planning commission. No, we're not ready to go yet. >> All right, there you go. >> Let's start this again. It is now 4:30. We'll open up the the May planning commission meeting for the city of New. We have five members here, so we have quorum. we can do official business.
That's a good thing. Uh first thing on the agenda is approval of minutes from April 30th. Have we all taken a look at it and are we okay with it? >> I just have a couple of things. Um approval of minutes, the March 26, 2026.
Uh it's fine in the heading, but in the paragraph it says February 26th instead of March. >> There it is. And uh then the next paragraph down um regarding Mr. Joseph Deml. Joseph Joseph is misspelled. If we
could just get that changed. That's it. >> Linda reads in detail. Thank you. Did anybody catch anything else or think we should change something? All right. Well, with those two additions, could we have a motion for approval?
>> Motion to approve. >> We have a second. >> A second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. Okay. Anybody opposed? Nope. Approved is corrected. We have uh one development case tonight and there's two public hearings associated with it. Um and they're both
for M andD properties and Wells. The first is a resoning and if we I'm not sure who's presenting that staff report, but >> I'll be presenting this. >> John's standing, so please go ahead with that. Just wanted to pull a map up right away
so we can all have a reference when we're going through the staff report. Um, so this is a public hearing on the resoning from AOS, that's agricultural open space to R3, the medium density residence district. The applicant is M
&D Properties LLC and the property owner is Adam and Shana Wells. The legal description of the property is lot 1 block 1 Wells subdivision with the street address of 2405 North Highland Avenue. Um I would note that in 2024 the
property was petition petitioned by Mr. Wells for annexation. The city council subsequently approved the annexation petition as required by the city zoning ordinance. The property is zoned AOS at the time of its annexation. the approval of the change in the zoning of the
property from AOS must follow the established resoning process. So for a little background on this uh on this property um and application uh deadline for a decision on this request is July 10th, 2026.
The comprehensive plan land use designation for this property is medium density residential. Surrounding land uses in the comprehensive plan are um medium high medium and highdensity residential to the north. Um medium high and low density residential to the east.
To the south we have lowdensity residential. And then to the west we have medium and lowdensity residential. The current zoning designation of this property is AOS. Again that's agricultural open space. The requested zoning for the property is R3. That's
the medium density residence district. surrounding zoning for this property. To the north uh is um with outside the city limits and in Brown County uh their zoning designation is A1 agricult agriculture. To the east we have um R3
that's medium density residence district, R4 the highdensity residence district and then R1 single family residence district. To the south we also have R1 and then to the west we have R3 and R1. Currently, the site is undeveloped.
Current area uses, uh, to the north, uh, Brown County, it's undeveloped, Wooded Hillside. Um, to the east, uh, is undeveloped. Vista Prairie at Ridgeway on 23rd, Trollic Estates, and single family dwellings. To the south, we have
single family dwellings, twin homes, railroad, uh, undeveloped lot, and a park. To the west, we have town homes, uh, which are six buildings. There's four units per building. Uh single family dwellings and uh undeveloped property. Um we did provide all property
owners within 350 ft of the subject property um and published in the new alm journal on May 16th, 2026. Um at the time the staff report went out uh or was published. We didn't have any public comments. We did have um from a
co-orker today that they had received comment from a a nearby neighbor um that they were not um supportive or were in opposition of this proposed reszoning. Status of utilities. Utilities are located in North Highland Avenue and to
the north of the property. The existing utilities in North Island have North Highland Avenue can serve the lot being considered for resoning. Um the comprehensive plan does not recommend a park uh within the recommended area for reszoning. So I'm going to go through a description
of the comprehensive plan uh medium density and then uh the zoning that's being proposed here as well. So as noted earlier, the property is designated as medium density residential in the city's comprehensive plan. The property proposed for resoning is part of a
larger area assigned to this land use classification. The comprehensive plan states that medium density residential includes a range of housing types such as single family detached and attached housing, twin homes, town homes, duplexes, row houses, and moderate
density multifamily housing consisting of attached and detached housing units. The density range for this category is between 1 and 12 units per acre. In 1996, the comprehensive plan uh in
the 1996 comprehensive plan, this area or lot that we're talking about was designated as a park. In 2007, the comprehensive plan placed this property in a med med medium density residence category. And then in 2024, when the plan was updated, uh it was again
designated as medium density residential zoning. Uh, so the property was in Milford Township until its annexation in 2024. Prior to that time, Brown County had zoned the property A1 Agriculture. It's typical with annexation of
property. It's placed in the AOS zoning district. Uh, it was placed in the AOS zoning district in 2024 when it was annexed. Uh the purpose of the AOS uh zoning district is to provide areas that will be retained in agricultural use in advance for the need of these lands for
urban purposes. Two, to prevent scattered non-aggricultural development from developing improperly. Three, to secure economy of governmental expenditures for public utilities and services. Four, to prevent inappropriate development in flood hazard areas of the
Minnesota and Cottonwood River. And finally five to provide locations for public and semi-public uses. The purpose of the R3 medium density residence district is to provide medium density housing including one and two unit dwellings along with directly
related complimentary uses. So now we're going to talk about specific property information um and project information regarding this request. The property proposed for resoning is 1.9 acres in size or 82,764
square ft. The resoning of the property would accommodate uh the construction of 15 dwelling units, two garages, and a storm water retention pond. The developer has requested, as you can see tonight, a variance to allow one additional dwelling unit um on the
property to get to 16 dwelling units. Uh the developer is proposing to construct a private drive lane from the north property line veering south and then passing through the proposed development and intersecting with North Highland Avenue. You can see that um in
the attached site plan. Take this again. The development plan would include 40 off streetet parking uh off streetet parking stalls and the zoning ordinance requires uh 32 um off- streetet parking stalls or two per unit. So they're
providing more parking than the zoning ordinance would require. The property will be required to provide site landscaping and meet the provisions found in section 10.2c3b of the zoning ordinance. Uh screening would also need to be provided along the
south property line and in other locations prop uh abuing property zoned to R1. Uh the screening provisions are found in section 10.2D3H of the zoning ordinance and the owner can provide screening uh via landscape plantings or solid fence. I would note um when
discussing this with the um applicant, there are existing some existing evergreen trees, large evergreen trees on that uh south property line. It's their intention to keep those in place and then to add additional screening both to the west and to the east of that
in the form of further plantings. Uh the project site can be subdivided uh as follows. 46% would be grass or ground cover, 33% pavement, 18% buildings, and 3% storm water retention pond. Uh these
figures are rounded in determining the final numbers. Uh the south building wall will be 70 ft from the south property line of the parcel. Um and the driving lane will be 9.5 ft north of the uh parcel property line.
2024 comprehensive plan statements on current housing trends. So, population growth is anticipated to continue in new during the next decade. The medium price for homes right now is uh uh homes for sale right now is uh
290,000 which would require higher income than new alms 2022 medium income which is $72,819 uh um that they can afford. High higher interest rates can place additional pressure on potential uh budget buyers
budgets. High construction and material costs make it challenging for builders to deliver new single family homes for less than $300,000. There's a growing demand for a variety of housing types including town homes and twin homes. The rental vacancy rate including market rate affordable and
subsidied house subsidized housing in newm was8%. Which is significantly lower than the industry standard of 5 to 7%. There's still a strong demand for a wide range of h uh rental housing options.
Three or four unit buildings in 2022 made up 2.6% of new housing stock. The comprehensive plan also contains a statement that the city regulations should protect neighborhoods from incompatible land uses through effective zoning and city code requirements.
