This transcript appears to be from a **Planning Commission** meeting rather than a City Council meeting, as the speaker notes they are an "advisory body" and the "warm-up act" for the City Council. While the prompt provides the City Council roster, the names used in the dialogue (Bart, Sam, Mike, Steve, Eric) refer to the Planning Commissioners. Here is the formatted transcript with speaker names added based on the context provided. [0:00] **Chair**: Meeting it is the first Monday in July. Uh, first item on our agenda: approving minutes of the last time we gathered two weeks ago, the June 17th minutes. [0:15] **Commissioner Bart**: I make a motion to approve the minutes. [0:17] **Chair**: Bart's got the motion on minutes as written. Is there a second? [0:20] **Commissioner Eric**: I second. [0:22] **Chair**: Eric's got the second on the minutes from the June 17th meeting. No discussion? We'll vote. All those in favor say "I." Those no? That carries. I got my gavel back and I got a thing I can hit now, looking up for old Chuck. Two items on our agenda tonight—two public hearings. One has three action items to it; the other one has two action items to it. Everything on the agenda tonight is going to follow the exact same format. [0:46] **Chair**: So I'll just kind of walk you through what we're going to do now and what's going to happen here in the next hour. I wasn't expecting that we're going to have a presentation from our city staff. They're going to give us an overview on the project; we'll ask any clarifying questions that we have. When we've got our ducks in a row, then we go out to public hearing. So this is a formal public hearing. We usually give the courtesy to the applicant if they want to go first—they don't have to—but name, address, organization you representing, etc. This is a completely remodeled public hearing room now, so that's where you will come up and say hi to us at that podium. [1:32] **Chair**: Everybody gets a cycle through once, say what you got to say. When the public hearing's done, we then bring it back up here, then we'll have discussion on the items. And that's why I said there's two public hearings: the first one has three action items, so there'll be three motions; the second one has two motions to it. But the presentation is going to be the big picture overview, if that all makes sense. But eventually we'll talk things over, somebody's going to make a motion to do something, we'll vote on that motion, and more motions and more voting. We are an advisory body to the city council, so whatever our recommendation is goes forward to the city council. They're the final orbiter, so we're kind of your warm-up act. Everything here is going to be kind of repeated at the city council, just in a little shorter form. That's it. That's what we do here. Public hearing for the Cleberg Riverview Ridge Subdivision. We go to our city planner, Harry Davis. [2:33] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Thank you, Mr. Chair and good evening Planning Commissioners, as well as those that are joining us from the public. So in front of you are three different resolutions, so three different action items for you today. First one is to process recommendation for approved plats for Riverview Ridge. Second one would be to deny a variance request, or a series of variance requests. And then the last one is for approving a conditional use permit for a single-family home within Shoreland. [3:04] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: To give you a little background, the applicant for these submitted a building permit for a home that's on an unplatted 10-acre lot. Our code is very specific about: "okay, if it's an unplatted lot, you have to plat it before it becomes buildable." So that's kind of the impetus as to why we're here today—that a plat is needed. The location of where the proposed home is within Shoreland and right on top of a bluff. And so at that point, we're looking into Shoreland overlay district requirements for how close you can build to the top of a bluff, also requirements on grading and how all that works, and its distance to that top of bluff as well, and then the finished slopes for grading. I'll go over all this just in a few moments in a little bit more detail. [3:49] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: The quest you have: preliminary and final plat approval for one lot and an extension of Amber Court right-of-way for frontage and future development. Second is a variance request to place structures past top of bluff, to grade past the top of bluff, and then have finished slopes that are greater than 15%. The third is a conditional use permit request for a single-family home that's not related to a farm within the Shoreland overlay. Just very generally, here's an aerial of the property. The blue outline is where the subject property is, just to kind of show you some surroundings. So to the north are some townhomes, some duplexes, some right-of-way from that Stone Ridge subdivision. To the north, to the south, you'll have the Cannon River as well as to the east, and then to the west is actually the other five acres to the original 15 unplatted acres that this 10 acres came from. [5:00] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: First request is the preliminary and final plat. So this is essentially what it will look like. This is a snapshot of the final plat itself. Total plat area is about 10 acres; the lot will be most of that, and then there'll be some right-of-way dedicated as a part of the platting process. And just to go over that very quickly, the idea behind getting at least part of what you can see in front of you—which is half of this cul-de-sac—is that in the eventuality that the lot (the rest of the 5 acres that are unplatted to the west) is developed or platted at some point, we would be able to get the other half of that cul-de-sac. And at the same time, bringing utilities through Amber Court into that right-of-way is the intention of the applicant, as well as to make sure that there's adequate frontage for that lot. And so that's really the reason behind that half cul-de-sac. It's not sort of strange, as from staff, we do have that actually within code to specifically ask for these things when we can in order to make sure that future development has a path forward. It's 5 acres to the west; they may eventually want to develop and plat and get a building permit, and so this is facilitating that. [6:09] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: The second request in front of you is