This transcript appears to be a Planning Commission meeting. Based on the provided list of officials and the internal context of the dialogue (roll call, introductions, and specific mentions of names like "Neil" and "Zach"), I have identified the speakers. **Speakers identified:** * **Brian Douglas:** Planning Commission Chair (Leading the meeting) * **Zach (City Planner/Staff):** The presenter for the city (referenced at [8:21]) * **Steve Hamma:** Planning Commission Member (Phonetically "HMA") * **Diane Johnson:** Council/Planning Commission Member * **Chris Nobach:** Council/Planning Commission Member (Phonetically "noach") * **Jesse Fox:** New Planning Commission Member * **Member Giemme:** Planning Commission Member (Phonetically "GMI" / "Mr. Gby") * **Isaac Naatz:** Planning Commission Member * **Neil:** Representative/Developer for Timber Ridge *** [0:28] (Silence/Background Noise) [6:28] (Silence/Background Noise) [6:48] **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Too far apart, I told him, because I gave him a background about you. So, all right. I'd like to call the January 8th Planning Commission meeting. Um, can I get roll call? [7:10] **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Hamma? **Steve Hamma:** Here. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Johnson? **Diane Johnson:** Here. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Giemme? **Member Giemme:** Here. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Fox? **Jesse Fox:** Here. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Nobach? **Chris Nobach:** Here. [7:15] **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Okay, before we go any further, I want to introduce two of our new people on the commission. It'd be Jesse Fox and Chris Nobach. Welcome, and I hope you will be good additions to our commission. Okay, next on the agenda is to approve the agenda. [7:35] **Steve Hamma:** I'll move to approve the agenda. **Diane Johnson:** Second. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Motion by Hamma, second by Johnson to approve tonight's agenda. Is there any further discussion? If not, all in favor say aye. **Commission Members:** Aye. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. Can we go over the minutes of the last meeting, December 4th? [8:00] **Steve Hamma:** I move to approve the minutes for the last meeting. **Diane Johnson:** I second. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Motion by Hamma, second by Johnson to approve the minutes of December 4th. Is there any further discussion? All in favor? **Commission Members:** Aye. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Opposed? Carries zero. There's no public input; nobody signed up for public input, so we'll just dispense with that. Um, next item on the agenda is a couple of public hearings, and I'm going to turn it over to Zach, and he's going to give us the background on the public hearings. [9:07] **Zach (Staff):** Awesome. Good evening, Commission, and to the new faces, welcome, guys. Um, first item for discussion is the pre-plated amendment and variance on behalf of the Timber Ridge Development. So, just kind of a little bit of timeline here: back in August, City Council approved the preliminary plat rezoning and all the PUD plans to get this development kind of started. But per the resolution, the originally submitted four 2-plus acre estate lots located in the southeast corner of the property—should be a map in your packet to kind of get a feel of where they are—they were removed and replaced with two outlots. Fast forward a couple months, and City Council amended a portion of city code that allowed, by variance, residential lots to be serviced via well and septic rather than connecting to city sewer and water. So tonight, Timber Ridge is asking for a variance approval so those estate lots can be served by well and septic, as well as to add those four lots that were outlots to be added to the approved Timber Ridge preliminary plat. City services won't be able to service those estate lots for a while, and there should be some soil borings in your packet that kind of show the suitability of well and septic and kind of show that the soils will be able to have well and septic on them. So with that, just a little bit of background, if you guys have any questions. [10:41] **Brian Douglas (Chair):** I think I understood this correctly, but it's just the four lots that are getting septic, right? Not the whole subdivision or addition? **Zach (Staff):** That's correct, yep. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Okay. So right now, I'm going to open up a public hearing on Timber Ridge preliminary plat amendment. So if there's anybody that wants to speak to that, now is your time. Second call: anybody wish to speak on the preliminary plat amendment? [11:30] **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Third and final call: anyone wishing to speak on the preliminary plat amendment? Hearing none, I'm going to close that public hearing. And then I'm going to go right over and I'm going to open the public hearing on the variance of the lots. So, um, I'll entertain anybody that wants to speak on the variance. Second call: anyone wishing to speak on the variance? Third and final call: anyone wishing to speak on the variance? Hearing none, I'm going to close that public hearing. [12:15] **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Now that that's done, I think what we should do is discuss the variance first, because if that doesn't pass our muster, then we don't have to go to the amendment. So I think we should discuss Resolution 2024-25 so that we're just approving a variance to allow well and septic systems on those aforementioned lots. And the soil borings and everything reports are in your packet, and they were positive, right? I mean, as far as a thumbs up? [12:57] **Zach (Staff):** Yeah, I think there is a multiple site or multiple spots on the sites that could be acceptable for well and septic. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Okay. Okay, do I have any other questions from the Commission? Chris? Jesse? Say something. [13:45] **Chris Nobach:** Yep. I think everything looked reasonable on the borings. And I guess I don't know a ton of information about this, but what would happen in the—as development goes down the line and it gets out there, does the city then force a change? **Brian Douglas (Chair):** In layman's terms, I'm going to say when it's available, they have to hook up. That's just how it's going to be. **Zach (Staff):** That's exactly right. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Okay. And at this point, there is absolutely no feasible way for them to hook up, right? So we want the development to go forward, and this is the only way for that to do so. Yeah, we spent a whole lot of time on this. Good question. Yes, are we ready for a motion? Any other discussion? [15:12] **Steve Hamma:** I will move that we recommend for approval to the City Council Resolution 2024-25. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Motion by Hamma, second by Johnson to approve the variance Resolution 2024-25. Is there any further discussion? All in favor? **Commission Members:** Aye. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Opposed? Carries. Okay, now we'll go backwards to the preliminary plat amendment Resolution 2024-01. And this is just to add it to the—oh, I had it all figured out how I was going to say that—that's the change you did from outlots to the four lots, the estate lots, to the preliminary plat? **Zach (Staff):** That’s correct. [15:57] **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Okay. Now I'm going to ask a dumb question, I hope that's okay. Thought we're here. Um, I have this nervous thing that's telling me that you're going to do those outlots and not continue on with the rest of your development. Is that something that—I mean, there's nothing in the plat yet of your property at all as far as lots, correct? **Neil (Developer):** Yeah, go ahead. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Yeah, go ahead. You sure? **Neil (Developer):** All right. [16:53] **Neil (Developer):** I didn't ask that very well—no, I understand what you're saying. I mean, the first edition is already with the development agreement, it's done, plats are filed. We're working on getting a contractor to start in the spring. The reason we didn't start this last fall is it just got too late in the year. So again, that one's already rolling. We're looking to get started; we have a builder ready to go, we're starting to market the lots and things like that. This is just, you know, we had those estate lots that had to work through the well and septic, so they kind of lingered out here. We just want to get that caught up. So the estate lots will be a plat all by themselves. [17:39] **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Okay, so you'll see it again. All right, does that answer all our questions, Neil? **Neil (Developer):** Yeah, okay. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Does anybody else have any questions? [18:05] **Diane Johnson:** That was a good question. What's your timeline on the first—on the first buildings? When do you think you'll see the first ones? **Neil (Developer):** Well, we're working with a builder right now, and we hope to have the building permits applied for relatively soon. We've got—I forgot what you call them—but we can get the building permits before we put the streets in, actually. I forgot what the term was, you need that first yet. But yeah, we hope to have the models built by probably May, and then the streets in by the end of May. It depends on weather, obviously, but that's kind of what our plan is. [18:51] **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Right, the winter's going to probably have it done in March. **Neil (Developer):** I know, yeah, our non-winter. The buildings—I mean, it took a little time, we had to get plans and everything approved once we filed the stuff down in the county, but we got all that now. I'm meeting with the builder Wednesday at one of his models in another city and we're going to finalize everything. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Had a lot of positive things happening. You think you'll be putting more than one place up? **Neil (Developer):** I hope so, this next year. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Not—I'm going to come and strangle someone, that's on record. I don't know why you looked right at Neil! **Neil (Developer):** No, we're excited about the opportunity, and I think it's going to be successful. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** All right, thank you. [19:36] **Jesse Fox:** Can I ask a question quick? And I don't know if this is too forward or inappropriate. Do we have like a target range? Do you have a target range for how much these would cost, or this model range or anything? Just for—do we know, do we care as a Commission? **Neil (Developer):** The model we're looking at right now, I think, is around 560,000 for the model, one of the models that we're looking at putting up. And the other one would be less than that. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Okay, any other questions? [20:21] **Steve Hamma:** Okay, then I would make a motion to approve Resolution 2024-01 for the estate lots to be approved. **Diane Johnson:** Second. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Motion by Hamma, second by Johnson to approve Resolution 2024-01. Any further discussion? All in favor? **Commission Members:** Aye. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Opposed? The motion carries. All right, awesome. [21:12] **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Next thing on the discussion is a conditional use permit for a used car dealership. Thank you, guys. [21:40] **Diane Johnson:** And I have a question to begin with. Looking at the site map that shows what Kelly Fuels Incorporated owns now, if we get this conditional use, could they blacktop that over and take up the whole space, or is there a limit to how much of that space they can use? **Zach (Staff):** Yeah, there probably is a limit to how much blacktop they could have. When I talked to them, they just wanted—it's just going to be pretty much identical to what already existed there. [22:27] **Diane Johnson:** But they technically could expand? Or would that contain—I mean, if we give them this permit, does it cover the entire land or just a little hunk of current? **Zach (Staff):** I suppose the permit is for the whole, so they could eventually pave that over and make the whole thing a used car lot. I'm not saying it would, but I was just curious. There is most likely a certain amount of blacktop you could have on a space. I mean, I'm sure they could technically expand the parking lot if that's kind of what you're asking. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** But that's an old swamp down there, for one thing, right? Where it's lowland. **Zach (Staff):** Yes, it would take a lot of fill to make it right. I don't know if they can legally do stuff with wetlands like that, too. [23:14] **Brian Douglas (Chair):** I don't know if it's protected or not, but when they approached you originally, it was just to open up what was already once there, correct? **Zach (Staff):** Right. I mean, this site, obviously, as I'm sure you all know, was home to another used car dealership, Miller Express, and I think they moved to Pine Island. So apparently they had a lot of success, so I think the new owners are just trying to kind of get some of that. And it’s zoned RB (Residential Business), so it allows commercial activities like car dealerships by conditional use. So the applicants are just kind of trying to go through the necessary steps to be able to officially legally operate this car dealership. Like a consensus—we're not doing any voting? **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Right. **Zach (Staff):** Yeah, the application got turned in right past the deadline for a public hearing, so it will actually come back to you guys in February for an actual public hearing. And then if you guys vote on it, then it will go to the next City Council meeting for final approval. But I just figured I'd show you guys what's going on and get the ball rolling. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** For discussion mostly, then? **Zach (Staff):** Today it's just for discussion, yep. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Any more input on that subject? Otherwise, we'll move on to the next. [25:32] **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Okay, the next thing is the moratorium discussion on the rehab centers. We're trying to update the— **Zach (Staff):** Oh yeah, you have an assignment here from last time. Last item is an update on residential treatment facilities operating in residential areas. Obviously, we've had multiple discussions at past meetings about this topic, but we haven't implemented any of your suggestions yet just because we figured we'd talk about it one more time and kind of update the new faces in the room just so everybody's on the same page. We're planning to bring you guys a hopefully this time officially approved draft ordinance at the February meeting. But just kind of want to get the ball rolling since the moratorium expires in May. We have a little bit of time, but it'll be May before we know it. And if you guys didn't know, there was a moratorium in place that prohibited treatment facilities to operate in residential areas, just to kind of look at the impacts of zoning and the city's overall health on the people who live here. In your packet, there is a draft ordinance. The underlined part kind of shows what was added. I know at our last discussion there was some talk about possibly implementing green space or fencing and kind of looking at the state of Minnesota and seeing what regulations they have. So I just thought I'd bring it back one more time; final chance to add anything or just talk about it before we bring it back to you guys in February. [27:07] **Brian Douglas (Chair):** I think to get our two new members up to speed, back