Okay. Applicant information resoning criteria. So, pursuant to the Minnesota law established by the Minnesota Supreme Court, decisions on resoning requests must be based on the consideration of the following criteria. Whether the proposed resoning corrects an error in the original zoning text or map. whether
the or whether the proposed resoning addresses a need arising from a changing condition, trend or fact affecting the subject property and surrounding area. The reasoning must meet one of the two criteria that I just described. Of the two criteria, the resoning uh proposed
resoning does not correct an error in the original zoning text or map. As a result, the resoning can only be approved if it addresses a changing condition, trend, or fact affecting the property and surrounding area. Third criteria uh can be to be considered following decision on the
first two is whether the proposed resoning is consistent with achieving the goals and objectives outlined in the 2024 comprehensive plan. It's the responsibility of the petitioner to provide information justifying their request to the planning commission.
The proposed resoning from AOS to R3 addresses a need or trend for additional housing that is being sought in the community. The proposed reszoning from R3 is consistent with the medium density land use designation found in the comprehensive plan. Staff recommendation. Uh the staff would
recommend approval of the resoning request for the following reasons. One, in 2022, the rental vacancy rate including uh market rate affordable and subsidized housing in new was8 uh% which is significantly lower than the industry standard of 5 to 7%. The existing rental
rate indicates a need for additional housing units. Two, proposed resoning from AOS to R3 addresses a need or trend for additional housing that is being sought in the community. Three, a proposed town home project uh with 15 units qualifies as a permitted
use on this uh in this proposed R3 zoning district. Four, the proposed resoning from AOS to R3 addresses a need or trend for additional housing that is being sought for the community. Five, single family housing because of cost currently is is
not currently available a viable housing option for many new homem residents that currently rent. Properly sized multifamily housing is one of few viable options in New uh housing community. Six land uses that abote the property to
the north, east, and west are zoned for medium and highdensity residential. The proposed resoning would be compatible with those adjoining zoning districts. Uh the property is a suitable location for medium-density development. Seven, according to the housing study, a change in condition would be that the subject
property is now available for a medium-density residential development due to the availability of utilities and street access. Eight, another change in condition is the need for additional housing in appropriate locations with in the community. Nine, the community has a
need for additional medium density residential zone space. This time, property zone for lowdensity residential makes up 91.2% of all residential property in the community. Medium density residential takes up 3.4% and
then high density 5.4%. 10. Uh the new home projected general occupancy demand between 22 2022 and 2030 is 364 units. The projected senior demand from 2022 to 2027 is 440 units.
The total need for housing units would be 804. Residential development to date would need to be subtracted from this number. So since uh uh 2022, city has issued building permits for a net of 167 units.
Uh to reach each to reach the housing goals in the housing study by 2030, the city will need to construct a total of 637 additional dwelling units. Uh these these factors are evidence of a changing condition, a need, trend or fact uh that
would justify the resoning. We have seven attachments. Um, sorry, we'll be having to flip these around a little bit. Um, first is the reasonzoning petition by
the applicant and property owner. Um, petitioning the property to go from a the zoning designation of AOS to R3. Whoops, sorry. Um the second um the second attachment
is uh the site location map. There we go. Um outlined in red is the property that we're um we received the petition on.
Attachment three is the zoning map. Um as you can see to the north this area that you can just see the aerial photo that is um outside city municipal boundary. Same with this to the south um the area in red is AOS here to the west
is R3 cross island is R3 and then R4 and then immediately to the south and then to the southwest is R1. Attachment four is uh the proposed site map um by the developer.
As you can see, there would be um what they're proposing is to have a private through roadway or drive that would go from their existing development to the west um to the south following the south property line of the new development and
then out onto North Highland Avenue. Attachment five. This should actually say comprehensive plan map. Um, this is the subject property and you can see over here in the in our legend it's medium density residential.
Attached uh attachment six are ground level photos. So this is from North Highland Avenue facing north. The trees that I was uh mentioning earlier that could be used for screening are these evergreens right here. There's also a couple large deciduous trees still
there. Um this is a little further down the lot and facing uh northwest. And then this is at the corner um of North Highland Avenue and then the access road to the the gravel pit. Um
and lastly we have attachment seven that is the findings of fact uh staff completed findings of facts. Um if recommended for approval staff would recommend three conditions. One, that the south property line abuing the
R1 zoned property shall be screened as required by section 10.2D of the zoning ordinance. Two, that a storm water plan showing how both lot one block one well subdivision and lot one block two lakeside edition will meet the appropriate engineering standards for
the shared facility. And then three, provide um appropriate private cross easements between lot one block one well subdivision and lot one block two lakeside edition including but not limited to storm water utilities, water, sanitary sewer, parking, garage access,
and a private drive. Uh we provided two potential motions, one to recommend approval um of the resoning petition and then one to recommend denial. Um, that concludes the staff report.
>> Thank you, John. Before we open the floor for for public comment, do we as a commission have any questions or or comment? And then we'll discuss after we we hear public comments. I do have one question. Did you did you
mention, John, that we have received um response to uh notices? Yes. to know >> uh a person who received a notice contacted another city staff um regarding this and they were opposed to
the project. They didn't contact me directly or Mr. Schno directly >> and we don't know what the opposition was. What >> uh they don't they they didn't want this type of development taking place there. >> Oh, okay. Any other questions before we open the
hearing? >> John, I'm just going to ask a question. If this was going to be if someone's going to build single family homes here, how many homes would be on the property or could be potentially? >> Uh, well, the requirement, I'm going to have to do some math here
real quick. Um, the requirement for minimum lot frontage for the R1 zoning district is 90 ft. Um, and if it were to be R1, I believe this was, shoot, if I'm not mistaken, 200
270 ft. Um, so they'd be able to potentially fit >> two maybe three. >> Two, maybe three lots. >> That being said, um, it more than meets the lot depth requirements. There would be potential to fit more lots up there
to have some kind of culde-sac um, going towards the back lot. Sure. >> That that brings another question to mind for me, John. Um, the comprehensive plans, the land use designation for this site is medium density residential,
correct? >> Yes. >> So, what are the the potential uses that are allowed in that guided land use? >> Well, it can go from single family all the way to attached dwellings up to up to 12 units per acre. >> Okay. Um, so the kind of the one of the
main differences between our comp plan and our our zoning ordinance with medium density is actually our our comp plan um allows for higher density in the medium density designated area. Um it would require 3600 square ft per dwelling unit
if you're going up to 12 units per acre. Whereas our zoning ordinance in the R3 requires 5,500 square feet per dwelling unit um if going in the R3 zoning district. So there's a discrepancy there. >> Okay. And the R3 zoning district is the
densest you can get within the medium density residential guiding. Is that correct? You can't go to high density zoning in a medium density guided property, right? >> No. >> Okay. >> John, you mentioned affordability as an
issue. Do you know do we have any idea what the pricing will be for these? um it's market rate, so they're going to be probably in that um 1,200 range up. >> Okay. >> The uh diagram you got on there has a
garage on the back side and I saw another one in there that has the actual uh the doors will be on the west side going out off of the property technically. How does that work? So the
develop the uh applicant for this project M andD properties is also the owner of this development immediately to the west. >> Okay. >> So they would have to they would have to even even though they own both properties they'd have to have reciprocal easement agreements to be able to use and access the back of those
driveways from the other property that they own to the west. >> Okay. But that's something they can easily put together because they don't own both. Yeah. All right. And >> John, just to clarify, because it's a private drive, the city won't be
maintaining that road. >> No, we won't be maintaining it and we won't be doing the signage for it, >> but there will be access onto Highland. That driveway will be an access onto Highland, >> right? And we would recommend that the
developer have signage that clearly states that this is a private drive because we don't want it to turn into something where other residents in Lakeside Village are using this private drive as a shortcut to get to their homes. Um maybe further to the let's call it the north side of Lakeside
Village. >> This is kind of site planning now, but that brings up another question. Is the is the private drive will it be narrower than a standard street so it isn't >> welcoming to the public? Yeah, that's our understanding. >> Okay. >> It won't be a 40 foot wide 40 foot wide apron or anything like that.
