This transcript is from a **Faribault Planning Commission** meeting. Based on the context provided and the dialogue (including roll calls and introductions), here is the transcribed text with speaker names. [0:00] **Chair:** Not 6:00, 6:00. Now call the meeting to order—the Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, September 3rd. Uh oh, before we even officially start, I think everybody's in the right room, but because we're meeting on Tuesday because of the holiday, the City Council is meeting in committee session over next door. So if you wanted the City Council, we're not it—we're the Planning and Zoning Committee, and we've apparently locked people out already, so we're off to a great start. After locking people out, the next thing on our agenda is approving the minutes uh from our last time together which was August 19th. That wasn't in our original packet, but that is a printed version in front of us this evening. Sam's got the motion, Ed's got the second on the minutes as presented. All those in favor say aye. [0:45] **Commissioners:** Aye. [0:45] **Chair:** Those no? Done with that. Uh, public hearings tonight: we've got a lot of them. Uh, it's going to be a long night. We're going to go through them one at a time. We're going to take uh small bites out of a really big apple for a while. Uh, everything that we do tonight is going to follow the same format so I'll just kind of go through that right now and then that there—there's a structure to it. We're going to call on our staff; they're going to give us a presentation, they're going to tell us what we're talking about. We'll ask any clarifying questions we may have, but we're not going to start discussing anything; we just want to make sure we have our ducks in a row. We will hold a public hearing on everything on the agenda tonight. So once there's a presentation, once we ask our questions, we go out and hear from you one at a time. Usually, the developer comes up first, but it's not written in stone, but everybody will have an opportunity to come up once, tell us name, address, company represent, whatever. Uh, everybody can cycle through one time at the big podium over there. When public hearing's done, then we shut that portion down and then we start discussing up here. Eventually, somebody will make a motion to do something and we'll vote on that motion. We're an advisory committee commission to the City Council, so whatever we vote on it then moves forward to the City Council and then they're the ones who take final action, usually their next meeting. Everything on the agenda: exact same format. Public hearings 3A, the resolution to adopt the Highway 60 West Master Plan, and we go to our Community Development Director, David Wanberg. [2:15] **David Wanberg:** Thank you, Chair, Commission, and members of the public. So we are asking tonight that you hold a public hearing and then at the close of that you make a recommendation related to the Trunk Highway 60 West Master Plan. By way of background, the city is the applicant on this. The site that we're looking at for the master plan is north and south of Trunk Highway 60 West, and that's west of Interstate Highway 35. Following just shows you the general location of uh where we're talking about—again, it's just west of Highway 60 at the interchange of 35 at the interchange of 60. So this map here shows the general study area. It's not entirely correct, but what you see in yellow is the general area that we studied as part of this uh master plan. I should note that the two um southernmost parcels are not within the city limits, but we'll talk about that in a little bit more detail here coming up. Uh, this is part of—it comes out of really the Comprehensive Plan, so the Journey to 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which we adopted a number of years back, um guides the area north of Highway 60 for a commercial residential mix. That's what you see in that kind of a light pink or salmon colored the top of your screen. And then in the purple area south of Highway 60, that's really guided for commercial and industrial mix. The vast majority of this property is all zoned commercial right now—no changes uh to the zoning associated with that. [4:34] **David Wanberg:** And just to clarify what a land use plan does: the land use plan is not a zoning map. It guides broad categories of land use for things like residential, commercial, industrial use. Um, and again, it isn't a development plan, it isn't zoning at all. The master plan that you have before you tonight is really an aspirational document that's intended to help inspire and guide future development. And likewise, to the land use plan, it does not acquire land, it doesn't dictate to landowners um what they can or can't do with the land, and it doesn't regulate the land use. It really is a vision for what it might be. Um, and in this case, um this land has sat for decades um undeveloped. A number of years ago, the city extended uh municipal utilities to 38th Avenue um with the intention or in anticipation of big box development happening in that area. That did not happen, and that land has sat undeveloped now for decades. Um, now there are some real significant renewed interest in this property from the landowners and developers who are contacting the city saying, "We're interested in potential development out in this area, but we're seeking more guidance from the city on what that might look like." Again, the city does not develop land, we don't acquire the land, um but we can help inspire or work with the property owners and developers um to look at what that might look like in the future, and that's what you have before you tonight. [6:05] **David Wanberg:** So the city um EDA um put as one of its top priorities looking at gateway improvements. Um, they've identified this Highway 60 corridor that we're talking about tonight as one of the key areas to look at. The City Council has also identified this area as a really critical area in the city to be able to uh develop in the future as well. Um, the the EDA then helped fund a consultant to come in, Bolton & Menk, as well and as um Xcel Energy they helped fund some of this as well. So we had some money set aside to be able to hire a consultant and take a look at this site in more detail—everything from topography, some of the issues and opportunities that might be associated with that, to interviewing the major property landowners in the area um and getting their feedback on what they would like to see. We've also then—they've conducted a joint work session with the Planning Commission uh and the City Council to discuss the master plan for this area and get some feedback um from both the Planning Commission. So the area vision for this is really um to have an active front door into Faribault where regional economic activity and new neighborhoods are woven into the natural landscape. [7:37] **David Wanberg:** Some of the principles include establishing an area that is an attractive gateway and welcoming to the city; embracing the topography and other unique uh characteristics of this site and working with them in any kind of future development; respecting other city development that already exists in the city in terms of businesses and others um respecting that but looking at the opportunities that may be out here; leveraging multimodal connectivity with the rest of the city, including the State Trail that runs along Highway 60, and a number of other principles associated with that. Uh, as I mentioned, the consultant did a uh a lot of detailed inventory analysises of of this area. This is just a summary of some of those challenges and opportunities that are associated with this area. But you see at the top of the screen in the dark blue is um Cannon River or Wells Lake in the light blue that surrounds it. That's the Shoreland overlay that the DNR controls in terms of a number of regulations that we would have to abide by. That does do things like limit the height of uh buildings out there, limits uh the density of development in the area, impervious coverage and the like. So that does have some effect on what the future land use could be. [9:09] **David Wanberg:** You also see running north and south, or from the top of the page down to the bottom of the page, red lines that indicates the pipelines that run through there, which are pretty significant and that affects development. The squiggly lines, the brown lines that you see on there, are the topography. The closer those lines are together, the steeper it is. And so the area south of Trunk Highway 60 has some topography, especially right as you get close to the Trunk Highway 60 area, and that limits development. But there's also some considerable opportunities being located as a gateway into the city and being located very close to the interchange of Highway um 60 and Interstate 35. So a number of things that could be looked at. The area on the left, the map on the left—again, just shows some of the development in suitable areas. The purple areas are just, you know, against some of those really steep areas. The yellow would be the pipelines where you're not going to see much development. So it gives you an idea of what that area might look like. Then on the right-hand side is just suggesting that north of Trunk Highway 60 is an opportunity to have a mix of commercial and residential uses, which is consistent with our Comprehensive Plan right now—guides that for a mix of those uses and we'll go through that in more detail. Then to the areas to the south, primarily looking at commercial and industrial uses to the south. [10:40] **David Wanberg:** Let's just go briefly through that area north of Trunk Highway 60. Um, what you see on the right-hand side is just a concept sketch of what that area might look like. So really as you get close to the east side of that site, which is getting closer to Interstate 35, you see a number of commercial type uses that would relate to the interstate highway—opportunities for restaurants, people to pull off, hotels, whatever it might be. And then as you get to where number two is listed on that map that you see on the right, that's where the pipeline easements go through. To the west of that would be residential um and again, looking at a variety of residential uses. There's a very, very strong need for additional residential in the community uh and specifically um a variety of houses from everything from executive-type houses to uh multifamily to workforce um smaller scale houses—a full range of housing opportunities. And we've had some significant interest from um developers uh on this property to the west there for potential residential. And then to the uh south of that, at along Trunk Highway 60 to the south, that would be primarily for commercial and residential. So again, some pretty strong interest in