in May of last year we put a moratorium on residential treatment facilities in residential neighborhoods. They're allowed in the B1 neighborhood/zoning, but they also were allowed in the residential areas. So the Planning Commission put a moratorium on the nursing home area and have been studying how to update our ordinances. We're getting to the end, and what you see in front of you is a draft ordinance. What that draft ordinance does is it calls out residential rehab centers and gives them a definition. And then in that definition, it states what they are. It does not include group homes; we have group homes in the city in residential areas, and the Planning Commission said no, we don't want to exclude them in residential areas. So we had to create a new definition of a residential rehab center in itself. And then if you go into the next side, the underlying area on the next page says "H" is what's allowed in there, not including residential rehab centers, which you got a new definition for on the previous page. So we're doing one thing by creating a definition, and then on the next page we're saying they're not included. So that's where we're at today. And it's my understanding, Mr. Giemme and Brian, that you had some concerns about some conditions in the conditional use area, and maybe if you want to go over them a little bit so these guys can maybe digest what you're talking about there. You're talking about some green spaces, some fences—so maybe you could do that. [29:26] **Member Giemme:** Well, it was—I think Diane and I discussed it a little bit—it was about more of a security-type issue, correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think it was more for in the B1 district where they are allowed, correct? **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Okay, because we're working on this in the residential area where they're not allowed, right? But you're talking about the conditions that would be put on them in a B1 if another facility were to open? **Member Giemme:** Correct. And you would like them more secure? Well, that would be my opinion—that, you know, if there's not enough staff or whatever, the grounds are still secure from surrounding areas. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Okay, so that will be a different section of the code, and we'll talk to Shelley (City Attorney) and then bring back some language on security. Yeah, anything else? I wasn't at the last meeting, so anything else? **Steve Hamma:** The minutes said it fairly good too, the minutes from the last meeting. [30:58] **Chris Nobach:** Are these rehab centers—maybe they're not all equal—but are they legally able to just secure everybody inside, or are some people allowed to come and go as they please? **Brian Douglas (Chair):** There's been some discussion on that, and I guess there's nothing legally that can hold them there, right? So I think the difference is if it's a voluntary commitment or an involuntary commitment, right? And most of mine, I think, are now voluntary, which means that people can come and go. And we don't want to interfere with the ability of residential treatment centers/rehab units, but we do want to also make sure that both the residents of the center and surrounding people are all protected to some degree so that the residents aren't threatened and the surrounding businesses aren't threatened. Trying to do that in a way that keeps everybody safe and healthy. [32:31] **Jesse Fox:** And I would assume you dream up some sort of fencing guidelines too, right? **Brian Douglas (Chair):** That would be under our conditional use. So they have to abide by what we set forth. With a conditional use permit, which they would have to apply for, there would be A through X conditions that you have to meet, and one of them would be what they're suggesting as security. And whatever else—I'll look up at the minutes—but whatever else they came up with at the last meeting would be put in as a condition. And then when they apply for the conditional use permit, they would meet those criteria. [33:18] **Chris Nobach:** You think that court-mandated rehabilitation has different rules about that? About residency? I was wondering about that, about how free they are to come and go. I mean, it's not a lockdown, but probably the court might—if it's court-mandated, I think at least in Illinois there were—you know, they couldn't get out without getting a pass. You had to have a pass, yeah. Or if it's voluntary, you can go back and forth. But that was in Illinois. **Jesse Fox:** Did the state have any like conditional use things for these kind of facilities, or are they vague? **Zach (Staff):** You know, it's a little vague. That's something we were just kind of going to look at and then maybe mirror a little bit and bring it back to you guys in February. I believe, though, there is something about screening that you brought up—like some sort of security screening, that sort of thing. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Not like an IMAX movie screen? **Zach (Staff):** No, just like fencing. Not that type of screen, sorry. [34:03] **Member Giemme:** Remember my tunnel? Remember? **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Yes, I remember our tunnel discussion. I get literal about things. Are there any other questions? **Isaac Naatz:** I have one more question, and I'm probably just going wild here, but I'm reading the definition of residential rehab center. And as I understand it—and maybe again, I'm just connecting the dots wrong—but, you know, whatever Two Rivers is right now, top floor there, there's people that are mentally disabled due to age or whatever. So I see that as someone that could be managed program setting with house rules, curfews, facilitated meetings. I guess are we imposing on what's already existing there? [34:51] **Brian Douglas (Chair):** No, this would not refer to the third floor at—it's not Two Rivers, whatever it is now—because this is specifically a rehab center for dependency/substance abuse, you know, not for old age, Alzheimer's, things like that. And the other thing we're trying to do is make sure that in our nursing homes or facilities that take care of our seniors or people that have physical disabilities, that we don't have people that are in for drug addiction in the same facility, because that can be dangerous. **Isaac Naatz:** Good point. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Seen it happen. Yeah, so I'm sure we're going to not do it 100% right, and five or ten years from now somebody's going to say, "How could they have missed that?" Well, we tried to do—we've been discussing it for a few months now. I'm thinking we're getting very close; hopefully it should be pretty good. **Steve Hamma:** Well, Zach does a good job for us. [36:23] **Chris Nobach:** So my understanding is the plan is next month we're going to bring this up and then vote on basically redefining the different groups so that we can firm up the rules for each different group, and then also some of that stuff about fencing? **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Yep. And that will all be encompassed in one document or one ordinance. **Zach (Staff):** Yes. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Okay. And we've got time yet, too, till May. I mean, May will be here fast, but at least we've got some working room here. [37:09] **Zach (Staff):** We'll have a draft and then hold a public hearing. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Oh, okay. So we'll get this thing moving a little bit closer to the end. And I should know this—now, we have the public hearing here, we vote to recommend it to the City Council, does it need another public hearing? **Zach (Staff):** Just one. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Just the one here, and then it goes up to the City Council for a vote. [37:58] **Diane Johnson:** Are these facilities licensed by the Department of Human Services? They have to be licensed, correct? **Zach (Staff):** Yes, the state does all the licensing for these facilities. **Diane Johnson:** But as far as—we don't license them? **Zach (Staff):** No, we don't license them. **Diane Johnson:** But as far as you know, there's more than one agency that licenses? **Zach (Staff):** On that, I don't know. [38:19] **Diane Johnson:** Curious. I mean, you know, the problem is if they supersede our—if their licensing says, "No, we don't care what you say, these are the rules for the state," we can't go above that. Probably you're trying to check that out, correct? **Zach (Staff):** No, I'm not—oh, Zach is. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Oh, Zach! **Zach (Staff):** I'm on vacation! Yeah, well no, because I think we started with what the state required or didn't, and I think we can go beyond what the state—a lot of this is actually taken from the state. A lot of it is mirrored, really, like the definitions are, so it shouldn't supersede anything, but we'll look into that and make sure it all works out. **Diane Johnson:** Thanks, Zach. [39:06] **Diane Johnson:** Yeah, because that one definition that they have in there, it’s about two-thirds of the way down: "residential facility State licensed." You know, it says "result of normal aging process considered to be chronic and chemical dependency or chemical abuse programs are located in a hospital or nursing homes and receive public funds," which of course is almost what we don't want in terms of the nursing home. The hospital is fine, but in terms of having them located... but I assume maybe we don't get to say anything about that. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Might not. But then again, it appears that we'll never have a nursing home again either. So how about a Hy-Vee? A cruise ship? That's my joke, that's what I want there. I'm just kidding. Okay, is there any other questions or discussion? Okay, well we'll move that on till next month then. Thanks, Zach. [40:38] **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Okay, that's everything that was on the agenda. Is there any input from anybody else on any other matters? Once again, welcome Chris and Jesse. **Chris Nobach:** Thank you. **Jesse Fox:** Thank you. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Um, happy birthday to Diane, whether she wants another birthday or not. She’s getting pretty old. **Diane Johnson:** I was going to say, the alternative is not good! **Brian Douglas (Chair):** That's right, that's right. So, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn. **Member Giemme:** Second. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Motion by Giemme, second by Chris. Yes, Jesse? Any further discussion? All in favor? **Commission Members:** Aye. **Brian Douglas (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries.