Members present: Mayor Don Richards, Susan Reese, Todd Schultz, Erin Tomlinson, Ellen Smith, David Cronk, Sandy Bowen, Scott Morrissette, Reid Wronski

There was a quorum present at all times.

Staff present: Buddy Lucero, Planning Director; Tony Steiner, City Planner; Carl Gaulke, Utilities General Manager; Bernie Van Osdale, City Administrator

Guests present: City Councilor Hal Watson; Jim Johnston, Lyman Properties (300 Morse Avenue, Excelsior, MN); a representative from the Town of River Falls; and a representative from the Town of Clifton

PUBLIC/CITIZEN COMMENTS – Non-Agenda Related Topics

Hal Watson (215 North 7^th Street, River Falls), a River Falls City Council Member and Chairperson for the Environmental Task Force (ETF), did not attend the special meeting late last month addressing expanding the boundary to include area in the Kinnickinnic Canyon to southwest of the City between the proposed boundary and three-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction boundary. The ETF looks at environmental impacts on proposals; they saw this as an opportunity to protect the canyon. Their proposal is to take 40-acre quarter sections that touch the river and include those in the boundary, which would enable the City to exercise subdivision control. They also recommend amending the Comprehensive Plan to show this land as future land conservancy, which would add another layer of protection to that part of the river that is outside of the current boundary. Watson referred to map showing current setback (yellow) and proposal (red).

Reese stated when this was discussed at the special meeting last month she felt that the Town and County should take responsibility in preserving the Kinnickinnic as well as the City. Watson thinks the Town would like the responsibility but the ETF is unsure of what the Town and County are doing, so therefore they looked at it as an opportunity and jurisdiction for the City, therefore making this recommendation.

Planning Director Buddy Lucero stated this falls under two ordinances: 1) Shoreland (protects edges of river); and 2) Comprehensive Plan (provides land use assumption). The ETF discussed that most of this area is in some kind of conservancy and land trust. It was determined that the PC values the ETF recommendation.

An Amendment to the Official Map for the Three Mile Jurisdiction Line for the Extraterritorial Subdivision Boundary

Planning Director Lucero stated that on September 21, 2006 the City Council adopted and passed a six-month moratorium on plats and certified survey maps in the extraterritorial plat jurisdiction of the City of River Falls. The purpose of this moratorium was to preserve the status quo of land subdivision and land development within the City of River Falls extraterritorial subdivision jurisdiction in adjoining towns to allow the City to study the effects or impacts of growth upon the City and provide a resolution. Lucero informed the PC that they did a site visit during last week’s workshop. Smith stated that the PC should consider the recommendation from the ETF that Hal Watson presented.

Schultz asked if there were reasons we didn’t include this the last time, other than wanting the City to take the initiative. Wronski stated the sub-committee shied away because it is difficult from a sewer service standpoint. They were wrestling with the land being brought in as conservancy or for development. It is imperative that the PC designates the land use as conservancy. Lucero talked about assigning land as conservancy in areas that are difficult to service, i.e., steep slopes, bluff tops, and this area.

Reese agrees that City/Towns should be involved, but acknowledged that the Town of Clifton is behind in their planning and the Town of Troy has problems along the River with codes and enforcement. She feels because we are ahead of the game, we have a chance to include it and save it from development.

Mayor Don Richards asked if the County or Towns come up with stricter regulations, which one prevails. Lucero confirmed usually whichever one is stricter is the regulation that holds. There are three ordinances – Zoning, Shoreland and Subdivision, all which vary.

Van Osdale stated it is the City’s need and desire to service these areas but we’ve jumped into a different philosophy now. Reese stated this recommendation is from a different committee. Wronski stated the concerns/issues the committee brought forth: water, sewer, slopes, transportation, open space, recreation are hard info; we don’t have a natural resources map. Mayor Richards believes it did extend to the northeast corner. Tomlinson stated this area is different than other areas and should be included because it is the canyon. Smith stated in the Comprehensive Plan it refers to Natural Resources in Kinnickinnic River. Bowen stated we should listen to the ETF; we asked them to do a job (as an advisory panel) and they did, so let’s take their recommendation.

