[0:28] (Music/Atmospheric Noise) [2:34] **Jon Radermacher (City Administrator):** Is there a second for that? Second, okay. Second for Chris. So we do have uh two candidates for chair. Any other nominations? Any other nominations? Any other nominations? Nominations cease. Um all those uh in favor of Diane Johnson for chair say I. **Commission Members:** I. I. **Jon Radermacher (City Administrator):** There's two. Okay. All those in favor for Chris say I. **Commission Members:** I. I. **Jon Radermacher (City Administrator):** All right. Uh I had one for sure. Elin elstein? Okay. Well, I don't think it's fair. Diane, you have uh been elected as chair for the Planning Commission and you can take over the meeting from this point to elect your Vice Chair. Nominations for position of Vice Chair? [3:21] **Diane Johnson (Chair):** I nominate Chris Nobach. **Commission Member:** Second. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Further nominations? Further nominations? Further nominations? Hearing none, all in favor of electing Chris as our Vice Chair say I. **Commission Members:** I. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Opposed nay? Abstain? So moved. Any additions to the agenda? If not, is there a motion to approve the agenda? **Commission Member Fox:** Move to approve the agenda. **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission):** Second. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Um motion by Fox, second by Douglas. All in favor? **Commission Members:** I. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Opposed nay? So moved. Minutes from December 9th—and especially our new people, I want you to make sure [4:09] you uh... any questions on the minutes from December 9th? If not, is there a motion to approve? **Commission Member:** Motion to approve the minutes. **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission):** Second. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Motion by Douglas, second by Fox. All in favor? **Commission Members:** I. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Oppose nay? Moved. Is there anyone here for public input? [4:48] We have to read it. Public input is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address concerns of the Planning Commission. Public input will be no longer than 30 minutes in length and each speaker will have no more than 3 minutes to speak. Speakers may address topics relevant to the governance of the city. Speakers must sign up in advance and must provide their name, address, and topic they intend to address. Comments must be on topic, respectful, pertinent to City business and adhere to the applicable data privacy rules. Any speaker that violates these rules will be asked to sit down and if the speaker refuses to comply they may be removed from the hearing. Speakers shall not address topics that are subject of a public hearing; all such comments shall [5:33] be made at the public hearing. Planning Commission will not generally act on issues raised by the public input but may choose to schedule consideration of the item on a future agenda. We have Ken Roar. Is... are you for public input or... yeah, for the um conditional use on Timber Ridge? **Ken Roar (Public):** Yeah. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** So that's... that would be under the public hearing. **Ken Roar (Public):** Oh, never mind. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** So we really don't have public input then? **City Staff:** No. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Okay. Moving on to public hearings. Conditional use permit: Midwest Building and Equipment outdoor [6:18] sales lot. Zach? **Zach (City Staff):** Good evening guys. Um Ed Rymer, the owner of the Canon Falls Mall, is applying for a conditional use permit on behalf of Midwest Building and Equipment for an outdoor sales lot located at the Canon Falls Mall. Um Midwest Building and Equipment sells high-quality custom-built sheds. Um since the applicant is going to be located in the B2 Zone, they are required to obtain a conditional use permit under Section 152.648 section I. Um I was told that the sheds would be stored in the southwest corner of the mall property set back off the Rancho Loco property line. Um I know [7:05] Midwest Building has—or they're currently operating in Hampton—but they've been in Canon Falls in the past. So questions? Discussion? **Diane Johnson (Chair):** I just was driving by and I saw there's already sheds there. Is that correct? I was around 52 and saw some sheds in that particular area. I'm just asking, is it already taken care of or is that something that— **Zach (City Staff):** Well, that's... they have to get approval tonight. So I suppose if they didn't get it, they would have to take them—remove them. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Yeah, I went just... it was just the other day I went by and I'm like, oh, they're already there. So what are we talking about? **Commission Member Jesse:** I um I had a question too um about [7:52] this. Um are they actually planning on uh set up shop and selling them there or are they just storing them? I mean, you know what I mean? Right? They'll put up a sign and all that? That's what kind of... but it's... they don't actually have any like... they won't... there isn't going to be an office at the mall or anything? **Zach (City Staff):** But it's... they store there but it's for-profit, so... I got you. Um they have an agreement with the with the mall property owner. He wants them to to be there so I think they're going to... they signed a lease I think for a—or they were going to sign a lease for I think it's a year or two. [8:42] So— **Commission Member:** So that lease for a year or two, it's intended to not just store them but essentially utilize it as promotional to where if somebody wanted to physically view one, they go out there, view it... would that sale then occur via the mall location or Hampton? **Zach (City Staff):** It would occur via the mall location. Um so yeah, there's... they're not... it's not like they're stored there but it isn't like storage for... it's a sales lot is what it falls under under our code. So um they would be—I guess to my knowledge—you go there, you see something you like, you give them a call and then they meet you down there and that's kind of how it works. **Commission Member:** And reading through the minutes, it seemed as though the the owner of Canon Falls Mall would be responsible for maintaining and [9:29] taking care of... **Zach (City Staff):** He... he had to sign off on the on the development application because he is the owner. So I guess, yeah, everything would fall back on onto him. Yeah. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** So now I do look here at like it says "outdoor sales lots." It says number I-4: "is the entire sales lot and all street parking area is paved." Now when you look at the picture and driving by there, it looks to me like it's a grass lot and that's where those were set up. And I'm sitting here wondering if that's a viable situation because they're going to have this around year-round. There's going to be mud, there's going to be everything else. People are going to be treading through mud to look at the sheds. Is that something that we really want to [10:16] have people do? I mean, I know it's his lot, but I mean, is that something we want potential customers to do is have to walk through mud? **Zach (City Staff):** I guess there is an option to if like, hey, this is all fine but, you know, you could approve it with the you know contingency that it has to be—you know, you have to move everything onto the actual pavement is an option but— **Commission Member:** Okay. And this is a one to two year—that's what you're saying? **Zach (City Staff):** That's what I've been been told, yes. **Commission Member:** Okay, but—and something I'd asked Zach earlier—it would not really result in the additional tax revenue for the [11:07] city? **Zach (City Staff):** Okay. I guess the thought process potentially being that those sheds would bring more traffic potentially to the mall and then thereby—yeah, it seemed like the the mall owner and who he talked to, he said it seemed like yeah, he was in favor for it. So um that's probably the... that's probably his end goal to get more people in that area. **Commission Member Jesse:** And I guess I have no with um... I guess I don't know anything about the comprehensive plan of Canon Falls in that area so I'd have to review that. But I guess right now, if it's a one to two year, I guess I would approve it, you know, just because even though it doesn't bring anything in reality to the city, one to two years isn't going to change too much for the future of the city. And and maybe it would bring some additional traffic into town and maybe maybe they'd stop and eat. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Yeah. Um do we want to make a condition that they park them on asphalt or they pave that area where they want to park them? Or just let it go? And [12:20] Zach, correct me if I'm wrong, but in I-4 that it should be "the entire sales lot and off street parking area is paved." **Zach (City Staff):** I think I think you guys should go ahead and make sure that it's it's paved because it is one of the conditions that falls under. So I mean he could move them maybe off the grass or I think there's room back there. When I was talking to Ed it sounded like you could maybe fit everything in a stack there. So I think they'd still be able... they should be... should be kept onto a paved surface, right? Meet the conditions. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** So does he own—I'm looking at the map—does he own that... is that the south side of the— **Zach (City Staff):** Yeah. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** So if nothing else, he could put them on the South Side wouldn't you think? Would that be [13:06] paved? **Zach (City Staff):** I don't know if that would be because there used to be what, storage sheds there? And I don't know if they're still there. **Commission Member:** I'm not sure the main like route to get into Rancho Loco, how people... **Diane Johnson (Chair):** That's right, that's the only way. That's right. Do we have to then modify the conditional use permit to include they must be parked on paved surface? **Zach (City Staff):** Right. Yeah, you could do that and then for city council I could, you know, make it... redo the resolution, right? **Diane Johnson (Chair):** So do we want to go ahead to approve or recommend to the city council to approve this with the caveat that they can only be parked on a paved surface? **Commission Member:** I agree. **Zach (City Staff):** And you've got two resolutions in [13:52] your packet. Zach is very good to us, he he includes one packet to recommend favor and one to deny. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Okay. Um so when you have this, if you approve, do you put the conditions somewhere or does he— **Zach (City Staff):** He will do it for the city council. Yeah. [14:20] **Commission Member Jesse:** Okay. I guess I would I would approve if the resolution of having it paved is followed. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** So are you moving that we adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2025-the all in favor say I. **Commission Members:** I. I. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Oppose nay? **Commission Member Jesse:** Nay. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Motion is carried. Do you want to speak to that or no? Okay. [14:58] **Commission Member Jesse:** Yeah. Okay, I'm fine if I'm fine if they're on the grass, that's all. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Oh, okay. Okay. So uh second uh public hearing—and I forgot to call for public input. I was say we should... oop! Did anybody have any public input on the—okay, well on on the the mall one? I'm sorry. [15:44] **Unidentified Female Speaker:** That's okay. It's just generally a question. The storage or the storage sheds that are already on the grassy area back behind the bank—is this the same outfit or... I mean, I don't... why are those... that was my question. Why are those sheds there behind the bank? I mean, I don't know if that's the same outfit or not. Those have been there for a while. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** But you're talking to ones along 52? **Unidentified Female Speaker:** Yeah. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Yeah, that's the one that's not by the mall, right? **Unidentified Female Speaker:** Is it the same outfit or... **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Yeah. Okay, I just was curious because those are on the grass. **Commission Member:** Yes, that's a very good point. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Um and sometimes I found that if something was existing before we passed an [16:32] ordinance, I don't think they have to bring it up to code until they do something. **Zach (City Staff):** So that, yeah, that would be um "legal non-conforming" is the... is the word, you know, the description of that. So it... it wasn't... it was legal before you changed the law, therefore it's allowed to be maintained in a non-conforming state legally up until the point where something is changed. **Commission Member:** Um in this I I guess in clarity, just to help me understand too because I'm kind of new... were you referring to the—to the on the map—the storage units on the south side of the mall? Are those... those appear to me like as just storage units that people would rent and store their stuff in. And what [17:20] these are, what we're talking about and allowing for, is the sale of a storage building that somebody then could put onto their property. So I don't... I don't know if the ones that... those white ones on the south side of that property... I have driven through there before. I think they... they appear to me like they're just to store stuff. So yeah, different. I think just for me and clarity, I think that's a different topic. I don't think that would apply to what we're discussing tonight about selling something in an outdoor lot. Okay? Um because those are, you know, probably leased spaces for people to store their stuff in. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Okay. Were were you referring to the ones [18:06] that are out by the the bank and not these? **Commission Member:** So she's not talking about the storage units that are on the property already. If you go a little further south of town, there's a bank, okay? And and it's by the Snap Fitness. **Unidentified Female Speaker:** Oh. **Commission Member:** And currently, currently there's a couple of storage sheds there that look like they are for sale. **Unidentified Female Speaker:** For sale, yes. **Commission Member:** Wow. And I don't know if they're the same company has them there as well or ever permitted to be there. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Right. I think that was what she was referring to. **Zach (City Staff):** Okay. I think that's something that we can look into for sure. The storage unit there that [18:53] are outside there is also on inside of the same thing. So I I'm I'm sure the storage units are all connected to the mall there. They're they're inside the mall as well. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** But I think we're going even further. Are you looking down by Community Resource Bank? **Unidentified Female Speaker:** Yeah, yes. Way way down south, yep. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** So there's even more down there? Yeah, wow. But is that a separ—that's a separate agenda to what we're talking about now. Okay? I'm just wondering if it was the same outfit and those buildings are on grass. **Commission Member:** Yeah. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Yeah. And you know, now now that you say that... I'm applying [19:38] yeah that rule to this one. That's... that's all good point. **Commission Member:** I would just say it... it's up to the mall owner because he's got the... but when they're bringing in them sheds, they're going to unload them with a forklift. There's going to be semi loads of them coming in there. Is the tar in shape to handle that? But that would be up to the mall owner, right? Damage is done. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** So okay. All right. Then you need to close the public hearing this topic. Anymore for public hearing on the storage shed um outdoor sales lot? Any additional public hearing input? Any additional? **Commission Member:** Move to close public hearing. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Or do we need a motion on that? **City Staff:** No, you close it at a certain time. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Okay. We need to redo our [20:26] vote? Uh you probably should for context to make sure that you've incorporated any public inputs. Okay. So any other... I mean Jesse, do you want to say anything more about— **Commission Member Jesse:** No, I think— **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Jesse, I'm just asking why would you think grass is okay for them to be on? **Commission Member Jesse:** Um uh because it's the um because it's the owner of the mall and it's um I I I get that there's a uh written in the code that it has to be paved. Um [21:12] but it doesn't... this is a weird one in that it... I don't believe they're actually going to be out there selling them to people. Um right? It's... it's it's it's just different because it's it's more of an advertisement, right? Um you drive... you drive by, you see it, you're like "oh," and then you see the phone number and you call and you get a price. And and then then then maybe you go... you maybe go there to look at one or you go up to Hampton to look at one. That's why I don't really have a real issue with it being um... I don't I don't think people are going to be driving out there. Um [22:00] but I'm still—and I'm still fine with the ordinance um the way that we've written it um to require them to do it to pave it. Um it'll probably... it might change whether or not they do it. Um but also um I just wanted to go on record that I didn't care about it as grass. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Right. Thank you. Yep. So any further discussion before we do the official vote? **Commission Members:** Nope. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Okay. Somebody like to uh recommend we adopt Planning Commission Resolution [22:50] 2025-the pavement? **Commission Member:** I agree. **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission):** Second. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** So move by Douglas, second by Nobach. All in favor? **Commission Members:** I. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Oppose nay? **Commission Member Jesse:** Nay. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** So moved. Now I'll do it correct this next time. Public hearing on variance: Endress Canon Falls LLC driveway to service Timber Ridge Estate Lots. Public hearing is now open. Now you get talk. **Commission Member:** Yeah, have discussion first? **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Yeah, that... you you can you can open the hearing, you can discuss it as a board, and then you can [23:35] take public input if that's how you choose want to do. Usually just have the public but if you want to take the public input first, you can do that as well. So either one. **Commission Member:** Well, that's how we've done it in the past. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Mate, we sometimes have conversations. So all you have to do is introduce yourself and address, then we're good to go. **Ken Roar (Public):** Ken Roar, 31029 County 25 Boulevard. So my property is right alongside the development. Um I've read about the variance in the paper, talked to Zach just a little bit, so I don't know a lot about it. I'm concerned about the runoff, especially the two lots on the [24:23] downhill side from the Connector Road there. Uh there's been no catch basins. You have a long run there. It's going to be water runoff. There's going to be wash. And if it was tarred and done properly, there'd be catch basins and runoff directed in a certain way. But that water all comes down, it's going to run down onto my property. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Okay. So you're south of there? No, because I know I went out there and looked at it when and the road comes down and you're... and then goes off to this... this way. Are you back here? You back down where the water would be running off to? **Ken Roar (Public):** Well, my house is up on 25. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Oh, okay. **Ken Roar (Public):** But my lot runs a long ways back into there. Okay? My lot on the west [25:11] side there goes back into the uh land that's being developed around it. My property, all right. So I already have wash-off run... a runoff that has washed a lot of sentiment into my pasture from... from the west side of the development. That was happening before the development, hasn't done anything to correct any of that. And now they're starting on the east side with another place that's just going to wash down on um... Some of these variances that I hear have went in out there on that development... I question why all the [25:56] variances if it... it should have been planned out better if it was going to be done, especially them two lots or four lots now, and then where the future development will go from there. We're talking about just four lots, but the development's going to go on from there. So uh is this the time to start with it right? Or I don't want to see the same thing that's went on up at the high school there or by the high school with that development which I read about in the paper, you know, and stuff, and people bought something and got a big bill out of it later and stuff. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** So let me... if we require paving of the driveway, I know that right now they've got... they're going to have to have private [26:42] well, private uh septic. So there really won't be any... will there be some kind of storm mitigation incorporated in that? I didn't think there... I didn't think there would be, no. **Zach (City Staff):** I think there's potential potential for for gravel runoff off those driveways if it was approved. So I don't think I don't think there's anything in place, at least at the moment. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** So okay. After... so even if they pave it, we might not get any storm mitigation in terms of keeping it off your property. **Ken Roar (Public):** Well, if it's just paved, yeah. If it's not, yeah. The storm... should it be a street that has curb and gutter and and proper containment of the water? Uh you [27:27] look at that driveway coming down in there. There's a... on a heavy rain, there's going to be a lot of rain come down there. Now you put a house in a garage and your apron out in front and where's all the water going to go on them lots and stuff? So... and it runs off onto somebody else's property, not... it don't stay there. So— **Diane Johnson (Chair):** And I agree with you because I out there looking. That is a steep little slope to get down to those homes. I was like, wow. **Ken Roar (Public):** Yeah. So you're basically surrounded by both developments, that's what you're saying? Your property is—I can say I got City on all four sides of me. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** So okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank [28:20] you. **Don Lanning (Public):** My name is Don Lanning. My address is 32443 64th Avenue Way. Um and I do have some paperwork that I'd like to like share. Yeah, give it to Zach. You can hand it up. We can just pass it down. Okay. These ones? All right. All right. So first off um I just want to state that I really have no other interest in this subject beyond fair and equitable application of local ordinances. I honestly felt very [29:07] sympathetic to the homeowners on 72nd Street when not only were they forced to pave the road in front of their house, but also to have to pay for that project so that another developer could have benefit from the project without sharing the cost. They were put into that situation by the lack of city ordinance enforcement developer requirements when that development was done several years back. The requested variance for the Timber Ridge Development will basically do the very same thing with no protection for future landowners and, unless otherwise presented tonight, does not meet the requirements for granting a variance included below. So when you look through your ordinances, um first off [29:53] there are some requirements for granting a variance. The criteria for granting the variance—a variance states that there has to be a particular hardship um to the owner if the variance isn't granted. Oh, not mine. I had to check. I have that ring too. Um so first off, there has to be some sort of hardship um that this variance will fix, right? And then the other thing is that there has to be something unique to the parcel of land and there also... that hardship, any hardship that's presented cannot be [30:39] based on finances. It cannot be because he wants to reduce the cost of developing those lots. Um so my questions here just base on the basis of even granting a variance is: How has the criteria for this requested variance been met? What hardship will be avoided by granting this variance? Was this hardship created by the developer's own actions, like i.e. lack of planning? So, you know, he's in the middle of the winter and he wants to sell these lots and now he can't pave it because it's the middle of winter. Well, that's a lack of planning. That is the developer's fault for not getting things all of his ducks in a row kind of thing. Is this request based on [31:26] finances or the desire to save money on the cost of developing these lots? And that's a better financial gain? So that is just the requirement for the variance. Now when you look at some of the ordinances related to subdivision developments, um it says that um that let's see... basically it says that there has to be a land dedication for any development. I'm wondering, has this developer met any dedication requirements for this development? Um if so, was it a land dedication? Did the developer donate some land for development of a green space for this [32:14] development, a cash deduction, or a combination of both? If it was a land dedication, was it included in the final plat approval? If it was a cash donation, how much was the cash donation? Did it meet the requirements in this section that are outlined based on the size of the development, which is like based on acreage? Has that cash donation been added to the Park's budget for the city of Canon Falls as its own fund—not put into the general fund but into the parks fund? There is no discretion or exception included in this clause of your ordinances. So that is a requirement and there is no [33:01] discretion in whether that can be there or not. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Just you know, they have dedicated two park areas okay within the development. Yes. **Zach (City Staff):** Okay. If you look at the map I can show them to you. Um that works. One is actually like a playground park area and the other one is actually right uh west of these little lots there and that's going to be hiking trails through the woods. **Don Lanning (Public):** Okay. That covers that one, thank you. Um then the next section is to the crux of your variants as far as paving the the streets. Um and basically it says all streets shall be improved with a concrete or bituminous surface. Streets to be [33:48] paved shall be surfaced for a 7-ton axle weight capacity... blah blah blah blah. The wear course of the bituminous shall be placed following the construction season. Um it can be finished up to two years from the date of the final plat approval. Um exceptions to this provision may be granted... okay, so yes, the city council can grant exceptions, but those exceptions really are subject to the criteria for a variance which again, unless I... unless there's something else that that's been presented as a hardship [34:34] beyond finances, the criteria for granting a variance hasn't been met. Um landscaping... I don't know. Um so there is also a requirement for a landscape plan um for a development of three or more lots. Um so again, I have a question as to whether there's a landscape plan that's been submitted by this developer. Does it meet the requirements of this section with regard to tree species to be included? Has it been approved by a Forester, which is one of the requirements in the ordinance? Was it included in the development package prior to final plat approval? And this provision is also another one that says "shall" and there is no language to any exceptions. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Any idea on of past minutes? Okay. **Don Lanning (Public):** So [35:25] um so again, the last item here... this is another section. So not only is the requirements for this variance included in one section, it's included in two sections. It's a very important idea that there are criteria for granting variances. So to break that out: Exceptional and undue hardship? What is the hardship that's going to be solved here? Um and if granting the variance, it does say you can prescribe conditions to be met. So my suggestion would be if this ordinance is going to be granted, then the exception to paving drives should be included on the deed to every one of those plots. The variance should be granted in perpetuity [36:11] to protect future landowners from having to pay for something that should have been done by the developer. And should the city council change their mind on the need to pave these drives... if city council changes this decision in the future, it should be the responsibility—their responsibility—to pay for the needed improvement. So when you look at approval of variance, it says specifically each and every one of the following apply: Topography? Is there any physical reason? **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Okay. I think— **Don Lanning (Public):** I'm almost done. Okay. Unique? What exactly is so unique to these lots that was not applicable to the lots on 72nd Street? Those homeowners were totally [36:57] ignored in their pleas um to what the city was doing to them. Finances again? What is the hardship beyond saving costs and self-created hardship? **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other public input? **Ken Roar (Public):** I just ask one more question? Sure. Yep. We just want to get home for the kickoff. No? What's that? The Viking game? So... so what happens... are these lots up for sale already, these four lots? **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Yes. **Ken Roar (Public):** What happens if somebody buys a house and their building building permit still goes through the city council then, don't it or not? [37:43] **Diane Johnson (Chair):** No. All right, so somebody could build a house down there and we still don't know what we're even going to do at the driveways? No, well that's... we decide tonight—or we don't decide, we recommend the city council. Um because if they if somebody tries to pull a building permit, it doesn't comply with the regulations. That would get flagged by Goodhue County or Zach. All right, thank you. Any other public input? Other public input? Other public input? Public input is closed. We'll move on to the discussion on whether or not to grant a variance to allow access via gravel [38:32] driveways. We can either approve it or recommend deny and send it off to city council. **Commission Member:** I have to say, I drove around, I looked at this and then I looked at the maps, and the biggest problem I see is on County Road 24. As you go south, that is not city property. So if any new... unless City... unless map that I saw didn't show the City property properly, everything there is whatever that might be County, whatever it might be along 24. And so the people there—unless they change everything—the people there would be able to put in a gravel road and that would stay with the whole contour of 24. But what you're saying, I agree with so [39:18] that's what my concern... when I first saw that I'm like, how can this... can be this little thing could be City, but then everything South, future buildout, could be anything they wanted to. And so I understand where he's coming from and that's something that I don't... I can't... I can't agree to this variance at this point just because I feel that there's a lot of things I look at that just doesn't make sense to me after looking at it and