a variance. So there are kind of several variances here. The first one is for bluff setback. The purplish line is the top of bluff. That's based off of an average of the slope over, I think it's 50 feet if I remember correctly off top my head. And so the average of that slope, as soon as you get above a certain number, is when we start to determine where the top of bluff is. And so that is based off of that measurement. If you're looking for specific details on that, I can pull that up later on. However, in terms of top of bluff, that's where we—in working with the applicant's surveyor—have figured out where that top bluff is. 30-foot setback is required for any structure. So in this case, the home would qualify as a structure, and so you can see in the very dark black outline where that structure is proposed to be. It's not just a garage; it is in fact an entire home. There are some deck posts as well, and I've tried to highlight those in the red on the southern part of that picture. And so where the deck posts are, decks also do count as structures, and so because those are well past the top of bluff, we're starting to get somewhat of a picture in terms of the full extent of the variance. [7:42] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: I do have a table both within the report as well as on the slide to show you the requirement, proposed, and the variance. I'll go through that at the very end. But so top of bluff and the bluff setback is the first one. Second one is a Bluff Impact Zone. When we start getting into some of the more engineering-focused ideas behind having a Bluff Impact Zone, it's to make sure that there are no disturbances within that Impact Zone that may compromise the bluff. And so when we start thinking about that, it's like, well, you know, if we do any development or grading within the Bluff Impact Zone, that may have an unintended effect later on in the case of, say, some erosion over time. Buildings are heavy; they do tend to fall with gravity. And so with a big bluff with a big slope, we do find buildings do—when they are too close—they do tend to slide towards the bluff and sometimes even down the bluff in cases of extreme weather, whether it's hard rain or any flooding. If this particular property was a little bit closer to the edge of the Cannon River, that might be more of an issue for flooding, but at least within heavy rain, we have some certainties from the DNR's perspective that there is a really good chance of a building falling down a bluff. So that's the other side of it, the Bluff Impact Zone. [9:16] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: So that not just impacts structure placement, but as well as grading. And then the last thing that we've determined is an issue for this particular proposal is the 47% slope, which I've calculated from an 8-foot rise and a 17-foot run. 47% slope—that's well past the top of bluff. The maximum finished slope for any development within Shoreland is 15%. So to kind of just go over all the variance issues: there's a bluff setback issue (the requirement is 30 feet, the proposed is about 3 feet past the top of bluff, so a variance of 0 feet); second variance is grading and filling land within the Bluff Impact Zone (that's a 20-foot setback, the proposed is a 0-foot setback and where we see the grading, which are the darker contour lines on the image there, it goes about 20 feet past top of bluff); and then the third variance issue is finished slopes that are greater than 15%. Finished slopes at 15%—the proposed is 47%, so we're looking at around three times the allowed slope. [10:30] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: The applicant for a lot of these variances has identified some things that are significantly impacting where their developable area is on site. So there's a driveway for that neighbor to the east, the unplatted 5 acres; the driveway for them as well as an easement. This easement is very old; it actually extends all the way to Lindale, and those neighbors to the east do have a Lindale address—it's very strange. But what this all means is that there's an easement and a driveway that really do constrain what the applicant is able to do within a certain area on the property. There are some mature growth trees that are in the flatter areas of the property that are identified as being pretty valuable to the applicant as well as potentially to some neighbors. And then the placement of a house near, you know, within those flatter areas and near to the townhomes is also something that's undesirable for the applicant and potentially undesirable for neighbors. So just to provide a little bit of context to those variance requests. [11:33] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: And then the last request in front of you is a conditional use permit for a single-family home that's not farm-related within the Shoreland area. The image in front of you is just basically showing where the edge of that Shoreland overlay district is in relation to the ordinary high-water level along the Cannon River. Not to go too far into it, but our code is actually a little bit—it conflicts with itself slightly. There are different sections that do say, and when we look at the DNR's model ordinance, that a single-family home, whether it's farm-related or not, should actually be a by-right use within Shoreland. Unfortunately, our code is more restrictive than that. That's potentially something that we could fix going down the road. That doesn't, however, help us in this case. We do have to deal with the more restrictive set of requirements; we don't have a choice. That's actually a part of the DNR's requirement in there as well—wherever the code conflicts, the more restrictive applies. And that's generally the case for most. [12:30] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: So when we get into the preliminary and final plat, we generally do support the proposal. We've done a ton of work to get to this point, and we recognize that the applicant has not had an easy process getting to this point, and fairly enough, the city hasn't either. But I think we're getting to the point with this preliminary and final plat where we say, "Yeah, you know, we should be able to sign off on this plat." We do feel like being able to use this lot is of great benefit to the city, and so we are supporting the proposal. It does meet a lot of our criteria for preliminary and final plat. Amber Court right-of-way is good for utilities, for lot frontage, for future development. We do have the issue