Afternoon. I'd like to call to order the planning commission meeting. It is 4:30 on Thursday, December 18th, 2025. First item on the agenda is the election of officers for 2026.
Do I have any officers? I'd like to present a slate of Bill Turnblad for chair, Larry Mack for vice, and Linda Beck for secretary. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second that.
>> Do I have any other nominations from the floor? Are there any other nominations from the floor? If not, the slate is presented as Bill Turnblad,
Linda Beck, and Larry Mack as vice chair. All in favor? >> I >> I >> opposed. Congratulations. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the approval
of minutes from November 20th, 2025 planning commission meeting. Are there any corrections or additions? Hearing none, I'll accept a motion. >> I'll make a motion to accept the minutes as presented. >> I'll second. >> I have a motion and a second. Is there
any further discussion? >> All in favor of approval? I >> I >> I >> opposed. Next item on the agenda is the public hearing opening for uh the continuation of a variance application for 1527 South
German Street. City report. >> All right. Um this is a variance request um with the reduction of the minimum front yard setback on u parcel A from 30 ft to 20 ft for the construction of a single family home. If you remember,
well I'm sure you all do. We've actually looked at this item um in October, November, and now December. And uh since this was initially applied for uh the planning commission made the recommendation we amend zoning ordinance
to allow the RT2 standards to apply to grid lots in the R3 zoning district. Um that went to the city council for a first and second hearing. Uh the second hearing was this last Tuesday and that will go uh into effect 30 days from
publication and it should be published on the 23rd of December. Um, so that being said, um, we brought, uh, this item now back to the planning commission, getting rid of all the other
variance, uh, variances that they were requesting other than the 20ft front yard setback uh, request off of German Street for parcel A. Um, the legal description of the property is
lot 8, block 41 south of Center Street. Street address is 1527 South German Street. Deadline for the decision on this application is now February 6th, 2026. They were also given an extension um on the uh decision-m deadline. To
date, um this has been in the paper three times now. We still haven't had a public comment uh on this request. Um the applicant is the owner of a 50x 165 uh lot located north corner of South uh
South German Street and 16 South Street. Um the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce uh reduce the following art uh following standard in the R3 zoning district. on parcel A, the front yard set back would be reduced
from 30 feet to 20 feet. Um, a lot of the history that is in here is what we have it's been in each one of the staff reports. Um, so I'm going to skip down uh to the the fifth bullet on
the history. Um there was an ordinance amendment that amends section 4.11C additional requirements and establishes a 13th standard that would be applicable to properties in the R3 zoning district. The amendment um will apply to grid lots
loed prior to October 1st, 1968 that do not meet the minimum zoning standards to follow standards that apply to the RT2 zoning district. Again, that's this lot and three other lots in the R3 that this
uh amendment would apply to. City council conducted the first consideration of the ordinance at their December 2nd, 2025 meeting and then their second consideration at the December 16th uh 2025 meeting. Um the
ordinance will go into effect again 30 days following the publication which will be December 23rd. Um the applicant is um proposing to construct two single family homes um on the property. One abuing uh South German
Street and then the other one facing 16 South Street. um uh unique circumstances on the property um that would um apply to this variance request is there is a 10% slope from the
front of the lot uh to the rear of the lot. And because of the slope, a significant amount of fill would be needed to construct the home at 30oot setback um from the front yard property line on parcel A. to reduce the amount of fill uh necessary on parcel, the
applicant is requesting a 20 foot front yard setback um rather than the required 30. Other reasons to consider approval of the variance um although these don't apply to the unique uh circumstances on the lot specifically uh the remainder of
the lots uh on this half block are the same size and would have been subject uh to reduced setback standards at the time of their development. Although the front yards of all the other houses on this half block are at 30 ft. Uh the proposed project would help address the city's
housing shortage. As we know, uh the applicant is proposing to build smaller um smaller lessbedroom homes designed to be for first-time home buyers uh in Newm. That's at least what his goal is. Um and then the proposed uh variance
would not impact surrounding properties. Um we did provide staff's evaluation of this variance request and that's found in your findings of fact in your packets. Um we had six attachments variance application site location map zoning map
site map ground level photos and then the staff's response to findings of facts. Um, if the planning commission would recommend this variance for approval, we'd recommend two conditions. One, that the applicant shall pay the cost to record the variance with the
Brown County Recorders Office, and two, the applicant will uh contact the city to verify the location of buildings once they're staked. There's two potential motions. One to um recommend approval of the variance with conditions and one to recommend denial.
