costs to it. So, a flat land user for solar farm and a flat land user like an industrial use just don't mix. And so, we made that very clear in our letter to the planning commission that, "Hey, you know, this just will not work. We don't have any regulations that even allow this within the city." So, even if we did annex it, we wouldn't know what—um, I think at the—at the end of the day, they—they have uh jurisdiction over their areas. If they decide that this is a good idea, you know, that's fine. We'll work with it. Um, and we acknowledge that in that letter, we did, you know, state some pretty strong concerns about it. Any questions? [25:42] **Steve (Commission Member):** Well, I think you're spot on. To put a solar farm in that industrial area makes no sense to me. Like what you stated, the given cost of extending the utilities and streets to the industrial uh development, it just makes no sense. I'm fully in favor of solar farms, but they have their place and that place is not there. [26:22] **Harry (City Staff):** Yeah. Yeah. it. And we've also counted on, you know, hey, the investment that a solar farm would have to make to bring all that electricity out there, like all that infrastructure, you know, utility investment all the way out there. Even if it is an interim use, uh it doesn't keep them from, you know, in 30, 40 years just swapping out the panels for tying up that land. So, um, that's—that's kind of the gist of it. I—I think if there's anything else uh that came out of the city council meeting, um, we were able to go through kind of the end of, uh, the rebound project, the Rice County project for Henry Square. So, that's complete. Uh, the potential future developers are bringing through a conditional use permit variance that will be brought to you guys at next meeting. And then Hoffmeister made its way through. So now we're just kind of dealing with some—the accessory structure ordinance didn't make it through. So uh now you can have the biggest accessory structures that measure on your property. Everyone's very excited for that. Uh and then trying to think of the last one that went—but that's kind of in a general sense most things passed. So what you guys are familiar with what you've seen is—oh yeah, Jas. Yeah, because that was just a preliminary plat. [28:03] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Okay, that's it for the final thing. Are we ready for a motion to adjourn? [28:13] **Bart (Commission Member):** A motion to adjourn? [28:13] **Tina (Commission Member):** Second. [28:13] **Chair of Planning Commission:** Got the second. All those in favor say I. [28:13] **Commission Members:** I. [28:13] **Chair of Planning Commission:** We're done. [28:13] **Harry (City Staff):** You.