>> All right. >> Make a comment >> in a moment. We'll open up to the floor in just just a second. >> But basically, John, they wouldn't have to come here if they came forward with their plan and said they're at 15 units. They're good.
>> Well, there's two steps to what we're taking a look at regarding this property in particular. The first step that it would absolutely be required is that it has to be reszoned to allow medium density development and they're proposing the reszoning or they
petitioned to reszone um following the guidance in the comprehensive plan. They also had requested a variance to go up to 16 units. this site. Um, if it were reszoned and if they didn't ask for a variance,
they would be permitted to do 15 units on the site outright >> with no public hearing. >> Correct. >> Are we ready for the floor? All right, let's we'll open the meeting then to the public. If you have any comments, please step up where John is and give us your
name and address and at this point. >> Hello. Um, my name is Paul Mayday. I recently built a house at 2605 North Highland and moved in in November 13th, 2025. It's just down the road from this proposed apartment complex. Uh,
personally, I'm not opposed to adding more apartment complexes in Newm, but I am opposed to reszoning this for this proposed complex in my area. I believe there is more areas that could be researched within New for this to be
built but not built by a single or twin home area. Would this I consider this kind of like spot zoning maybe? It's in my opinion and the city can answer that. Um you know they're talking possibly 40 car parking stalls that would load into
North Highland. So you got an ex additional traffic and and after I've moved from Nicola County having lived in New houses, I enjoy living back in New. But sitting on my porch out front, I see a lot of traffic. But it also, as you're probably aware of it, and I hope you all
have been past this property and physically uh viewed it. That city bike trail walking path is on my side of the street, the same side of this apartment complex, and there's a lot of families that go past there. uh bicycles, kids,
especially now with the summer coming up, school out. Uh I consider that a safety hazard with the additional 40 vehicles potentially parked at that apartment complex. Um you know, there's we could go on and on and uh I can
I'll I'll state I was never informed of this, but I'm aware of the 350 ft limit. Okay. But talking to neighbors and finding this out, uh, we were hoping that we would all have been informed of it. The county owes the county maintains that road, North Highland, and the city
will attest to that. They they they plow it. They maintain the road even though it's not it's part of New Alm. So, they're pretty good on plowing and stuff, but it, you know, it's not one of their high priorities sometimes, but they've been pretty good this last winter for the storms that we did come
through. Um, you know, they're they're talking about the comprehensive plan for so many years out. Well, it's a plan. You know, it it's not written gold, so to speak. You know, they save so many houses. Well, I know my builder,
Al Pal, who's developing areas up by the old Chancery Road, I call it. He's putting up twin homes and they're selling like hotcakes. And it's a lot of older people that want a patio house. He's got three of the four sold already that he just put up. They're putting up
they're moving into a patio house. Their house become town becomes available. So it kind of a a spirals. So yes, I agree. It'd be nice to have more apartment complexes, but you look at what a private in investor put by the high school too. And I talked to John earlier
and he says that they're probably full already. So they'll plan to build the other two and they're mic marker rate. But I personally know someone that called their office to see what their rates were and there was $17 to $1,900 depending upon one or two bedroom.
We've got a lot of people that are buying houses in Newm just lately. If you drive around New signs on and houses and some of them aren't that 300,000 or under. There's a lot of houses that recently sold for 400,000, 500,000, 500,000, 600,000. And they're people
that are moving in to gnome because they might might not necessarily want to live in Mano. Okay. Mano's growing big big time as we all know if we drive over there. it. Uh it's kind of nice to have our small town community even though um
we want to grow, don't get me wrong, but you look at our uh our sign as you come into New So somebody can tell me what it was under population and when they had that last survey, it just bumped over that thousand mark or whatever. Yeah,
it's good to have this done. But, uh, I I think all in all, as a homeowner that I invest a lot into my new single place, buying an acre lot, I think Mr. Wells could do better by marketing it
with a realtor. My personal opinion, he just has a sign up front for sale. And I' I've talked to several actually three different people telling me about the lot that were thinking about building a patio house cuz they've seen my house, personal friends of mine. and you know they just haven't pulled the trigger yet
and they haven't talked to talked to him personally. But if again my personal opinion if he listed it with a realtor instead of just having a sign with you know small for sale sign with his number on it that would sell in a heartbeat. Where do you find potentially over an acre of property in
New Alm to build a house and it's not going to be an inexpensive house. As we know housing prices have gone up. I'm afraid to say what I got invested in mine and I'm afraid to see the taxes, but I I I knew that coming into it.
Okay. And I still think personally that property should still be a single residence property. We don't need I call it spot zoning even though the city might not call it that and and know their comprehensive plan says it's you
know could be good spot to put it. let the developer uh M andD find another spot. You know, let them look, you know, it and nothing against Mr. Wells or, uh, Mike Crawl or or, uh, Dale Busher, the developers, but it's just, you know,
they they jump on property and I don't think, uh, Mr. Wells is getting what he was asking because I knew what he was asking for a lot. And I know the new neighbors that are building next to the brick house that's been there for years that Mandy and Carol had recently purchased, they never knew about this
coming either. And they honestly, and you'll hear from them most likely, they probably wouldn't have bought that house if that was going to be passed and or this new couple from Mano or actually Madison Lake, which said they thought about building a Mano, but they wanted to get into a smaller town. You know,
Mano's grown so much. there's more stuff happening that some isn't good, some is some isn't bad. But my uh personal opinion is we should consider this and I would appreciate if the planning
commission would either deny it or basically table it and let some more thought go into this process instead of kind of shoving it down the neighbor's throat, so to speak. Uh if you have any questions, I'd be
more than happy to answer. And thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We'll we'll address um your concerns after I think we've collected all of the comments and then we'll we'll ask John and David to address some of these main issues. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. Good evening. Um, sorry. My name is Kim Conungle and I just recently bought the property um in the Wells subdivision, lots four
and five and I'm building a new patio home there. Uh I guess when we bought the property, Adam had told us it wasn't going to get developed by a developer. So, I I like that idea because the
reason I picked that area was because it's got some trees and it's a little private and I have grandkids, so the walking path was kind of cool and I just
we literally started digging and then I got the letter from the city and I'll tell you what, if I would have started digging, I think I would have can the idea um that's not the the neighborhood I
wanted or the character I wanted to be in neighborhood I wanted to be in um it's it's kind of a well I'll just read you what I wrote.
Um, I'm here to ask the commission to deny the request to reszone the nearby parcel from AOS to R3. My decision to invest savings into a building a home on this blocks was entirely based on the protections
guaranteed by the surrounding areas not being right in the middle of a development. I I realized we're close to a development, but I figured, well, there's enough space and there were nice
trees. It It's a really nice lot. Um, and I think that the implications that are going to I realize growth is inevitable,
but sometimes I think it can grow too fast or not at the right quality. Um, not to mention the the the neighborhood characteristics. I kind of pictured this cute little neighborhood, you know, all I'll build here and there's a house, a
little brick house there, and then there's a couple extra lots. And I thought, you know, I've even talked to a few of my friends that haven't pulled the trigger yet, but I'm like, "Oh, you should build the, you know, buy one of these lots and we could be neighbors."
I spent a lot I'll be contributing a lot to the city of New Alm and I guess I'm just a little disappointed that It wasn't what I expected.