And that would conclude the staff report. I would note in this staff report also um we put together uh at the let me get back here.
um the explanation of the variance requests and um uh the zoning amendment that happened uh with the planning commission um and the city council regarding this variance
request and how it pertains to the variance and also the simple lot division. Um, and Dave Dave provided a nice explanation for anybody that anybody here on the commission that wasn't familiar with this um or anybody reading our agenda packets on why we're
taking this type of action currently. So, did you want to say anything more about that, Dave? Okay. Uh, that would conclude the staff report. >> Thank you. Has everybody on the commission had a chance to read the
attachments like the variance application and and the notes from the city? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Has everybody gone through the finding of facts and do we need to go through each question or are you accepting them
as written? >> Accept as written is what? >> Yes, >> everyone is agreeing with that. Okay. Is there any further discussion or does anyone have questions for staff? >> I've got a question. I guess is there any concerns with being a corner lot for
traffic for sight line or anything with that? >> Great question. >> And andor have we done that before in the past on a corner lot from like a 30 to a 20 >> for comparison that you know the intersections have been safe and >> Right. So, I I did check with the city
engineer on where this house would be located and whether or not that'd be an issue with the sight triangle because we're reducing the um or would be reducing the setback only by 10 ft. It wouldn't be within that safety sight triangle at the corner and the city engineer doesn't have a concern about
safety at that corner. >> Okay. We also have um other locations in town and it's in uh the older sections of town where we have uh corner we have houses on corner lots that are on the
property line >> and in some cases they actually go over the property line. So >> I'm just asking the question, you know, just >> Good question, >> John. Does this when this gets to the
council for approval, will the ordinance be effect in effect yet or do we worry about that? >> So, we talked about we talked about that also with the city attorney. Um, he's not concerned because that's already in motion. >> All right. >> Um, that at least that's what he has
told staff >> as because that's already in motion. it's just the 30 days um which we could receive comments on um before it's officially um before it's official. But he said the planning commission could still make the recommendation to the
council. Um you know if if you guys recommend that we could wait and hold back until it's off official before we bring it to the council. That's one option. I I think I'm comfortable just having it go to council and if there's a concern
would just it wouldn't become effective until the ordinance was was also in effect. >> I'm okay with that. Okay. >> Yeah. We had no public comment or anything on Tuesday night. We just did the second hearing of it and >> and the council was they know what's coming and
>> the council knows it and you know staff explained that we're down to four four of these lots and we're trying to keep it so we don't have to go through everything and they have a tool to use for future development. >> All right. Another item specific to this um that
the the um city attorney would like the planning commission to do is when this application originally came in, you know, there were a number of variances that they requested. Um we're now only considering approving one. Um and he
just recommended that the planning commission would make some type of motion to wave wave the other variances that were requested and only focus on this one and make approval on this one setback variances for the front yard.
>> Wave and not not deny. I mean we >> Yeah, he he didn't say outright deny. He said he he made it sound like wave them because they're not necessary anymore. >> Okay. because of the ordinance amendment,
>> they're not even included on >> they're not included in the staff report, but they're included in the original variance request is what which is what we're considering here still. >> That was the October meeting. Right. >> Right. >> And that's because we tabled it.
>> We tabled it. I think it's just a way to make things cleaner that it's understood that this is no, you know, was no longer under consideration. >> Are there any other questions or discussion regarding this matter?
If not, I'm looking for a motion. Well, I would move that we would recommend approval of the front setback variants from um garden um based upon topography and other considerations. Uh German, sorry. Thank you. Um but we would wave all other uh
variance requests found in the original application except the German setback. Uh and there would be the two conditions that staff has in the report. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it.
>> I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? >> I >> I >> opposed. Motion carried. Thank you. Closes the public hearing portion of the meeting.
I And I guess we already all accepted the the Did I miss approval of the excuse me, did I miss the approval of the finding of facts? We all agreed. Correct. Or do I need a motion? >> You did. >> Yeah. You don't have to make a separate motion on that.