everything. **Chris Nobach (Vice Chair):** Yeah, I tend to agree. I mean, I read it over and to your point, I think this is on the developer, right? I mean, they knew they were going to put estate lots in there, they knew what that you know property looked like. And I think, you know, they've run up to a point to where perhaps they're looking at margin [40:06] and it's not looking as you know advantageous as they thought it would because they have to add in you know paved driveways. But I I think that's... that's not something the city can put on future residents, right? That that needs to go on the developer itself, right? And to suggest that the future residents, that'll be their responsibility... now you're run into the issue of number one, if it's doable, right, financially from the residents. And secondly, you're going to have what, essentially four different residents potentially hiring four different contractors to potentially put in four different drives? I just... it's... it's the developer responsibility, you know, according to city code as it is right now. So to grant [40:51] the variance just based on the fact that the developer's saying it's a... it's a financial strain? Well, that's... that's unfortunate for them, but that's the reality of it, right? So you know, build to the cost of you know the the future sale price of the home, not put the burden on the future homeowner. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Jesse, comments? **Commission Member Jesse:** Yeah, I I understand. Um I think um if this gets uh turned down by the city council that um all that's going to happen is that these four lots are going to be sold [41:36] um more expensively, right? Um so it's going to... it's going to make the developer... um it's going to be slightly more difficult um for them to sell these lots um because instead of being a whatever price, it's going to add another 40, 50, 100,000 to the sales price, right? Because they're... because they're just going to cover their costs by what they can sell it for. It's just going to make their um margins tighter. Um right. Um I don't have um... I don't... I wasn't in when I think when [42:24] this when when this was sold. Um I know that the developer got uh quite a deal um I think for for at least the one area. I don't know about this estate spot if if that was also part of that deal or not. Um but yeah, I'm fine with um having the developer and the potential new homeowner—you know, as as long as as long as everybody knows up front, right? And if you're going to develop it and you're going to sell the lot and [43:09] here's the house and here you know... you know what the price is going to be. Um when you have to retroactively do stuff, that becomes painful because now you're forcing um homeowners later potentially to fork over you even more money to put in a an approved you know surface. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Thank you. Yep. And and going back a few years uh when there was another request to uh get a variance for another property that wanted to have gravel driveways, the both the Planning Commission and the city council uh denied that application. So our policy [43:55] has been to say if this is the city code ordinance and we follow it, and at some point, you know, all of that area around there will probably be annexed into the city, in which case everybody will have to have paved driveways. That's what I was wondering. But that's way in the distance. So any further discussion? It sounds like everybody's kind of leaning towards denying the application. Would somebody—so that would be Planning Commission Resolution 2025-4: recommend that the variance for gravel driveways be denied. Somebody like to move [44:43] that? **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission):** I'll move it. **Chris Nobach (Vice Chair):** Second. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Motion by Douglas, second by Nobach to deny the application. All in favor? **Commission Members:** I. I. I. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Oppose nay? Abstaining? So moved. We will send that on to the city council. Uh discussion: change of Planning Commission time. So Zach, do you want to— **Zach (City Staff):** Yeah, I think I can. So it sounds like there's might be a conflict with people coming from the Library Board to Planning Commission. So it sounded like um might be in the best interest of the commission to move the [45:29] time back from 6:30 to 6:45. Um and I'm not entirely sure Library board's going to change their Monday meeting date. **Commission Member:** Oh really? **Zach (City Staff):** Yes. Okay. Their meeting... I guess we can... that provides more input than we got. So yeah, they they are they are uh because of the conflict with both finance committee and Planning Commission, you know, 5:00, 5:30, 6:30, uh they are going to move their meeting to first, third, or fourth Monday, or at least they're considering that. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Okay. I would think we could wait on them at this point. **Zach (City Staff):** Sure. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Then I think no further action on that at this time. But thank you for considering them. Any other things anybody wants to [46:15] bring up? **Commission Member:** Motion to adjourn. **Chris Nobach (Vice Chair):** Second. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** All in favor? **Commission Members:** I. I. **Diane Johnson (Chair):** Adjourned.