Like I said, had I found out a few weeks sooner before we started digging, I probably would have, if I known that was going to go through, I probably would have canned the idea of building there. Um
then I also read in the paper that the developer you also have given him a tax abatement. Um
so that means use on our street and increasing that much traffic. We the personal homeowners are going to be responsible for maintaining all of that through our taxes. Just kind of seems like
not fair. And now he wants to change that. It It's kind of seems like he's double dipping a little bit. That's all I have. >> Kim, before you sit down, um John, are
you back there? >> Yeah. Could you pull up the the map that kind of shows the neighborhood and where the all lots are so Kim could point out I'd kind of like to know what lot she's building on. >> Right. And >> I'd like to know where Mr. Mayday's home
is too. How close to this area? >> Right there. Right, Kim? >> Yep. Those two lots. I have two lots. Yeah. >> Are those the one right on on on North Highland? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. They got trees around them and and
then there's a brick house next to it. >> My's house. Oh, I'm sorry. The brick house. >> The comments should be made up there. >> All right. So, that's what I wanted to know. And also, Kate wanted to know if we could point out on the map where you
live as well, just so we have a good idea. >> We live. >> We'll wait until you get him up here and then we'll point you out. Uh, Mr. Mayday lives right here. >> Okay. >> Right here >> on the west side of
>> where we are. >> Oh, >> to the north. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Kim. >> Where does Mandy live? >> I'm just going to say something on her behalf here. It's like um >> And you are?
>> I'm Greg, your friend. >> Okay. >> A boyfriend. whatever they call people like me nowadays. But >> we call you Greg. >> Yeah. >> So anyway, um >> to push Kim out of the way.
>> We need an address, too, please. >> Yeah. >> We need an address. >> Just the biggest thing, I guess. >> Can we get your address, too? >> Just for the record. Sorry. >> 3762 Sue Lane, Madison Lake, Minnesota. >> All right. >> Okay.
So, the biggest thing now is I'm Yeah, why this spot for that? There's other places in the city, I'm sure, that are already zoned for putting up uh this medium density structure.
And why not put them there? Is it because what he's built before is on top of the hill and he will get uh he he's received tax abatement financing uh for the the upper level that he's built and
below here is he going to also receive that I guess is what we're curious about because there's something driving us. you you know the the lot he's going to have to take a lot of uh of uh material out of there to make it work. It the
excavation costs are going to be pretty high. So, um anyway, I just, you know, like like Kim, I don't I don't see the idea why it can't be left four houses to be built along there. It doesn't make any sense. But realizing
that, you know, you guys are going to do what you want to do. So, and just I mean, she got very little notice on this and um that that was an issue. Otherwise, she would have stopped the project. She had
money tied into it already. If she would have known this, she wouldn't be building there. So, >> right. >> Anyway, that's all I got. >> Thank you. John, could you show me again where her where their property is? >> Yes.
>> Could you go to um a a closer zoom? >> Yeah, zoom in on because I think >> we can see it on our >> Is this better? >> I use a pointer. >> Use the pointer. Okay. >> Yeah, >> there you go. >> I'm kind of in the way here.
Um, >> I'm kind of in the way. >> I'm sorry. >> Kim lives right here. >> Um, the Helgots live right here. It's a blurry picture, but there's a home existing home right here. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. >> There's a vacant lot that's zoned R1
owned by Mr. Wells. And then this property uh that we're talking about right now. >> Oh, and sorry. And then Mr. Mayday uh lives right here. All right. Thank you.
>> And there are already apartments to the left of the red box, correct? >> There's already a department. >> Total of 24 units there. There's six four unit buildings. >> Yep. How long have those been there?
>> What's that? >> How long have those been there? >> They were constructed between 2018 and 2022. >> Okay. >> Okay. Let's gather some more um public comment and then we'll try to try to address some of the concerns.
>> I'm Carol Hel. I'm not very good at this. I've never done it. >> That's okay. Just >> I was curious. >> Tell them your address. >> Oh, my address is what is it? 2313 North Highland. I am next to Kim. Um, I
also when we bought our property, we moved in in January, the beginning of January. And part of the reason we chose the brick house that's been there since 1967, was because of its location. We came
from the farm. We didn't want somebody on top of us. We didn't want traffic running all over the place. I just found out now how far where we are in relation to this um resoning thing.
And um like Kim said too, this was why we chose that place, not because we want more apartment buildings. And besides that, isn't there already two up on Highland,
which everybody knows? They're also building two more. Aren't they talking about George's Ballroom, Market Plus Mall, all those places becoming apartment buildings? I I I mean, I'm I'm not quibbling. I'm
just quibbling why here. Now, um and why we weren't notified. I am happy about the fact that there is a lot between our place and the complex,
>> but overall I think no. We'd rather have our little neighborhood >> private drive. >> H >> private drive. >> Oh yeah. Where where would the the driveway be again, John? >> Let me show you.
>> I you know these maps make no sense to me. I couldn't even find Highland on it. >> Yeah, this is like your like you're a bird looking down. Um, this would probably be the best one. Here's the private, this is a closeup, but here's the private drive and then it
would go back this other development. So, if we were going to look at it in relation to your property, private drive would be right here along this line. >> So, And this is
>> so that's Highland. >> Yeah. >> Not crazy about that either. >> Thank you, Carol. Anyone else? >> It depends. Do you have something additional to offer?
>> I just noticed with that. >> Go ahead. Again, my name is Paul M, 2605 North Highland. If I heard you correctly, John, on that map for that development, if you want to point that out again, their driveway and it looked like it was
going to go back to the existing development behind it were those other apartments. Correct. So you're going to end up with a lot more than 40 cars coming out that way. They're going to take the shortcut instead of taking that Lake Avenue coming back all the way to that apartment complex. So now we're not only loading 40 cars. How many are in
those apartments? >> It's 24 units. >> 24 units. And uh figure at least two if not you know there's another 48 cars potentially coming taking that shortcut coming to Highland by that safety issue of that walking path, the bicycle path
etc. you know what is what is right and so um again my personal opinion I would appreciate denying it and uh that's my thought thank you >> right thank you >> John does the driveway have to be
permitted by city staff as far as private driveway to adjoin two properties >> you know say if we were put conditions that you couldn't add to the other development Is it or is it if they own both parcels they can do what they want?
>> Um I would say that we have since well it's a good question. I think that um we we probably could have some um guidance on that. I don't know that we could direct say directly you can't do that. If they are allowing um by
easement to use that privately um I believe we would have to allow it. Um, but you know, that being said, I know um I understand uh the comments. We also do receive comments um off and on, at least
city engineers office does about traffic going on to Mlane. Um so I think the developers idea here was trying to relieve some of that traffic off of Mac Lane and Lake Avenue. Um, so
>> I'm not sure if this is relevant, but help me remember. >> Did the planning commission review a request for an apartment complex um in that adjacent property last year? Yes. >> No, it was more years than that. >> Oh, that right. Because I wasn't on the
commission last year, two years ago. They wanted to add one more fourunit um complex and um in the development agreement we had limited the number of units there to 24 and so that um that
prevailed. Um, but we did have a number of people show up uh that lived in that general area who commented about the fact that they had young children um that they had at the time no sidewalk
and so there were bikes and um number of near misses and they were concerned about um additional traffic in that area as well. So >> in the in the Mac Lane development,
that's where the concern was, >> right? >> Cuz there was only one access. >> There was only one way in and out. >> Then we had the question about bringing in uh fire trucks, say for safety and things of that nature >> when we had the public hearing with that
and with adding more units and the safety of it. Since we're talking Just a moment, since we're talking um safety issues, um we've heard about the trail c this
private drive crossing the trail. We've tal we've talked about um a number of vehicles. John or David, could you talk about what the expected impact would be of these 40 units on on Highland and general safety in the area?
Well, I mean, they we our zoning ordinance plans for at least two vehicles per dwelling unit. Not to say that that's going to happen. Um not to say that there's going to be a family with a 16-year-old. Um so, we do anticipate that it would it would add more traffic to North Highland Avenue.
