Well, it is 4:30, so we will call the meeting of today's planning commission to order. Uh, it is April 30th, 4:30. So, let's get it rolling. Um, we have enough here for quorum.
So, we'll just go right to the minutes. Has everybody had a chance to look at them? Are there any comments, additions, corrections? >> I see none. Does anybody want to make the motion to approve? >> I'll make the uh motion to approve the
March 20 26, 2026 meeting minutes as presented. >> I'll second. >> All right. We have a first and a second. All those in favor? >> I. >> Anybody opposed? Okay, that passes unanimously. Let's move on then to the one and only
public hearing for tonight. It's item 31 on on our agenda. Um it's a request for variance at 905 Fifth Street South. John, are you presenting this report? >> Yes. >> Good evening, commissioner members. John
Nisley, planner with the city of NewM. Uh, this is a variance request to allow the construction of a residential dwelling addition to be located 7 feet from the front yard property line of budding South Franklin Street. Uh, the applicant is Joseph L. Deml. He's also
the property owner. The legal description of the property is lot 7, block 146, south of Center Street, and the street address is 9005th South Street. The property is generally located in the northwest corner of the South Franklin and Fifth South uh
intersection. And a deadline for a decision on this uh application is May 12th uh 2026. The reason it's so short there is Mr. Demel submitted the application the day after we submitted the notice to the newspaper. And uh so that was
interesting. Um the land use designation uh for the comprehensive plan for this property is low density residential. Surrounding uh land uses in the comprehensive plan to the north, south, east, and west is also low density residential. The zoning designation for the property
is the RT2. That's the traditional neighborhood single two family residence district. Surrounding zoning uh to the north, souththeast, and west is also RT2. currently uh on this site is a single family home and then there's also a a
detached uh structure on the alley which is an old barn. Um current area land uses to the north uh is a vacant residential lot and then also single family homes and other associated uh single family uses. To the
south, east and west are all single family homes and their uh res associated residential uses. Notice was provided to all property owners within 350 ft of the subject property and published in the journal on April 18th, 2026. To date, we
have not received any comments uh regarding this request. Project description. So, the purpose of the RT2 zoning district is to provide for lowdensity one and two uh unit dwellings generally located in a grid development pattern along with directly
related complimentary uses. Uh, this property is a traditional grid lot with dimensions of 50 feet wide by 165 ft long or 8,250 square ft. The applicant is proposing to construct a 14t wide building addition to the north side of
the existing home and in line with the existing home facing South Franklin Street. Total square footage of the addition is approximately 800 square ft. And you can see that um with the application uh or attachment one in the application submitted by the applicant.
Uh the existing home was constructed in 1888. Um so this home has been there a long time. Um lot 6 to the north uh is also 50 ft wide by 165 ft deep and remains undeveloped. Uh, this vacant property is
also owned by the applicant and in checking with the city engineer, it also has utility service services stubbed into the lot. Uh, the existing home, um, Mr. Dumbl's home is 7 ft from the north property line ab budding South Franklin Street.
The next home, uh, to the north, that's the one to the north of the vacant lot, is located 27 ft from the property line abuing South Franklin Street. Uh in our zoning ordinance section 13.2 rules, um it allows for front yard averaging and
lowdensity residential zoning districts. Uh this uh rule would allow for the home uh proposed home addition to be located 17 ft from the front yard property line at Budding South Franklin Street. Um this would place the home addition 10 ft
uh behind the front of the existing home. Uh the property owner is requesting that the home addition be constructed in line with the existing front of the home which again would be 7 ft from the front yard property line and would require and would require a 10-ft reduction in the
required setback. Um the proposed layout of the new home addition stacks the new bathroom above the existing plumbing serving the home. At this time uh the home does not have a bathroom located on the main floor of the home.
site conditions. There's an approximate 6% slope from the front to the rear of the lot. Uh the proposed addition would meet the required side, street side, and rear yard setbacks. The addition would be designed to match the existing home
on the property. Uh with the new home addition, it would bring the total lot coverage um on the site to approximately 23% and the maximum allowed in that zoning district is uh 35%. The application provided the following
information um on the project to staff. Um Mr. Demel said he would like to line up the front of the house with the new addition. Um I'm trying to make a home for single single level living and I'm only going as far as the existing structure.