the properties particularly Highway commercial uses that would front Trunk Highway 60 or and Interstate 35. And then industrial as you go further to the south. Um, this would still respect um of course the cemetery would remain there, so that remains in that area. But um just looking at those opportunities. [12:12] **David Wanberg:** Now again, I want to make it really clear with this is that there's no acquisition of land, there's no any um attempt to tell a property owner that this is what your property has to be. Um, this is an opportunity to have a vision for this area, get people excited, um try to provide some guidance of what that might be. And then if there's interested property owners and interested developers, they would come forward with their plans for this and we would have public hearings to consider what their plans are. Generally speaking, again, what you can figure is that to the north of Trunk Highway 60 would be residential with some commercial mixed in as you get closer to the interstate highway. And south of Trunk Highway 60, it would be primarily commercial along the highways, but then as you get further to south with interested property owners, industrial if there's, you know, interest in that direction with property owners to do that. So um again, this is a public hearing, so we'd ask you that you open a public hearing on this, take those comments. I'm happy to respond to any questions at the close of the public hearing. Then you'll want to make a recommendation on the draft resolution that's before you if you uh feel comfortable moving that forward, and that is to recommend approval of adopting that Trunk Highway 60 West Master Plan. Any questions or comments? And you—you might choose to say, "Let's hold the—continue the meeting and come back." We're happy to do that as well. Um, but as I mentioned, there are some interested property owners and developers right now that are looking for some guidance on that. And that's but that, Chair, I'll turn it back to you for any questions or comments you may have for me. Thank you. [14:31] **Chair:** Thank you, Dave. Do we have questions for Dave before we open up to public hearing? [No response]. Enough. We'll go out to the public again—just one at a time. We'll hear from everybody, but then when everybody's cycled through once, then we'll shut down public hearing and come back. [14:51] **Richard Giles:** I'm Richard Giles. I live on 3049 Wells Lake Drive up on that area that to the north and west of the in-between the gravel pits. Concern—I don't—there's no way we can stop progress, but is there a way to slow the traffic down? We're going to have more traffic. Again, right now coming across 60, when you see the bins out there at 60 mph—at 60 mph, really fast. And ever traveled Highway 60 between Faribault, you know what's not. They come over the hill, there's a little bit of a rise right there coming out Wells Lake Drive. You don't—it's almost too late. Either the traffic needs to be slowed down or we need a much... wife almost got got past both sides with their blinker on. Somewhere along the line got to stop. More traffic we add, the more construction we add, commercial we add, the more residential we add—question: how can we control the traffic out there now even 5 years from now? Developed have one question: do you have a right turn lane there now for your neighborhood? [16:25] **Chair:** There's a turning lane there now? [16:25] **Richard Giles:** Yes, but you're just saying that if it were longer—that's what I would like. Most of them I think are around 500 ft long. I'm not sure on 60 mph—I think they're around 500 feet. If we had longer, it might help. But like I said, coming out of town it—it turns... is that the name of the business out there? It turned 60 there and that's another quarter mile at least to get out to the Wells Lake Drive. They're doing 60, 65, 70 before they... we need to get some way to slow it down or traffic lane, turning lane quicker, whatever. [16:25] **Chair:** Got it. That's exactly the type of stuff we're here to gather and get that through public input and then that all. Thank you. [17:12] **Heather Slechta (City Clerk):** Excuse me, Chair? Yes, may I get your name and your address as well? Oh, he said it at... I missed it. [17:12] **Chair:** It's Richard Giles. G-I-L-E-S if you want the correct spelling, and 3049 Wells Lake Drive. Thank you. I'm guessing there's more. [17:35] **Matt Dren:** Hi, I'm Matt Dren. Uh, address is 3115 Wells Lake Drive. Um, as far as the traffic goes, um I would love to see a couple roundabouts. My neighbors might be mad at that, but I think that would slow down traffic and if we're looking at developing that property, lots of traffic in and out, especially the residential end of that—Wells Lake Drive specifically. But roundabout there, put up a lovely "Welcome to Faribault." Great opportunity. Um, the other part of the development... I you know, I—I actually am thrilled to see the—the progress. Um, the commercial end of the north side of Highway 60, I would really like to see the residential extend along the lake so that we have stewards of the—the lake keeping the water clean. Development, thank you. [18:21] **Chair:** Thank you. [18:45] **Unidentified Speaker:** Members... uh, I own... been working with... you're excited about this or commercial... an see what happen... def... is. [20:21] **Nort Johnson:** Hi, I'm Nort. That's N-O-R-T. 210 4th Avenue Southwest. I'm also with the Chamber of Commerce and Faribault. Um, I want to just describe to you quickly... I'll take... um the number one needs for the workforce in Minnesota right now: housing, daycare, and healthcare. Faribault, as you know, our apartment uh development has been pretty robust, especially in comparison to home ownership opportunities. The layout of this uh appropriated to the housing development would include—could include executive housing, could include row housing along... if you look at the infield between Wells Lake and Highway 60, then executive homes on the lake shore or river shore, and homes, row homes along a trail. There's still room for probably 80 to 90 single-family dwellings much needed, and Faribault's appropriation of this land for that purpose is excellent right now and I fully support. Thanks. [21:48] **Chair:** Start—I don't mean to shut it down prematurely. I thought there'd be more people, but I just want to make—I'm making eye contact with people. Okay, then we'll shut down public hearing. Uh, I just never want to look like I'm doing it too fast; nothing to hide here. Okay, so we're done with public hearing. Back up here to the Planning Commission for discussion. [22:39] **Samantha Green:** [Inaudible motion]. [22:39] **Chair:** Got a motion from Sam on the resolution on the master plan as written. Is there a second on that? [22:39] **Michael Schendel:** I'll second. [22:39] **Chair:** Mike's got the second. Got a motion, second. We all know what's in front of us. Mr. Chair? Just a reminder for all the Commissioners, just make sure you have the microphone pointing at you and in front of you. Ah, thank you. If no one else got anything, I'll just—I'll add it. It was when—when—when Dave kept saying decades, I remember sitting here somewhere in the mid-90s when it was all commercial big box, and then that master plan showed that. And then 15 years ago I was like, "Well, that didn't work." Now it looks like it's going to be housing. And then so this is now the third Highway 60 West Master Plan I've seen. Uh, it's just—it's—it's keeping up with the times, it's keeping up to the reality. Uh, there's a lot that makes sense here. We had a pretty detailed presentation on this a couple of weeks ago, we saw it, we've had time to digest it. Got a motion, we got a second. If there's not any other discussion... Bart, please? [23:24] **Bart Amman:** I just wanted to since it did come up uh the traffic studies happen but those a lot of times will happen do not just those will be discussed but again they aren't up because that is a state highway up to us. [23:24] **Chair:** We got a motion, we got a second. If there's not anything else, we'll vote. All those in favor say aye. [24:12] **Commissioners:** Aye. [24:12] **Chair:** All those opposed, no? That carries. Next Tuesday... so a week from tonight, that's correct? So this will be in front of the City Council a week from tonight, same time, same room. Next up on—I'll give a second as I know the door is going to bang, that's all good. Thanks folks. 3B. 3B this evening, it's a resolution to deny variance regarding 153rd Avenue Southwest. We now pivot, and in the hot seat is our City Planner, Harry Davis. [24:58] **Harry Davis:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. So before us tonight we do have a request by an applicant for a set of variances for 153rd Avenue Southwest Fashion Way. Uh, the applicant is Cory Newby. Uh, for those that have been on the Commission for a little bit, you might be familiar with the Urban Flea Market. Uh, we had a rezoning and a Comprehensive Plan amendment go through near towards the beginning of this year. Um, the applicant come back a little bit closer to opening up a business, want to ask for some variances for some site improvements um before the business goes in. Uh, just for location purposes, so you know, we're looking at uh this property where the red star is on your screen, just south of Division, just north of First Street, and in between Third Ave and Second. Here's an aerial of it uh kind of showing just the general layout of the property. Uh, this property for those that are unfamiliar with it uh the bottom left-hand corner, the southwest corner uh used to be Divine Mercy School. Um, the top part of it used to be a church with a residence, and then in the bottom right is or was currently a playground for that school, the aforementioned school. [26:02] **Harry Davis:** And so the request by the applicant is for two variances. First is for the front setback for off-street parking. Um, the requirement is for 10-foot setback and the applicant is proposing a 0-foot setback, so the variance needed is 10 ft. And then the other variance is to not have any uh curbing where drives, landscape islands um anything where there's parking and maneuvering occurring on a property, you need to have a concrete perimeter around the outside of that. Uh, the applicant is proposing no curbing, no new curbing uh as part of the project. So the variance would be to allow no curbing. Um, the applicant has cited a few different things uh primarily the historic character of the property. Uh, the church on the property is very well known; it's one of the three kind of big original churches for Faribault. Um, and then uh the Comprehensive Plan has also been cited in terms of trying to provide a method for small businesses to get their start here in