>> Okay. Okay. Then I'm closing this section. >> All right. Old business, continuation of simple lot division, 1527 South German Street City. >> All right. And if you don't mind, I'm also going to give an abbreviated
version of this staff report as well. Um, this uh this simple lot division request is by Jim Cretch, Senior, Southside Property Management LLC. The legal description is lot 8, block 41 South of Center Street. Um, deadline for
a decision on this uh request is February 6, 2026. This was also given an extension. To date, we have not received any public comments on this request. Um the proposed lot split has dimensions of
uh or the proposed lot to be split has dimensions of 50x 165 and a total lot area of 8,250 square ft. Again, the owner is proposing to split the lot equally, which would allow the construction of a single family home on
each parcel. Um the proposed legal descriptions would be parcel A, um the southwesterly 82.84 84 ft of lot 8, block 41 south of Center Street, City of New, Brown County, Minnesota. And
then parcel B, lot 8, block 41, uh, south of Center Street, City of New, Brown County, Minnesota, except the southwesterly 82.84 ft thereof. In order for the applicant to develop the property with two single family
homes, there was a variance that needed to be um granted to reduce the front yard uh set back on South German Street on parcel A. Um the two the new parcels that have lot dimensions of 50.12 by
82.84, that's parcel A, and then 50.125 by 82.84, and that's parcel B. There are five attachments. Uh the applicant's letter and survey. Attachment two is the site location map. Attachment three is
the zoning map. Attachment four is a simple lot division map. And then attachment five or ground level photos. Um staff would recommend approval of the simple lot division uh with actually two conditions since it complies with the city code requirements. Uh the
conditions we'd recommend would be the uh one, the approval is subject to the applicant recording the resolution authorizing the simple lot division with the Brown County Recorders Office. And then condition two would be the applicant shall provide a 5-ft utility easement along the north line of parcel
B. And that's because electric is located along uh the bike trail. In order to feed parcel A, they would like utility easement along the north line of parcel B. There's two potential motions. One to recommend approval of the simple
lot division with the legal descriptions and then one to recommend a denial. That would conclude the staff report. >> Are there any questions? John, on the um surveyor certification,
um parcel A shows a a cleanout. What is that? >> Oh, a sewer a sewer cleanout. >> So, is that an issue with >> No, it's it's stubbed into the lot. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> All right. >> Good question. If you were to drive by that site right now, you'd see that
white stand pipe in into the lot, and that's the se the sewer service for that lot. >> Okay. Then parcel B will have to have a service put into it. >> Yep. Parcel B's sewer. For them to get sewer, they have to go down here um bottom of the hill near the bike trail.
And there's a manhole in the street where they have to come from into parcel B. And the uh property owner is aware of that and aware of the utility needs uh in order to make this work on this site. He's aware also there's is that a special hookup fee then to tie on or
just it's >> he probably have to he's going to have to pay three and three for for this new lot that he's creating. >> Sure. >> Or sorry new developable lot. >> New developable. >> Any further questions?
I'll make a motion to approve uh with one condition the simple lot division of a lot 8 block 41 south of center street city of New Brown County Minnesota with the new legal description
to read as follows parcel A the southwesterly 82.484 4 84 ft of lot A, block 41, south of Center Street, City of New, Brown County, Minnesota. And parcel B, lot 8, block 41 south of
Center Street, City of New, Brown County, Minnesota, except South Except Southwesterly 82.84T thereof. >> Could I just step in real quick? conditions >> with conditions
>> you the two conditions that are listed. >> Thanks. >> A motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> I have a motion in a second. Are there any further questions? >> If not, all in favor? >> I >> I
>> opposed. Motion carried. When does this appear again? >> This will go to the uh first meeting in January to the city council. >> January. January 6th. Thank you. reports city council decisions concerning planning commission.
>> Okay. At the um December 2nd meeting, they had the first consideration of the ordinance that was just discussed. Um and they voted approval at the
December 16th meeting. Um they had um some nonplanning commission items. Uh one of which uh was um they established a tax abatement
program um for a development at 2229 North Highland Avenue. It's um uh two rows of town houses um and it's near the
railroad and the Lakeside Village edition. >> Um second item uh was the second consideration of the ordinance that uh we just talked about and then the
council voted to approve that ordinance. Uh third item was um they approved an amendment of the tax abatement agreement between the city of New Alm Garden Terrace New LLC
and Highland Manor Incorporated doing business as Oakill's living center and that's for the housing project. Um the council had approved the original agreement back on November 18th.