Um staff's evaluation. So in the zoning ordinance criteria uh dictates that there must be unique features um to the property such as physical surroundings, lot size or shape, topography, water conditions or other physical conditions unique to the property. Um the existing
home again was constructed in 1888. That was uh well before there was zoning regulations in the city um or a zoning ordinance I should say. The abuing lot to the north is vacant and owned by the applicant. Uh this is unique to the neighborhood but not necessarily unique
to the grid area in the city. There are other locations um in the grid area where a budding uh land owner does own a vacant property adjacent to it. Because the proposed addition is directed towards the interior of the lot, it would not obstruct the vision of vehicles passing through the
intersection of Fifth South and South Franklin Streets. Uh staff does not believe the variance on its own would be injurous to other properties within the vicinity. Uh staff also believes that the request being made is reasonable, a reasonable
use of the property and will not change the uh essential character of the neighborhood. Um further staff evaluation is found in attachment six. That's the staff response to findings of facts. Um um so in order to recommend approval of
the variance request, the commission will need to adopt findings, facts, and recommendations using the criteria as provided on the findings of fact form on attachment six. Planning commission and city council must make an an affirmative finding on all variance criteria in
order to grant the variance request. Um the applicant has the burden of proof to show that all the criteria have been satisfied. Um attachments. We have six attachments. Uh the first attachment um is the application along with the
proposed addition design. Um so here it actually the contractor that he's working with um did go out and measure and the location of the house to the north that we that we talked about. Um abudding that vacant lot is located
27 ft um from the front yard property line and Mr. Dumbl's home is located seven. I would note I did go and measure all the other homes on that h half block on the west side of South Franklin Street. Um they all range they range
from 16t behind the front yard setback um or 16t beyond the front yard property line all the way to 27. 27 is the furthest set back on that half block. Um and then they had a a floor layout plan
of the ex or sorry a layout of the existing home um elevations and then they have the home addition um plan as well. Um attachment two is uh located in the
subject property. Over here to the west is the um new public uh middle schools middle school. Um attachment three is the zoning map. As you can see, this is surrounded entirely by other uh RT2 um zoned
properties. Attachment four is the proposed home edition highlighted in yellow. Um, and then detachment five are photos of the property.
This is uh facing southeast. Um, as you can see, it does slope off to the back. Um, and that red barn in the back is also owned by Mr. Demo. Here is from the intersection of South Franklin and Fifth South. Oops. Facing
northwest. And then here, this is taken from the alley. um looking uphill towards the back of Mr. Demel's house. And then lastly, we have attachment six, which are staff's response to the findings of facts.
Um if the commission were to consider this for approval, staff would recommend two conditions. Um one that the applicant shall pay the cost to record the variance with the Brown County Recorders Office and then and then two that the applicant will contact the city to verify the location of the addition
once it's staked for construction. We did provide uh two potential motions. Um one motion to recommend approval um and one motion to recommend denial. And that would conclude the staff report. >> Thanks, John. Do we have any questions
uh before we open the floor for the public hearing? Okay, let's open the floor for the hearing. If there's anybody who'd like to comment on the application, please step forward, take John's place there and let us know who you are and and and where you live.
>> Mr. Dimmel, you don't have anything to add. >> He pretty much stated everything. I just do come up there. >> Yes, please. >> John pretty much stated everything. He uh I just want to get everything on the first floor as I get older. Can't move
around as well. I have uh knee issues, back issues. I'm just kind of worried about the future and that's the plan. >> And your bathroom is in the basement basement right now, right? >> It's in the basement and my stairs are like a ladder. They're super steep.
>> Thank you. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Anybody else want to comment? >> I just think it makes good use of the property and ties in. I don't see any issues with that in the front yard. You know, it's not blocking
any traffic, you know, for sight ve sight line. >> I agree. I'm very familiar with that area of town and I don't think that it would cause any issues whatsoever. >> I I would agree. >> Very positive on this side. What about this side over here? >> No, I agree as well.
