This transcript features the **Cannon Falls Planning Commission** meeting. The primary speakers are **Chair Diane Johnson**, City Administrator **Jon Radermacher**, City Attorney **Shelley Ryan**, City Engineer **Bill Angerman**, and Commissioners **Brian Douglas**, **Chris Nobach**, **Jesse Fox**, and **Isaac Naatz**. [2:34] **Unknown Speaker**: Yep. [2:48] **Chair Diane Johnson**: Diane. Costwise, you just — The meeting of the City of Cannon Falls Planning Commission meeting July 21st, 2025 will come to order. [3:06] **Jon Radermacher**: Roll call. Johnson? **Chair Diane Johnson**: Here. **Jon Radermacher**: Douglas? **Brian Douglas**: Here. **Jon Radermacher**: Naatz? **Isaac Naatz**: Here. **Jon Radermacher**: Nobach? **Chris Nobach**: Here. **Jon Radermacher**: Fox? **Jesse Fox**: Here. **Jon Radermacher**: Thank you. Uh, we got the agenda before you. Is there a motion to accept the agenda? Approve the agenda. Don't all jump up at once. [3:27] **Brian Douglas**: I motion to accept it. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Moved by Douglas, second by... **Chris Nobach**: Second. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Nobach. All in favor? **Commissioners**: Aye. **Chair Diane Johnson**: So moved. We do have to [go to] public input. So public input is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address concerns to the planning commission. The public input will be no longer than 30 minutes in length and each speaker will have no more than three minutes to speak. Speakers may address topics relevant to the governance of the city. Speakers must sign up in advance and must provide their name, address, and the topic they intend to address. Comments must be topic, respectful, pertinent to the city business, and adhere to the applicable data privacy rules. Any speaker that violates these rules will be asked to sit down, and if the speaker refuses to comply, they may be removed from the hearing. Speaker shall not address topics that are the subject of a public hearing. All such comments shall be made at the public hearing. The planning commission will not generally act on issues raised by the public input but may choose to schedule consideration of the item on a future agenda. [4:42] **Chair Diane Johnson**: So we have two people for public input. Um and again if if it's pertinent to the two public hearings then it should be done there. But uh Tom Pratt Crowder. [4:58] **Tom Pratt Crowder**: Oh, I signed the sheet there, but I didn't plan on making a public comment. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Ah, well, this is your opportunity [or] one of the two public hearings. **Tom Pratt Crowder**: I thought it was a sign-in sheet is all I assumed it was. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Ah, so we should say "present." [5:15] **Tom Pratt Crowder**: All right. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Thank you. **John [Public]**: Okay, John be the same. More or less to hear just hear what the uh two hearings are about. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Okay. So, you made me read that entire paragraph. **Jon Radermacher**: But it's good practice. [5:32] **Jon Radermacher**: Uh Chair Chair Johnson, if you could uh to go back and make sure to approve the minutes from the May 12th since we weren't able to do that at the... **Chair Diane Johnson**: You're right. Minutes May 12th. Corrections, additions? **Chris Nobach**: Motion to approve. **Jesse Fox**: Second. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Moved by Nobach, second by Fox to approve the May 12th minutes. Further discussion? All in favor? **Commissioners**: Aye. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Opposed? Abstain? So moved. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. Now I'll try not to goof up the public hearing and the discussion. Okay. [6:08] **Chair Diane Johnson**: First public hearing. A data center text amendment. [6:08] **Jon Radermacher**: Okay. Uh I will uh start with an introduction for this uh before we move on to the to the hearing. So um those not in the audience in attendance prior to this and the in the work session and a part of the conversation that the city council um took action on back on July 1st. Um the city has uh received an application for um a use within the city or not within not currently within the city but in a pro area that will be annexed and we are working towards um the process to evaluate that. So, I think it was a Commissioner Douglas put it asked the question and put it uh made the statement pretty succinctly and I'll try to reiterate that: in order for us to fairly evaluate the the opportunity that we have in what is being applied for and what has been discussed with the city, data centers do need to be brought into existence within our city code. And in this instance, we are doing so by uh recommending them to come as a conditional use permit um in uh the I-2 district. So as we you know work through some questions and things within the uh work session in advance, we do have some amendments that we would recommend um after that. But uh at this time um I would open or I would defer to any other questions from the commission prior or defer it to offering for the public hearing time for those in the audience that want to speak to this text amendment. [7:43] **Chair Diane Johnson**: Any... well should we ask for the public first? **Jon Radermacher**: Open the opening of the public hearing. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Open the public hearing on data center text amendment. Anybody wishes to speak to this matter? And then the time of that is 6:35. Would anybody like to speak to the proposed data center text amendment? Final call. Would anybody like to speak to the proposed data center text amendment? [8:45] **Chair Diane Johnson**: Hearing none, we will close the public hearing. Do we want to do the next public hearing or move on to the disc... what? **Jon Radermacher**: Nope. We'll stay on this and finish our discussion from the um commission if there's any other comments or or things at this time from the commission. [9:10] **Jesse Fox**: I think maybe just just to confirm, right? I think we established that, you know, the documents needed so we can kind of make that first step, right? But that's not to say that this can't and necessarily won't be sort of a living breathing document as we progress forward, right? Because I mean with it being a data center, I mean the definition of a data center could change drastically in the next couple years, right? So I think you made the point earlier, John, say you know later on you know it's sort of up to council's job and planning zoning's job to kind of re-address it and determine you know what's still relevant what isn't relevant what do we need to change you know what kind of fits into you know what is a data center. So I think based on what we have today was created on you know kind of what we do know, some aspects that we don't know that we're trying to build in some safeties right, but that's not to say that again it's not set in stone. That's just to allow us to move forward and as as we you know find areas that we need to make changes those changes can be made. **Jon Radermacher**: Correct. **Jesse Fox**: Correct. [10:17] **Brian Douglas**: Other comments from the commissioners? Well, I just think that we need to proceed with this because if we don't get this going, if we don't get this started, there's no reason for everything that we did for the past 6 to 12 months trying to get everything set up here. We have to get this going here so that we are protected on future things that we can change if necessary. So, I think we should proceed. **Chris Nobach**: Yeah, I agree. Yeah, I I would motion to approve that ordinance or recommend approval to council. **Jon Radermacher**: Um yeah, when we... we'll get to that in the next item, we'll finish our other public hearing and then we'll go back and make the tweak, small tweak amendments that we had... **Chris Nobach**: Okay. **Jon Radermacher**: ...brought up in work session. [11:08] **Chair Diane Johnson**: Jesse, anything further from you? **Jesse Fox**: Um right. So, I mean, we're just going to make sure that basically we're just sort of setting up the framework on how how we deal with um applications for data centers. Um, and like like you said, this will be a conditional use permit um on um going forward uh with it in the uh I-2 zone. That's the recommendation or the that's the way it's drafted as today. [11:42] **Chair Diane Johnson**: Okay. And I again I'll go back to my original or comment on the work session. I I guess I would like us to at least explore, you know, the possibility of of limiting uh you know to see if there was some such a way to put in here that uh — now I've even lost my word — the crypto mining um is is expressly not allowed but I don't you know there again that would be if that is even possible with definitions. [12:28] **Chair Diane Johnson**: So other comments from the... John do you want us to vote on this now or... **Jon Radermacher**: Uh nope. Would you just close the the hearing and then we can move on to the second hearing. I think they already... **Chair Diane Johnson**: Okay. The public hearing was closed. We went to the discuss but there there's no vote on that tonight then or... **Jon Radermacher**: No, that's that's the next step. So, you're going to do your two public hearings first and then you'll go on to address the approval of recommendations to the council next. [12:59] **Chair Diane Johnson**: Okay. So, public hearing number two. I will open the public hearing. Oh, no. First of all, gravel driveways text amendment proposed. John, would you like to offer any comments or... is he...? [13:10] **Jon Radermacher**: Uh sorry. I... so uh just as a reminder um the memo that we have uh that I drafted, the ordinances that we had, I do have Mark Sansgard here from Timberidge Development that they were the original applicants to the text amendment. Um we talked about this back actually initially I think in January uh when it came up for a potential for a variance um requesting a uh gravel driveways be allowed for the development that they have on the estate lots. In that time we uh concluded that retracting that would be the appropriate step and we've been in discussion about a potential uh gravel driveway text amendment since then. So, um, I just wanted to follow up, uh, because we had a conversation after the packet went out. Um, so in the packet, we talked about two potentials, uh, for, uh, drafts. Uh, one was the applicant draft that was, um, I don't know... I'm sorry, the packet didn't come through to me. So, and then