This transcript is from a Planning Commission meeting. Based on the dialogue, the identified speakers are the **Chair** (presiding officer), **Harry Davis** (Senior Planner), **Leslie Rivas** (Planner), **Steve**, **Tina**, **Sam (Commissioner Wilson)**, **Bart** (Commissioners), and applicants/citizens **Matt Ganter**, **Joshua Walls**, **Chad Rosena**, and **Jim LaValle**. *** **[00:00] Chair:** You ready Carrie? Yep, just it's on the delay. You're good. Copy. Call the meeting to order on Monday, September 15. Planning Commission, item 1 on our agenda is approving the minutes when last we gathered on September 2nd. **[00:25] Bart:** I move that we accept. **[00:27] Chair:** Got the motion. Second. Bart's got the second on the minutes. We're good. All those in favor say aye. **[00:32] Commission (Unison):** Aye. **[00:33] Chair:** Opposed no. Done with that. Public hearing. Everything on the agenda tonight is going to follow the exact same format. We've actually got two topics, but there are three action items for us. What we're going to do is I'm going to point over to our planning commission staff and then they are going to give us a presentation, tell us what the deal is. We'll ask any clarifying questions we have, but then when we're done with that, then we just open up public hearing. We're the ones in the city that conduct the formal part of the public hearing. So name, address, company you're representing. We usually let the applicant go first. It's just kind of the easier way to do things. Everybody can cycle through once. When that's done, then we come back up here for discussion on the topic and then we'll make a motion and vote on it. So again on the first one, the Rice County thing, there's actually two separate motions. One's a conditional use permit, the other one's a variance. So we'll kind of work through those motions and then we'll eventually vote on something and then that recommendation gets forward to the City Council and then the City Council sees it next night. So everything on the agenda is going to follow the exact same format. So we start off with the Rice County Conditional Use Permit and Variance for a building on 4th Street and 2nd Avenue and we look to Harry Davis. **[01:30] Harry Davis:** Thank you Mr. Chair. Good evening Planning Commission. So there are actually two items in this particular topic for your conditional use permit and a variance. The applicant is Matt Ganter but the property owner is Rice County. They're working together for a future development for this property. The location itself is near the corner of 4th Street Northwest and 2nd Avenue Northwest. Like I had mentioned before it's a conditional use permit and variance. Just to orient everyone here's the subject property. The part that we're talking about is the northern half of this block. So it's just north of the courthouse. It's a property that you know if we're looking at our current zoning map it's incorrect we recently did go through a rezoning action as well as the preliminary and final plat if you recall in a comprehensive plan amendment just to add to that in order to change these properties around we just haven't gone completely through that process yet but the rezoning itself has taken place so property that we're actually looking at is central business district or CBD. The requests in front of you, the first one is a conditional use permit to construct a standalone parking lot. So you need a conditional use permit to put a parking lot on its own lot by itself without a principal use on it. And it will provide offsite parking to an adjacent future office use. And then the variance is to allow metal architectural panels on a building within the central business district where the zoning district does not allow metal panels at all on principal structures. The site plan is as you see before you so it's two lots and I tried to outline those lots in red to distinguish you know what is lot one versus lot two. So lot two is the bulk of the parking lot that will be supporting the office use that you see on the left hand side. The parking lot does come with landscaping and I apologize I didn't put it in the presentation but it does have landscaping will have sort of connections out to the sidewalk. The idea is that this parking lot would end up serving not just the office use that it's adjacent to and kind of sharing a parking lot with, but it would help the county buildings that are nearby as well as city buildings that are nearby. Just across First Avenue Northwest is the police station. So this will in a way provide a handicap space that someone would be able to park into and potentially traverse over first to get to the police station. Other element to this is the variance, so that's metal panels on a building where the central business district is not allowing. Here are the elevations. So last calculated, the metal is somewhere between 60 and 70 percent, whether we're including the top screening material for the rooftop units or not. Masonry ends up being somewhere between 10 and 13 percent and glazing somewhere between 30 and 37 percent. So what we're finding when we're looking into these two requests, in regards to the conditional use permit, the criteria are met for granting a conditional use permit. Parking lot will be public, so although there is a requirement in our conditional use permit standards that it all be the same owner when it comes to offsite parking, this is a really interesting and sort of special case where the parking lot currently is owned by the county, but it will end up being a city parking lot. So it will serve a lot more than just the office use that's nearby. We'll end up supporting the downtown area in general. The variance—for the variance, we do believe that the criteria are met for granting a variance. In this case, the building itself is well designed. We do have the architect here today that can sort of speak more towards the design of it. But we as staff believe that the building is well designed. It's actually meeting a lot of our site design guidelines. And what we would argue is more of a sort of going above and beyond what the minimum requirements are. And metal ends up being a very key feature of the building's design. It will be an architectural style that's very different from what is elsewhere in downtown. But what we do believe is that the architectural style will end up highlighting and in some ways contrasting in a positive way with the buildings that you would find downtown that are more masonry focused. This is different. The building is a more contemporary style. It will feature metal quite heavily, but that is something that we are finding a lot in contemporary architecture. And what we imagine going forward with future buildings, if they do follow this contemporary architectural style, is that we will see a lot more metal. We do allow metal up to a certain point in the C2 and C3 zones, but in central business district it's not allowed at all. But