>> See, thumbs up. All right. Well, we'll close the hearing then. Um I I do want to I did flag one um of the findings of fact number nine if we want to turn there and take a look at that one. It's
it's a negative finding. It refers to practical difficulty and John notes here that um he doesn't believe that it meets that requirement. And I I I think I look at it differently. I think the practical
difficulty in this case is the fact that the house exists. It's been there since 1888. Um the proposed and that in itself makes makes using the property according to code nearly impossible. And since since what's being
proposed doesn't get any closer to the street, it it respects the existing setback. Um I think the practical difficulty uh finding is met and I would say that's a positive. Yes. and not a no personally. Does anybody else I don't know if John
wants to to fight me on this or or if the the planning commission agrees or disagrees, but I I personally think that the practical difficulty um finding is met. I think I in response to that, the reason I had that as an answer, I think
sometimes when we take a look as staff at um these types of sites, one of the things we have to take into consideration is there other space on the property where this could work and still meet what the um applicant wants
to do. This in this case being a home addition. Um but at the same time, I also see um Commissioner Turnblad's uh point as well. So, >> and I think thanks John. I think I think the reason I see it as a practical
difficulty is if if the is it a 30-foot setback? >> Yeah. >> If the 30-foot setback is is met with the addition, it makes for a very difficult to use layout for the home, it just it doesn't flow um in any practical
sense. So, I I personally think that that finding is pos is affirmatively met. So, we need to take on as a commission the findings. Have Have we read them? And except for number nine, are we okay
with them? Do we agree with them? >> I'm seeing just shakes up and down and not side by side. >> Yep. You're referring to just staff's findings of facts, not not the property owners and Yep.
Where I'm going with the question is, do we need John to go through each one individually or we can we wave the reading and just speak to the ones that we have issue with? >> I'm good with waving the reading. >> I am too. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Mhm. >> Well, we need to take on that um finding
number nine then. In order for us to make a recommendation of of approval, they all have to be yes. And currently number nine is no. I personally believe it should be changed to yes for the reasons I stated. >> Yeah, I I would make a motion to change
it to uh a yes based on that 30 foot setback. That's a 23 ft offset for a new addition with the grade. I think your your estimation of it being
difficult to have the what he's going for of single single uh family single floor living would be a challenge that way. So I don't know if that makes sense but to
>> make it a yes allowing it to be up with the front. Do I have a second on just that finding? >> I'll second. >> All right. Uh, all those in favor of of considering number nine affirmatively met, say I. >> I. >> Anybody opposed? Nay.
>> Okay. So, all the findings effect and we as a commission believe are met in the affirmative. So, is there other discussion or are we ready for a a motion? >> Roll. Go. >> I'll make a motion to recommend approval
with conditions the variance request by Joseph Deml to construct a home addition 7 ft from the front yard property line abuing the South Franklin Street on property legally described as lot 7 block 146 south of Center Street.
>> I'll second. >> We have a motion in a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos? Nay. >> All right. It passes unanimously. >> So, this will go to the city council next Tuesday at 4:30. >> All right.
>> Good luck with it. >> The next item then is old business. We've been discussing for I think a couple of months now um a potential ordinance amendment that would that would help some of the really big buildings in town that are standing vacant or potentially vacant to have a
second life, a useful life. Um, so John just walked away, but are you going to present that? Okay, David, would you present the report, please? >> Yeah. Okay. So, at last month's meeting, uh, the staff presented a list of potential land uses that, uh, could be
considered as acceptable uses for large vacant commercial space that, uh, was currently allowed in the B3, which is the community commercial zoning district.
And more specifically, staff was looking at B2 uses and light industrial land uses that would be appropriate in the B3 zoning district. And we provided the commission with a
list of land uses and definitions for those land uses that were currently not permitted in the B3 zone. We also identified permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the B3 zoning
district. Um, so currently the city has six buildings that are over 50,000 square ft. That was some information that we provided. And four of those are in the
B3 zone. only one is vacant or partially vacant. We don't know precisely what its interior occupancy is.
Uh should we limit the new regulations to specific size buildings and or uses or should and or should we use performance um standards in in its
place? Um should the new regulations apply to new and or existing buildings? That was something else that we talked about. And then finally, in the B3 zoning
district, currently we have 39 permitted uses and 14 conditional uses. So staff took a closer look at the 13 land uses that were listed
um in the material that you received last month for possible inclusion in the uh B3 zoning district. Um and that was something that we discussed at the end of this discuss of that
discussion that staff would provide you know a recommendation. Um and so that's what uh what we've done. Um I'll kind of summarize what our determination was and
commission can have more discussion obviously on that. Uh one thing that we noticed in going through the definitions is that um we think some of them should be modified.