of the existing driveway that's across the property, which we do feel like that the applicant will be able to work through and get to a satisfying conclusion with. There is an existing easement for utilities that runs into the middle of the property that needs to be vacated prior to building permit; we've made that clear to the applicant and the development team. A development agreement will be forthcoming and in that, as a part of the preliminary and final platting process, we are looking for parkland dedication fees. That amounts to somewhere around $1,000–$1,200 for parkland dedication, and that's something that can be hammered out as a part of the development. [13:53] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: For the variance, generally, city staff does not support the proposal. Running in front of the DRC [Development Review Committee], DRC also did not support the proposal. The DNR also expressed opposition to the proposal; they are requesting that we follow our codes and ordinances regarding Shoreland requirements. Generally, we don't see that as meeting our practical difficulty standard—that is not just a city requirement but also a statewide requirement. And it does not follow our comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan specifically calls out things like bluffs, the preservation of bluffs in those natural areas as they are a very important aspect of the community and a very significant part of the character. We do feel like in this case there is significant community interest in preserving bluffs and making sure that people are developing with great care along them. And so this is an issue where community's interests, unfortunately, we feel like as staff does outweigh the homeowners'. [15:15] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: The conditional use permit—this is one where staff also supports this proposal. All the criteria for conditional use permit, both in general conditional use permit requirements as well as the Shoreland requirements that are required for conditional use permit uses within Shoreland, are all met except for the impact on the natural features—in this case, it's the bluff. So we do feel like it's appropriate to support this proposal as long as there are conditions that require the applicant to move the home outside of the bluff setback areas as well as any of that additional. So the conditions are spelled out in greater detail within the draft. Recommendation is that, from the DRC, the City Engineer as well as myself, the City Planner, we do recommend approval of the Riverview Ridge addition plats and the conditional use permit to the City Council based on the findings and conditions in the attached resolutions. We are, as well as the DRC, recommending denial of the requested Shoreland variances to the City Council based on the attached. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. [16:15] **Chair**: Thank you, Harry. Do we have questions for Harry at this time? I will note for the record Community Development Director Dave Wanberg joined us, and for us up here, the nameplate—again, we've just got new enough people here I wanted to make sure. No questions? Public input. Public hearing. Who wants to start? Go ahead. No, I was pointing where to go, okay, so you didn't bum-rush us. This is all new to us. [17:23] **Don Cleberg (Applicant)**: I am the applicant, Don Cleberg. I didn't have anything, I guess, I don't have anything prepared, but if there's any questions for me... everything else I think is mostly ironed out. [17:53] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Mr. Chair, if I may? So Don, you know, if you wanted to, you could talk a little bit more about variance requests if you would like. I gave a summary, but this is your chance. [18:05] **Don Cleberg**: She's much better at public speaking than I am, so I will hand it off. [18:07] **Cheryl Cleberg (Applicant)**: I'm Cheryl Cleberg. I'm a talker, so I apologize. I don't know—I haven't gone to a ton of meetings because they are frustrating, and so I have stayed away because I don't know the numbers. But what we're looking for is just our forever home. Just—we live right now right next to people. We don't want to live next to these fine people here. I feel like what's been wanting to be done is the house moving further and further and further and preparing for a 2040 plan, and I just learned that not long ago—sorry, I'm nervous—but 2040 plan is to me apartments, more houses, build a cul-de-sac. That's not what we bought this land for. We didn't buy it to roast marshmallows on it and live in town next to people. We bought it for one home, not next to the driveway move next to somebody's backyard where we can see it, where they can see us driving, walking. [19:12] **Cheryl Cleberg (Applicant)**: We want to keep the driveway where it is, then we could keep the trees where they are, we could keep the raspberries, the blackberries, the flowers, everything where it is. If it's not broke, let's not fix it. And that's kind of what we're looking for in some of this. And I didn't go to the meeting so I'm not really 100% sure, but as far as, like, the deck being too close to something, then we didn't have a deck on our last house, we don't have a deck in our house now—we just don't build a deck. If that's the issue, we're willing to work. Both of us are business people. I own Studio 14. So, I mean, when I was doing the build-out, I did what you said. You know, we are here to follow the rules, but we're looking for a little leniency. You work with us, we work with you, sort of. And so if we cannot have to move the driveway, take out a 100 trees to be closer to their backyard, that would be awesome. If we can work with the DNR—which at one point I thought we were good with the DNR, we paid to get it surveyed, and then they say move it 20 more feet, and then they say move it 30 more feet. I feel like we're just getting pushed to go onto a cul-de-sac, build more houses back there. That's all I have to say. Thank you. [20:30] **Chair**: Remind me what Studio 14 is again? [20:33] **Cheryl Cleberg**: It is—we are right near the Land of Sheds, right near on—so we saw you, we were downtown, and we bought that building and everything. That's why you look familiar, then. [20:42] **Chair**: Yes, and so I was asking for variance and it's been good, it's been three years and... thank you. Thank you. [20:53] **Commissioner Steve**: Thank you, Mr. Chair. What kind of—I don't think it'd be soil because it would be a bluff there—but what kind of rocks, or what