Faribault. [27:36] **Harry Davis:** The applicant did touch on a few other things like traffic flows, drainage, and uh disturbance from construction to the neighborhood. Um, you know, generally from staff's point of view, a lot of these concerns are not necessarily grounds for practical difficulties. Uh, the ordinance requirements are there as a—as a minimum that's set by City Council in order to allow any sort of development within Faribault. The applicant did recently change this property from public institutional to C2 Commercial Highway. Um, and so the applicant is—is needing to meet a standard that a lot of our commercial districts need to meet. If a—a new business goes into an existing property, we do expect some improvements of said property. And so we work with them on trying to figure out based off—and not to get too technical—but a rough proportionality and a rational nexus to what they're trying to do and equate that to the amount of effort or input that they need to do in order to make the property a little bit more compliant with code. This is what we've asked tons of other businesses. Um, a lot of those situations have been before my time, uh I will admit, but in terms of my understanding from those that are still here uh that is—that is what we have done. Uh, talking to the City Engineer, the Community Economic Development Director who was previously a City Planner, this is what we've asked. [29:10] **Harry Davis:** Um, we—we don't see a situation where the Comprehensive Plan is supporting where there are existing non-conformities that the non-conformities should just continue to be, especially in the case of something where there is a change of land—of land use and going from a school and a church to something where we're talking about commercial traffic. Even if it is limited on days by that business, it doesn't necessarily mean that some other business couldn't come into this location today and do something where it's everyday commercial traffic. So that's—that's kind of the issue that we're running into and we're trying to build it. And you know, the requirements are set up so that there is a minimum threshold that needs to be. So the, you know, kind of some of the reasons that we would have something like a parking setback would be to make sure that there's adequate room for landscaping in between parked cars and potentially headlights if it's late at night and adjoining properties. And in this case, all the adjoining properties except to the south are all residential. Um, so you know, I—I definitely see a potential issue there, especially when we're talking about compatibility and nuisance to those adjoining properties. [30:43] **Harry Davis:** Um, we also want to make sure that no cars are accidentally parking over onto public right-of-way. Um, there is an existing fence on the property, but you know, generally when we're looking at setbacks it's to make sure that that will never be the case—that someone doesn't come and just tear down that fence, all of a sudden we have cars parking into the right-of-way. That setback is there for... um kind of similar ideas with curbing. Curbing does a few other things that are a little bit more technical, like making sure that drainage is pulling into the right areas on a property. Um, but it also makes sure that cars don't unnecessarily drive into landscaping or drive over and onto—and you know sometimes onto the public sidewalk. Um, you know, curbing does another thing where it's provided at the edge of a paved area, potentially asphalt or even concrete, and that's to kind of help things, you know, to sort of keep things from sort of buckling and turning into debris and getting sprayed everywhere else. Um, you—you can kind of think of the curbing as kind of like a belt—you know, the belt kind of keeps everything onto the property and it makes sure that if it gets a little bit too big, if people are driving over a particular part, that all of a sudden doesn't fray and just push debris into... [31:29] **Harry Davis:** Um, you know, we're running into this—this sort of situation other properties um and we're just trying to avoid it here in this situation because we know and we understand the context. Additionally, um you know, we're—we're looking at a situation where this is a complete uh variance of the code with no, you know, sort of action taken by the applicant to sort of try to get to the harmony or the intent of the code. Uh, these are just great variances. Um, I think that there's the possibility with some good backing and—and good justification for asking for variances here um but we're not really seeing that from the applicant. Um, you know, generally we're just seeing something that's inconsistent with the zoning criteria, and that zoning criteria is not just something that Faribault has specifically for itself but really across the state of Minnesota. Um, you know, here's kind of just a concept that I threw together—I think this was like 1:00 AM trying to put this packet together. Um, I thought, "Okay, you know, what if we try to get to some of the things that the applicant needs?" 50 spaces is what they're trying to do as a part of their existing proposed plan. Um, so this I think is actually a bit more than 50 spaces. Some other things that are not included in here are like a—like a landscape island that you would typically do as soon as you get to 25 spaces or more and every 25 spaces—landscape island. But that's some technicalities I'm happy to work through with the applicant. This is showing how you could meet it with a 10-foot setback um and then, you know, I think just generally based off the other information that I—I previously presented, you know, providing curb I think just makes sense and so this would give you ample room in order to provide. So um staff is recommending that Planning Commission uh recommend denial of the variances that are before you to City Council based on the findings within the draft resolution. Um, I realize that you know, there's potentially a lot for us to talk about here and a lot to digest. I'm more than happy to take any questions. [33:49] **Chair:** We go through this... do we have questions for Harry before we go out to public input? [34:05] **Samantha Green:** So originally this is... but when the applicant originally, I'm assuming the city... [34:05] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, um you know, generally I think when it comes to an applicant buying property, it—it's kind of up to them to—kind of ask us, "Hey, what are the requirements for it?" In the case of the rezoning, the comp plan is interesting because staff originally did not recommend in favor of it. So I think in some ways you could say that staff didn't anticipate that this would become something. I think either way, these standards for parking lot design and landscaping and everything are standard throughout the code. Um, we don't make it a point to go, you know, point—point uh point by point through the code or say, "Hey, this applies to you, this applies to you." We generally work with applicants and they're working with professionals and know we can uh if we—if we absolutely needed to, but that's a lot of time out of my day. [35:47] **Bart Amman:** Bart's got a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe that we had quite a bit of discussion on the... and we were actually pretty—we pretty harmonious... Ed wouldn't been here about parking lot or... and this is going to be a variance night... general property if I recall we had talked about this many times. Do you—do you recall us... want to make—make sure I'm clear about this but do you recall us talking... [36:10] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, so um you know, I'm not sure on the—on the second half of that question. I—I think really the first half of that question is more of, yes, we did talk about a concept. In fact, it's the exact same—pretty close to the exact same site plan with just a few amendments to it—used as a part of a lot of Planning Commission work sessions and City Council work sessions trying the zoning Comprehensive Plan questions. Um, so we have seen this plan before or very similar plan. Um, unfortunately, nothing's really—really changed since then, and I think through the process we—we saw this as a conceptual plan um that needed a little bit more ironing out, and we just haven't gotten to that point um where we're able to look at it from staff's point of view to say, "Okay, this is pretty close to site plan approval." But it is what the applicant has proposed and it does show us a little bit in terms of what the applicant's asking for; it gets us pretty close. So that's why we're able to bring it forward to you today. So yes, we've seen this plan before. I'm not sure to answer the second part of that, but we have—we have talked about all this before. [37:41] **Edward Leo:** Ed's got a question. I'm going to—going to jump on her court a little bit here. I was not here at the original time this was all up... in your question also... so from understanding, this—this applicant came once before the Council or the board and was told this is for second time of the applicant? Walk through sense... Harry can answer what the first action... [37:41] **Harry Davis:** Okay, yeah Mr. Chair. I—I just want to make it very clear, you know, I—I'm—I really don't recall if we talked about variances. I know that there was uh there's a report that the applicant has cited where you know, I was looking at a concept plan where, "Okay, you know, what if we tried to accommodate the most amount of parking on site while still providing some amount of buffering with adjacent properties?" I think I was looking at maybe like a 5-foot setback instead to try to accommodate enough room so that the applicant could have on the applicant's busiest days the number of parking needed—or not even needed, just some amount of parking on site in order to encapsulate the potential... I think the applicant can, once he comes up for public hearing, can correct me, but I think it was like 50 people or like 300 people an hour. It was—it was a very high number of people. And so that's—that's what I was responding to as a part of these work—work sessions. Um, there was no—there was no discussion that I remember about, "Hey, would the Planning Commission support or not support variances?" I don't believe that that question ever came up Council. Um, this was more of just like, "What if—what if we had to do this in order to accommodate parking on?" [39:14] **Edward Leo:** So it's somewhat of a revision of the original? [39:14] **Harry Davis:** To some... it was—it—it was just a conceptual diagram of staff saying, "Okay, you know, what if we had to... this you know, what would that look like and still try to get to the spirit and intent of..." Um, you know, we did as a part of several work