Uh when we looked at the agriculture definition and then we looked at what other communities did um we're kind of unique in saying that um all of our zoning districts are um um eligible or
appropriate for agriculture. What other communities do is they consider in the residential zoning district that gardens which is be the primary form of
agriculture that you would have that those are acceptable accessory uses. So they're not even part of the permitted or conditional use. They're
they're accepted as being acceptable and as an accessory to >> David, can I interrupt just a second? Sure. So along those lines, sort of urban farming, if you will, do we allow um chickens and and other farm animals
by permit? Bees? I I haven't looked at the ordinance. >> We allow We allow chickens. Um there is an application process. We do not allow bees. >> Okay. Right. >> And we do have a ordinance that was um
uh prepared uh I don't know 10 years ago um that dealt with the topic of what are acceptable animals, you know, within the community and what aren't. So we that's
what we base our decisions on. Um, we also, you know, maybe it's best to say you have the option of um maybe modifying the definition for landscaping and nursery
business. Um what um there was some discussion about that and about the impact on hard surfaces and um there are
um landscaping businesses that um don't provide those types of products that don't use that type of equipment. um that they tend to focus um on
different uh features of um of the landscaping business. Um so you could conceivably limit yourself to, you know, those types of uses.
Or the other option is simply to go with the traditional landscaping nursery business. um the way that they're currently operated. Uh, I'll just interject um an
opinion here that I don't know that in a community the size of New that we have enough business for what I would call is a soft landscaping business where there
aren't any, you know, of the um of of the rock or those types of products available for sale. I I just don't um >> if we were to allow some of the
aggregate and and some of the other things that we might not want to see from Broadway, for example, it can we not just allow require screening if we want to have that landscaping there? You >> you certainly could do that. You could
put it at the rear of the site. >> Mhm. you know, where it's really not um it might be visible, but you got to be looking for it pretty hard to see it. So, um that's that's an option as well. >> Okay. >> And that's again something that you
maybe could um um assign as a condition that >> right, >> this is where something like this goes with a conditional use permit. Um, we also are going to suggest that maybe you remove a definition from the zoning
ordinance and that's uh there's two of them actually. One is bus garage and one is wholesale. Um, we have other definitions that adequately cover those two definitions. Um, the bus garage we can use
transportation services and for wholesale we have wholesale and distribution. um you know it to to cover that as well. So it I don't know we maybe can
reduce uh the number of um uses that we identify and then uses that we would suggest um perhaps as being allowed with a conditional use permit would include manufacturing minor
um repair establishment research development testing laboratories self storage facility, transportation services, wholesale sales and then industrial services
general. Um, one thing that we would not allow is we would then remove bus garage and currently allowed
in by our regulations, our zoning regulations is a warehouse and distribution facilities and that's with a conditional use permit and we talked about that at last month's meeting. Now in addition to that um since we had
talked about performance standards um put together a list of performance standards um taking those from other zoning ordinances u that um uh primarily were from the state of
Minnesota. Um there are a total of 29. Now, not all of them apply to every use, but there is a great variety of different things that can be covered um with performance
standards. Um, you also could instead of having and naming specific performance standards, you could all, you know, you have conditions as part of a conditional
use permit process and you simply could, you know, look at look at a list like that and say, okay, I think these items are appropriate conditions for this particular use. So um that's another way
of handling uh that particular issue. Um right now in every zoning district um we vary in what are called development
standards. So that is your lot size. you know, your lot depth, your lot width, your lot area, your setback, you know, your um um the height, those types of things.
And um if you filled out every one of those items, you had a district that um had a standard for all of that, there would be seven. Um and then something that um ran across in
um two other communities, two fairly close communities, one being Hutchinson, the other being North Mano, they have a zoning district called industrial/commercial. And then what they do is they list
every industrial use, every commercial use that would be allowed in that zoning district. And and the reason for those districts was uh was different. um in North Mano and they
just adopted theirs within the past year. They noted that the amount of commercial area that they have for development is full. >> Mhm. >> You know, their downtown area is full.
