Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker names. **Note on Identifications:** * **Chuck Thiele** (City Council Member) acts as the initial Chair. * **Bart** is identified as **Commissioner Wilson** (who takes the gavel after Chuck recuses himself). * **Tina** is identified as **Commissioner White** (based on her specific objections and the roll call). * **Leslie** is a member of the **City Staff** (likely Planning/Community Development staff, though not on the provided list, she is named several times in the dialogue). * **Nord Johnson** is the **Applicant**. * **Steve** and **Sam** are Planning Commissioners. *** [0:00] **Chuck Thiele**: Guys, here we go. >> Please remember to put your mics near your mouth. >> All righty. Your 11 second delay is good to go. We're set. Call the meeting to order. Planning Commission meeting Monday, October 6. Item one on our agenda. Well, actually, it's called order. That's number one. Item two, approval of the minutes. The last time we gathered as a group, which was on September 15th. [0:28] **Commissioner**: Motion to approve. >> Got the motion on the minutes. Second parts. Got the second. We're all good on the minutes. All those in favor say I. No. Done with that one. Public hearing. We have one this evening. It's a variance for a dwelling unit size on Central Avenue. And we go directly to our city staff. [0:49] **Leslie (City Staff)**: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. Thank you for being here this evening. We have one item as mentioned. This is item 3A to approve a variance for a smaller dwelling unit size at 301 Central Avenue. So the applicant is Nord Johnson. The applicant is here with us this evening should you have questions. Um the owner is the group of Farbo Downtown Central LLC. Again the location is 301 Central Avenue and the proposal is for a variance. [1:18] **Leslie (City Staff)**: So the location is this with our historic central downtown area. you've heard um back in June for a platted uh segregation of this property. There's the location on Third Avenue and Central Avenue town. [1:40] **Leslie (City Staff)**: Zoning map is outlined in yellow. Varian's request very simply is to allow one existing apartment to be no smaller than 368 square ft. The request is to facilitate a previously approved plat of the property into three parcels. [1:59] **Leslie (City Staff)**: So, as noted, this is the second floor of the property, which I actually walked through last week with our planning staff, which was which is very exciting for this application to be coming forward. The lots that are the segregated lots, as you remember from your previous actions, is to is represented by the dashed red line. The area of the variance is the clouded area shown in blue. [2:25] **Leslie (City Staff)**: Now, as you can see, the existing um lot configuration shows that there is a two-bedroom, one bath unit, which is 594 square ft. The applicant wishes to um reinstall a firewall which would allow the area that has the smaller dash unit in red to co-mingle with the area to the west of the firewall which results in a residual parcel a small 68.57 square ft precisely become a single a new unit. So the variance it's proposes to it meets the criteria for granting as a variance because the intent of the ordinance is met as it's written to ensure residential uses are secondary to commercial uses. [3:11] **Leslie (City Staff)**: The commercial being on the ground floor which the property achieves as the amount of residential use is not increased. The building code allows residential units to be smaller and the downtown master plan both support investment in activity downtown which granting the variance would facilitate. So summary we feel the variance meets zoning requirements. So as such recommendations are we recommend the planning commission forward to city council with approval which approves the requested variance based on the criteria and findings in the ordinance. I can take any questions. [3:58] **Chuck Thiele**: Back to us. Before I go to questions, I forgot to give our our little speech. This is the official public hearing on this project on on this request. So, there's a very strict format. We follow, we get a presentation from city staff. We'll ask any clarifying questions we have to make sure we're okay. And then we open up public hearing, usually hear from the applicant first, but whoever wants to go, name, address, company you're representing, etc. Cycle through public hearing. When that's done, then we come back up here. We'll talk about it. Somebody will make a motion to do something. We'll vote on that motion and then our recommendation goes towards recommending body to the council. So, they'll take action on it next their next meeting, next weekend. And then this is the public hearing part of it. So, do we have questions, Steve? [4:40] **Steve (Commissioner)**: Mine's probably more mechanical. Looking at