kind of material will you be making the foundation on with it being that close to the bluff? [21:13] **Don Cleberg**: What’s ever there. [21:15] **Chair**: If you're going to... we need to get the mic. [21:20] **Don Cleberg**: I haven't done any soil samples. It's like dirt to me, but there is some trees that I've dug out and it... but I... thank you. [21:24] **Chair**: Thank you both. We'll continue public hearing. Anyone else wants to address us on either one of these? So, the preliminary final plat, the variance, approving the CUP? [22:26] **Dan Vander (Neighbor)**: Yeah, Dan and Sheryl Vander. We own that acre land that is directly west of the... we may be the most impacted by their building a property as we have... that runs through their property and that is our driveway. This is the only way to exit our property. Their property and ours was originally big parcel, 15 acres, that was owned by Bob and Shirley... built a log home on the west side of the property in 19... Bob and Shirley later... parcel was split with... acres which is ours and the other 10 acres... bought the log. We have very much enjoyed living in a home in the woods even though it's right in the middle of town, and we've been there 22 years. We had a chance twice to purchase... the refusal, but we're not quite as young as... and we decided it was best served kept that money for retirement. You are relieved to hear that Don and... property, known them for... we were concerned at first since we know that Don is a contractor, we thought he would want to build home Burgers... have home which would be their... so we would like the City Council to help them with their application. That would affect our... as we understand it, if the variance is... then our driveway would have... to their house and... and to do this, and I think others have... this many trees and this would wreck a lot of the habitat. It would also move the driveway right along... live in on the south side of... so where now they have a little... build, they would just see... so we really things to not at all you know we'd like to thank you and i'd just like to ask... acres. [26:00] **Chair**: Anyone else? [26:10] **Phil Anhorn (Neighbor)**: Phil Anhorn, I live in one of the Town Homes. Most concerned of we were was because of all the trees... said Don had come to us last fall when we were working on putting up a deer fence. And what concerned us was that he had said that he wanted to clear off all those trees up there and then put down little seedlings for privacy, which did not make any sense. So I just want to make sure like the Vanders said that keep things so that the driveway were it stay so that we'd have little barrier because we don't see anything behind us. I mean, we can hear a car once in a while go through, but we don't got like... we watch birds, I'm close to retirement... got over like 50 here we've got all kinds of... [27:25] **Chair**: Anyone else? I'm not in a big hurry to shut it down, but once I shut it down, it's shut down. So if that's it for public input, we're going to close down the public hearing then come back up here to the Planning Commission discussion. Harry, just a logistic thing: the three that you've got them in order—you want it done that way? Preliminary final first, the variance, and then CUP order? [28:05] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Mr. Chair, that's a very good question. Yes. So the reason behind that is that if you do recommend in favor of the variance going to City Council, that will significantly change how staff reviews and sees the conditional use permit. Right now, it does not meet the requirements that's set out by our code as well as the DNR for placement within a bluff. The DNR will be watching that and reviewing what comes out of Planning Commission and what gets approved at Council. [28:40] **Chair**: But again, I just for the logistics purposes up here—we'll discuss eventually there's three motions, three action items, but it's going to be the order that he's got on the agenda. So, discussion. [28:55] **Commissioner Steve**: Dave, question is: who does the plowing? Driveway—that's what on the map, it's his driveway, yes? [29:05] **Commissioner White / Steve**: So we're right now to what's... foot setback from this driveway movement to... [29:15] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Commissioner White, when you say driveway, the driveway is not under consideration as part of the... the driveway is itself not an issue for the variance. It's placement of the house. [29:34] **Commissioner Steve**: I guess I'll restate it. The... I see labeled as the garage on the diagram, 30 foot... [29:45] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: No, it's a 30-foot setback from the top of bluff. So in the diagram, the purple line—and I'm trying to find colors, I'm sorry—one more time... [30:10] **Commissioner Steve**: If we move the house 10 feet closer to the driveway, still need variance on the... [30:15] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Yes. [30:20] **Chair**: Discussion with the group. Bart's got his hand up, and then Eric's up. Bart's up next. [30:56] **Commissioner Bart**: Oh, I know we have... e... [31:34] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. So the driveway—in terms of trying to figure out how to reroute or to change the location of the driveway—that does require the Vanders to acquiesce to that request. And as far as I understand, there is (for lack of a better phrase) no dice. So we're working with where the existing driveway is as of right now. There are no proposals to change it. I think even then, to get to some of the concerns brought up earlier by members of the public: even if the variance were to be denied, the driveway could still stay there. I don't think that we're asking the driveway to be moved in order to meet the requirements of the Shoreland overlay district. I do have a diagram that kind of shows three different options of elsewhere on the property it could sit at the same distance away from the driveway, could be maybe even shorter to move it away from the townhomes. But there are... [32:55] **Chair**: Harry, just a second. There are a few options. I just want to make sure we got one conversation at a time. No, let Harry finish. I was just listening to them but I'm... I just discovered something on the print. I was just to verify... if let Harry finish and then we'll go to you. [33:05] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: So yeah, that's generally... we do think that there are other options