Uh definitely that being said, um they're required when entering onto that roadway um to to have open uh the proper proper safety, let's call it safety triangles or um view ship when you're entering onto that roadway. So they'll
need to have clear sight lines um going out on the North Island Avenue looking both north and south. Um now the the bike trail um or the the sidewalk um you know we we could require that
they provide additional signage um on the site or provide maybe signage along the sidewalk to watch walk for uh watch for traffic. Things like that could be considered. >> Can you show us exactly where the bike path is on here? >> Sure.
It b it borders the road. It's just off the road, >> so it runs parallel to North Island. >> Great. Great. >> It's that grays on the right side. >> It looks like a sidewalk, but it's just paved instead of sidewalk concrete. >> Gotcha. Thank you,
>> John. There's I noticed in one of the drawings that there needs to be um retaining walls at that driveway access point on the Highland. Is this is this a big grade change? Uh, will it will it affect sight lines? Um, I'm a little
worried about that, >> right? >> Come out here and not be able to see who's coming. >> Right. They won't they won't be able um wouldn't be allowed to put a curb cut in if they don't meet the safety sight lines according to the city engineer and in this case also the highway engineer.
>> Um, and the slope um on the site, there is a fair amount of slope, but a lot of it's up here on the north side of the site. There is slope here, but it's not as drastic as as over there to the north. So, but that being said, there
will be significant grading that would be need to be done. >> The uh the power line that's on the north corner is up >> retaining wall. >> Retaining wall. >> Yeah. >> But it it that's coming up the hill as you move south, right? And so at the
top, if you look at one of these site pictures, it's on the south side. It's not near as bad. That's good visibility. Oh, yeah. That's pretty flat. >> Yeah. >> I would note that um the city engineer reviews all curb cuts that come onto a
city street for safety purposes and for being in an appropriate location. >> David, is this a is it jurisdiction of this street? Is it is it a county? It's >> actually county. >> Okay. So, they they get to review it as well as this the city engineer.
>> Okay. Um could we talk a bit about we heard about spot zoning several times. Um could you explain how this is not? >> Um so staff's in staff's review of of
this um we actually believe that uh this zoning wouldn't be spot zoning and would be consistent with typical zoning patterns or what we should be doing for typical zoning patterns. And what I mean by that is that um it's connected to
another R3 property. It's across the street from an R3 property, an R4 property. Um but it is adjacent to an R1 property. Um the idea the idea being um that we're trying to either increase
density going d one direction or a different direction or decrease density going in a specific direction. and to go from R3 uh to R1 um in this in this location with R1 only abuing one
property line uh staff felt um that was appropriate. We also following our comprehensive plan which has this designated as um medium density. I would note as far as scale goes uh ask the developer how tall these buildings would
be. Um and the peak height is uh 25 feet 4 inches. So you know >> so these are these are twostory forplexes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And you're on the um you did a review of um single family dwellings that have
been permitted um this year in the city and how tall were they? >> Right. And there's a couple of the building officials in the back that may be able to help me with this too. But I looked through the applications that were um submitted this year for single family dwellings and the peak height
generally ranged from uh 18 ft up to 23 feet. 22 23 feet. >> Okay. >> Um >> hang on a second. Um I'd kind of like to get through the first round of questions and then I'll
ask again for others because perhaps we'll answer the question before you have to ask it. Um, could we talk a bit about I heard a couple different times about tax abatement. Is that is that being asked for on this property and was it on used on the other property? I hadn't heard this before.
>> No, there's been no requests made for tax abatement um on this property. The tax abatement that was approved was for the project that um is on the other side
of Lake A. It's between Lake Avenue and the railroad. That's the R4. >> It's It's Yeah, it's the R4 area >> that's designated there. >> It's so It's It's one further south there on the south side of the single
family. Okay, I get it. >> But But the request for tax abatement generally comes after this meeting, doesn't it? It doesn't necessarily come with the building or would it come? >> It normally comes before actually. >> It does. Okay. So just to clarify, no tax abatement has
been requested or approved for this or the one immediately budding to the west. >> Immediately budding to the west >> the the existing forplexes. >> No. >> No. Okay. >> No. >> For private development. >> Got it. Um
there was one more here. Could we talk just a little bit about the notification process? Sure. So, our our zoning ordinance, anytime there is an item that goes in front of the planning commission for a public hearing, um we have a requirement for
each one of those items that we notice property owners within 300 ft, sorry, 350 ft um of the property. So, we actually use all all the um the perimeter property lines um to get that
350 ft radius and then come up with a mailing list and then mail it out to those property owners. Typically, we mail the um that mailing out uh the Friday before it gets published in the paper. So, um
>> I think your letter was dated the 15th. >> 15th. Sure. Yeah. And I think it was published on the 16th in the in the journal. So, >> all right. Um, I think we kind of addressed those
questions that came up and if we have another round, I I'll allow that again and then we'll close the hearing. But Kim, if you want to step up and to the mic again, please. I just have one other concern, too. So, we're building.
If we approve that, what about next time the lot next to it? Then pretty soon we're in a full-blown development. >> Um John, could we So So what is being
proposed is consistent with a comp plan? We wouldn't approve development that was inconsistent. >> Are you referring this one? >> Yes. >> Right. That's already zoned R1,
>> right? >> Okay. So, so that one has to be >> a single family unit, >> correct? Thank you, Larry. >> So, do you think the appeal would be there to build a single family next to a apartment complex or
>> would would somebody want to purchase a property and put a >> and I had heard that it Okay, so who are we targeting for living in these apartments? Well, >> we'll have John
So if it's older elderly people, it's all going to be one level then. >> I don't believe it's I don't believe that's the target. >> These are these are town homes. >> Twostory town homes >> market rate. So >> whoever whoever wants them >> whoever wants it.
>> Yep. >> Okay. >> I think the target is to fill them with people that pay their rent. >> That would be the goal. I I was just in I I thought they when I
talked to Adam, he said they were going to be single level like patio things. So, >> well, I was misinformed again. >> Sorry, >> Jim. We'll have we'll have John talk
about the the details of the of these forplexes, but I believe they're they are there's four units per building. Each gets a level. Um, but if you talk about this development, >> the layout each unit is on a single level, I imagine, and it's a forplex.
>> Actually, one of the developers is here. Maybe she'd be willing to to speak on that. >> Okay. Sorry. It's okay. >> Uh, so my name is Paula. I'm with M& Properties. I'm the property manager. Um, so now I've got a big target on my
back. Um, anyway, I have been exactly, just so you guys know, I've been exactly where you are. You kind of feel like it was blindsided, right? You You thought you had an image of what your neighborhood was going to be and then all of a sudden it's something different. But what I would like to point out and just address, >> please talk to us. >> Oh, sorry. What I'd like to point out
and address is this R3 zoning that's been established right there since 2017 was one of the first things that actually was in that development. And that whole neighborhood just blew up after there was something there. And it
drew people in. And there's beautiful houses all in that neighborhood that were not hindered by that development or that complex being constructed at all. In fact, a structure very similar to Kim's is being built right on Mac Lane
right here. There's a beautiful large town patio home going in right there, and it's right across the street from the complex. Um, so to me, this actually seems very compatible with what's already in existence. Um, now having the
R1 lot zoning right next to it, I think would be a perfect pitch for your guys' friends to move in because then you'd be close to you, but yet they would have a structure. >> You don't want a discussion with the audience. Please just talk to us. >> And then, so going back to the actual
complex, it's going to be we're proposing four structures that are two stories high. So the main floor will be ground level zero entry patio homes. Those were gearing towards elderly that don't want steps. We could make them
handicap accessible or you know utilize that floor plan because the one thing that I hear as a property manager with the agent community is they don't want steps. So having a two-story complex or a twin home that's stacked is not
something that we hear a lot about. So, we want to do patio on the lower level and then apartments up above that would have one flight. Um, I do have a picture of what the projected buildings could look like. I don't know if that's of interest or not
really. >> I don't know if we can project it. Can we, John? >> John, you want to turn on that? >> Of course, we can. So, this this structure is actually over a nicllet. >> Stephen, let me know when you're ready.