there was a staff uh, recommended draft. So the uh in conversation the staff draft uh or the staff recommended draft was acceptable. [14:33] **Jon Radermacher**: So um in terms of consideration I withdraw the applicant draft and just move forward with a decision on the staff draft. So I just want to uh conclude with uh the change to that and read that out loud since it's pretty short. Um so that number four uh would be added: "For single family, two family lots with a minimum of 2 acres. The areas utilized for driveways that are at least 100 ft in length. The surface must have a pavement or concrete for at least 25 feet from the street accessing uh the driveway and for at least 25 ft leading to the garage entry or parking space." So, it is kind of the as we discussed, um, opens the door for large lots with long driveways, having a least entry point that is paved, and then a parking space that's also paved or concrete hard surface. [15:42] **Brian Douglas**: I'd like to start a little conversation that... Okay. Oh, we got... wait, you're done? **Jon Radermacher**: I'm done with my explanation. **Chair Diane Johnson**: So then we will now open the public hearing on the uh proposed gravel driveways text amendment. Would anyone wish to speak to the proposed text amendment? Anyone like to speak to the proposed text amendment on gravel driveways? Asking for the third time if there's anyone who would like to speak. Hearing none, we will declare the public hearing closed. [16:20] **Jon Radermacher**: Okay. So those times for 6:43 and 6:44. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Commissioners' discussion on the proposed gravel driveways text amendment. [16:40] **Brian Douglas**: Let me just give my opinion. I mean we look at this as you were saying item number four. You have 25 ft from the street, 25 ft from the garage. If you have 100 foot, then you have 50 feet basically that isn't paved. I don't know whether we need to extend that. So that makes more sense. But not paving for 50 feet for 100... maybe it's a 500ft driveway. I could see it. But 100 feet seems ridiculous. You might as well just pave the whole thing for all the time and effort you're putting in to go here and here to pave. So I think that's something if we're going to do this — and I'm thinking back when we talked about this before — I know that this is out, but I thought all city lots needed to be paved. All driveways were supposed to be paved. So this is trying to be an addendum to change all this. [17:42] **Jon Radermacher**: This uh note that is leaving the standard is they're paved. So the ordinance as all the previous language in the ordinance remains. So if you have a driveway in town, it starts with paving. You get to the point of number four where you have a 2-acre lot and you have a driveway that's at least — at this point — at least 100 ft long because that was... and we were having conversations about that in our meeting that wasn't a quorum. So, I was taking notes and that was the the distance I had written down at that time. Um, for the entry and then the parking areas being paved. Yeah, I I'm I'm with you. Practically, if you have only 50 ft of unpaved driveway, that would not make sense to probably leave that. You'd probably pave it. But if you go to 150 ft, is that what... what is that minimum threshold in which you, you know, force uh everybody to pave everything? Um I I don't have a firm stance on on what that that would be. So um this just seemed to be at at then at least half of the driveway is is covered. The other half is not. Anything above and beyond that you have that same flexibility of just the initial 25 ft and the last 25 ft are paved but they have to be um on lots at least two acres in length. Everything under that still paved standard still stands. Paved asphalt or concrete surface all driveway. [19:07] **Chris Nobach**: A question on that. Uh if if we were to change from 100 ft to say 250 or 300, would we have to redo the whole public hearing? **Jon Radermacher**: No. **Chris Nobach**: Okay. Just wanted to check. Thank you. **Jon Radermacher**: I don't think so. I was I'm going to defer to my the city attorney opinion on that one, but... [19:25] **Chris Nobach**: I I guess I have a couple questions. So, and maybe Bill, maybe you can help me out. Um 25 ft from the street accessing the driveway. So, is that going to cover us in all scenarios of, you know, like let's say MnDOT owns the street? They usually pave up to right-of-way line, you know, I guess. Is this 25 ft needed or should we say — the other language proposed language said lot line? And I kind of felt more comfortable with that just just in case if if say for some reason the lot line was at 26 feet or you know what I mean like is 25 ft going to go over every lot line. Does that make sense? **Bill Angerman**: You mean all the way through the right-of-way? **Chris Nobach**: Yeah. **Bill Angerman**: Um not all city right-of-way. Yes. Most county right-of-way and MnDOT's going to vary. **Chris Nobach**: Yeah. You know, because like for example in town it's wider. **Bill Angerman**: I'm going say it's going to cover most instances. **Chris Nobach**: Yeah. I don't know. I mean should should we just say up to the lot line or because what's the... does the 25 ft seem arbitrary? I guess what if what if the lot line is up to 50 feet and you're