in this case it's a well-designed building we believe that the metal that they are using is a high quality material it's not like you would find in an industrial district or that you might find on the side of an agricultural accessory building this is very different. If you do have any questions on the material and kind of the architectural style we do have the architect here that'd be better addressed. In summary we do feel that both of these requests are meeting zoning requirements so we are recommending that you forward both these resolutions to city council and recommend approval of them. I'm happy to take questions. **[05:40] Chair:** Do we have questions for Harry? Steve and then Tina. **[05:45] Steve:** The diagram that showed the elevation of the building really didn't go into detail with the metal on the side of the building so I guess at some point if the architect could give us a much more detail. Where some of my concerns are is just normal happenings at lower levels where a lot of metal buildings get beat up from lawnmowers and happenings going on and I'm certain he's probably—I can see his head shaking of a detail that I didn't see in the packet. **[06:15] Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, just to address that at least in some parts. So the masonry that is on the building, the 10%, the 10 to 13%, that is on the most lower part of it. It's kind of like a wainscot, like a skirt of masonry around the upper part. So it would be able to deal with that situation where lawnmowers kicking up things, it would hit that masonry rather than... **[06:35] Steve:** I'd still like to see the detail on it because even at that height, I saw two courses. And if you've got some lawnmowers that could easily bang into the side of that way above that masonry deal, that's why I'm kind of asking the question. **[06:50] Chair:** We can probably get to that during public. Tina's up next. **[06:51] Tina:** I do have a question to understand why you would think that this type of instead of an eyesore. So could you made a comment about there is a percentage of metal that is allowed in commercial C2 and C3. Could you tell me what percentage is allowed in those two districts so that I can compare—is this request for 60 or 70 metal in the CBD district is that the same amount of metal that we allow in a C2/C3? I mean I just want to know if it's comparable to what's allowed in a C2/C3. **[07:15] Harry Davis:** Sure yeah Mr. Chair so in C2 and C3 you would be able to have metal in a way that is not the primary material on the building facade and it would only—that limitation would only focus on sides that are facing public rights. If you have a building that's on a corner, you would have two sides of that building that face roads that metal would have to be less than half of the material on that facade, but the other two sides that are not facing right away, those could be completely metal. Our current commercial design guidelines so it's hard to say exactly if we start to try to equate things just because he can see three restricted on the public facing side, not on the other sides. We do have a number of buildings that have been built recently where they've achieved that ratio on the public facing side, but the rest of the building facades are all metal. **[07:45] Tina:** That was the question for. Thank you. **[07:46] Chair:** Sam's up next. **[07:47] Sam:** I'll repeat for the record. My understanding of a variance is that we typically grant them specifically because there's a practical difficulty. What is the practical difficulty? **[08:05] Harry Davis:** Sure. You know, Mr. Chair, you know, aesthetics is, sure, I can understand where you're coming from. The aesthetic side of it, it is a well-designed building. We are trying to understand generally where architecture is going, and there's a lot of metal being used in contemporary architecture. I think the difficulty here would be trying to understand, you know, in a building that's trying to provide sort of a different understanding about what buildings could be even in a downtown setting. That I think if we are holding true to our standards about no metal at all allowed on a building that's downtown, I think that we are severely limiting our capabilities of being able to see development happen and to see some new investment happen within the downtown area. So it's trying to understand generally where architecture and urban design is going and not seeing a practical difficulty in wherever everyone else is going and understanding that we may have some design standards that we could improve and over time to allow something like this, you know, if this does go through, but not allow something that's a little bit more ag or industrial looking, where we could try to limit it a little bit more toward, hey, you know, this is a commercial product. It's not something that you'd find in an industrial park. **[09:10] Sam:** Would you say this is more or less in the city code verbiage? **[09:15] Harry Davis:** Yeah, Mr. Chair, Yes, I do think so. I think if you wanted to, if the Planning Commission does decide to forward this on, the Planning Commission could also recommend that City Council direct staff to take a look at some of our design standards to see if maybe there's a different way of approaching it. I think the point of this requirement is that we are avoiding the metal that you would find in an industrial park and in agricultural districts. It's not really intended to keep someone with a well-designed building and a high quality material. It's not really intended to keep that out. I feel like that this is in some ways a bit of a unique sort of situation. I think that we could improve the wording of those design standards to be a little bit better. The worry that I always have with design standards—and the Community Economic Development Director also feels this—is that we can write it a hundred different ways and we'll still probably not find anything for every sort of situation that we run into or that architects won't look at and be like I don't understand what I'm trying to do here. So design standards are just hard. They're hard to do. They're hard to administer. Generally, I don't think that the intent of this is to keep out a well-designed and sort of high-quality building that we're seeing in front of us today. **[10:30] Chair:** I have two questions, and then I need to remind myself, I want to follow up on Sam's one. I remember some of the history as a metal industrial, and I think that was the impetus for the discussion part of it. My question is twofold. I must have just missed the meeting where it was rezoned and replatted, so I don't want to revisit that. But is the plat making room for, whether it's an easement or it's dedicated, to make sure that they can still get at that Sally Port and all of the stuff at the back of the law enforcement center? **[11:05] Harry Davis:** Yes, Mr. Chair, so that is being dealt with as a part of like the