It, you know, has developed around it with residential on top of the hill. They had some uh they have a commercial area but that's full. And so what they did is they took
their in industrial areas or a good part of their industrial areas that are further to the to the north or I guess towards New Alm if you're driving on um you know highway 14. and
they turned that into an industrial commercial district and it's um it's a fairly pretty large area. Um in the case of Hutchinson, I think they had some existing
development where they which had been there a fairly long period of time and they had a mix of uses, you know, some commercial and some industrial. And so they came up with I I'm making some assumptions here. They
came up with this district. Um, but they also have a very very large area that's out by their airport and continuing um to the south. Um, I haven't seen any changes in their
district uh since it was established. It's been that way for a number of years, but that's another approach that you can take. But, you know, that's really not any different than
you know, maybe identifying what we consider to be appropriate industrial uses and saying that it should be allowed in in that zoning district with >> you know conditional use permit or you
know you could it could be a permitted use as well. >> It's sort of the reverse of North Mano. We would like to allow some industrial uses within our commercial area and they did the flip-flop So that would kind of conclude um the
work that we've done um on this particular matter. Guess um we're interested in what the commission thinks is the most appropriate um direction to take.
Commission I'll lead off then. That's okay. Um, I think sort of a bright light that I I would like to keep in mind is that we're we're attempting to fix a problem.
Um so I personally would prefer if our approach is to allow um these industrial uses within existing large buildings rather than encouraging space that it isn't there rather than
encouraging new large buildings in in our in our commercial areas. So, personally, I would like to see when we actually fashion um the first draft of this ordinance that we we specify that in some of these
uses that are conditionally permitted in the B3, they are only allowed if the building pre-existed and the building had a footprint of X, whatever that is. So, so we're talking about large footprint, not necessarily three stories
um and total square foot overall. I think it's I think we're talking big box and I think we're talking reuse. So, I I would like to personally see um a square foot number put on there. I don't know if that's 50,000. That might be the safe number.
Whatever you staff suggest, but I think 50,000 might work. and just say that if the building exists, then these uses are allowed by conditional use permit. Maybe we have performance standards as well. Performance standards get a little messy
sometimes because now we're defining 29 performance standards and it, you know, you're copying and pasting because who's got that kind of time and sometimes we miss the mark. But, um, we could do a combination. I think a conditional use permit just by itself probably is
sufficient. keeping it as simple as we can. >> Yeah, >> I think of the two options that going the conditional use permit route would perhaps be the most appropriate. At least I think so. I don't know what you think,
John. >> Yeah, I think I that would make sense to me. I mean, if some of our um uses that we already talked about might already have performance standards. Um so we could apply that and then also specify that in
the conditional use permit what we want for this specific site. Um, >> one thing I wanted to note about this is if we're going to specify the building size, are we talking about you have to
take up that entire building? And let's And is that why you No, >> you went with something like 50,000. >> Um, I'm just thinking the building exists. It needs more uses. >> Individual uses don't have to take up the entire building. I I would just like
to see life back in that building again. And it can be multiple users. I don't know what the commission thinks about that, but I don't see a reason to to require that a single user take up that whole building. That's the problem. >> Right. Right. I just wanted to clarify
that so there wasn't confusion. >> Yeah. I think if we didn't do that, the the number of potential businesses that you know are going to want to fill a 90,000 square foot building are going to be really limited,
>> which is why it's vacant at the moment. Probably one of the reasons. What other kind of direction would you like from us staff? >> Well, are you are you comfortable with our conclusions? And and if so, I guess
you know, we could proceed then to to the next step. Um, if you want to give us some more thought or there's other uses you think that would be appropriate, would like to talk about, we certainly could do that as well.
>> I think it's very thorough. I like it. I think you did a good job. >> And I think by the conditional use permit, you know, the depending on the neighbors, you know, they'll have an opportunity to speak up if if >> we find out what X, Y, and Z might be. you know, we, you know, we're
>> we've kind of outlined some things, but >> we might not even have the right item, you know, but we're trying to keep our options open, but yet, you know, we'll still have public input, you know, when the time comes. >> Yeah, I think this puts some really good parameters in place.