sessions... I think it ended up being three and one City Council work session uh before the applicant submitted for rezoning Comprehensive Plan uh plan amendment to talk about what could happen with the site. Um, some of that was just based off of... we were unsure, especially from staff's point of view, "Okay, is this something that is going to be supported or not?" We wanted to give the applicant some time in order to work through that with both Planning Commission and City Council. Uh, ultimately the applicant was able to work through some of those things with—with both. Planning Commission did recommend denial of the request and to actually uh suggest a lower like a—like a C1 zoning district here—that's a neighborhood commercial. But City Council decided to move forward with C2. That's—that's kind of the history there, a bit of a nutshell. [40:46] **Michael Schendel:** Okay, yeah um when you do these plans, a lot of times it's much easier to depict what's going on if you have professional drawing done. You can see all the nuances that are miss... seems like we're still at this PDF stage, means we don't really know what we're... I think it's important that we have a—a professional civil engineer draw this site up and they can usually play around with spaces, create things that work better. But we can't tell yet because we're stuck in PDFs. So it's really important to get a—a really good professional drawing done, see what's really there. Was there a question there? No, I'm just trying to say that we can't really make... it's tough for me to make a decision but he's been given okay without having a professional drawing. I didn't want to step on. [41:32] **Chair:** Okay. Uh, any other questions? I guess the one thing that—and I just to clarify in my head the action that we took... and Harry said it right at the end... was we had a rezoning and comp plan. That was the action we took. We didn't really go in, then maybe that gets to your question, we didn't go into site plans or anything. It was a comp plan amendment and a zoning amendment—that's the action we took. [41:32] **Harry Davis:** Yes. [41:32] **Chair:** Okay, thank you. We're done with questions. Public hearing, public input, same process as last time. Cory Newby. [42:40] **Cory Newby:** West time tonight. Oh, we did in one... say had two... already there. I could 50 for the first floor... those that backs... email speaking... once herbs and... as for professional aspect of it I just... recently... e-e... always stood my ground, did take a risk or of that... what sounds drastic... it have another site that's really need that for... boys to fall back... protection. Thank you. [48:33] **Chair:** Do we have anyone else from the public that wants to talk to us on this? Okay, back up here to the Planning Commission for discussion. Bart. [49:03] **Bart Amman:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just to kind of fill Ed and Sam in a little bit to one of the big discussions we had had is none of the off—on-street... A lot of it we'd also, as—as the applicant had mentioned, he had talked about making the—the parking spots smaller and we had talked about trucks coming in and how difficult and um and how that would encumber things. Um, also I think a lot of times people forget that we're here to follow the rules and Council we... so this as we talk about these things, I think we have to kind of remember that. And again, Mr... follow different... we have to follow these. Thank you. [50:28] **Chair:** Other discussion with the group? [50:28] **Edward Leo:** Chairman, we had quite a discussion, we did recommend to the City... comment also. I've been on here long enough where we... lots of other development, lots of other... all the task on... very rare that we give given the fact that the City this puts heavier pressure in motion to this is going to drama having the setbacks allows for some buffering. I think the business... he has to come back with some rest. [50:28] **Chair:** Is there a motion? Those at the motion, is there a second? There's no second to deny, then that goes away. Sam had her hand... [51:16] **Samantha Green:** Okay, so I'm your neighbor. I could throw a rock probably hit your property. Um, I watch my daughter walk from my house day—every day. So without your property being there and just Divine Mercy, I have traffic concerns. Watch across that street can get real dicey. Um, my question right now is his issue... and maybe you can chime in as well... is the issue here based solely on the parking minimum requirements? Does he actually need that amount of space or is the City hiring him to have that amount of—whatever calculator you... [52:50] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, so there is a ratio that's required for X—X number of spaces per square feet of a certain use. This case it's General retail that's being proposed; this is kind of the storefront version of the applicant's online business. Um, I don't recall exactly what the requirements are, like what the—the ratio ended up being. I know if I recall correctly, it was sub-50 spaces for at least this first phase of the applicant's project. The applicant could probably speak a little bit more to exactly how much square footage... we could do calculation. Um, the concept plans that we talked about way back beginning of this year were trying to think about, well what about the utilization of...? So that was kind of where we started to get a little bit closer to 100. Um, I think we still don't know that. [53:36] **Samantha Green:** Clarify one thing—I don't need you... by the entire site, are we talking just the school or are we including the church as well into that? And the—the house? I mean, are we talking about it as a whole unit or individual parking requirements for each? [53:36] **Harry Davis:** The applicant is focusing first on the school, so it'd be utilization of—of the school area. Um, and like I said, I—I believe that that number was sub-50. I think the applicant is providing just a few extra spaces for customers to be able to come to the site. Um, so I think that that at least answers one. You're gonna have to remind me on the other. [54:24] **Samantha Green:** No, I'm just—I'm—I'm having a tough time. I understand the variance, I want... by those because um I also want... I I think I would just out of pure purpose of this body have to let the Council toy with it more. Thank you. [55:13] **Bart Amman:** Bart, you had your hand up. So I believe, correct me but I believe he needed for the... that's why have... [55:59] **Chair:** Other discussion? And if I could grab the floor here now... yeah, the—the initial discussion when we start the first through... I voted as Sam said. The City Council said C2, that's fine, that's what to... I'm not relitigating that. Uh, the number of times over the years though that I've looked at a developer and said, "Of course you have to have curbing on this thing. Of course you have to meet the setback." Uh, I like to be able to look people in the eye, and there will be a developer in front of us in the future say, "Yeah, I've pretty well always kind of stood by those rules." Of course, you're going to have to have curbing and of course... the other thing over the years is we've been incredibly flexible with reusable churches. There's a lot of smaller neighborhood churches that have been converted into residences and we've had to get really creative on... and maybe they were supposed to have three parking stalls in the driveway and there was only two, or there was the—I'm going to have the terminology wrong—Parish House or the Parson's House that was next. Well, maybe the setback wasn't big enough and that they needed to sell that house off. We've been really, really cooperative. I—I think about even the—the old uh Sacred Heart School which is now a professional building, therapist in there. So time and time again we found this is just a bridge too far. I get it that it's a really big campus and it's a really big Catholic church, uh but I can't on board with a zero setback in—in where I'm at. Other discussion? We still need a motion at some point. Had a reminder: there's six of us. Mike? [57:30] **Michael Schendel:** From a historical perspective, is this part of the historical workup of the site? Whole site itself is taken historically or is it just...? [57:30] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, uh so I just want to be clear, there's no historic designation for the church. I did initially think that it was on a register; has since then done a lot of research, it's not on a register. It is called out on the city's historic preservation or Heritage Preservation website as kind of one of like the big old churches that we have here in Faribault. Um, but there's no—there's no, you know, plaque somewhere that says it's on the National Register of Historic Places or Buildings. There's no—uh legal definition that applies to that—that property at all or that church as being historical. Now if you want to get into it, I think that the church is probably the most—the church and the attached residence are probably the most historic parts of the site. School itself I think was like 1940s is when it was built, so it's probably getting into the point where it could be part of a National Register. Um, but the church I would argue is probably more historic than those. So the parking lot itself I think has been rezoned numerous times. I mean if you go and you look out there today, there's like a metal barrier... link fence... got black on it. There's nothing particularly historical about... So to kind of answer your question, I think that the church is probably the most historical tool. Could be—you could look at it as an entire site, but looking at the area where the parking is—is supposed to be for the applicant's request, I don't—I don't quite see that that's reflected in the step. [59:02] **Michael Schendel:** So if he's required to put in a curve, that means he's up the entire lower with a sight by 8 inches or so? 6-inch better curbing is going to redirect all the water, whereas right now it's working well and we're going to disturb that because... I kind of talking about... yeah, but I want to make sure that it's going to come out of better situation, worse one. Sure. [59:02] **Harry Davis:** Um, Mr. Chair, so uh Commissioner Schendel, you—you touched on this earlier—we—we don't have a very detailed set of plans in front of us. And I think that that's been something that staff has really struggled with because we don't have an idea as to where that drainage is going. We don't really have a whole set of like topography that's really something that we feel like is—is—is accurate enough and depicts what's—what's happening on site. It sounds like the applicant now has some of that info; it'd be great to have that so that we could figure out—is