plat. So we are looking at an access easement and parking agreement. **[11:10] Chair:** It hasn't been replatted yet? **[11:12] Harry Davis:** It's not been replatted yet. It is in the process. It's been approved. It's just we're trying to get the bits and pieces. **[11:15] Chair:** Okay, then that's coming down the pipe. Fine with that. And then my next question has completely left my brain. I had two and I didn't write them down. I reserve the right to go back and ask a question. Do we have any other—Tina, go ahead. **[11:28] Tina:** Just one more. Would it be safe for me to assume that because the colors of the building that are shown in the staff report are dark in nature, that their intention is to go with grays and blacks? Just asking, you know, they've differentiated between the color of the roof and the sides of the building. Maybe I've missed what color those metal panels were intended to be. Just wondering on the color tone. **[11:55] Harry Davis:** Yeah, Mr. Chair, I think that's a better question for the applicant. **[12:00] Chair:** And before we open up the public hearing, Tina's question reminded me of my question. As it's in the downtown business district, and I forget the rules, but does it trigger where Heritage Preservation Commission, would they have looked at this at all? Or because it's since it's a new building, they don't touch it? **[12:15] Harry Davis:** So Mr. Chair, I'll do a little bit of education on that. So even if it was a new building, the HBC would still look at a building, whether it was new or existing, going up. A really good example of that is the CAC project that's at First and First, just south of here, of the subject property. And I actually guess up here as well. So that is actually within the HPD (Historic Preservation District). So that did have to go through HPC approval and a certificate of appropriateness, even though it's just a residential building and it's a commercial downtown property, it's zoned as such. It's a little strange. This property is actually just outside of the HPD. So in that situation, if it was within the HPD, I think that there would be a lot more onus on the city to make sure that if there is a new building that's constructed, that it is meeting the guidelines of the historic district, that there is probably almost no metal or at least very little metal in a building within the HPD. 'Cause I mean, most of those buildings are masonry or some sort of CMU sort of built. So we are outside of the HPD. We don't have to adhere to that. **[12:15] Chair:** I just wanted to make sure because I wasn't seeing a reference to them weighing in. Okay. All right. **[12:17] Steve:** Mr. Chair, currently a color... **[12:18] Harry Davis:** Mr. No, there's no color requirement. **[12:20] Chair:** Are we done with questions? Can I open a public hearing? As I said public hearing everyone's got a chance we tend to hear from the developer first because we've got some questions for them, but then everyone can cycle through so if someone from this project wants to come forward or it's your time. **[12:40] Matt Ganter:** I'm Matt Ganter, the applicant for this, here with Josh Walls from Pope Design. We'd like to answer any questions, also have some updated renderings that show you, so hopefully consider. **[12:50] Chair:** Why don't you show us those renderings first and they may answer Steve's questions. If not, we'll get back to him in a second. **[12:55] Matt Ganter:** Absolutely. We plug in the HDMI that should pop up to everybody's screens. **[13:00] Joshua Walls:** I'm not familiar with this one. Maybe. Yeah, I'm seeing that it's not even doing what it's supposed to be doing. Delegate, lectern. I'll try this one. **[13:05] Chair:** I was just going to say, if you maybe plug in. It just has such a delay. Do you want me to bring my laptop? Yeah, I think it's good to take this minute or two to get it—it’s probably gonna answer a lot. We're in business. **[13:10] Joshua Walls:** Mr. Chair and everyone else, I'm Joshua Walls with Pope Design. I am the project manager on the architectural side/project architect. Team of designers on—we’ve been working with the city and the developer on this design and as he was mentioning, we're fully aware of the criteria that we were designing for and with and around just outside of the district. Did have the opportunity to take a look at this more modern design. Thought of what we're working with leaning more on their progressive and forward thinking and diversity of who they are, their palette and colors really lends itself towards that. That being said, the percentages that Harry had mentioned, the 60 and 70 for metal wall panel, that 60 is without the rooftop screening, which is included. You're looking at really 60% of metal colors, just to answer your question. Question two, we have really the dark charcoal gray, and then looking at the overall metal panel type of design. This is very tried and true commercial, like a Firestone quality metal wall panel. The vertical is more of a wide ribbed metal wall panel. The horizontal is boxed ribbed type of look, so you have different patterns and orientations. Darker black box look panel here. This is more of your custom metal panel there. I'll get to the other portion here as you come around on the street side on 60th. Same vernacular expressed across both those elevations. This white is again a wall panel as well. Brick, I guess going back to answering that question, does come up about two feet to the underside, which you really can't see with all the landscaping, but it's coming to the underside of all the window locations, and that would be weed whipping, lawn mowing, maintenance, salt, pedestrian traffic, which is not really, that is an issue. We do have curbing going around the entire—take care of all of those things. **[14:15] Steve:** Can you zoom in like see where that the gentleman is walking next to the shrubbery you said so the masonry is going up to the windows correct? **[14:25] Joshua Walls:** Yep that goes all the way around the building cage here this is something that you guys... zooming in that's what you're seeing. **[14:35] Steve:** Yeah I saw that and I didn't know if that was metal you know just a different design or what it was and that's—they can do just about anything nowadays. I know and that's why I asked the question. **[14:45] Joshua Walls:** 100% yep. **[14:50] Steve:** What one further question. Given this is close to Highway 60 and people tend to sometimes drive off the road. Let's say there was an incident with the building. It's interesting where my mind goes, but things happen. Okay, so how hard would it be to repair that so it makes it look like original? **[15:10] Joshua Walls:** This would make it much easier in regards to like a full-on masonry type of a building. Structural integrity is all there, so taking away from that... Just being able to pull these pieces out, kind of the kit of parts that make them, they'd be able to trade out those