without moving the driveway. Driveway can stay as is. [33:15] **Commissioner Bart**: I appreciate that. I was just going to say that if it was for environmental functions, having this driveway shortened actually would prove that. [33:30] **Commissioner Steve**: And now Steve's got the floor. What are the other options that you're talking about? Let's ask that question before I... cuz I was just looking at this print again and I'm confused. [33:52] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: So on the screens in front of us, going on the other side of the driveway... [34:10] **Commissioner Steve**: Okay. Because when I asked the question, "If it moved 10 foot closer to the driveway," when I look at the post and I look at the print, it comes out of the bluff range. [34:25] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Mr. Chair, so if I go back to the diagram—just you know, and I'm looking at this just from like a very quick math perspective, I'm here kind of spitballing—so between the blue line and the red line on the diagram in front of you is 10 feet. So if I'm looking at it that way, moving it 10 feet to say the north-northwest... going that direction... the bluff setback applies to any structures. So whether that deck is still attached to the back of the house or not, it would still count. The movement of 10 feet would still put the structure pretty close to that Bluff Impact Zone and still within that 30-foot bluff setback. The way that I'm looking at it right now, Mr. Chair, is that even if you moved it 10 feet, it would still be within both of those. [35:20] **Chair**: Thank you. Thank you. Let me just take the floor here briefly and kind of try to help reset some things. What Harry was saying—that's why I kept saying we got three things in front of us, three action items in front: the preliminary final plat; the variance on the top of bluff, the gradient of bluff, and percentage of slope on bluff; and then the CUP. The easement for the driveways is just not in front of us. That's not an action item for us. So, you know, we can wish and hope and point at maps all we want, but that's not what's in front of us. [36:00] **Chair**: Driveway part... the one thing just while I have the floor and then we can continue on: I know things about flooding. There are times that we have variances here—it's a 5-yard side setback and they're asking for... we do variances like that. Front yard—all the other houses on the block are 10 feet off the property line, but in reality the setback's 25—we'll give a variance to let somebody so their house lines up. So there are some variances that we do here that are kind of—I don't want to say a wink and a nod, but it's okay, yeah, that makes sense, I get it, it lines up with the neighborhood historic reason that we've done it. DNR—that's a hard stop on the 30-foot setback from building on. That's a big red line. And what I wrote down: top of bluff 30-foot setback, they're asking for zero—actually, they're on the other side of it. 20-foot setback for grading, they're asking for zero. 47% slope when the DNR rule is 15. [36:50] **Chair**: I like everything about this except the variance request. There has to be a way that we can move this forward—preliminary final plat, the CUP—the fact that we've got a history with these folks, developed one thing and kept their word and done well. There's a way to move this forward. There has to be without the variance. Well, I have the floor, and then there's no scenario why I would support those variance requests, just because it is such a hard stop with DNR. When DNR says no, it's not even close. City staff says no, it's not even close. There's a reason that that's different than other variances. Other discussion? [37:45] **Commissioner Sam**: I totally understand what you guys are trying to do. The problem with Planning Commission—I love it and I hate it—is that we are governed by some pretty hard rules that the City Council has a little bit more flexibility on. So that's why I would... I'm okay with the plat, I would not be okay with... are not to say that I don't support your... but City Council's going to have a bit more wiggle room than we do. [38:15] **Chair**: Other discussion? Questions, please? [38:22] **Commissioner Bart**: Yeah, that driveway that exists there... cul-de-sac is going... [38:43] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Mr. Chair, so you know, again, in terms of that easement, that's squarely within the Vanders' to say yes, we're willing to move it. We have no jurisdiction over it. We've spent—not to belabor it—but we have spent a long time trying to figure out a way. General consensus on both sides is easiest there. [39:00] **Commissioner Bart**: I guess point I'm thinking is that the driveway now comes off... yes driveway goes... it could for the bluff. Builds on pushing back 20 feet, build a new cul-de-sac, still have a drive. That space is which seems to impact... [40:10] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Mr. Chair, this is a case where, you know, we can't make the horse drink as much as we bring him to the water. So we did work with the applicant substantially at the beginning of this process to figure out: okay, is there an option to work with the platting both of these properties, bringing them both into compliance so that if the Vanders ever wanted to get a building permit they could? They could share some of the costs, there might be even some ability for the city to cost-share into some sort of cul-de-sac or utility extensions. We went through the entire thing. But ultimately what we found out at the beginning of this process is that we were just working with... So we do not have an option to change the easement. We don't have an option to change where the Vanders' driveway is coming from. And I'm sorry, Mr. Chair—you know, again, Commissioner Bart, this is not part of the discussion. We don't have a way to change where the driveway is. [41:00] **Chair**: Thank you. Other discussion? From... in the interest of moving things forward a bit, to pick up where Sam went: I'm not hearing anyone opposed to the preliminary and final plat. Feel better if we can move the ball forward a bit and take a bite one at a time. Everyone seems comfortable with the preliminary final plat. [41:15] **Commissioner Bart**: Chair, I make a motion that we approve the preliminary final plat as written. [41:33] **Commissioner Sam**: Second. [41:36] **Chair**: Bart's got the motion, Sam's got the second. Preliminary and final plat as presented to us. Discussion on the