drainage going to be significantly impacted by curb? But we don't have that data, so I can't—I can't tell you right now yes or no he's going to have to lower it or raise it. But it is a good point, it's just none of that has been done to any—to any level of detail that's going to be helpful for staff to say, "This is a lot more and becomes a practical difficulty." Closer to one if he has to regrade the entire site, but even then I'm not sure if that's necessarily a practical difficulty. So it—we just—we just don't have that data to give you solid answer. That make sense? [1:00:34] **Samantha Green:** Sam. Um, I think given the fact that he says that he now has that data, maybe it would be great for him to share staff the... if something I would vote to able to see that. [1:00:34] **Chair:** That's a motion to continue to the next meeting for a second for that? [1:01:22] **Michael Schendel:** Second. [1:01:22] **Chair:** Okay, Mike's got a second on that. On what that motion is... I a question for Harry: does that jam us up on...? [1:01:22] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, it does, but I was going to issue a 60... okay, so I—I just want to make sure we don't trigger something that automatically causes all sorts of... so you—you can—you can ask for the 60D... yeah, I can—I can just give it just based off try... Just very quickly on the idea that it would require the applicant to provide some information about what they would have to do to the site. Just having a survey with photography on it might not be enough. I don't think we can... vote. [1:02:18] **Steve McDowell:** Okay. Steve's got his hand up and then Ed's got his hand up and also it it gets in the gray area on when we have a vote a to continue to the next meeting we really can't... pretty fast. So I'm going to open this window a little bit and go to Steve and Ed real fast but all I'm asking you—were going to continue? My mind... curbing don't have to take it up. I mean you look at that's your expectation. I want to see that kind of... there's going to be a variance, I want to see exact detail. [1:03:00] **Edward Leo:** Ed, you had your hand up really quick. Uh, the information that been requested, that be available in two weeks? [1:03:00] **Chair:** Mr. Chair? That is a great question for the... because I heard the motion... yeah, I've got a motion in front of us right now. I don't want to open up that whole conversation. I got a motion—oh, it was Mr. Schendel, Mike. Mike already seconded it, it's fine. Sam had the motion, Mike had the second. We're ready to vote on it to continue this to the next meeting. All those in favor of that motion say aye. [1:03:46] **Commissioners:** Aye. [1:03:46] **Chair:** All those opposed, no? I'm the no—am I the only? So it passes 5-1, right? So I mean still passes, but I just—I'm not going to shut anything down, but so passes 4-2 to continue it for—to our next meeting. Okay, we're done with that. Okay. Uh, okay so okay that was the variance. We're up on C now. Comp Plan amendment, Zoning amendment. So these are two separate resolutions. Got a resolution 24... Comp Plan amendment, and then the ordinance on the zoning map. Oh, this is the one out on the north side. Harry's got the report. [1:04:32] **Harry Davis:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just moving stuff over. Okay. Um, so uh this is a continuation sort of in a way of what we discussed at our last work session. Uh, no, just for clarity for the audience, no decisions were made, no—nothing—nothing was decided at the last meeting. It was more of just a—just again idea from the applicant's point of view what could happen with this request. The request uh by the applicant um by the city is primarily by J&J Properties, but with the addition of more properties the city is kind of taking this over of uh changing the Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning—uh the zoning designation for a few properties within the 500-400 blocks of 20th Street Northwest, the north side of 20th Street Northwest. Um, it's for properties that are existing and and potentially in the future uh residential. You can see the location here kind of sort of within the context. Um, and then here's an aerial with the properties that are highlighted in yellow. Um, the requests uh in front of you all is for future land designation from industrial to established residential neighborhood, and uh the rezoning is a zoning change from I2 Heavy Industrial to R2 Low Density Residential. [1:06:06] **Harry Davis:** Here's the—here's what the change would look like for the Comprehensive Plan and what the change would look like for the zoning now. So these are in the Comprehensive Plan colors and zoning map colors. So for discussion: Comprehensive Plan—the proposed land use designation is not a permanent barrier to any future development or redevelopment of these properties. Um, it sort of acknowledges the current land use of these properties today as primarily residential. Um, and so because it's—it's kind of meeting or we're sort of touching on—on these few items, we do feel like that it does meet the requirements for land... uh for the rezoning, it says uh it's not a significant change for the adjacent industrial uses. Um, for industrially zoned property, whether it's a adjacent residential land use or an adjacent residential zoning district, uh the setbacks are still the same. You're still required to have higher setbacks than you normally would—believe the difference is uh 50 feet for if your property is abutting residential versus I think it goes down to 15... don't quote me on that, I'm trying to remember from top of my head. Um, the zoning could change with future conditions. Um, somebody could come in later on and buy all these properties and redesignate them with Comprehensive Plan, zone them as part of the zoning map. [1:07:38] **Harry Davis:** Um, we see this really as—this is a short-term thing uh potentially in order to allow some new residential development as well as to allow the existing residential development to not run into any huge non-conformities when it comes to things like trying to sell the property where the lender, whoever the—the mortgage is with, may ask why is the property zoned industrial when you have a house there, existing house, which is a very common question that we get. Um, or if someone wanted to do a small addition to it, it would not tie them up from potentially being able to invest more with... So we do see this as something where it's fixing nonconformities, it's really responding to what uh so we do feel like it meets the requirements for Z amendment. So in summary, we do feel like it meets the amendment requirements and uh we are recommending in favor both actions in front of you. First one would be a resolution to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the zoning—or the landing designation—to established residential neighborhood. Second would be an ordinance in order to change the zoning map from I2 Heavy Industrial to R2 Low Density. [1:08:23] **Chair:** Great. Do we have questions for Harry? [1:08:23] **Michael Schendel:** With this change... I'm looking at the—the overhead satellite view. You talked about these setbacks because now with the residential it'd be a 50-foot setback, would this affect any of the buildings that are currently industrial zoned area? [1:08:23] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, uh it's—it's a very good question. So any of the buildings that are currently there that are within that 50-ft setback, whether this rezoning and comp amendment go through or not, they already have to ask for a variance in order to those buildings. So this doesn't—this doesn't change the burden on those—those existing uh those buildings can remain there as long as they are not really changed. So as soon as they start thinking about an—sort of extension addition to those buildings where they go farther into the setback, or they have to completely reconstruct it for one reason or another... as long as it's not something where—lack of a better term—it's knocked by God, or you know there's some sort of fire or some sort of calamity that takes it out, they rebuild it within a certain amount of time which they can do if it's a non-conforming building. Um, you know, if they just say, "Well, we want to do a different building there," then they have to adhere to the 50-foot setback and they might be asking. [1:09:54] **Chair:** Okay. Other questions for Harry? I know the city's the applicant, but still we'll go out to the public if there's anyone from the public that wants to talk to us on this. [1:10:36] **Cody Pettice:** Hello, uh my name is Cody Pettice. Uh, my residence is 1313 Golden Race Circle here in Faribault. I'm here on behalf of Harley's Auto Salvage and Recycling Center. I'm the third generation of Harley's Auto Salvage. Uh, my grandfather was the one who started the business in 1952. Uh, my uh father Gary is currently there at the business and he's been there basically all his life. I've been there full-time now for 18 years and going to be the next owner of this uh property. Uh, this is our 72nd year in business. We—I feel like we are one of the staple businesses here in the community. I feel like we do a good job. Um, we run a clean operation, uh good operation. We employ many people within the community and we always try strive to do our best. Um, there are a little concerns uh on my end. Um, just one of them—when we were looking at the photo, could we pull up that one photo of the industrial area how you want to change it back over to the low residential with the purple and the yellow please? Hang on a second, they're working. [1:12:07] **Cody Pettice:** Okay. Uh, in my eyes, those colors really don't match up very well when you start mixing low residential into a high residential area. Um, in my eyes, it's a recipe for nothing but problems. Uh, I know I have gone through this in the past before with some of you with developments as far as apartment complexes uh in that area; it did pass. Um, and I feel like they have been good neighbors, we haven't had any issues with them, no complaints. Um, but I feel like that's a—a reflection of our side and the people that were moving into that area also. As with this, I did grow up uh next to the house um uh next to Harley's Auto Salvage there and that is the only house that is not being proposed to be changed to a low residential at this time. And I fully understand that because I will eventually end up with this property and at—in in the near future would like to see our business grow and eventually try to make our facility look better with an office space or new dismantling areas at this time. [1:12:53] **Cody Pettice:** So that's always on my mind. And if we start allowing lower residential to come into this area, it almost prevents us from—us