Okay. Adjust this. >> So, that's kind of what that's kind of the look that we're going for with this with this complex. So, and again, I'm not entirely sure on
the color palette, but it's definitely going to be like a two or three tone color to blend in very similar to the other structure that's up by the railroad tracks, which um it flows very well with the neighborhood and we've gotten a lot of compliments on the color
palette and how it looks really nice. it's not bland or boring. And they did a really nice job with that landscaping as well, planting plenty of trees and shrubbery um to to make it go nice with the neighborhood. >> So Paula, just to clarify, you've got
four units in each building. So two on the main level, two on the up, >> correct, >> second story. So you're gearing to both, you know, >> it's a wide age mobility ages to to accessibility. >> Correct. Correct.
John, if we turned down the reszoning today, how many could they what could they proceed with building right now with the way it's zoned right now? >> AOS >> nothing. >> Nothing on there. >> Well, they if you were to turn down the reszoning
and it was to stay AOS, they couldn't put a house on there because we would need 40 acres or more if I'm not mistaken. Um, and then what what could happen is, you know, someone could come in and request a different zoning um designation. But >> well, I think there's a another issue,
and that is that the proposed use for the property is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the property. >> And as I understand it, the current zoning is a is a holding zoning. upon
annexation, the order of the annexation agreement says you put it into this this holding zone and nothing no use other than open space can be put to until it has been reszone consistent with the comp plan. So the process is is is the
correct process I think >> and it meets the criteria >> which is even better. Yeah. >> Yeah. So I mean we can't technically deny because it
meets the criteria but we could deny the variance say if you didn't want 16 units because it's require it it's allowable up to 15 units if I'm reading correctly. Just just a moment.
Any any other follow-up questions of of Paula before I Thank you, Paula. I'll let you talk one more time and then we're going to call this quits. >> I'll get up there first
>> again. Paul Mie, if you look at this development, uh John, can you pull up? There's their development. And this is that other row of apartments they've got there. >> Yes. >> Yep. With the only access here right now. And of course, we talked I talked earlier about bringing access from that
going to Highland for the safety. >> Our cameraman is going to be upset if you don't talk in the >> I'm sorry about of all the extra traffic if they allow that road to go off a back lane to there. But the problem I see now is is you look at this. Were these
houses built before this was put up as apartments? These houses that have their backyard facing those apartments, were they built before that in that development? >> I think one or at least one of them was there before the uh
>> personally I'm looking at resale value. You know, I'm 70. I'm die tomorrow after all this today. Uh long story short, it might affect my resale value even though I'm further down away from it.
And I look at those houses. If you get a chance, drive back there and look at it. Their backyard is looking right at those apartments and they're two levels high. And personally, I would never buy one of those houses. Sincerely, they could they could pay me to buy it. I wouldn't take
it. Um, it's just apartments are good, don't get me wrong. And and nothing against the developers. They've got a good thing going on, but I still feel it's not a good location. And one other thing I would like to question uh city councelor Mr. Mack, are you personal
friends of uh Wells and or uh Bushard and or um Crawl? >> No, I mean I'm acquaintance. I've dealt with Mr. Crawl and Mr. Bushard over the last 12 years being on council and probably the last almost 18 years being
on zoning. But >> but you you are friends of them. >> I don't hang out with them. No, no. I just it's just a comment, >> but I I'm going to cut this off. >> No, I understand, but I but I just have to throw my two cents in. No, >> thank you for your time. But again, look at drive up there sometime. You'll be
surprised at the development up there. Uh just for purposes of um a little bit of background information, some of that housing was built after the apartment buildings were there, >> right? Yes.
>> Well, we just heard Paul Carlos say 2017 they started their development and everybody else built around it, >> right? >> Is what we were hearing. >> Mhm. >> And we heard >> Yeah. No, I'm talking specifically about the houses though that back onto the um
apartment buildings >> on the lake side. That would be almost the >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. I didn't want I didn't want the energy level to get out of control, but we can be friends with everybody.
>> Yeah. we don't necessarily have um economic ties and I don't think Larry is a partner in in the development company. So I I wanted to back Larry here and say that it's cool to be friends with people. >> All right.
>> Um uh any other comments before I close the public hearing? Anything new to add to the discussion? >> All right, we'll close the public hearing. We'll bring it back to commission for any any questions, any discussion, comments, followup.
I'm going to just one comment I'm going to read is just that from what we have here with the criteria, we really can't deny it for the reasoning. That's how I read it on this aspect. >> I'd have to agree, Larry. I I don't see
a reason why we wouldn't approve the resoning. All the other issues aside, that's the next discussion. But I, you know, with with um annexing the property and then it meeting the criteria based on the comprehensive plan, it seems like this
is the logical progression for this piece of property. Um I I know people I I don't see a reason why. I don't see how we can as a commission say no, we were not going to um approve that.
That's my two cents. >> John, I know you mentioned this, but would you repeat when the land use designation for this piece of property, this the a the the medium density residential, um it was designated that
with this last comprehensive plan update. Correct. >> First in 2007 and then in the last update as well in 2024. Since 2007, the vision has been for multiple family and medium density residential. >> Medium density.
>> Okay. >> Which is up to 15 units >> up to 12 units. >> Up to 12 >> in the land use uh comprehensive plan. Um and the zoning the zoning ordinance um is based on the amount of square feet
per unit is is the allowance up to eight units. >> That's where that's where the discrepancy you was talking about earlier. >> Yeah. comes >> and and the zoning ordinance is what takes precedence, >> right? >> Um that's what you base your decision on.
>> And I do have a copy of the 2007 plan if anybody wants to look at it. >> Right. And the the specific question of number of units is the topic of our next public hearing. Correct. This is just >> do we recommend resoning?
>> Correct. >> Okay. John, if we would deny the reasonzoning, we'd have to u go by our findings of facts and state why we would be denying that. >> Correct. >> And then we'd have to state all the
reasons to be consensus why. And then there they could still come back and say legally we have X, Y, and Z to follow on. Well, the planning commission can make the recommendation to deny and provide
the reasoning for the denial. It still goes to the city council as recommended for denial. City council could either agree with your findings or they could make their own findings. >> But either way, it's you have we have to get the findings of facts.
If we were to deny any kind of um land use per or land use um special land use permit I should say or in this situation a zoning um reszoning request. We have to provide any denials and the specific basis for denial in those findings of
facts. Could so if if we were to um recommend approval, could we add another condition that said that that attaches the resoning that that says the reasoning would not become effective
until the plan is approved. In other words, if if we don't approve of the plan that we're going to talk about later, um do we reszone it even if we don't like the plan? Can we can we tie the two together in a condition or is that not permissible?
Um, well, I haven't I haven't had that done uh in my experience here, but um if we take if we take a a look at timelines, the reason the actual reszoning of the property is going to require um two ordinance readings, so we're probably over well, we are over 60
days out anyways on that. Um, >> yeah. Still in my mind, >> if I understood your your question correctly, these are two separate actions. >> Correct. They're two separate actions, but
we might not vote the same way on the first action if something changes in the second. I mean, they they are not they are not disassociated. They are the same development. And if we don't if we don't
want to approve the the the density increase then maybe we didn't want to zone it either. Maybe it's premature to zone it is my question. So can we tie the two? Can we say we approve this conditioned upon approval of the
variance or the project at hand? We don't I guess we don't have any way of this isn't a conditional use permit for the project. It simply is. So the question is would the developer develop with 15 if they say no to 16?