plat part of it? We'll vote. All those in favor say "I." All those opposed? No. Plat carries. Taking them one at a time now. The variance discussion. We can continue to discuss. I say there has to be a motion right now, but I tried to get the easy one out of the way. [41:53] **Commissioner Mike**: Yes, point... I completely understand what you guys are trying to do, and I would want to do it myself. I just looking at it, taking a look at it with my camera and without knowing more, I can't support right now, especially with a large... you guys... so I right... I mean... [42:45] **Chair**: Third this guy... I'll pick up one thing. I'm trying to remember 20, 30 years ago. Harry's right that the driveways had come up off Lindale. The history in those back to like the 50s or 60s, and some decisions were made 20, 30 years ago on that driveway variance that that was how that property was accessed back. It's a variance across that property. There's not anything we can do about it now. Some amiable agreement can come between property owners and they can... something that's between them. We can't... said you can bring water. Is there any... let me ask this group a question: Is there anyone feeling strongly that they're okay with the variance? [43:30] **Commissioner Mike**: I think it'd be okay if steep slope with it, but... [43:49] **Commissioner Bart**: Other discussion? Could see that too if there was real retaining, but we don't have that in front of us to look at. [44:05] **Chair**: So I'm trying to... Harry, help me in the exact language in the variance, because there's actually three parts to the variance: there's the top of bluff, the grading, and then the percentage of slope, right? [44:18] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Mr. Chair, so there is top of bluff 30-foot setback (which is for structures); and there's also 20-foot setback from the top of bluff (which is any grading and filling), which this does both within the Bluff Impact Zone; and then the finished slopes—any slopes within Shoreland can't be more than 15%. Those are the three variances. [44:35] **Chair**: Got it. [44:50] **Commissioner Steve**: Dave, go ahead. One more comment I would make is if there's any way that that driveway could be rerouted. Till that happens, that's really the keying of that D, and the fact that there's development went on since the had that house built makes it possible to move it. Or when that house was put in there, that townhouses wasn't. So as development goes on, then that cul-de-sac would be there, and that's the only part that really makes or goes over to... [45:23] **Commissioner Sam**: Sam. For the sake of just moving this onward, I'm going to make a motion to deny the variance for the bluff setback, the grading, and the... [45:45] **Chair**: Motion to deny the variance as presented in front of us. Is there a second for that? [46:04] **Commissioner Bart**: I'll second. [46:06] **Chair**: Bart's got the second on the denial, so that's the motion. Discuss that motion? We'll vote on the motion. All those in favor say "I." All those opposed? No. [46:16] **Chair**: Har. 7-0. Hang on, we got one more now. The conditional use permit, single-family home discussion. Let me ask Harry just for clarity: what staff want now that we're at this point? What's the recommendation on the CUP? [46:33] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Mr. Chair, so it's the same as before. So because the variances are going forward to City Council with... there are no issues with the conditional use permit because they contain conditions that require the house... [46:45] **Chair**: So you're saying we can move forward. [46:50] **Commissioner Bart**: Chair, I move that we approve advice from the... [46:58] **Chair**: Motion? Second? [47:01] **Commissioner Mike**: Mike's got the second. [47:03] **Chair**: Motion of the second on the CUP. Before I call for the vote, when we're done with this—again, City Council everything next week. You heard everything where we have wiggle room and where we don't. I got a CUP in front of me, I got a motion, I got a second. All those in favor say "I." [47:20] **Commissioner Bart**: I'm sorry, Bart had a good... I didn't call for discussion on the motion. Was there anything on the motion for this? Thank you. [47:35] **Chair**: Now we'll call for the vote on the CUP. I've got a motion, a second. All those in favor say "I." Oh, no. That carries. Next Tuesday at City Council, so eight days, same room, same time for all the neighbors. Thank you. [47:55] **Chair**: We're going to move on to the next one on the agenda. If you're really interested in how we work, you can stay or you can go. Thanks, folks. The next one up: Stone Ridge Addition Fourth Edition—an easement vacation. And again, this is a two-parter. We've got an ordinance to vacate a portion of the drainage and utility, and then again, approving the preliminary and final plat. And you'll see that we're going to do them in that order again for the reasons that we've just talked about: we'd have to do the vacation first and then the plats. So we go to Harry Davis again. [48:34] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the second item in front of you all tonight is for Stone Ridge Fourth Edition, which does include vacating easements from previous Stone Ridge editions as well as approving preliminary and final plats for the Fourth Edition. So I can wait maybe a minute... [48:50] **Chair**: Yeah, we're just going to wait for the door to shut. [48:57] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Okay, thank you. So the request in front of you all—really where this came from is that the applicant does own a few lots within the Stone Ridge subdivision and so they're actually a bunch of townhome lots, four lots total. Some marketing conditions are requiring them to rethink the ultimate land use for those lots and so they are instead requesting, as part of the preliminary and final plat, to take four lots that are for townhomes and condense them down to three single-family detached. And at the same time, because there's consolidation and there's requirements for easements along property lines, there's an easement that's right in the middle of the middle third lot, middle of the three lots. So that needs to be vacated to permit some sort of development. [49:43] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Here's where the four lots are currently and here's the proposed lot layout going forward. And so these lots are a bit larger, they do meet requirements for single-family homes within