allowing us to go ahead with setbacks and other variances, property lines within this area. Um, we did own the property—well, I didn't own the property but my family own the property in the middle there—it would be that empty lot. And I rejected to purchase this property just because I thought it would be more difficult on my end to try to expand our business into this area in between houses rather than—rather than come up here and ask permission to do that. So that's why I did reject that property. But as far as all the other ones, I highly disagree with mixing heavy industrial in with low residential—I highly disagree with that. Uh, it's never good for anyone on our end and I just want to come up here and let everyone know that we've been there for 72 years. We were there first and I just want everyone to know who is moving into that area uh whether they be existing or new, that we do operate with uh heavy equipment. Uh, there are backup beeps... we do have people—we do have people coming in and out on a daily basis through our facility. So yeah, that's really all I say. Thank you. [1:14:25] **Chair:** Thank you. Anyone else with the public on this one? Okay, we're back up here to the Planning Commission. Question: who...? Let me be the first to go. I usually don't jump first, but we looked at this last week and there was a discussion. I can understand both arguments, honestly. It's some of these that are really close cause that the struggle with them all. There's an empty lot that would be really nice to—to put a house on, nice affordable housing. I totally understand. Problem that I also, in looking at this map, see zoning and much like I said in the last one, there are just certain things I don't vote in favor of. You know, zero setback and no curbing—I'm not going to vote in favor of that. And I just don't vote in favor of spot zoning, and I've really struggled with this one. And Mr. Pettice did a really good job to—to—to make an argument or you know that side of the argument. I don't think there's any bad guys here. I—I don't think there's any... but it really does come down to that thought: zoning could eventually maybe jam up some industrial plans down the road. But on the other side of the coin, there's a buildable lot that's beside a couple of single family. I get it. I I look forward to the wisdom from my... [1:16:06] **Edward Leo:** Yes, I think originally residential um to the point... but you know, if you're buying County Fairground and those types of things, got a house right there who are going to buy it are knowing what they're... [1:17:11] **Chair:** Other... oh, I'm sorry. Let's go to Bart. [1:17:11] **Bart Amman:** Oh... now I got it. Okay, we're running... I want to go to Harry for a second just make sure tring that. [1:18:23] **Harry Davis:** Yeah, Mr. Chair, so I kind of touched on this a little bit earlier and I'll just touch on it again uh just to make sure that we're all on the same page. But um how the zoning is set up for I2 is that it either looks at land use—the adjoining land use of that—that property next to it—or it looks at the zoning. It could do either. And so right now that 50-foot setback applies to the existing residential home today. Purely... no not really... right? If we forgot about this entire request today, everything went on as is, and let's say for example we have had a developer come in... and I'm trying to show on the screen where my cursor is... come in and put a building on that property. They had to put in a 50-foot setback even though the joining properties to the south were zoned I2 because they're actually used—land use is residential. But that 50-foot setback applied. So whether it's Mr. Pettice's property or an undeveloped I2 property, that 50-foot setback still applies currently because the land use is residential. It does not need to be part one or two or three or four residential zone; materially, it doesn't change for those joining property. The burden is still there if you want to call us that back a burden. Good. [1:21:02] **Chair:** Other discussion? What are the wish of the group? [1:21:23] **Michael Schendel:** Yeah, so there'll be two—there'll be two motion my first motion. [1:21:37] **Chair:** Is there a second on that motion? [1:21:37] **Edward Leo:** I'll second it. [1:21:37] **Chair:** Ed's got the second on—on the resolution on the... We're all clear on what that motion is before we vote. I have landed on a position... your Pettice convinced me. It's—it's at the end of the day, it's still a spot zone, but again I—I—I certainly not disparage anyone that votes in favor of this; I can see... Get a motion was the second on the Comp Planine amendment. All those in favor say aye. All those oppose, no. Let's do a roll call vote. I think it was 3-3, but let's just do a roll call. Harry, can you do a roll call? [1:22:33] **Harry Davis:** Commissioner Green? [1:22:33] **Samantha Green:** No. [1:22:33] **Harry Davis:** Commissioner Jackson? [1:22:33] **Commissioner Jackson:** No. [1:22:33] **Harry Davis:** Leo? [1:22:33] **Edward Leo:** Aye. [1:22:33] **Harry Davis:** Schendel? [1:22:33] **Michael Schendel:** Yes. [1:22:33] **Harry Davis:** Amman? [1:22:33] **Bart Amman:** No. [1:22:33] **Harry Davis:** [The Chair]? [1:22:33] **Chair:** Then I was a no. 3-3, right? [1:22:33] **Harry Davis:** So a tie means the motion fails, correct? Because it's not a majority. [1:22:33] **Chair:** But if someone were to make a motion to deny the request... I'm looking for some direction from anyone here. Again, because there's six of us, how do we move it forward? Steve, go ahead. It's tie so—so the motion fails. That's what I'm just saying. So if we're okay with that, that—that's how we just send this one forward. But there is no—usually we eventually take action, you know. [1:23:19] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, uh it's the responsibility of this body to make a recommendation. Um, we—if we can't make a recommendation, we'll run into sort of an identity which I'm not sure how to... [1:24:06] **Chair:** Yeah, that's where I'm struggling with. Steve, go ahead. [1:24:06] **Steve McDowell:** I think we—we've—we've made the decision simply because the motion didn't pass means it failed. So we didn't approve it, but then I would call for another motion because we have to take action. That's you run into it when there's a tie; that's our problem when there's a tie. [1:24:06] **Edward Leo:** Ed, go ahead. May I ask a question folks? Electively, however, no votes what start there. So what you convinced me of me in voted differently these collectively talked about stringing all these... yeah, and um I also feel for and at the moment if someone decides to buy that it'll be presented to us again that point. [1:24:56] **Chair:** Now I'm just—I'm hearing what Harry said. The last—the last thing we want to do is lose credibility with the city—not me, I don't want to get too wrapped around the axle, but in much bigger picture I don't want to—like a better word—damage credibility by say... Voted 3-3, but that seems to be the only logical outcome because like Steve said, if—if Steve were to make a motion to go, "Okay, we want to deny this request," it—it would fail 3-3 and I... with all due respect to our city vote. So if they know that it were undecided, maybe they... Is it fair to say that again we had a motion with second and failed 3-3 though it failed on a 3-3 tie vote? We—we got to move forward to the zoning map one, which I suspect to be the same, but that's kind of the end of our action item because there's only six of us and that's a discussion that's later on in the agenda. But I don't know—as a chair, I don't know what else I can say here, right? I'm not trying to move on, but we had a motion, we had a second, we voted and it failed. And there is no subsequent motion that would—would be likely to pass so sort of dying in this chair. Let's move on here. [1:26:03] **Bart Amman:** I make a motion that we deny on the zoning map. [1:26:03] **Chair:** Okay, got a motion to deny the request in the zoning change. Is there a second on that? [1:26:03] **Steve McDowell:** Steve's got a second on that. [1:26:03] **Chair:** Now it's a—in a second to deny the zoning request point. Um, yeah in this particular case this jump right to roll call. So I've got a motion—I just want to be sure before I call it—I've got a motion in a second that denies the zoning map amendment request. That's the motion. Roll call vote again with... Harry. [1:27:34] **Harry Davis:** Commissioner Green? [1:27:34] **Samantha Green:** No. [1:27:34] **Harry Davis:** Jackson? [1:27:34] **Commissioner Jackson:** Aye. [1:27:34] **Harry Davis:** Leo? [1:27:34] **Edward Leo:** No. [1:27:34] **Harry Davis:** Schendel? [1:27:34] **Michael Schendel:** Aye. [1:27:34] **Harry Davis:** Amman? [1:27:34] **Bart Amman:** Aye. [1:27:34] **Harry Davis:** [The Chair]? [1:27:34] **Chair:** And I'm an aye. [1:27:34] **Edward Leo:** Oh... okay. [1:27:34] **Chair:** So again, that's a... Oh, Ed switched? Okay. Thank you. I'm okay... no, this is why we do it this way. Okay. So the motion carries. Carries on a... thank you Harry. Done. Okay, Harry, still because we've got the other one hanging out there on a 3-3 that we approved the zoning but not the comp plan amendment, you're—you're vexed by that? [1:28:48] **Harry Davis:** Um, Mr. Chair, I would suggest so that we can bring two recommendations for the two items front... If there is consensus zoning map amendment that perhaps those that were—because the motion failed I guess—those that recommended against the comp plan amendment that they... yeah, they make a motion in order to reconsider it so that you could then try to make another amendment. You're not required to, but... [1:28:48] **Chair:** Yes, actually we don't even need to reconsider because the first motion failed, so anybody can make a motion to do something because first motion failed. So who wants to make a motion to do something? It would be a motion what Harry just laid out is a motion to deny the Comprehensive Plan amendment. [1:29:34] **Edward Leo:** I'll make that. [1:29:34] **Chair:** Ed's got the motion. [1:29:34] **Steve McDowell:** Steve's got the second. [1:29:34] **Chair:** Considering the bowl of spaghetti we got in front of us right now, we're just going to have... Mr. Green? [1:29:34] **Samantha Green:** No. [1:29:34] **Harry Davis:** Jackson? [1:29:34] **Commissioner Jackson:** Aye. [1:29:34] **Harry Davis:** Leo? [1:29:34] **Edward Leo:** Aye. [1:29:34] **Harry Davis:** Schendel? [1:29:34] **Michael Schendel:** No. [1:29:34] **Harry Davis:** Amman? [1:29:34] **Bart Amman:** Aye. [1:29:34] **Harry Davis:** [The Chair]? [1:29:34] **Chair:** And I'm an aye. And that support to vote as well then here is... okay thank you folks. That going to go as it is; it's going to go in front of the City Council next