>> Well ultimately that's the developer's decision. >> Right. >> Right. >> I mean you can approve it up to 15. I don't I don't think um not allowing the developer to do 16
satisfies any of the issues that are brought up tonight either. >> See what I'm saying? >> I'm not following. >> So what what the issues that the public are bringing forward, >> right? if we were to allow
uh allow it to be reszoned R3 but not allow it to be a 16 unit and just a 15 unit that doesn't satisfy their concerns. >> True. >> True. >> That's I mean that's just an observation.
>> Correct. True. >> Okay. >> No condition. >> What that means is that I don't see a need to tie the two together. I That's my point. Right. >> Mhm. >> Agree. >> Okay.
>> The hearing has been closed. But if it's something new >> talking about >> and you haven't spoken yet, have you? Well, this is outside of the hearing and this was the only one I will allow
tonight. If you want to add something more. >> You said the meeting was what was the discussion about? The meeting is not closed. The public hearing portion of the meeting is closed. So, we tried to gather what we can for information.
That's what they're saying. >> I know. >> Are we do we have any more comments here? discussion. >> So, has everybody um read the findings of fact? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Are there any of them that we disagree with? >> No. >> No. >> So, we all agree that we we agree with the staff on the list of findings of fact. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> We are then prepared for either a motion or more discussion.
I'll make a motion to recommend approval for the request of Adam and Shaina Wells to reszone the property legally described as lot one block one Wells subdivision of from AOS agricultural open space to R3 medium density
residential district. >> We have a second. >> I'll second. >> Thank you, Linda. We have a a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Passes unanimously.
Um, where does this go next, John? >> So, this will go to the city council um with planning commission's recommendation next Tuesday at 4:30 p.m. >> Also, >> and and ours is a recommendation. >> What's that? >> The council will look at our recommendations, staffs, and then they
they will they will make a decision. Did someone happen to grab my notes up here? I'll make a copy for you if you want them, but um >> I might have. >> That's fine. >> I had a lot of extra junk in there.
>> It was heavy. >> That's part of it. >> This is good. John might have to wing his staff report. >> Stay tuned for entertainment value. I think I got it. >> This is the end of it.
>> This is all the way to 46. >> This is my >> mine's all together. sneak away from you. All right. >> Do you guys need copy of what I kind of discussed? >> It was You read it verbatim, so why don't you leave it with us?
>> Sure. >> Yes, please. >> Hand them over to John there. >> Oh, here. >> All right. >> For hearing us. That's all we can say, but we're still opposed. >> Well, we're not We have We have one more. We have one more hearing on public
hearing on the variance for the number of units. >> So we get to do this again. Hank part two. Here we go. >> So the the second portion of this particular case then is our next item on the agenda and it is a request for variance and we have already heard kind
of the background on it. But I will have John represent whatever he'd like if he can find his notes. >> Okay. Hold on a second. I could extend my introduction while he is looking. >> Sure. >> No, he's ready. I have a joke. It's a
good one. Really? No, forget it. >> Um, so, uh, today, uh, myself and community development director, Mr. Schno, um, had a discussion with city attorney regarding this
variance request. And one of the things we're taking a look at is the large discrepancy between what we allow for density in our medium density um land use designation in the comprehensive plan which allows up to 12 units per
acre and then our zoning uh designation of the R3 medium density residence district which only allows up to eight units per acre. Um and in that discussion um the the consensus was that we should
table this item uh table this variance request and take a closer look at our zoning regulations and our comprehensive plan regulations because our comprehensive plan regulations were adopted following the adoption of the zoning ordinance. So they were adopted
in 2024 zoning ordinance in 2022. And one of the um one of the implementation uh points in the land use uh section of the comprehensive plan is to align the city's zoning ordinance and the comp comprehensive plan recommendations. So
we would like uh we would like the planning commission to consider tableabling this item uh for give to give staff a little bit more time to take a look at that. John, if we table it, how how does it sync up with the resoning that's going to progress to the
city council, will we be able to will will this follow up quickly enough so they can get there at the same time or I would say that that would that would be that would probably probably be just fine. >> Okay. >> Considering that, you know, the U
ordinance has to be written has to go in front of the council. there's um that's probably going to take six well 40 40 daysish uh or so. So if we were to uh take a look at the comprehensive plan
and the city's R3 zoning regulations and see if there's um some kind of um solution there, uh we would bring that back to the next planning commission meeting in in June. So then we'd have to look at adopting a
new number per acre or zoning for R3. >> Correct. Potentially. >> Potentially. So then maybe is it possible then we could have Robert on maybe for our next zoning meeting before we talk about
>> how we're going to change, you know, >> up to R3 potentially. What are the reasonings for why we have eight versus 12, you know, so we're on the same page and >> y >> how we should look at how other cities are adapting to say this, you know,
situation. >> Yes. >> And you don't have to take staff's recommendation. We can go through the the staff report and you guys can make recommendation of the variance request. Well, I I would recommend that based
upon your your belief that tableabling is beneficial that we would table it. Does anybody have a problem with tableabling it? >> No, >> I think >> what about the applicant? Where's >> ma'am? Are you okay with us tableabling
this thing as the applicant? >> Tabled. >> There it is. It's tabled until um our next meeting. >> We need an official motion table. >> Yeah. Do we? >> I would say so. >> All right. >> I'll offer a motion to table the
variance request by M andD Properties LLC. >> I second. >> We have a a motion in a second. All in favor? I >> I. >> Anybody opposed? >> Okay. Unanimously adopted. >> John, you want to explain again what's what's happening?
>> Okay. So what uh between now and the next planning commission meeting, staff's going to take a look at our comprehensive plan, land use designation density uh uh density numbers for medium density and then our zoning uh R3 standards. Take a look to see if there
um is some middle ground uh between the two where um where we can come closer to what is recommended in our comprehensive plan since that's more current document. Um, >> well, we we we won't renotice, right?
So, if you're interested, stay tuned. You need to come back the the last Thursday of June, whatever that date is. Someone might be able to jump it out for us. >> June 25th. >> What was that? Sorry. >> June 25th.
I would also note that um besides the discrepancy between the comp plan and the zoning ordinance within the zoning ordinance itself um we we actually have two different standards there. It's just a little bit
that they're off but they aren't >> okay >> the same. So great >> Dave when you just said that with our resoning being off and we're just getting this information after we just voted on changing >> this is in that section as far as the
density is concerned. This is nothing to do with the land use >> land. Okay. Okay. >> All right. Is tabled come on back again the last Thursday in June. >> June. Yes, sir. >> I just I'd like to apologize to Mr.
Counselor Mac. I didn't make a jab at you personally because I you as well. So, >> I just got defensive as a chair. I'm sorry. >> Just so I understand this, is the city council going to have it at this next meeting? >> The reasonzoning? Yes. The the density
issue, the number of units, no. >> Okay. So, basically, if they approve it, >> I need I can I can maybe answer that. If if they approve it, um the it would be the
reasonzoning would be approved. Doesn't go into the effect until the city it would the city uh um attorney has to draft an ordinance reszoning the property and then once that ordinance goes through the first and second reading, it's officially reszoned. So
that killed into June, >> but what it's reszoned to is 15 units. >> Right. >> Reson to medium density. >> Mhm. >> Right. >> Right. Right. >> Medium. >> Right. But to R3
>> to R3 medium density resin R3 is permissible. >> Right. >> Any notice of meetings, John, will be in the paper. >> Yes. Anytime we have a public hearing, actually any planning commission meeting, it's noticed in the paper >> council >> and city council. Yeah.
>> But people will get the journal >> city's website. >> Planning commission meets the last Thursday of the month. >> And when is the next meeting? >> Next Tuesday. >> Next Tuesday. >> June 2nd. >> June.
>> Thanks a lot, you guys. >> No, no. It's it's your right to ask and you know we're not perfect here too. We're trying to learn too. I mean I mean we get a report and we try to ask the right questions.