if you can bring up Yeah. So, you got the the apartment layout. The red dash line is the current firewall. Is my understanding it is going to be reinstated. [4:58] **Leslie (City Staff)**: So you see the gap in between the two. So this you're what we're actually doing is splitting this and this off. We're reinstalling the firewall so that it's as if I back this up. Yes. That's. [5:22] **Steve (Commissioner)**: Yeah. So if you see in this lot lot two no longer permitted for two dwellings to have a cross access cross property boundaries. Yes. So this segregate this reinstalls and fulfills requirement but then creates another um standard that needs to be varied. That's what I kind of thought it was but I just wanted to thank you. [5:32] **Chuck Thiele**: Other questions? [5:32] **Tina (Commissioner White)**: Actually I have two. Um the first one is in criteria number three um it mentions limiting the occupancy to two. However, I did not see that as a condition further on in the document. So in criteria three pages 11 and 12 of our report it it says we should limit the occupancy to two but in the conditions of the variance it's not listed. [6:09] **Leslie (City Staff)**: I think that was intended not intentionally omitted but also understanding that that would probably be under the realm of the international building code so that that permitting requirement would be there um we could potentially amend it or if you wish to make that recommendation to add it as a condition that's entire but the other but believe that the the building code does has serve as president and that forward. [6:42] **Tina (Commissioner White)**: I guess I wonder why it was put in the criteria if it wasn't to be a condition. Good question. [6:56] **Chuck Thiele**: Oh, I'm sorry. Tina had two questions. She said two questions then I'll go to Sam. [6:59] **Tina (Commissioner White)**: I think it's important that we know uh what the orphan 235 ft is going to go to. If you, as you know, when you um change walls, you have to bring up to code. If it's going to stay, if that unit is going to stay a two-bedroom, then it would meet code for square footage. But if by chance they were going to make it a three-bedroom, then it would require a reciprocal variance because it wouldn't meet the new square footage in our current code of 1,000 square ft. So it would make it it would be enough square footage under current code. Um current code is 900-some square feet. I guess I want to know what's happening in unit number one cuz that would would make a difference, you know, on the the lot one. And that's my two questions on um because there's if you look in the same um efficiency is the 550, that's what we're granting. [8:20] **Tina (Commissioner White)**: They want a variance on two-bedroom requires 900 square feet which with the orphan 235 square feet it would meet but it won't meet the square footage for a three-bedroom unit. So I just I want to know what's happening in that unit or do we need to do a reciprocal variance for it? [8:42] **Leslie (City Staff)**: I believe that the reason that we would not be doing a reciprocal variance for it is because it would be considered existing non-conforming. [9:01] **Tina (Commissioner White)**: But aren't you changing walls? That that adjusts things when you change walls. [9:29] **Chuck Thiele**: I had asked it's Sam and then Bart. I got a Q. I understand. Where is there a question? Bart's got a question. I had asked this question of Harry about the 235, but is it going to be a two-bedroom or a three? Does the square footage makes a difference? In our code, UDC code, it says so section 11432 and we looked at A for the variance and you just keep going down C and D. [10:09] **Leslie (City Staff)**: Okay, so just get back to that's good. I just need to load up here for a second. [10:31] **Chuck Thiele**: Leslie is still trying to answer Tina's question. So that's where we're at. Leslie's got the floor on. Looks like we're seeing your desktop. That mountain. Is that like Lake Powell? Is that lovely? [11:01] **Chuck Thiele**: So that's not working. So we we still got an open question that we don't have an answer for. Do we have other questions before I go back to public hearing or actually start public hearing? No other questions. Public hearing. I see the applicants here. If you want to go first or there's three people here, so Nord, if you want to go, you don't have to, by the way. [11:24] **Nord Johnson (Applicant)**: Nord Johnson. I'm representing the Faribault Industrial Corporation share in Faribault Downtown Central. Um the reason I'm uh doing that is because uh my main gig as Chamber of Commerce president. We're actually serving as general managers of the industrial corporation. So we manage some of their affairs and their investment in Faribault Downtown Central falls within that jurisdiction. Um the the project that you see um is the Eastman's building which is uh I'm