week. So Cory—Cody all over again next Tuesday night same room. Thank you. We're done with that. Say hi to your dad—I played softball with him 30 years ago. I'm glad to see he's still working. Okay, now ordinance 24 something to vacate a portion of the drainage and utility easement 14th Street Northeast. [1:31:03] **Chair:** Sorry, Mr. Chair, just trying to make sure we've got it in front. We've got something in front of us. What happened to that? Yes, I'm—I'm blind, I can't see it. Okay, we got something in front of us now. Ordinance vacating a portion of the drainage and utility easement. I'm very excited about this presentation, Harry. [1:31:03] **Harry Davis:** I'm just there, right. So the request in front of the Plan Commission tonight is to vacate a portion of a drainage and utilities at 3—sorry, 2343 14th Street Northeast. The applicant is Johnson Ryland Builders and Remodelers, the owner is Shattuck-St. Mary's School. Um, the location for the property is here, just off of 14th Street northwest of the Legacy Golf Course. Here's an aerial of the property and the request is to vacate just a partial area of this larger drainage and utility easement. Here's what that easement looks like. The area that's hashed and gray is the easement vacated. Um, based off of the criteria within code, there are no major issues. We do feel like this meets requirements and in summary we do support this. And so we are recommending approval of the ordinance to City Council. [1:32:21] **Chair:** Got it. Thank you. Do we have questions for Harry? Any members of the public here to talk about this vacation? Okay, back up here to the Planning Commission. Thoughts? Yes, I opened and closed public hearing—I just wanted to be sure I—I didn't mean to be premature. Did anybody want to talk to us about this drainage thing? Okay. [1:33:07] **Edward Leo:** Make a recommendation that we approve the vacation of the portion of drainage and utility easement. [1:33:07] **Michael Schendel:** Second. [1:33:07] **Chair:** The motion to vacate and Mike's got the second. Ed's got the motion, Mike's got the second. As presented, anything from the group? All I'll add is I actually remember the Legacy plotting process from... nobody knew where that water was going to go. Okay, we got a motion, we got a second. We'll vote. All those in favor say aye. [1:33:56] **Commissioners:** Aye. [1:33:56] **Chair:** Those no? That carries. Now we have an ordinance to approve the zoning map. Again, we're up on 14th Street. [1:33:56] **Harry Davis:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, so the request in front of you tonight is from the City of Faribault for—City of Faribault owned property. First is the water treatment plant, which is at 818 8th Avenue Northwest. Second is for the wastewater treatment plant, that's a 214 14th Street Northeast. And it's a zoning map amendment for both properties. Uh, and this is just to allow existing government utilities to be under a proposed P1 or public institutional zoning district. Here are the two subject properties um sort of within context, and then here's an aerial kind of looking at each property. I'm sorry that it's so large, but just trying to get a general idea for context. Uh, again, the request is to change these properties from their existing zoning districts, uh which for the water treatment plant is R2 or low density residential, and for the wastewater treatment plant is O for open space agricultural to PI which is public institutional. Here's uh the water treatment plant um area circled in red that'd be rezoned as—in fact, I apologize, this is an error, should be rezoned as public institutional. And I have a similar error on this, and I apologize, but this is the wastewater treatment plant and would be rezoned as public institutional. [1:35:26] **Harry Davis:** Um, so for in both cases, what we're looking at that there are really no major issues. I think if um uh we had—we went through an effort not too long ago, I think it was early 2023, where the city went through with the new public institutional, we zoned a lot of these government properties uh school properties, institutional-based properties to public institutional in an effort to make them a little bit more control zoning. A lot of them were under R2, a lot of them were under open space, just like these two properties were. Um, we did intend to include all the properties that we could with that initial effort. Um, this is one of such situations that we would look at, "Well, you know, we're not going to get them all the first time. Here's us kind of adding to that list properties that make sense." Public institutional—public institutional allows by right the existing critical civic infrastructure that's on both of these properties. So it's going to allow their continued use, especially because they are critical infrastructure pieces well into the future. And so that could allow the city to expand them. Um, you know, certainly within the means—within setbacks, within landscape requirements um in order to provide buffer with adjoining property owners. But generally we do feel like that this is something that's—that's needed for these properties for their continued use. So we do feel like it—it generally meets the requirements for zoning. So no major issues from staff's point of view, so we are recommending that you recommend City Council approve these results. [1:36:58] **Chair:** I okay. Questions for Harry? We still have members of the public—anybody want to talk about the public institutional zoning? Any public input on that? We're back. Okay, we're—we're done with public hearing. Oh, you're leaving... I was going to be surprised if you wanted to talk about public institutional. Okay, just want to be clear—we're done with public hearing. Back up to the Planning Commission. Steve. [1:37:44] **Steve McDowell:** I agree with doing this, but I'm questioning the boundaries. Because when I look at this, I see the spot where you have it in there where you have the compost pile for leaves, but this does not include the—the two settling ponds that are—that are part of the functioning of the water treatment plant and the uh the uh tree... what do I say... brush area where everybody dumps brush, which is also part of the—the whole game. So my only objection is this doesn't include enough of the property. Um, that's it, that's my only objection. Otherwise, I'm totally in favor of doing this. [1:38:30] **Chair:** Excellent. I—I—I—I hear you Steve, and at first I didn't know where you were going, but you're right. The especially the two sediment ponds, that's clearly part of the wastewater... Go ahead, Bart. [1:38:30] **Bart Amman:** Oh... so I came onto this board in 2021 and this is when we—I think officially started talking about this. I would like to make a motion that we approve this, finally put this one to bed. [1:38:30] **Chair:** Does that motion include Steve's correction on including the sediment pond and including Steve's addition? Back to Harry for a second. [1:38:30] **Harry Davis:** Uh, technical issue with that. Property owners need to be noticed if property is going to... [1:38:30] **Steve McDowell:** I make a motion that we move this to our next meeting. [1:38:30] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair? Yes, I—there's a giant can of worms with that adjacent property. You really can't have dump piles within an area that's within Shoreland. Oh. So there's kind of a huge issue if we start looking at this property and rezoning it to allow these uses that are really should not be allowed within short... still got the floor for a second... this is a huge can of worms that I—if we—if we include that adjacent property, I think as an applicant, I'm going to happy. [1:39:16] **Chair:** We're going to go to Steve. [1:40:01] **Steve McDowell:** If we're going down that path, then I got to go against what you doing this because what we have is a dump pond that you just described within this property that you're applying for. So I think what we should do is just table this and let the city come back with a better thought pattern. [1:40:01] **Chair:** Okay, Bart's got the floor, he was in the middle of a motion. Bart, what do you want to do? [1:40:01] **Bart Amman:** So to clarify, I want to go with the original ordinance as written—that we approve the original ordinance as... [1:40:01] **Chair:** That's your motion to approve the zoning map amendment? Got it. That's your motion. Who's got a second? [1:40:52] **Samantha Green:** All reload it. I'm not confused at the motion, I'm confused about the gravity of the motion based on the intriguing factors that Mr. Davis just brought up. I feel like there's a lot more to this story and I don't feel like in good conscience I can vote based off of what I have in front of me. [1:40:52] **Chair:** I'm gonna... Bart's got a motion. Is anyone going to make the second to that motion? Okay, so that motion... Sam has just had her say. What are the wishes of the group? Steve. [1:41:38] **Steve McDowell:** I am—this is confusing. And the reason I didn't go along with Bart is because statement that the planner just made with the dump pile with regards to the brush, and the fact that we're not putting in the settling ponds, and the fact that in this we have a spot where we're—we're dumping leaves and we're dumping compost. I think this needs to go back and have further thought before we do anything. So what I'd like to do with this is simply—I mean I'm not making a motion, but what I'd like to do is simply just say table this till the city comes back with a plan and they get their eggs together. [1:42:23] **Samantha Green:** Sam had her hand up. I was sure... so to be cautious, we have—we have the city that has already made a—a particular and planned application that has already been and planned accordingly to have um an area that included that, so it's not going to be something... uh well now I have a question. Bet the floor... so is what we're zoning the same? Like, are we taking one plat of land and making it two separate zones? Is it like one business owner—is it like, or the city for example—is it is it all platted the same? Is it all the same property? [1:42:58] **Harry Davis:** No, Mr. Chair, so these—these are—these are two separate parcels. [1:43:44] **Samantha Green:** Okay, I can get behind one parcel as far attached or not. Le—you guys know what I'm trying to say. We're talking about two distinct parcels. I can get behind what was saying. Okay, what I'm—what I'm having the issue with is we've just made... the city planner just made a statement that he didn't opening up a can of worms because you have a jump site... we have two different dump sites. We have one for brush and one for composting—tell me the difference. [1:44:31] **Chair:** That's where I'm confused. What's—what's the difference in a—in a dump site? I—I'll