>> All right. Let's move on then to reports and this is our fourth fourth item. And the first one is um a status update on commission approved projects. Is that is that David or >> No. >> No. you. >> Uh, no. >> No. Right.
>> It's Kyla Coen who's been working with us this summer. >> This is, let's call it the capstone to the senior year. Um, it's the highlight of the whole senior year. >> Yeah. >> She I'll just um she's going to give a little background or sorry, she's going to give a little review of many of the
projects that have been approved by the planning commission over the last few years and where they're at currently since we don't often take a look at that at the planning commission. >> A good idea. Yeah. Okay. So, I'm Kyla. Like John said, I've been interning here this semester and my senior year just
finished up. I actually graduate tomorrow, so hopefully nothing bad happens by then. But so far, I'm on track. But I'm just going to give you guys a little overview of all of the things that you've approved recently and then like their update. So, we have the Scooters Drive-Thru which is on 326
North Broadway and it's just a commercial development. Um, it's zoned before, so it's perfect for that area. It's going to be a three- tenant commercial development. Right now, Scooters Drive-Thru is the one confirmed um tenant in that area. And
so, that I believe is the highlighted portion, correct? >> Yes. And then it's currently under construction. I'm sure you guys all see that every day, but this is what it looks like right now. Um, they recently just filled in
the giant hole that was there. Um, so they removed all of the poor soils from the site that was previously there because of old buildings and whatnot. And then they filled it in with sand and put foundation in the footings in place. And then walls should be going up pretty
quick so it won't look so empty anymore. And then we have the Land Haven project which is out by Walmart that's located on 2211 Jacob Street which was approved in May of 2025. It is
what is PUD again? >> It's a planned unit development and so it's going to be 22 shed homes and six storage buildings. And these are the storage buildings. Correct. And so the storage buildings
and then the shed homes. And so the shed homes is like a garage on the bottom and a and like a unit on the top. Depends. >> They're not leaving you. >> I mean the the barnaminium or shed homes
are kind of however that um owner wants to design it. That being said, I think the idea behind it is that the living space is smaller than the garage space. >> Yeah. And then they've submitted for building permits. This is what it looks like
right now. It's not a lot, but they have installed utilities and then they've put the road base down and then construction should of the buildings themselves should start pretty quick. And then >> are they are they spec or does somebody already purchase or
>> So I some of them knows that >> I think they're to order. So, >> all right. >> Understanding >> there's either two or three of the shes that are custom built. Um, we received
plans for six of the sheds, I believe, or all eight of the sheds. Those are just going to be put up as as spec sheds. >> Okay. >> They're all the 40x60, I believe. >> So, that's where they're at right now. >> And then when you see the one you like, then you have them build that on. Well,
the sh the shed portion is going to be there dedicated for those for only for sheds. >> The 22 can be either shes or sheds depending on what they want to do, but they designated those 22 that they could have actually up to 22 shes out there. >> I'm following.
>> So, yeah. >> All right. Thank you. >> Um and then the garden terrace apartments. So, that was approved on the sec September 2nd, 2025. That's right on North Garden Street and
it's zoned R4. So that would be high density residential. Correct. Yes. Um and it will be senior apartments. So there's 39 units planned there and it's currently under construction. And this is what it looks like right now. So the area was the soil in the
area was not very stable. So they had to install aggregate peers which just makes sure that no buildings will collapse in the future. And then so footings were installed on top of the peers and then steel frames are in the process of being put up. I'm not sure if you can see them
very well in the picture, but these pictures were taken Monday. So the start of the steel frames are on the left hand side of each picture. You can maybe see it behind the tree. It's not a lot, but it is up. And then it should be done by the end of this year.
The structure >> February >> February looking at February. February, March, >> February, like totally done. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Totally done around February or March of next year. So, and then we have the Highland
Apartments which is up by the public high school that was approved July 24th, 2025. And there will be four apartment buildings. The first two are up and very close to completed. There will also be
four detached garages. And there will be a park in the center of all of the complexes and it will be 148 dwelling units. And then phase one is almost completed and phase 2 is likely to start on the completion of phase one. These
pictures are a like a week or two old. So they don't include the garages that are being put up. So in the bottom picture there is the there would be garages in the front if you were to go drive up there right now. So, they've started the garages. Um, building one is
almost done. And then building two will be almost done as well. And then Project Spark is the tiny homes and that was approved October 21st, 2025. That's 305 South Minnesota Street.
And it is a tiny home development. There has not been much movement on the site since then, but there John said that there should be some potential site work starting here pretty soon. And then there will be 15 residential units and
then one communal building I believe in the center. And then there was a modification that John is going to talk about. >> Yeah. the um the tiny home developer project spark requested a slight modification. Um
and that was the initially they were or what they were planning on was installing uh their first tiny home here and then on um near near the intersection of Minnesota and 13 South and then the second one back towards the alley. Um, and then they were going to
access there's four existing utility stub ends already in into those lots. They were going to have the front one access the existing stub and then the back one would um dig brand new um brand new service right into the street. What
they wanted to do is change that ever so slightly um and keep the building up front um and tap into the existing uh service that's stubbed into the lot. But then instead of building this one along the alley, move it over to the next lot
to the south um and then uh that tiny home could connect with the existing utility stub in to that lot. So that's the change. I think the last slide, if I saw that right, it said 305 South Minnesota. 13 isn't 1305.
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah, it's 1305 South Minnesota. >> I probably starting to get confused. >> He's a professional editor. >> I'm glad somebody caught it cuz I would not have um so this is what it looks like right now. It's not much
development, but um it should be starting here hopefully pretty quick. Um, and then the last thing that I have today is the Dreman variance which was approved April 2025 and it is 13 and 15 Liberty Street. It's in a medium density area and it is just a retaining wall but
the project is completed. So before there was some erosion issues potentially and so they put in the retaining wall to prevent that from happening. But the site is still undeveloped as in there is no like dwelling unit there but the project has
been completed. So that's all I have for you guys today. Thank you. >> Well done. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um next we have council decisions. I think this is probably a David
>> report. So, at the um May 5th meeting, the uh city council um approved the variance request uh submitted by Mr. uh Demo and uh that's
at 9005th South Street and he is going to extend the front of the building. um which is at 7 ft from the front property line. That's what the variance was for.
Um another action at that meeting was um Miss Conungle um vacated the um easement area between those two lots. Um, when plats are prepared these days,
they normally come with easements all the way around the lot. And so when you buy two lots and you put a house, you know, crossing the property line,
your lender is going to want that easement area to be vacated. So, that was a request she made and the city council approved it. At the um May 19th meeting, they conducted um the first
consideration of an ordinance that would annex six parcels of property that have been purchased uh for the uh new crosswind runway that is being
constructed at the airport. So, they've changed the location of the runway and then its alignments slightly. You know, it's interesting the dimensions of of this uh runway because
it's grass is um 2800 feet in length and 120 ft in width. >> Not very wide, is it? about 120 ft.
That's That's pretty good. And um um so there's a second consideration that follows and the council votes after the second consideration and that's the same procedure that would apply
to the um to your action that was taken uh tonight. There's actually there's two considerations before a vote. If I ask why it needs to be I mean that's a lot of flat grass. Is it because you miss grass or what? Why does
it have to be 120 ft wide? Does >> cross well because crosswind is normally used in periods of high wind and so I think >> because it's light lighter weight planes
that use it. >> Yeah. >> Um you give them some >> additional defense. Yeah. Yeah. >> That concludes um what I'd say. All right. Um and finally, Elwood, do you
have a there nothing in her presentation? Very good. Is there anything else that is not on the agenda that needs to be discussed? Nope. Seeing nothing, we adjourn the meeting.