pieces. They would go to the full extent more than be able to replace that. So it's not—this overall aesthetic in the end has—it does veer severely away from a prefabricated type of a building, which would be like eyesores. With that being said, yes, it is an assembly that's being put together, and they would be holistically in that whole area. Eliminate and avoid any—thank you. **[15:35] Steve:** Excellent. **[15:37] Chair:** Are we good now on the metal part of it? Any other questions for him because I definitely want to let Mr. Ganter just finish if you've got a big picture overview and then we'll continue on with public hearing. **[15:45] Matt Ganter:** Yeah, absolutely I think the you know speaking to the maintenance of the grass but it's not finalized—certainly can look at that to make sure that there aren't areas that we'd be concerned with other than that I think hopefully this rendering can help you kind of see it. A lot of this was driven by you know the potential case and what they're hoping to see the building and so that's driving a lot of our design. **[16:05] Chair:** Thank you both. You're welcome. Excellent and then now we'll open up the public hearing anyone else who wants to come up and talk to us on either the conditional use permit on the parking thing or on the variance for the facade so it's public hearing for everything having to do with this one request. Okay. I'm not trying to be quick here, but no one seems to be rushing towards us, so we're going to shut down public hearing. We're done with that part now. Now back up here to the Planning Commission. I'll go to Bart in a second. We'll discuss everything, and then it will be two separate motions, two separate votes. **[16:35] Bart:** I really like how this looks. I’d recommend to City Council that we also suggest metal—dating of the metal. That's something that's never—considering that as something else. That way it doesn't get older faded out and then it doesn't matter that way it doesn't become an eyesore. **[16:55] Chair:** Other discussion? Oh I'm sorry Sam can go first. **[16:58] Sam:** I am 100% where I am struggling is the variance. Use of the variance—there is no practical difficulty. Gorgeous building, I'd love to see it there, but based on rules that we as a body are supposed to, I can't approve that. With that being said, I think we need to move that forward. I was something like this but based on the rules not because I don't want to but because I feel... **[17:25] Tina:** I think that the conditional use permit request is very valid and I see value in that. Where I am struggling with again on the variance is this—this is a transitional piece of property. As Harry mentioned, you know we have this heritage preservation district at corridor of preserving our heritage surrounded by a central business district which is compatible with and then you look at where your C2, C3 that you... I think as this location is transitional and transitioning from—though it's been rezoned as a CBD—it's transitioning from our heritage to how the rest of our commercial district. With that said, it is a gorgeous building. I kind of like the idea, looking for something that's transitioning to, and our C3 says less than 50% public facing. Maybe I could consider something along those lines, but I couldn't support a variance in the aesthetics of this. I think it would be an eyesore. **[18:10] Chair:** If I could get the floor and jump in on a couple of things, and we'll continue to discuss, but there was a couple of things that came up to track on. Kind of the history of the metal panel discussion, probably the only one that can remember it. Down kind of where the crooked point is down there, there was a big giant... and we'll call it a Wicks building, a Butler building and a commercial painter and it was just something the city just dealt with complaints for years that they didn't want you know a big metal looking building—you know it's a Butler building—and eventually that person sold out and whatever whatever. And then it was around 30 years ago there was this "oh we don't want metal building." I'll admit when I went through the packet this weekend this is first thing that jumped out at me: why are we doing the variance for metal? Now that I've seen the elevations, I get it a lot more. And the more I've been staring at what's on our screen in front of us, I've seen buildings like this in other downtowns across Southern Minnesota. It is a kind of a common practice. And all that new development in Owatonna—what is that, on that main road where like that little brewery is down by the river and Mayo Clinic's at it, and then there's some apartment buildings—looks really similar to this. So I'm okay with the direction it goes. It's not a hill that I want to die on and advocate that I want everything metal. But I think in this particular case... Now to get to Sam's point, and this is what made me go through, I'm with you. There are just sometimes I just can't vote for a variance. And the question number seven here—"economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulty." Had they come before us and said, "Oh yeah, this is a lot cheaper, the only way this could work is if we make this metal," then I couldn't vote for it. But I'm not hearing that. I mean, clearly just a direction the design is going. What I'm hearing from the group is everyone seems to be okay for the first part, the conditional use permit. So, you know, we might be ready for a motion on that part. And then however we vote on the variance, and then we'll do recommendation towards other discussion. I just if there could be one but there's not. Tina. **[19:40] Tina:** I agree with you maybe a motion on the conditional use permit but I disagree with staff's interpretation of the findings of fact. **[19:50] Chair:** On the conditional use permit? **[19:51] Tina:** On the variance. **[19:52] Chair:** Okay. So if we're going to go through that—I just want you to know I disagree with the staff. They think it's compliant or not. **[19:55] Bart:** I would make a motion to approve the conditional use permit for the off-site and standalone parking. **[20:05] Steve:** I second that. **[20:06] Chair:** I've got a motion and a second on the conditional use permit. As Tina just said, as presented to us, it's for the off-site and standalone parking, 4th Street, NW, 2nd Avenue, NW. That motion and what we're voting on is a vote. All those in favor say aye. **[20:15] Commission (Unison):** Aye. **[20:16] Chair:** Opposed no. That one carries. Now we're talking about the variance. **[20:25] Sam:** I make a motion to not approve—point of order—4th Street Northwest... is there a second? And then I'll go to Tina. I just want to make sure be clear I said not approve. **[20:30] Tina:** Yeah so you made the motion to deny the variance request. I would second that. **[20:31] Chair:** I've got a motion and a second to deny the variance request. Tina and I have a sense you want to talk some