like you got to do 25 ft. You know I guess that's kind of where I get hung up. **Bill Angerman**: I think most of the time it was going to the right-of-way would be less than that. So I think when John and I were talking, 25 was generally going to [work] and city right-of-way it's going to be beyond that. So that covers it and then some. **Chris Nobach**: Okay. **Bill Angerman**: But there but you're right Chris there's no magic to that number. [21:05] **Chris Nobach**: Yeah. And then the other thing is you know why do we define single family and two family lots? I mean is there reasoning behind that as opposed to you know any old lot on two acres or what are our thoughts there? **Jon Radermacher**: Um that that is defined for specifically for residential structures. So then you're not uh trying to regulate this into the commercial aspects. Um I guess an instance like before the examples of a town home or quadplex. So a quadplex would be you know if you had something like that on a large lot. I I unlikely to see that. I don't think it would be common. Um, we were this was specifically for residential as I was thinking the intent of the applicant was for residential. **Chris Nobach**: Okay. And then help me out. Does this so that this language applies citywide but it doesn't apply from zone to zone. Does that make sense? Like this isn't just for R-1 or R-2. **Jon Radermacher**: It's any any place in which a single family or two family residential lot could be constructed. So not I think they're prohibited in industrial and to certain some business, but we do have the residential business district. So that has a combination of commercial and residential. [22:30] **Brian Douglas**: So this would just apply to those four lots there. **Jon Radermacher**: I haven't done the research to determine how many two-acre parcels are in the city that have a residential single one single family or two family. I do believe there are more than just these four. And in any future development of of lots, if that was allowed, uh you're um you do have that as a possibility in uh urban reserve uh areas that are urban reserve can actually have 10-acre single family residential lots. Um, and I do believe there's another zoning that does um allow for a 2-acre parcel for a residential lot. So, there's those future those future developments could be subject to this and and have that exception allowed. [23:21] **Chris Nobach**: Why Why do we care about the the amount of pave road, the 25 ft leading up to the garage? Why do we care about that? I guess why is that important? **Jon Radermacher**: Uh it was an example in other references I have actually in in previous city experience. U-paved surfaces were were important for parking um not just gravel uh you know and if we were and if the starting stance is we want everything paved then ultimately where the vehicles are going to be parked potentially you'd want that surface paved too. That was I guess the interpretation that I had in using kind of the example of the applicants um what the applicant had included because I think that was their their statement as well. Some of that finished area would also be paved. **Chris Nobach**: Okay. **Jon Radermacher**: The the starting area would be paved. So I was trying to work with I guess the sentiment of the information I was given at the non-planning commission meeting we had and the applicant. **Chris Nobach**: Yeah, cuz to me some of it I mean most of this is a drainage issue, right? **Jon Radermacher**: There's some aesthetics to it too. **Chris Nobach**: I mean pave looks better and the dust and all that stuff Diane's addressed, but like uh you know I guess if it's drainage issues and we want water to get to where it needs to go if it's right next to the house, shouldn't we leave that up to the owner? I guess I don't just thinking out loud, I guess. [24:53] **Bill Angerman**: Yeah, Chris, part of it too is 25 ft's the standard length of a driveway in town. Okay. So, it makes it the same. So, then they don't have a different rule. 25 ft is a standard driveway. So, they still have a standard driveway. **Chris Nobach**: Okay. **Commission Member**: So, are all the streets in the city, do they have curbing or are all city streets curbing? **Bill Angerman**: New new streets developments. Correct. All all new developments do. So like where this is there's no curbing because there's no public because it's not a public street. The public street is the county road. **Commission Member**: Okay. **Bill Angerman**: Yep. So there's no public street here. **Commission Member**: Okay. **Jon Radermacher**: So it's it's a unique circumstance. **Commission Member**: All right. Yeah. Just because there isn't curbing doesn't necessarily prohibit storm management in that area. Um, so we do have some that have ditching, you know, ditches alongside of the roads that are built into um help direct the storm water to where it's supposed to go. **Commission Member**: Well, that's what I was wondering because when you have curbing, it usually raises the driveway up a tad so that the water will funnel down the road instead of down the driveway and cause all that... **Jon Radermacher**: You have your drive-over curb areas that to channel the water. **Commission Member**: Yeah. But no public right-of-way here. So no curb. **Jon Radermacher**: Okay. All right. No, no public storm water near correct either. Okay. [26:32] **Chair Diane Johnson**: Other comments, questions? **Brian Douglas**: I guess if we're going to add anything in the future, I'd at least extend the footage from 100 ft and make it 250. Make it worthwhile to if you're going to have a gravel centerpiece. It seems like 100 ft seems awfully small to not have 50 foot at least black-topped to me. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Would you like to propose amending that to 250 or 500 or whatever feet you have in mind or... **Brian Douglas**: Yeah, I'd propose probably if you had 100 feet... so, yeah, let's say so you have 25 and 100... so, 150 ft 100, right? So if you have 100 feet of not paved, I guess if you're out in that area, that would make sense. But then again, it's like I'm the thing I'm looking at still is the cost. It's like once you get the equipment out there to pave 25 ft at each end, how much more is it to cost to just do the rest of it? **Bill Angerman**: What do you think? **Jon Radermacher**: I think we needed to pick a minimum and a 100 seemed like a reasonable minimum, but you're right, Brian. Most people are going to pave that but but 100 was a minimum that okay most people will but what about 125, 140, 180 you know so it's like okay we'll establish the minimum and then beyond that you know that's their call. **Brian Douglas**: Oh okay. I established a minimum 500 but then I wouldn't want this in here at all. So... **Chair Diane Johnson**: So that was a motion to amend the the proposal. **Brian Douglas**: That was a motion to amend it. Yes. So, okay. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Brian amend it to instead of 100 ft in length to put 150? **Brian Douglas**: Let's say 200. **Chair Diane Johnson**: 200. I I I I like the the spirit of it. I I just I guess I have problems with, you know... **Chris Nobach**: Just one one second. Here we have a motion. Is there a second? And if we get a second, we can talk about it. **Jesse Fox**: I'll second it. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Okay. Thank you, Jesse. Now you can talk about it. The motion is to amend to from 100 ft in length to 200 feet. [29:15] **Chris Nobach**: It It just seems arbitrary to me, I guess. And and like I you know, I guess I just want to trust what Bill and John came up with, but um I don't know. 100's arbitrary, too, but just pulling 200 out of thin air without much, you know, sitting down and looking at it or studying what's actually happening in the city seems unfair, maybe potentially. I I don't know. **Brian Douglas**: Well, I guess the thing I look at, how long can a driveway be on a two-acre lot if you got a home on it? I mean, that's the thing to look at, too. Is it Could it be a 500-foot driveway? I guess it could be, but yeah, it's an arbitrary choice, but to me, it's like 50 feet, 100 ft. I mean, if we're going to if somebody doesn't want to if the builder or whoever is putting the road in in the house doesn't want to pave... I guess what we're trying to work out is a compromise that says, "Okay, you got to pave your 25 ft on each end. And if it's 100 ft, you got to pave the whole thing. But if it isn't, you'll get to not have to pave and you don't have to spend as much money." I mean, really, that's what we're basically saying is that he doesn't have to spend as much money putting in a driveway, a full driveway. [30:17] **Jesse Fox**: Well, I Yeah, I think that's true. But I think that also speaks to the fact that, you know, we're trying to build, you know, more homes inside the community, but also affordable, right? Because I think that's initially when Timberland came to us on this, you know, they had run into an issue where they'd found out, you know, they have to pave that, which would, you know, be an expense to them, which would then obviously they're going to you know, put that on the whomever the future home buyer is, right? So, increase the price essentially, right? So, I guess I look at this and saying, you know, if if developers are coming in here and they want to develop, great, right? We want to encourage that. And if if this is something to where they're saying, hey, you know, we can develop more and if you give us kind of more options, I'm open to that. But I I also agree it's like, okay, with the language, like I trust what you guys are saying. I I Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I I think the way it's written, I would assume that if you're on a two-acre lot and all these other situations exist, you're probably not in the downtown area, right? You're not going to be seeing that gravel driveway, right? You're someplace that in terms of an aesthetic point of view, it, you know, unless you live in that area, probably not going to see it, right? [31:27] **Jesse Fox**: And I think in in some regards, yeah, it's giving a break to the developers, but ultimately, you know, hopefully that cost then translates over to over the the future home buyers are to encourage more affordable housing in the community, which I'm all for, right? I just again, it kind of comes back to like what's the purpose of it? Is the purpose to lessen dust? Is it aesthetics? Is it runoff? Is it trying to, you know, establish more affordable housing inside the community? Like is it just the developers want, you know, a cheaper way to put up a