go to Bart in a second, but once I heard that it was two separate parcels, that's the end of it for me. I'm fine with what's in front of us. Bart, go ahead. [1:44:31] **Bart Amman:** We're—we're—we're not... planning in zoning or don't have stay in that. So at this point, here to take care of zoning rules not that type of... that's not our treat. Okay. [1:44:31] **Steve McDowell:** Can I ask staff what the difference is on the can of worms with the compost site versus the brush site? [1:45:16] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, from what I understand, the dump site has been there for a while, but it's been there not with approval from the DNR in order to be there. So as far as I understand, that's an existing nonconforming use that really shouldn't be there. Um, it's not the intent of staff take that use and somehow make it through the public institutional zone district something that's... so we are working internally in order to try to figure out how is this something that we could get to the point where DNR... We're not there yet, we have not yet figured that out and therefore we have left it out. So we have—we have thought about the requests, made it very clear what we want to change now, just make more sense. You've got it properties. [1:45:16] **Steve McDowell:** So the compost site is approved by the DNR? [1:45:16] **Harry Davis:** What I'm saying is no, I—I can't find any record that the either of the... [1:46:04] **Steve McDowell:** So then in this zoning map that you're wanting to change, is the compost site far as I know no? Well you're saying that I'm opening a can of worms if we approve this because the compost site is not approved? Okay, maybe I'm confused as to where the... [1:46:04] **Chair:** Well, that's why I'm—I'm asking these questions. But there's the leaf backing place, the true... got the two settlement ponds, then beyond the settlement ponds separate things and it looks like this zoning map, based on my... it probably does pick up most of the southside, probably all. So but okay, if we're done with that part of it... got the... we haven't gotten an answer: is it approved or not approved? [1:46:51] **Harry Davis:** Uh, Mr. Chair, I have answered this: as far as I know, the DNR hasn't approved any. Now, I did speak to the DNR specifically about these two rezonings and they did state that there were no issues with... [1:47:21] **Bart Amman:** Assuming that the DNR has... uh, Mr. Chair, I make a motion to approve the zoning map West and East. [1:47:21] **Michael Schendel:** I'll second. [1:47:21] **Chair:** Second the... if that was a hand up or the glasses going on. Okay, got a motion in a second. We'll vote. All those in favor say aye. [1:47:21] **Commissioners:** Aye. [1:47:21] **Chair:** All those opposed, no? [1:47:21] **Steve McDowell:** No. [1:47:21] **Chair:** That passes 5-1. Done with that one on the ordinance. Um, that's it for the public hearings. I just have a technical question and I'll put it under "request to be heard" more than anything else. The minutes said that we had moved the Rice County Access Road thing to the next meeting. It's not on this agenda. Do we need to take any action or anything because it wasn't on...? [1:48:07] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, I was going to cover it under the General Zoning Updates. All right. So um long story short, we don't have anything new from Rice County. Um, and I'm to the point where I feel like it's perhaps not in the public interest to continue it and to just re-notified to the point when we actually do have more things from Rice County and that we do have an application fee and we can forward on this. So um I've taken it off the meeting with that idea in mind, and so there will be a new public notification when Rice County does put everything together. [1:48:53] **Chair:** I should have checked with you first. Okay, that covers our bases that all right. We're good. Uh, okay so no request to be heard items for discussion. We've got two of them—there's A and B. We'll get to the general planning in a bit, but Harry you got a quick update on A? [1:49:39] **Harry Davis:** Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. Um, so I've—I've kind of talked about this in previous meetings just a little bit, "Hey just make sure you're watching your attendance." We are starting to look at attendance attend, especially with new changes to the bylaws and some attendance requirements for those Commissioners. Um, so there are three requirements—or or sort of three triggers when it comes to attendance. First, when a commissioner fails to attend 1/6 of the regularly scheduled meetings in a calendar year without prior—without providing prior notice to the Chair planner. Second is that a commissioner fails to attend 1/3 of the regularly scheduled meetings in a calendar year with or without providing prior notice. Third is that any member consecutively missing 1/4 the number of regularly scheduled meetings without prior discussion agreement by the majority of the Commission be subject to review. Um, in this case, uh Commissioner Delgado has triggered the agenda item in front of us and and now goes in front of the whole Planning Commission—um that their attendance does trigger at least 1/3 of the regularly scheduled meetings with or without providing. When you look at the number of scheduled meetings, so it's about 23 meetings for 2024. Um, assuming that Commissioner Delgado would—would go to including today's meeting and the rest, uh that would be 34.78%. Um, and of all like the 1/3 meetings held, not including today's meeting, that would be 42.11%. So Commissioner Delgado does trigger that. So at that point there's kind of a question in front of the Planning Commission: is there a recommendation by the Planning Commission? It would be a recommendation to City Council for removal of commissioner. Um, that's not something that you have to make; it is just something that is triggered by this process. Um, I think in speaking to Commissioner Delgado, it seemed like there—there was uh some—some things that he was going to weigh before making a decision one way or the other. I haven't heard from him recently about. [1:51:09] **Chair:** I think with that, turn over to the Chair might have a... Thank you. And Harry and I have talked about this on and off since I have talked to Eric a couple of different times. Last time I talked cell phone number I can do to... So Harry and I have struggled with it. And what I ask Harry is to present exactly the way he did without a recommendation, ultimately up—that's what we're asking this group tonight, where you're at. I know we're on that from you guys. Anybody tried to talk to him directly? So hit this... Bart and show up or talk to us. [1:52:45] **Harry Davis:** Yes, Mr. Chair, so um I did reach out to Eric actually quite a few Planning Commission so that he knew that he was coming again, confirm that he was pleased at last... I think we actually probably would be talking about this a little bit soon, probably come up in kind of has been a thing to be brought in front of today. [1:53:32] **Chair:** Other discussions coming? Do we need a motion, Harry? [1:53:32] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, I—I think the Planning Commission can run this how they will. Um, I think for clarity to staff, will end up putting a resolution um perhaps to—to commission that would be best. Um, I just you know that I'm—I'm—I'm—I'm worried about if there is any questioning of having some sort of mo... [1:54:19] **Michael Schendel:** He's got a question: when does—when does this term expire? [1:54:19] **Harry Davis:** Your question... I will pull that up. 31st [of the month]. [1:54:19] **Michael Schendel:** Okay, so yeah in I don't mind making as being a Chair of other boards having that seventh person differential important like today we outside of the board on from schedule is just so I'm... [1:55:03] **Edward Leo:** Oh good no you're—you're in the middle of a motion question. [1:55:03] **Michael Schendel:** Okay, so you're giving my... [1:55:03] **Edward Leo:** I haven't made it yet. Okay, so you're giving the floor to you, sir. All right, and I'll make—I'll make the motion, and only on the principle of all is a very self—self-determination or whatever you want to call it. How word is another variant... you've got the... [1:55:59] **Chair:** Ed's got the motion to move this recommendation to City Council. A second for that? [1:55:59] **Michael Schendel:** Second out. [1:55:59] **Chair:** Okay, that's right, we need seven. I've got the motion, I've got the second to move forward to City Council. I just want to echo again... was a big fan, not anything personal. But if—if there was ever any sitting on my part 3-3 vote that we share in... B, you mentioned it, is incredibly difficult to chair a group. So that's—that's kind of where my... and it's not unprecedented... worked for the twin like did something up at... he resigned and yeah, and so it was—it was—it was a very similar thing to do this. I've got a motion, I've got a second. All those... all those opposed, no? That carries. [1:57:34] **Samantha Green:** Yes, I learned of this rule, forget Eric at the moment, I learned this rule whatever was a month or two ago when you brought it up. Coming on the Commission, is there a written document that you... I don't recall that talking about the rules and regulations. Words—it's—it's a document saying XYZ? [1:57:34] **Chair:** Actually—let—let me take it Harry. That—that's part of our annual meeting. You missed that part, so we do an annual meeting, go through our rules and regs and we update any of our stuff. So that's where... yeah, that's where it would be and you just fair enough. Mr. Chair? [1:57:34] **Harry Davis:** Harry, go it. Yeah, Mr. Chair, and if anyone is looking for a copy of bylaws for the Plan Commission, more than should get them as a part of your welcome packet. And I do apologize if you didn't get them. Didn't? Sam? Okay, so we can—we can send those out again just to make sure. Okay. [1:58:18] **Chair:** Yes, crappy about that. General planning update. [1:58:18] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, I gave my general update earlier. [1:58:18] **Chair:** Okay, so we got that one and I—I—I should have checked with you on that one. So that's it for Planning and Zoning board and commission updates. Mr. Chair, I don't have anything from me unless anyone else has anything else boards. Fine with that. So we're going to consider that done. Uh, now to adjourn this meeting before we go into the work session. Motion to adjourn? Is there a motion? [1:58:18] **Michael Schendel:** Make motion to adjourn. [1:58:18] **Chair:** Mike's got the motion. Who's got the second? [1:58:18] **Samantha Green:** Sam's got the second. [1:58:18] **Chair:** All those... [Meeting Adjourned].