more. Unless you want to—I know that if our motion passes related to the findings of fact. So it would be, if we wanted to walk through whether the motion fails. You'll have the floor if you want to keep going. **[20:40] Tina:** I think that the findings of fact are too consistent with the comprehensive plan or guiding principle. I don't know, it's page 22 of the meeting packet. And it talks about how we identify, protect, enhance, and celebrate our iconic and historic sites. But they're saying it's okay for us to—I don't think this is historic or celebrating or protecting or enhancing that core value. That was variance for number two. When it talks about—I think number three is fine. Number four: unique circumstances applying to the property that wouldn't apply to others in the same zone. I think that it's a transitional piece of property if you look on the map what goes from what to what and I just find that the unique circumstance that they're saying is because it's this state-of-the-art building isn't necessarily the right unique circumstance. So I just kind of disagree with that. It says the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. I believe it will alter the essence, the essential character of downtown, our entryway. It will alter the character. So... it is six that would be okay. Seven would be because he's not making the grounds we want to do it because it's cheaper—I get that part of it. But so that's just my objections. I don't have the same perspective thoughts that staff does. Not that they're wrong, I just don't adhere to them for the record. **[21:40] Sam:** I don't carry the same level of aesthetics... that is not why. She's entitled to her opinion out of really great qualities about this, but I'm just saying based on guidelines I know that I in good faith cannot. I have the motion and the second. We have similar reasons I just wanted to clarify. **[22:05] Steve:** I made the motion that this the systems working—I'm probably not gonna vote for this motion not because it's bad, but I look at the history of this block where this was at and there was a Conoco gas station on the corner next to where the bank was. There was a lumber yard. Then there was a Dodge dealership. There was an auto repair shop. There was a building that was a lawyer's office that was used for a storage operation for 10 years. And before that, the paint was peeling. And then there was a North Star gas station. So, you know, and then across the street from this, when we talk about heritage, I mean, you've got a telephone office building that's for switching. You've got a lawyer's office that used to be a Holiday gas station, and then it was a repair shop. And then you got a pizza place across there that's there. So I'm... yeah, the buildings are gone. It's a nice green space. If I had my druthers, I'd like to see the green space, but this building looks nice. I agree... give you that and I was concerned about the building and I'm less concerned about the metal panels. You know and then when you look at the police station that's a used to be a Wells Fargo bank and that's nothing compared to the architecture that's downtown and just a half a block away from that police station. I mean let's get real. So that's why I'm voting against it. I think it would fit. It would be all right. To me, it would look just fine. The parking lot would look fine. It would work with the city needs and the jail behind it, the former jail. Got a great big generator sitting out back. I mean, there's so many wonderful things there. So, yeah. Thank you. **[23:15] Chair:** I have a question for Harry because I think I'm getting close. You're okay. This is going to be a very close vote one way or another. It's probably going to be 3-2 one way or another. I'm just asking from a process standpoint—you're okay with us just moving this forward as opposed to tabling it and coming back in two weeks with language that would show you know kind of what Tina has laid out that you would come back to us with a different resolution that would deny the variance request? I'm not advocating for that I just want to know before I call for the vote. **[23:45] Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, I'll admit I'm not sure. I think generally what we try to do is that we try to have a resolution that's in front of Planning Commission with the findings that are either staff generated or Commission generated before we decide to move something forward. That being said, I think that Commissioner Wilson (Sam) did provide, you know, some good direction with the findings. You know, maybe I can find my way to it. The worry that I would have is it sounds like not everyone that would vote for that resolution is necessarily on board with the same findings. **[24:15] Chair:** Excellent point. That's where I'm at. I think we're fine and that's why I'm asking the question now. I don't know how this vote's going to go down but it's going to be close so I'm fine with just—we're going to continue the discussion. Bart. **[24:25] Bart:** Thinking of the downtown, this will be the nicest looking across the street from again from a Pursue store that has metal in. I mean building but again, I really see this as being progressive or move forward to improving the downtown area. Well, I understand why everybody wants as of the fact that it's just not it's again history—it’s something that wasn't put in place for something again. I think this is a good move. **[24:45] Sam:** I think that like I said before it is a beautiful building. I would rather go along with what's in three, which is less than 50. I mean, I would feel better, and I understand building face, parking lot, and corner. But I think that would be a better term. Everything, but it's, in essence, everything you see is either glass, because you're not going to see the base of it. Thank you all. **[25:10] Chair:** Discussion, debate. So I'm going to call for a vote, and we'll do it like we always do. We'll do a voice vote, but it's going to be really crazy close, and then we'll just... So again, to be clear, the motion we have in front of us now is to deny the variance request as it was presented. All those in favor of that motion say aye. **[25:30] Sam/Tina:** Aye. **[25:31] Chair:** All those opposed, no. **[25:32] Chair/Steve/Bart:** No. **[25:33] Chair:** I hear it that the motion failed 3-2. Do you want me to do a roll call? I sure can. Let's just start with Sam. **[25:40] Sam:** Aye. **[25:42] Chair:** And I was an aye (Wait, I was a no). So I was correct. That motion fails 3-2. Now we can entertain any other motion on this topic. **[25:55] Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, so just to clarify, if we're talking about changing findings, I think that that's where I feel a little less sure about doing that for you guys. I want to make sure that you have findings that you agree with that you can read through. If you wanted to recommend a condition of approval that the public-facing sides