building, right? [31:56] **Jon Radermacher**: But if I Chair my comment um all of the I think I think you're you're you're in every in every aspect there's there's a part of it and I I I want to hearken back to um previous conversation when we were discussing this as well is you know in in terms of other impact we you know we do have the potential of annexing in more area that has existing existing homes with character not dissimilar from the development of the applicant. Uh you know so things that are country styles that are on this this particular roadway or near nearby that they currently have existing gravel driveways now as they're annexed in. You can't, you know, we're not saying, "Oh, yeah, great city, big bad city's coming in. We're annexing your property and you got to go throw in a pave your driveway while we do it." Like, but as they would, if something were to change and they, you know, wanted to build or build something different or change something on that property, you know, bringing other things into conformity may be an issue for them. So if there is the you know standard that we set of we want to make sure all those entrances and at least a parking surface are paved then you know we want to make that more reasonably accommodated for them. Um I think that was another element that I brought up or we we discussed at the you know when we talked about this earlier in January too. [33:27] **Chair Diane Johnson**: Thank you John. Any other discussion? And this is just on the amendment to change it from 100 to 200 feet minimum. I guess I'm what I'm wondering about it is if if it was 100 and that was arbitrarily chosen sort of by... did that did that have input from the developer? **Jon Radermacher**: There was the I mean it wasn't arbitrary we we established like 25 ft was going to be the number we're picking for the entrance because then that would mirror every other you know potentially almost every other driveway minimums that we have in town. The developer was part of the conversation. So there was the we intended we had on the schedule a planning commission meeting for um for June that didn't happen because of a lack of a quorum. There was actual you know still conversation because the developer was there to talk about you know their application and the project at that point. That's where the 100 foot number I had in in my notes. That was that was what we talked about in terms of drafting um for you know future because it was just a work session item at that time. It wasn't to be decided upon. We wanted to go through the application. So at in that input that was a number that was discussed and that was where that was developed from. So if you had 25 ft on one end and 25 ft on the other, anything less than half of that didn't seem appropriate. So that's I believe in terms of how that 100 number came to be, that's where that was determined. [35:20] **Jesse Fox**: So, in regards to uh setting it to 200, uh I guess what I'm wondering is if we do that, um because I don't I don't know what the setups are on on those particular lots that we're supposedly kind of doing this for, right? If if the amendment goes through to push it up to 200 and then we vote on it and it gets passed and it goes through the process and it gets accepted and all that... would it even be useful? We we've got our... is 200... are the driveways both at least 200 feet? Is that all right if we ask? Because I mean my my question is are we doing this for no no apparent reason? You know what I mean? Is this going to... I mean we're we're considering this because there's an application, right? Tim? **Chair Diane Johnson**: But but I mean if the application doesn't... if we vote on this and it doesn't... Yeah, that's why I thought we'd ask if he has the driveway. He's he's the applicant. It's fair for should be allowed to, you know, comment. [36:50] **Mark Sansgard**: Good evening, planning commission um commissioners. My name is Mark Sansgard. I'm with JH Land. I represent Timber Ridge Development. So, quick answer. Um, our the driveways for the estate lots at Timber Ridge, um, the one to the southeast is 500 ft long and the common one for the one going the other way is a little over 300 feet long. So, they're they're... **Commission Member**: 200 take care of it? **Mark Sansgard**: Would take care of it. But to answer your question and about um say you're just paving 100 ft and you're just doing asphalt... that 50 ft that you say you might as well just do, that's about six grand. So if you want to put that in perspective. **Commission Member**: Seriously? **Mark Sansgard**: Yeah. Holy smokes. So it's not just because they're there. It's going to be that much easier. So just to put that in a number. So, um, just wanted to give you an idea what why they're there. **Brian Douglas**: Okay. But now I need to ask like what you were bringing up the quality of the home. If you're going to if you're going to do $6,000 for 50 ft... **Mark Sansgard**: And then I guess my my answer to you on that is let the homeowner decide because again, we're not this is an option. And I mean, if a buyer wants a paved driveway as a developer builder, we're going to put it in. But if the buyer's got a, you know, budget and they can only afford so so many things, you know, the wife wants, you know, granite countertops or driveway, you know, which one