sure you're all aware fell in pretty tough disrepair over the last several decades. [12:26] **Nord Johnson (Applicant)**: The project uh at hand it calls for us to break that into three separate properties so we have three manageable parcels that an investor can take on. Right now at seven storefronts and 10 apartments big. We've uh been revamping commercial on that. We've got a dance studio taking up two spaces which would be in building three now. Building two has a a tea shop and another suite ready to build out. Um parcel one only has the blanket shop on the corner for occupants right now. The ask for us is pretty simply to get this variance through so that we can continue with the subdivision and we have potential buyers lined up to move those buildings into the next phase. I don't know if protocol allows for questions of me at the public. [13:00] **Chuck Thiele**: Please, if anybody's uh >> do we have any questions for the applicants? [13:10] **Steve (Commissioner)**: Steve's question is the thing— [13:15] **Nord Johnson (Applicant)**: I could answer that one. It's the big the big thing in the moment because I would not be prepared to vote for this to approve it if we don't have an answer for if that's going to become a three-bedroom apartment. So the expectation is that it would say a two-bedroom, but the potential then for private baths for one of the bedrooms, the other one, shared bathroom for the first bedroom to what would be the west side and then the course living area. [13:37] **Leslie (City Staff)**: And Leslie finally has brought up what she wanted to show us. So Nord, I yeah, you can see that screen there. So then that that coincides with what you just explained. So 301 apartment 4 right now is um would would stay two-bedroom unit with the additional uh space being absorbed into 301 apartment 4. The circled area and the hallway will become a fire door. So the top part of that wall, the original walls, it's original building walls also be repaired and fireproofed again. And there an easement in place ready to be adopted that would make that a shared egress for both um 301 and 10 for the second floor. [14:23] **Chuck Thiele**: Thank you. That seems to get us to Tina's question. Nord, it was just a question I wanted to make sure. What's Faribault Industrial Corp's involvement on this? [14:38] **Nord Johnson (Applicant)**: Faribault Industrial Corporation is an investor, one of the general partners in Faribault Downtown Central. There are there are four investors in that. [14:43] **Chuck Thiele**: Okay. The only reason I was asking just from a full disclosure, I inherited one share of Faribault Industrial Corp from my father. I haven't attended a meeting in 15 years, but technically that's why I just wanted to see what the relationship was. I think we're fine. That's just all I was asking. So, good. [14:59] **Nord Johnson (Applicant)**: I should go to more meetings, apparently. [15:02] **Chuck Thiele**: Uh, okay. Thank you, sir. Any other public input on this one? [15:07] **Commissioner**: So, Chuck, now that you've disclosed that you might have a personal share in that, did you want to recuse yourself? [15:14] **Chuck Thiele**: I can't imagine. Like I said, I I um but I'm kind of just to get a temperature. I mean, Faribault Industrial Corp's got their fingers in a lot of things. It just it hit my ear funny that they're an investor. I mean, I'm fine turning it over to Bart, but honestly, I got one share and I haven't attended a meeting. [15:34] **Commissioner**: Yeah, I if anybody feels strongly, I'm happy to turn it over to Bart. And honestly, if the question's been raised here, take it from here, sir. [16:02] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: Thank you. [16:04] **Chuck Thiele**: Do you want the gavel back? [16:06] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: Bart's got it now. Knock yourself out. Do we have any additional questions? [16:15] **Tina (Commissioner White)**: I actually have one. I'm sorry, miss. [16:18] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: Yeah, exit. We're done with public hearing. This was a very sloppy handoff and I apologize, but I do just now that we're back here for discussion is what you'd called for Leslie when you said that. [16:26] **Leslie (City Staff)**: Wait, wait. Does anybody else from the public have >> Okay, now we're going to close the public hearing portion and come back or to us for questions, discussion. [16:48] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: Yeah. It was I I should have asked it earlier, but when you mentioned we had previously approved the plat, when was that? [16:58] **Leslie (City Staff)**: June 10th. [17:01] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: Oh, so it was this year. So, was this a meeting I missed? Okay. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't some plat that was 40 years old or something. Okay. [17:10] **Leslie (City Staff)**: It actually went through council approval. So, this is just one of the minor details that has trail. [17:16] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: So, it has So, we're still waiting. So, this is we're still moving forward to the devils in the details and up one of the details of the discussion questions. [17:35] **Sam (Commissioner)**: Have a comment unit this size is more of a micro unit and said as such you can't put actual bedrooms in it because of the size because the bedroom's 10 by 10 that's 100 square feet so you put three in there that's over 300 already so usually these are a living room with a bedroom in it so there's really no concern about— [17:58] **Tina (Commissioner White)**: I'm just going to what the criteria says the last line on page 11 says so staff recommends placing a condition on the variance requiring a maximum of two occupants which is consistent with building code and when you go to the variance it's not listed as a condition that's all I was asking it just it says one thing but it didn't transfer over. [18:13] **Chuck Thiele**: Discussion questions Mr. chair. It's I'm fine with this. I totally get it. There there was a firewall that was there and then it's not there and they got to put the firewall back in. Totally get that. And I'm not saying I'm opposed to this, but just from a kind of continuity standpoint. Have we seen other requests from downtown business building owners over the years that have wanted smaller apartments upstairs than were allowed and we took a harder stance? I'm actually asking the group and I'm asking I don't remember one way or another. [18:46] **Leslie (City Staff)**: For her historical knowledge having been with the department for more than 10 years. You see where I'm going? I just want a continuity of vote that two years ago I didn't vote against some building owner that wanted a small apartment. You know, as long as this is in line with our historic voting record is an urban design standpoint. I think something that you you're that you're now is known as micro apartments is something is far more common to understand that compact living and you know minimalism is a trend as well as so I don't think it's out of the ordinary and some somewhat goes back to the the history of the of how more with less. [19:32] **Sam (Commissioner)**: One more comment. This is pretty common in most apartment buildings to have a micro unit in it because you get those odd shaped buildings where you need to put in something small. This is usually the first one to rent out. So, they're not going to have a bedroom in it. It's going to be a kitchen, a sink, and a living room with a bedroom in a living room. So, really, there's really no concern because they can't fit one in. That's the first one to rent out too in demand. [19:49] **Tina (Commissioner White)**: I think the concern comes back to 301. Um, I'm I I can see making a motion on one of the the uh items to approve this would be that it's limited to two people in department 301 as long which then would just follow through with be consistent as it was before. [20:15] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: Should be apartment 10 limited to two people. [20:19] **Tina (Commissioner White)**: Okay. I I I think it's great. I understand the the the desire and it happens frequently. I just want to follow through with what the staff report said, which was to put a a condition in the variance. So, and that's all my my question was answered regarding the orphan 235 ft. So, I'm good with that. [20:40] **Leslie (City Staff)**: Clarification. You mean— [21:00] **Tina (Commissioner White)**: I my this drawing that's up there, it says 10 apartment three. It said two. That's why I was— Oh, if I said to I said the orphan 235, but I'm apologize if I misspoke. [21:04] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: Yes. My only concern here is and I see where where Tina is going with it, but the request in front of us is the variance on the size. Can we put a condition on another apartment that's not part of the original variance? [21:23] **Tina (Commissioner White)**: No, it's the one we're voting on this 310 apartment three to have a a a limit on it. The apartment that we're granting the variance in criteria number three in the report it says to make it a condition. Staff recommends, this is on the bottom of page 11 of what was sent to us. Staff recommends placing a condition on the variance requiring a maximum of two occupants. So the the apartment that we are creating that is sub square footage to have that condition. So I'm just saying let's be consistent. Either pull it out of the criteria or put it in the variance as a condition. That's that's all I'm saying. [22:20] **Leslie (City Staff)**: And and if you wish to make a motion one that you know has that instruction for staff to make that consistency and you know if it was inadvertently required but if