Planning Director Lucero stated this discussion is to provide direction on whether to move forward on amending the Code. Smith asked if all signs are treated the same way, even in a PUD? Yes, stated Lucero. Morrissette inquired if, after the ordinance was adopted in 2005, were notification letters sent? Yes, every realtor, builder and developer in the City was sent a letter with no feedback from anyone in disagreement. Reese stated it is important to reduce clutter, but let’s maintain an even playing field. If there is an ordinance in place and disregard for this ordinance, why change? Morrissette stated if there is disregard then let’s change the recovery fee from $5/sign to $500/sign.

Cronk believes the signs aren’t creative and by allowing eight signs there still will be clutter. They (builders, realtors, developers) can work together cooperatively to place their signs on one large signboard in each area. These signs can be counted as ½ sign or 1/3 sign, therefore allowing them more signs overall.

Jim Johnston, Lyman Properties, states there needs to be a plan and education on the ordinance, especially for the people placing the signs. Four signs are not enough, but feels 25 signs is outrageous. He was not aware that his company was placing more than four signs (he will talk with employees about this). Johnston is okay with fining those who ignore the ordinance.

Lucero confirmed the problem of too many signs is off site, it’s not the real estate signs on each property. Mayor Richards referred to a company that provides signs with multiple slots and that they were willing to give a demonstration to the PC (follow-up with Dena).

Tomlinson believes more signs won’t solve housing issue; she suggests using the internet to find directions. Wronski stated that new streets won’t be on the internet mapping programs for at least three years. Johnston confirmed the problem is finding a development and how hard it is to get to the main entrance with only a few signs. These signs are to assist the casual driver that aren’t planning and mapping out directions.

Reese would like Johnston to bring the PC suggestions. She was able to get good directions on the Lennar website. Johnston stated Lennar is an $11 billion company that has resources for an informative website; most small local builders don’t have that capability, so therefore rely on signage.

Morrissette questions if the ordinance is changed it creates more enforcement/monitoring issues, is this appropriate use of staff time and resources? Lucero confirmed that all enforcements are issues. To help staff in enforcement, Lucero would like each company to designate in a plan where their signs will be placed; if their signs are placed somewhere other than that approved site, it would be easier to monitor and the signs would be removed.

It was determined that Johnston will prepare a proposal, working with other builders and developers, which will reduce clutter and provide a solution to this issue. He will present his proposal to the PC for their discussion. Lucero stated that prior to the current ordinance there were many issues of general clutter brought to the PC as a problem from the public.

Planner Steiner stated the purpose is to make a recommendation to the City Council on a new definition and amendments to the City Code. After a public hearing on September 5, 2006, it was determined that the PC would reduce the size of the parcel from 40 to 35 acres (to be in conformance with State Exclusive Ag standards) and included language that allows existing farming operations to continue once they are annexed into the City. This amendment does not address the issue of tree removal.

Steiner referred to the word "open" on line 9 beginning with "Farming General" as being too vague and its meaning could include trees. His recommendation is to delete "open" and replace with "existing, non-forested".

Wronski inquired if lines 14 & 15 are necessary language? Steiner stated the language is consistent and reinforces the statewide Right to Farm rules. Discussions regarding tree farming – growing, harvesting, removal and land use after trees are removed. Other discussions were about a 20-year rule, tax credit rules, preservation rules, Mike Moody’s concerns and the letter from Louis Campbell. Staff provided clarification to questions about grandfathered-in land, existing uses, changes in land use (hayfields, cropland) and defined tree farming. There was concern about why we need this ordinance if existing uses are grandfathered in. This ordinance is necessary because it will recognize the right for existing farms to continue on as a conforming use after they are annexed.

Lucero asked the PC if they would prefer to change the meeting time for next workshop. It was agreed that the workshop will begin at 6:30 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Kristie Bulthuis, Recording Secretary