you have to pick. So, um, that's why we just want to give buyers options. And again, as a developer builder, we want to, it's hard to throw in all these, you know, requirements because they start adding up. It's nice to be able to pull them back. All right, here's the minimal. Um, looking at it from an engineering point of view, it's good to make sure the first 25 ft's taken care of and then the last 25 ft taken care of so you have somewhere to park. Now, everything in between what made sense... I think we just came up with, well, let's just cut it in half and there's a pretty reasonable starting point. **Brian Douglas**: Okay. So, you made a commitment to $6,000 worth of paving basically, right? **Mark Sansgard**: Well, yeah. So if it's if it's 100, you're going to make sure that... yeah. You're going to have to put in the six thousand more dollars. **Commission Member**: You guys are already... **Mark Sansgard**: So it'd be 12 grand if it was 100 feet. Yeah. But again, our driveways are well over 300 and the other side's 500. So again, if you went 150 or 200 for for our sake, it would work, but for other situations, you know, again, it's a little bit more of a burden on someone down coming down the road. All right. Thanks. [39:38] **Chris Nobach**: I I guess I just lean on in this one just being less restrictive. I guess I I mean I think it's you know on one hand I no offense to the developer. I'm happy you're here, but you know I I wish that this would have been part of you know we recognize this is going to be an issue and we'll account for it and it's it's something we have to deal with with the site. Um but it is what it is. I just there's to me there's no reason to be more restrictive in this scenario and just let the homeowner like he said let the homeowner decide if they want to pave that extra 50 ft or not. **Brian Douglas**: But that's... well I agree at 6,000 I'll resend my motion. Let's just leave it the way it is because it's 6,000 is 6,000 if it means a person can afford a house that they couldn't before even though it goes into a 30-year mortgage or whatever. **Chris Nobach**: I've built a house and $6,000 like he said... and car allowed to just withdraw a motion? **Jon Radermacher**: Second. The person that seconds it has to accept the withdraw the motion amendment. **Chair Diane Johnson**: So Brian, you want to withdraw the motion? Jesse, do you want to withdraw your second? **Jesse Fox**: I I'll withdraw. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Okay. There is no motion before us. Any more discussion on the gravel driveway proposal? Okay. Now, John, do we move on to votes or not? [41:09] **Jon Radermacher**: Okay. So, just confirming what step next steps because maybe I I went out of order a little bit or I'm used to a different process in a different city when regards to public hearings. Um, so we do need to go back and uh finalize our recommendations, votes on recommendations to the city council. So let's move back at this time. Let's take up the data center text amendment um in the conversations that we had in the work session. So I'll leave it to Shelley to kind of identify what some of those are so we get this on the record. [41:50] **Shelley Ryan**: Uh so the changes recognized um in the work session that we would recommend uh to the text amendment for the data center. Uh so uh no changes to the definitions. Uh if you start with paragraph M-1, uh as Commissioner Johnson mentioned, there is an errant comma in the middle that we'll take out on the second line. In paragraph three, uh we would recommend uh Bill and I would recommend adding the uh public utility commission as another oversight body that again doesn't uh you know we don't govern it but we want to add those uh as the discussion about the electrical was pertinent. So we would add public utility commission. Uh, as the mayor mentioned, um, as you scroll down, there's a typo. It should be subdivision 12 instead of two. Okay. And then under N-1, the same change. I'd add the uh, public utility commission. That's it. [43:15] **Chair Diane Johnson**: John, do we have to have a motion to amend it with those? **Jon Radermacher**: Yes. To a motion to accept the staff recommendations for amendments and/or if there was an amendment from the body that would need to be addressed as well. **Chair Diane Johnson**: You want to do those one at a time? **Jon Radermacher**: Yeah. Yeah. Uh, you could do that as one motion. If you're willing to accept the staff edits and you one of you had something else to add to the ordinance at this time, you could add that as a as additional piece, but if it's just... **Chair Diane Johnson**: we do it in two different votes. **Shelley Ryan**: I I would do it um, Madam Chair, I would do it as one motion with your recommendation. So, it would be a motion to recommend that the city council pass the ordinance as amended with staff's recommended amendments. And it's either recommend to pass or to deny as amended by suggested by staff. [44:18] **Chair Diane Johnson**: Yes. So, we have the staff recommendations. Uh are there any recommendations from the commissioners to this proposed with noted correct? No. So my desire to have us explore further whether we can prohibit crypto mining is not appropriate at this time or Did we decide if that was legal? **Shelley Ryan**: That'd be an amendment. **Jon