you wish to strengthen that substance you know perfectly within your purview to do so. [22:26] **Sam (Commissioner)**: Sam has the floor. So I'm gonna pull from a little commissioner Would you mind going to date myself a little bit? I have almost 20 years in property management and so dealing with rentals, rental sizes, how many occupants are allowed. Now, if this were to become a rental, part of their rental license would dictate how many people are in the apartment. Um, it could be an owner operated suite. Awesome. But I'm I'm not super excited. Let's say a young couple buys this and they have a brand new—Are we going to say you can't live there? [23:12] **Tina (Commissioner White)**: I just say be consistent. Either change the criteria or change the condition. Yeah. The variance. So, one of them needs to be changed. That's all I'm saying. [23:35] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: Or discussion questions. have a motion. [23:37] **Tina (Commissioner White)**: I would like to make a motion um that we approve the variance with the criteria of a condition of two occupants. Criteria number three, which would require an amendment to the variance on their conditions, adding that in as a condition so that the criteria and the variance match. [24:16] **Commissioner**: Second. [24:18] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: I'll second it. All in favor say I. [24:25] **Commissioners**: I. I. No. All opposed. No. No. [24:31] **Leslie (City Staff)**: We'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Green. [24:35] **Commissioner Green**: No. [24:37] **Leslie (City Staff)**: And Commissioner Jackson. Commissioner Mlair. Commissioner Aman. [24:48] **Commissioner White (Tina)**: Yes. [24:50] **Commissioner Salt**: Yes. [24:53] **Sam (Commissioner)**: I would like to make a motion to approve. [24:56] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: You got to announce what happened first. [24:59] **Leslie (City Staff)**: Four to three. [25:03] **Sam (Commissioner)**: No. I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance as written. [25:12] **Commissioner**: Second. [25:23] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: Mr. Chair, if I could just add something. I heard what Tina was saying of we've got to be consistent between what's in the recommendation and the variance. I just didn't want to add it to the variance. I just wanted to take it out of the recommendation. So if if Sam's motion didn't get a second, right? Then then another motion would be in order. Just because I'm chair and I handed things around, I don't want to make see where I'm going with that to approve with the removal of that paragraph in there a limited on limited number of people in there. [26:04] **Tina (Commissioner White)**: Not the paragraph, just the sentence. [26:07] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: The sentence. Yeah. Can you clarify? Motion is to approve the variance with the removal of the sentence stating the recommended number of people inside the second. Favor say I. [26:26] **Commissioners**: I. [26:28] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: All opposed same. [26:30] **Commissioner White (Tina)**: No. [26:32] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: I mean I I did an I. He said okay. Only one note. [26:45] **Leslie (City Staff)**: Yeah. There's just one note. Well, let's go and do a roll call just to speak. Okay. Commissioner Green. [26:50] **Commissioner Green**: Hi. [26:52] **Leslie (City Staff)**: Commissioner Jackson. [26:54] **Commissioner Jackson**: Hi. [26:55] **Leslie (City Staff)**: Commissioner Mclair. [26:56] **Commissioner Mclair**: Hi. [26:57] **Leslie (City Staff)**: Commissioner Aman. [26:58] **Commissioner Aman**: Hi. [26:59] **Leslie (City Staff)**: Commissioner Salt. [27:00] **Commissioner Salt**: Hi. [27:01] **Leslie (City Staff)**: Commissioner White. [27:01] **Commissioner White**: Nay. [27:02] **Leslie (City Staff)**: And Mr. Wilson. [27:04] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: Thank you. Motion carries. Item number four, request to be heard. Item five items for discussion is none team business which is number six and seven board and commission updates and we do not have updates. Um you will be contacted by Miss Casper here as she reviews attendance records just for those of you who might be a little close to your limits just so you know what where we are and within the boundaries of We're at the a little bit beyond the midyear. Thank you very much. We have a motion to adjourn. [27:44] **Commissioner**: Motion to adjourn. [27:46] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: All right. We have a second. [27:48] **Commissioner**: Second. [27:50] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: All right. Motion. Uh all in favor say I. [27:53] **Commissioners**: I. I. [27:55] **Bart (Commissioner Wilson)**: All oppose say nay. Motion carries.