Um the developer was provided with a copy of the agreement prior to that meeting. Um but in the interim found some items that they wanted further discussion about and so some amendments
were made. They were fairly minor. city attorney obviously was involved in that process and so the council approved the um amendment. Um, another item
um had to do with um a tax abatement um again being located a proposed project being located at fourth
north and Broadway where that uh fence is up and there is the uh appearance of a project uh to take place. Um what has been found is that um there are a number of buildings that
previously were there. So there's a number of basements that have not been fully dug out. >> Um the soil is also in some locations um not suitable for the type of project
that they want to build. So, um, this is additional cost to the project and so they requested that the city establish a tax abatement district to help pay for that additional cost.
And so, it's kind of a two-step process and the council um authorized staff to prepare the necessary documents to establish that activate That would conclude the um report.
>> Thank you. >> How long do those tax abatement um approvals run? Is it like 10 years or is it dependent upon the project? >> It depended on the project. The um the state um in statute established a
number of different terms. Um the typical term is 15 years. The city more recently has taken the position that they would like to stick with 10 years. However, this particular project in
order to cover all of the anticipated uh costs is going to be a 13-year program. Um, if you can get either the school district or the county to submit
a letter saying that um they were in opposition to the proposed um uh use of tax abatement then you can extend the term of the district to 20
years. So 20 years would be the max. This um uh funding mechanism is different in that um the city, the county and the school district
each if they were to support it has to do it individually. So they would have to go through a separate approval process. um each bodywood. And I would note that Brown County is participating in the
Garden Terrace uh project. >> They just um approved that at their meeting this past Tuesday. >> Oh wow. >> So uh a project could have one, two, or three different >> depending upon what approval level they get. >> Yeah.
>> At the different >> Yeah. And it's really up to the developer to um make a decision on um how many they they wish to approach. Uh I think it's fair to say that most
developers have shied away from asking the school district since they um frequently um have financial challenges and so they don't normally approach them.
Uh, and this is the first time the county has um done a project with the city. So, we're pleased to see that. Who initiated that? Was it the developer said, "I'm going to go talk with the county," or did did the city say, "Let's
try this?" Well, in that particular case, the um developer needed the funding >> in order to do the project and you know that was presented to the commissioners and they agreed that it
would be appropriate in this particular case. Interesting. There any further discussion? question. I'm assuming there was no heritage preservation commission or is
>> there was nothing to report. >> Is there any further business to come before the commission? >> Well, I did want to mention that uh you get you all of the decision decisions you've made on the different housing projects this year has um been noticed.
In fact, they did an article on all the different housing projects in the Star Tribune pretty recently um on what's happening in New and our let's call it our um our more open approach to look considering different types of projects
and different types of locations. Um it must have caught some ears. So >> you didn't see the article but were there more residentially oriented or just everything? >> They covered all of them. >> All of them. Um there was four major I would say the four the first four
projects that we did. They didn't um I believe spend any time with the garden terrorists. >> No they they didn't. And that's probably because was the interview before >> Yeah. >> Yeah. before that took place. >> John, could you share that article with the commissioners?
>> Sure. >> You know, just for reading material and >> Yeah, that would be nice. >> Emphasis. Did >> any action take place with the tiny homes within the community this fall? Did they break ground or anything? >> No, they didn't break ground. I think um
and we just talked with um Project Spark yesterday um there's a little hold up with the engineering um that way. Sounds like they are fully funded to do at least these first two houses um and are
willing to to break ground whenever they can. Um, I think it's probably a little late in the year right now with with conditions, but it's so it's likely going to be a spring project. >> Listen to the wind. >> I know. Can you hear that? No. >> Yeah. Frost actually isn't too deep right now,
>> but if we get a number of hard frosts, it it could be over for >> for concrete at least. So are we still waiting for the ground to freeze for or for garden terrace to >> it's our understanding that they are
going to start after the first of the year. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Well, I'd like to um as I am this is my last meeting. I would like to thank the city and all of the commissioners here. It's been a great bunch of people to
work with and it's been fun. It's been a very interesting year for for for us all. Last year was with the with the u changes that we made last year and this year was certainly interesting. So I want to thank you and
have a great continuence. Is there any other business hearing? None. The meeting stands adjourned. Thank you.