Radermacher**: If we can even do that... they use water, too. I I don't I'll let them I don't think we're supposed to talk without everybody hearing us just unfortunately. **Shelley Ryan**: Unless you talk in the microphone. **Commission Member**: They can have private discussions. I don't think we can. **Jon Radermacher**: It's procedural. **Shelley Ryan**: Yeah, we're we're discussing the the procedural conversation. [46:00] **Jon Radermacher**: So in terms of moving forward and adding crypto mining as as part of this, you are a recommending body. So whatever you know, granted, whatever said from here is ultimately up to the council to to make their changes or they they have the right to make those those amendments. So, if that were uh the situation that there's a couple possible ways you could go about doing this. You could make a motion to recommend with the approval um with the staff recommendations for the amendment. You can make a recommendation to deny the uh text amendment in which we would have to then re some at some point reinitiate or uh the the discussion and bringing in that use specifically into the conversation if that was a concern or if you so chose I think it's certainly your at this point I don't none I don't know the stats of it, but you could add that as an amendment to regulate uh or prohibit uh the use of crypto mining. Uh in terms of part of the conversation and going back what I I said earlier, um enforcement comes down to our ability to know, respond, and the capacity to to truly regulate that. So, um, that's always my my analogy of the restaurant. I don't, you know, they may not know what they're they have on the menu. I may not be able to tell I c I don't know if I'd be in the capacity to tell them what they can put on the menu. But um as attorney is pointing out, so the fallback commission that that can be addressed in a future. So in item 12 under M, the city when evaluating a formal request for conditional use permit pertaining to a specific site prior to approval upon finding that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or better may to modify or expand the conditions set forth herein. So if if it were evaluated and we came to identify that the use was detrimental um that the city may have the opportunity to address it that conditional use at the future time. [48:26] **Chair Diane Johnson**: I I will for the sake of not creating more billable hours for massive amounts of research on this. Um I will trust that that does give us the option of denying uh a company that would want to engage in something like crypto mining that I could be detrimental to the health. Again, this is your your recommending body at this point. There's still the opportunities for the council to to evaluate what is being recommended um and certainly has capacity to up to a certain extent making changes without then having to kind of restart the whole process. That any other... are we ready to vote? **Chris Nobach**: Yes. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Are you ready to talk yet? Uh do we need to move to accept the edits? or... **Jon Radermacher**: As we said um it's the move our recommendation at this point in the meeting is to make a move and I guess I'm going to go back to the two re move to approve the and recommend to the body with the staff amendments to the ordinance as we outlined or move to deny recommend denial of the of the amendment. So one or one or the other. **Brian Douglas**: Approving this year plus plus our staff corrections. [49:50] **Chair Diane Johnson**: So is there a motion to approve and recommend to the city council the ordinance before us with the staff amendments? **Isaac Naatz**: I make a motion. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Second? **Chris Nobach**: Second. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Uh I move... Isaac moved, Chris seconds. Further discussion? All in favor say I. **Commissioners**: Aye. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Opposed? Nay. So moved. [50:34] **Chair Diane Johnson**: Now we'll move on to gravel driveways where we've been before. Uh and that one is way back. The first the uh again to recommend uh to the city council uh approval of ordinance regarding gravel driveways with the 100 ft in length, 25 ft, 25 ft. Is there a motion to recommend this approval to the city council? **Isaac Naatz**: I'll make a motion to approve. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Isaac moved. Second? **Jesse Fox**: Second. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Jesse seconds. Further discussion? All in favor? **Commissioners**: Aye. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Nay? So moved. And as there's no further business before us. Um the next meeting for the planning commission is August 11th. Um is he welcome? Hopefully there will not quite be this long all the time. Uh motion to adjourn. **Jesse Fox**: Second. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Second. I have no idea who made the first but a lot of seconds. **Jon Radermacher**: All in favor name them out. So uh because when they do the minutes it help. It's very helpful when... who who... you just get to pick. **Chair Diane Johnson**: I think they all said it. Okay. Jesse moves. I second. All in favor? **Commissioners**: Aye. **Chair Diane Johnson**: Opposed? Nay. So...