R2, which is the underlying zone district for this area. And here's a small diagram for the easement vacation—not a whole lot to it. But at least in terms of the easement vacation, we do support the proposal. It does meet all the criteria to vacate that easement. And also for the preliminary and final plot, we do support the proposal; we do think it meets all the criteria required for a subdivision and that a development agreement is forthcoming. Just very quickly on that—there were a lot of Parkland that was dedicated with the original Stone Ridge, so we are not anticipating any parkland dedication or of that for this Fourth Edition. So DRC, City Engineer and myself, City Planner, recommend approval of the requested easement vacation and Stone Ridge Fourth Edition preliminary and final plats to City Council based on the findings and conditions. [50:50] **Chair**: Excellent. Thank you. Do we have questions for... Public input. There's one member of the public still here. Right up there, that area. Just last name and address. Just need... [51:22] **Travis Davidson (Public)**: Travis Davidson, 1214 Amber... Thank you. Yes. Um, I just had a question. It said the vacation of public drainage easement—that effect that all? That's what I'm... [51:40] **Chair**: I'll let Harry answer it again, but I know where we're going with this. [51:45] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Yes, Mr. Chair. It does not impact that pond. There's some final grading that's needed and that's a condition as a part of the spot for that pond, but it's not significantly impacting either existing or future. It's because the lots were changed and the easement under the lots need to change. [52:08] **Travis Davidson (Public)**: Yes, okay. That's why we're doing... yeah, got the note. Just really wanted... not anything outside of the footprint? [52:20] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: No, that's no... [52:25] **Chair**: Happy to answer. That's what you're supposed to do. [52:30] **Travis Davidson (Public)**: Yeah, okay, perfect. That's all I needed to know. So four houses down to three basically. All right, you can tell Hannah it's okay. [52:45] **Chair**: I wish all of our public input could go that. Thank you. And that was the entirety of the public input because that's the entirety of the public left in the room. So end public input. Back up here to the Planning Commission for a discussion and a couple of motions. Mike's got the motion to approve. I'm sure you meant the drainage and utility easement. [53:06] **Commissioner Steve**: I'll second it. [53:08] **Chair**: Right, so Steve's got the second. Mike's got the motion on drainage and utility. Steve's got the second. We'll vote on that motion. If there's not any discussion, we'll vote. All those in favor say "I." No? That carries. I'm loving that metal sound. Now the final item: preliminary and final plat, now that we've moved the easements around. [53:23] **Commissioner Bart**: Make a motion that we approve. [53:28] **Chair**: Second over here? Was that Ed or Mike? I didn't hear. [53:30] **Commissioner Mike**: Mike's got the second. [53:33] **Chair**: Okay, we got a motion and a second on preliminary and final plot, Stone Ridge Fourth Edition. Any discussion on that? If not, we will vote. All those in favor say "I." No? That's it for our public hearings this evening. [53:45] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Thank Mr. Chair. Just very quickly on that—if anyone wanted to ask the question but felt intimidated, there will be new drainage and utility easements that are dedicated as part of the plots. So we're not... yep. [54:05] **Chair**: Requests to be heard—item four on our agenda. Is there anything that they request? Yes, Mr. Chair, I'll turn that over to the director. [54:15] **David Wanberg (Director of Community & Economic Development)**: So no, no requests in terms of projects, but you're just talking about projects or updates, planning updates. [54:26] **Chair**: I got item four: Request to be heard. Item five is Item for discussion. I thought you meant item five. If we could just skip down to items for discussion. [54:40] **David Wanberg**: So I'm going to assume there's no request to be heard. We're going to skip five for a second, we're going to skip six for a second, and we're going to go to seven and hear from Dave. [54:50] **David Wanberg (Director of Community & Economic Development)**: So I did want to update the Planning Commission: our Planning Coordinator, Peter Waldock, who's worked for the city now for 20 years, decided to retire early. He had hoped to—originally planned—until May, so it was a little unexpected for us and so Peter is no longer with us. But we wish him the very best with grandkids and family and spending time with all of that. But we did want to let you know that we will be looking for a replacement here, but it is going to take at least a couple months before... Probably wanted to update you on that and thank Peter for his service. We are looking at a celebration sometime coming up at the city, and we can let you know about that—obviously invite the whole Planning Commission. [55:40] **Chair**: Yeah, I have a long history with Peter. [55:45] **David Wanberg (Director of Community & Economic Development)**: Yep, so we are so appreciative of all that Peter has done and wish him the very best. Keep you updated on a celebration coming. [56:00] **Chair**: Anything else on board and commission updates? [56:05] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: No, Mr. Chair. [56:10] **Chair**: Okay, so now we'll backtrack. Thanks for coming in, Dave. Good to see you again. General Planning and Zoning updates, Harry. [56:18] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Yes, Mr. Chair. So just a few things I guess coming off of that—so in terms of department capacity, we're further reduced. So please be patient with me as I try to respond to everyone's requests instead of being able to just small... small joking aside, we are trying our very best and we will be looking for someone. Very big shoes to fill. We are positive and we'll be able to kind of get back on track when it comes to capacity and just the work plan for the Planning Commission. Just a small side note there—I do think that thinking about updating the ordinance so that we don't have to have a conditional use permit for... bring that into compliance with the DNR... that's something that I think that we could probably agenda, as well as any of the items we talked about it at our last