have less metal, you know that's something that I think that we could probably still talk a little bit more about tonight particularly because we have the applicant we have an architect here that can speak a little bit more towards that and hopefully you know maybe there's maybe there's a way through it either as a condition of approval we can continue discussing. **[26:25] Chair:** I'm not predisposing anything here but the motion—I again I'm just a traffic cop I had a motion we didn't pass so I'm open to other discussion. So in this case if whatever we do is just going to be right—City Council can make a decision. I do and that we that we do forward this on for approval with our current findings or our current needs or not being metal on that one. No, I'm here to help you. I see where you're going. Are you saying you'd make them approve the variance request but encourage staff and the applicants together in the next week to find a way to have less metal on the public facing side? Is that what you're really saying? If we just ask the architect before we get all wound up, how possible is this to decrease the metal on parts of this building without altering or dramatically changing the cost? **[27:00] Joshua Walls:** It is possible. **[27:05] Bart:** I would—barred (on board)—if we just have less metal on the forward facing sides I would agree with your motion. If that's a motion, I'll second it. **[27:10] Steve:** Yes, that is the motion. **[27:15] Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I was trying to jump in there before we actually made a formal motion. It would be very helpful to have an idea if there is a target percentage. **[27:25] Chair:** Your timing is good because I hadn't really identified the motion yet. So we'll let Bart reload this motion a little more or we can discuss it a little more. What I'm hearing from you is you want like a percentage number? **[27:28] Harry Davis:** Yes, Mr. Chair. It's really hard to administer more metal versus a certain percentage of metal. Like, what is more metal? **[27:30] Chair:** Let me call on Tina. **[27:31] Tina:** I think, for me, I would be way more comfortable if it was at that 50% or less than 50%, like the C2, C3. To me, that's more representative, being in that transition. I know there's the other buildings around it. To be honest, I can't remember if there are. I just feel like, and to be honest, the fact that it's such a dark color, but to me, the 50% or less. Yeah, the parking lot could be more and the back of the building more. **[27:45] Chair:** Other discussion? Bart's close to the motion, but yes, sir. **[27:50] Bart:** So 60% of the building is... **[27:52] Harry Davis:** I said 60 to 70%. **[27:54] Bart:** So this is just including the above... **[27:56] Harry Davis:** No, I'm not worried about the roof. We give them a target area. I'm just making sure because that's a 10% or possibly. **[28:10] Chair:** When Harry talked earlier, I wrote down 60% to 70%. It's a difference. I'm trying to find a compromise here. Oh, yeah. No, that's why I wanted to make sure. You've already heard me say no, right? So I would be more amenable. Okay. Yeah, I've loosened it up a little bit, but there's progress being made here. But we're in a discussion phase right now. I haven't made a motion yet. Bart seems to be the closest, but I will continue to call on anybody that wants to make a motion. I believe that Bart did make a motion. Steve seconded it. I didn't actually acknowledge it. Steve said, oh, I probably would second that. Bart didn't get the motion all the way out, so I didn't officially acknowledge it. So that's why I was careful, and literally had Harry jumped in five seconds later, it might be a different discussion. But there's not a motion on the floor yet. **[28:35] Bart:** Mr. Chair. Yes. Make a motion to approve part two of the resolution but including that two sides—the street facing sides—of the facade (be 50% or less). **[28:50] Tina:** I would second that. **[28:55] Chair:** Okay Tina's got the second. Okay then we've got the motion in the second and again I'll just repeat it and reload it for everybody. So Bart's motion is to approve the variance with additional language that says the facades facing the two streets are less than 50 percent—50 or less. 50 or less, that's the motion. That's a second. We're all understanding on that. Any discussion or I can call the vote on? **[29:10] Commission:** Yep, I'm good. **[29:12] Chair:** All those in favor of this motion signify by saying aye. **[29:15] Commission (Unison):** Aye. **[29:16] Chair:** All those opposed, no. No. That carries for one—that moves forward to city council in eight days correct? Thank you folks. We're done with the Rice County one. Item B on the public hearings. Tell you what, I'll just give you guys a quick second because we've got to swap out laptops. We're going to say goodbye to that picture. And I have the Beacon map on my tablet. That's what I'm looking at. And so now what we're going to have is the public hearing on the resolution to approve a conditional use permit for a drive-through in a C2 highway commercial. Leslie Rivas has our presentation. **[29:50] Leslie Rivas:** Good evening. The proposal is to approve the resolution for a drive-through in the C2. The applicant is Big and Little LLC. The location is... **[30:15] Chair:** Leslie, can I interrupt a second? Just get the mic a little closer to you. I'm just not hearing it. **[30:20] Leslie Rivas:** Oh, wow. I didn't know those came out. Hopefully I won't. Okay, we're good. I'm sorry. That should be a conditional use permit. **[30:25] Chair:** I can't hear you. **[30:26] Leslie Rivas:** You still can't hear me, okay. I'll stop being so shy. I'll give you this one, that's more—oh, that's all right, I'm good. But they're really directional. It's just right at the top of it is what I'm noticing. Very fun. All right, next. So the location for your reference is Lindale Avenue, Highway 21 is to the west of the property. 17th Street Northwest is to the north. There is a private service drive that is on the eastward side of Lindale Avenue and the highway. To the very south of the entire block is Bradley Avenue. On the other side of the block is Hewlett Avenue. The property right now is Furlong Motors and it is going to be replaced with the proposal in front of you. The property is currently zoned C2 Highway Commercial District. It's surrounded by properties of a like zoning district. There is a few random other properties with different zoning districts. Medium density residential is here. There are a few parks in the location along with some other residential stuff. The conditional use permit is to approve the drive-through as mentioned for Culver's Restaurant. And here is the site plan. So I'm hoping that you had time to review in your packet. The application will have a new building to be constructed in this location on the site. The parcel is only partially being used for this proposal at this juncture. There is as mentioned a service access on the western side. Parking for traffic will be within this location and in front of the building. There is access to the lot parcel coming in through here on 17th in this location and an exit in this location. There are two drive-through menu boards to the south and the kind of east of the parcel that are in this location. The drive-through window is in the northwest side and there is the curbside and parking availability, too. So exits here on 17th—and I forgot, neglected to tell you—exit also here on 17th and which will actually have that location too with the service drive. And we've discussed this further and a little bit of—well I guess this is as good a juncture as any. So you have noticed in your packet that we've had some comments from the public. Beginning last week we were contacted by Mr. Dwayne Guyer of Suite 101 of the joining property, the business office to the south. He engaged with the applicant and over the weekend I received a communication that they have had some positive engagement and agreed to the following: some of the concerns were the visibility and the screening between the office building and the drive-through in the parking lanes; the potential for conflict between the cars that would exceed the stacking length and potentially go backwards into the service road blocking cars that are parked along that office building and who would be backing—and that would be a problem; the understanding of the service drive in general. So the service drive is maintained amongst all of the properties within that block that are adjacent to it—the Monkey Motors folks, the people who own the property to the south and I can pull up the parcel map if I get through this. With the increase in traffic, any potential increase in road usage and maintenance costs and so on and so forth along with design speeds I'm sure will be something that was would be concerned. So the applicant is here and can respond to this too but the communication that I got back is you know the way to mitigate some of the concerns on the service road would be some productive signage. Saying things with a 15 mile an hour speed limit what was offered; a "cautions car backing out" signage; a suggestion of "right turn only" at the egress of the drive along 17th Avenue so people who would be exiting the drive-through and the curb pickup would have a right turn only sign into which would with the intentions for them not to circle back and into the roadway. And so that's something that would have to be looked at with the city engineer. And then the applicant also offered speed bumps and Mr. Guyer did not endorse that but he just—I just bring it forward for you that also before you you have two letters that were submitted today or through the weekend. One was with a Kate Tonjum and the second with Mike and Mary Ritchie. Both of those addresses are at 1575 20th Street Northwest. Then recently today I received a phone call from Jen Becker also a property owner of the office building to the south who expressed similar concerns to Mr. Guyer—who is a friend/co-owner of that office building in different Suites. Her—I believe she's here this evening can expand on this—but I would say all of the above concerns were expressed along with the nature of her business being somewhat of a private financial counseling and the potential for traffic on the drive-through to have visibility into the office setting. In response from the applicant, they sent this today—was an updated site plan. The feature that they're offering just for this time—and there might be more—is a proposed six foot maintenance-free screening fence on their property line. Now in other circumstances we've asked for screening, landscaping, and so on and so forth. There's quite a bit of utilities that are running in this peninsula on the southern side, which is somewhat contradictory in our ordinance that allows that to serve as a screen by itself. The applicant provided a turning movement illustration to show how larger vehicles, service vehicles, trash and the deliveries would access the site. It is by this illustration very tight but doable. So I'm providing this for your information. The cross-section elevations provided by the applicant: there is a mix of materials here, interesting in different colors of EIFS, stonework and again the applicant's representative can speak to this more, accented awnings, panels and varying heights to have a little bit more vertical relief with the application in the one-story building. And this is just one of the perspectives that they provided but the building would be attractive on all four sides just FYI. All right, so discussion aside from everything that I've just talked to—staff feels that the CUP meets the criteria for approval and zoning and subdivision requirements. We recommend that the Planning Commission forward the resolution to City Council with approval with the requested CUP based on the findings in the resolution. **[34:00] Chair:** Do we have questions for Leslie? **[34:05] Steve:** Did you go back to the site plan please Leslie? Okay, is there way—where was the right turn only being suggested? **[34:10] Leslie Rivas:** I believe the right turn only sign was suggested in this location but—I apologize, I thought that you did—as you exit the drive-thru lane, I'm assuming that the logical place for that to be would be at the exit of the drive-thru and the through lane. **[34:25] Steve:** On 17th Street? **[34:27] Leslie Rivas:** On 17th Street. And it's a suggestion. **[34:30] Steve:** It makes no sense to me because people flow in and off 17th Street back out to the Lindale. I mean, I know what's out there—there's a funeral home. I mean, people cut through there coming off a Hewlett. To me, that makes no sense. **[34:45] Leslie Rivas:** Well, this is an email that we received Sunday night. The city engineer has not commented on it. We did talk about it last week, and he felt that there would be a natural turning movement to the right anyway without signage, with a reminder that, remember that there's a three-quarter turn limitation on Lindale. So there is no traffic stop here. So the movement... it's showing up, here it comes. It's just going too fast. I don't know if Steve's done. **[35:05] Steve:** Where was the speed bump supposed to be? **[35:10] Leslie Rivas:** They weren't identified with us. It was just a mention and an offer of installing them. So it's just a discussion purpose for right now. **[35:20] Chair:** I'll also tell you this: this is a conditional use for the drive-through only. The City Planning Commission is not being asked to make recommendations or make conditions on a service drive that the city has no control over. I just want to make that clear. Tina, then Bart. **[35:35] Tina:** I hate to admit, but I am a frequent drive-thru person. I don't think you should have a right turn. I think that to take a right turn, you're just going to flip a U-ey to get out to Lindale. I know that's not what we're doing but it's coming out of the drive-through that you take a left turn to get on to 17th. You're not going to take another left turn to go down the service road. You're going to go out and—for the drive-through—I think it's fine the way it is. I like that for the drive-through they put in the privacy fence, the six foot. But I don't—you know—stop wise... yeah. It’s very successful on that end of the street. **[36:10] Bart:** So it seems the rest of Lindell they keep tending to go to the intersection—is that something that is planned then? Because then that would cause us a traffic problem. **[36:20] Leslie Rivas:** So we're talking about control of major thoroughfares and highways. From the control and the design of that highway is controlled by MnDOT. I just was asking if like it is on... I don't think, no, it's not planned. And so, as my understanding with speaking with the city engineer, is that the three-quarter turn for this one, MnDOT's preference was to close it altogether. You know, there are stacking distances and high traffic roads and warrants that need to be met for placement of traffic lights. So this was the compromise that was reached to allow the city to have some circulation through that, through the trunk highway. So to answer your question, is there plans for that? No. I don't see it getting expanded and traffic light being created, but at this point it was the compromise to keep it open. **[37:05] Tina:** Well, this is—if you turn the other way you go to the golf course so that three-quarter turn already prevents you taking a left from 17th and heading south on Lindale. Prohibited to take that left and the same type of situation on the south end of town where you have the Arby's and the Jersey Mike's—that same three-quarter turn you can't get all the way across the traffic. I think it's successful. **[37:15] Chair:** I just have one. I just want to clarify. And Leslie, you kind of said it, but I want to put a big bow on it. Frontage road that's in front of this site—that is not a city street that is a private road, right? **[37:30] Leslie Rivas:** That is a private road, operatively maintained and—yeah, it’s definitely just a nomenclature label. So you could call it a service road. The permissions given in the cross-access agreement... does it—you wouldn't know—I guess my question would be that you can't sell a piece of property that's landlocked and if it's the only access to the property it can label it a service road but it's their access, correct? You just wanted to clarify that. The only other one that I can think of right up here ever—and I just always refer to it as a private road—so like the Dairy Queen owns the road that's in front of them and that's how I see it, but and I don't know if there's any others in town. That's why I just wanted to clarify that that's what we're talking. That's even though it sure looks like a public street in locations of town and cities overall when you have way—sometimes it's expected that you have a frontage road. So again another label, another name for the purpose of local traffic to access a—that has but a frontage road tends to be a public road. In some cases it can be. Like the frontage road that goes in front of Harry Brown's or goes in front of Hy-Vee, those are real ones. **[38:25] Chair:** Anything else? I'm ready for public input. Public hearing on this one. Who wants to come and talk to us first? **[38:40] Chad Rosena:** My name is Chad Rosena. I own Monkey Motors and Mike's Garage there. And I am definitely pro-business, and I would like to see this come to Faribault. I think this is good. I think after talking with the developer on it, he had suggested the right approach turn only out of the drive-through to try to prevent people from making a left out of the drive-through coming to our service road and taking a left down our service road and then they'll end up stacking at the end of Mike's Garage there to make a right-hand turn to make an immediate left-hand turn onto 21. Without a right hand or a right turn only out of the drive-through that's what will happen. It's a constant people using that road in front of there from the Tareem Dermatology or the funeral home or whatever. It's the only way to get back into town if they don't go on Lindale. So that is the concern of all of us business owners there on that road. And just talking recently about redoing our parking lot, that was a concern that the planner had—was stacking on that road—and I think it's a legitimate concern. I mean I don't know what the traffic flow or count is going to be at a restaurant like that but it's got to be substantial and the only way back into town is either you're going to get back on Hewlett or you're going to come down my service road that I have to maintain and so I think the right hand only out of the drive-through makes a lot of sense. Keep traffic off of a private service road that City doesn't maintain or have anything to do with. That's all I have. **[39:40] Steve:** Just got a quick question I just want to make sure I understand it—so they come out on the 17th and the right turn only would put them down to Hewlett would put them down to go and they can take a right or left from there and they can go any direction they want. That's what you're asking for? **[39:50] Chad Rosena:** Yep. Thank you. I just want to make sure I feel right. Okay. Yep. **[39:55] Jim LaValle:** Evening Chair and Commissioners. My name is Jim LaValle. I'm a representative [for the applicant]. I also have Anna Wesley and Tony Gustafson. As Leslie described, in a very short period of time, we tried to do the least we can with vehicle trips. These were suggestions. There's still discussions about them. I don't know that there's been any 100% agreement with anybody on any of the suggestions except for the fence so far. Working with them to minimize the traffic. Our preference would be not to have the right turn out only. Think if the people coming out turn left, go back out to Lindale. If they can't go left again, they will go out right and they'll do a turn on the highway. But again, we're working with Chad, working with Jen, with Dwayne, minimizing the increased track. Thank you. Questions for me right now? I might. **[40:40] Chair:** Thank you. Anyone else? Making sure I—last thing I ever want to do is shut down a public hearing and then somebody's halfway up to the mic. Okay, then we're done with public hearing. Appreciate that. Back up here. I have a question to Leslie before we start the discussion. The six foot fence, is that part of this conditional use permit? I'm not finding it in... **[41:00] Leslie Rivas:** It was just added today. **[41:05] Chair:** Okay so that's not what was sent out to us but the six foot fence is in what you've presented. You can assume that it's added as a... okay got it. It's just wanted to make sure because it wasn't seeing it and then okay, thank you. **[41:10] Steve:** I'd like to make a motion.