meeting. [57:15] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Beyond that, there are a few projects that are coming up. There's the RSA CNS Vending project that is actually coming back. You all might remember it in terms of there was a variance, there's a comprehensive plan amendment as well as a zoning map amendment, so there were quite a few things that wrapped up into it. This is actually coming back—they were able to strike a deal with that property owner that was out and so they are moving forward without a variance, which we're very excited and happy to facilitate and work with them on trying to get you're able to expand. So that'll be coming at the next Planning Commission meeting. [57:51] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: We are still waiting on some additional information from the county, but there is a county access road that is also being public noticed for the next Planning Commission meeting here. We are waiting on additional info before bringing in front of you all; we want to make sure that you guys have the that you need to make a decision, as well as staff. We want to be sure that when we give a recommendation that it's based off of really solid documentation and general calculations from the applicant. Just to provide some background: so the Public Safety Center, which is all the way—all the way there on the north side of town—the Sheriff for the county wants to put in an access road in order to gain access to the river as it meanders past the center. That is actually a conditional use permit within the Wild and Scenic Zone, which encumbers that part of the river. So that's the impetus for the conditional use permit that we will see coming up. [59:00] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: There are likely some variances that we will have to consider in the same way that we consider them as part of the Cleberg item that was just before you all, but we won't know until we... recommendation to you all. I want to make sure... so we're working with them just to make sure that we... [59:15] **Commissioner Steve**: He's going to follow up the—I think the right name—the Skyline Drive, the city street that's supposed to come down into that road that goes past the Sheriff's Office? [59:30] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: He drive, maybe? [59:45] **Commissioner Steve**: Yes, thank you. Would it be possible for his road to follow that footprint, or does that make sense, or is that not what he's doing? So you're not—you'd have minimal impact to the nature the whole thing. I mean, minimum impact what way I look at it. [1:00:09] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Yeah, it's a really good question particularly because where that road goes to now part of within 50 or 100 of that Wild and Scenic River overlay as well as flood plane, and there's Shoreland to contend with. So it's kind of a combination of things that are really making this a more difficult proposition than I think anyone would really like it to be. There are certain things that we need to be sure that there's... certification that's submitted as part of it. That's not a city requirement; that's actually a federal requirement and a state requirement. That's to certify that there is no change in flood level as a result of any of the improvements. Floodplain... and the floodplain, you know, like I said before, is within 50 feet around sort of start. So we need a lot more information before we feel comfortable bringing that through. [1:01:15] **Commissioner Steve**: Well, which is what that's... that's part of what we're thinking is: okay, is this just an extension drive or is this maybe... [1:01:25] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Right now it is sort of an extension, it would just be a private road just for emergency. [1:01:45] **Commissioner Steve**: Is that everything? [1:01:50] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Oh, pardon? I'm sorry, yes. Yeah, so once we have a little bit more information we can share that with the DNR, be able to get their... [1:02:13] **Chair**: Yeah, Mr. Chair, you know, probably the events of sort of the heavy rain that we've experienced recently—I mean, that is probably enough of a reason to really consider this as this is really an important infrastructure piece for not just for the county but also for the city. We do recognize the problem is that we have rules, we have this... This is one where this is—looking at it from the outside—the right thing to do, but we just have to make sure that it makes sense. Anything else on board and commission? [1:03:00] **Chair**: I just want to add real fast: yeah, we're going through a lot of transitions right now. This—we can navigate through this. I've seen worse before. There's just a, you know, losing Peter, Harry's new, we got some new folks here. If you're wondering why—and those that have seen me chair meetings—I'm running a much tighter meeting, but until we get our feet under us. And other—that's why I'm being really strict, right? Kind of... and Harry and I have talked about it, we're just working our way through it. And even stuff like you saw how much more detail I went into on the... walked him through step-by-step. I am a much more pleasant, cheerful chair last few meetings. We'll get there again. But that's why... and Heather [Slechta], I know you enjoyed this so much you're going to come to every Planning Commission. Excellent. So things are looking up for us now. [1:04:15] **Heather Slechta (City Clerk)**: No, I will not. [1:04:20] **Harry Davis (City Planner)**: Oh yes, sir. Mr. Chair, just very quickly: I realize that the way that I approach certain things may or may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I want to make sure that I'm hearing people. If there's a different way that you would prefer things presented, or if there's a... go to the same result but maybe just go about it just slightly different? I'm very open to criticism. I realize that I am part of the, you know, the newer set of people that are coming into this. I just want to make sure that you guys are getting the information that you need in a way that you think makes sense. There's any improvements that I can make, I want to do. [1:04:45] **Chair**: Not an improvement to you—I think you've been very diplomatic. So yeah, okay. End on high note. Are we done? [1:04:54] **Commissioner Bart**: I make a motion to adjourn. [1:04:55] **Commissioner Eric**: Second. [1:04:57] **Chair**: I get a motion to adjourn. Eric's got the second. All those in favor say "I." We're adjourned.