>> Mhm. >> And if we don't get the list exactly right, we have the framework to add another if we think it's the reasonable thing to do. So the next step would be to uh draft an ordinance. >> Do you do you do a legislative version
so we can see what's being added and struck and or how do you go about doing that? >> Yeah, we work we typically would work with the uh city attorney and he um he would provide that. Yes. What is being struck and added and then also a clean
copy to take a look at too. And then we typically would go through an entire staff report as well explaining here are the proposed changes um and here's where they're found in the ordinance. >> Yeah. When we amend the uh zoning ordinance, we're required to conduct a
public hearing and to present, you know, the ordinance changes to the commission and to the public. >> And I think the legislative version, at least the way I'm my mind works, I like to see how it all fits together.
So you're doing that? Cool. >> If we have the public hearing, then you can staff will identify the buildings that are larger than say if we determine 50,000 square ft. So that way the public knows or not, you know, what we're kind
of >> narrowing down. I mean, based on what we're I think we're hearing tonight, we're going to probably work with that 50,000 foot number as in the draft, unless you have a different number you want to you want to work with. I think that number looks
good with the buildings that we have out there. >> Okay. And again, if you if we missed that somehow, I don't think we're going to because I think that's a solid number, but you can amend that too if you need to at some point. I think this is great. Good job. I I
hope this that gets some movement with the building. >> We haven't heard anything more. Right. It's still quiet in that big building. >> Uh it's been quiet, but the owner, the property owner has been in contact with us multiple times to see where the planning commission is at in this
discussion. So, they are interested and I'm sure they'll be excited to hear that. Um, you know, we're you guys are considering this. >> Has the owner hinted what he would like to see as part
of the mix? Are we are we are we way off base or we thinking about things that are useful to him and to other big building owners? >> Oh, I I I think definitely he will find more options to be useful. He uh this building owner has always though told
us, correct me if I'm wrong, but he has always wanted a retail component in there and wanted it to be a commercial only property. It's just the challenge is the size of the building for them, >> right? Mhm. >> Well, say if manufacturing there hinders
say because there's a fast food place next door for parking situ, you know, or or let's let's throw a scenario. So, it turns into light manufacturing. How do we determine how much parking you need for the manufacturing? You know, >> we do square footage of the building or
how many staff, you know, and >> I'd have to double check. We do have that specified in our or actually I can check right now. >> In our ordinance we have standards for parking and I'm sure we have standards for manufacturing.
Um one of the things that we did with our parking is um in some cases we weren't real specific because we didn't know what the exact use was going to be. you
know, some industrial establishments may require a lot of employees and therefore needs a lot of parking and other um industrial uses may have much more
limited needs for parking. And so we tried to be a little bit more flexible rather than having just a set number >> that we would kind of work with a particular business to determine what an appropriate amount would be.
>> So manufacturing for example would require one one poor one per employee per major shift. But you know let's just say since this is a building that let's say they use 40,000 for that and then another 40,000 for a different use. There's also
parking requirements that go along with that other use as well. So, needs to meet the requirements for all the uses in the building. >> I guess where I'm going from is that uh how do you want to say it? You'd like the parking to be on their existing
parking lot, not on the street, you know. So, because they're say the street behind that particular is the main thorough way to say to the brewery, you wouldn't want parking there. you'd like to, you know, encourage it that they could find ways, you know, to get it on
their own site, I think. >> Right. So, typically when we have a proposal come in for a use on a specific site, we look to see one of the things we take a hard look at is can you meet the parking requirements? Can this use go there and meet the parking requirements for that um for that use?
>> Now, in this case, how many park do you remember how many parking stalls they have at the that site? There's a lot. It's an incredible amount. >> Yeah, it's it's a lot. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Larry does spur another thought. Since
these these buildings more than likely will be um mixed use when we consider the first guy in if it's sort of a noisy use, we don't know what the rest of the building is going to be. Um, do we take that into consideration? Soundproofing a
wall or common wall or or is that something we don't what is that something we don't worry about the building owner? If he has a noisy tenant, then he's going to lose somebody and that's his fault, right? >> Or do we >> Sorry about that. I got him out of his
seat. That would probably come down to when um the first one went in and two years later somebody else is coming in. That would be dealt with at that time of build out for that storefront. Um if they so choose that it's going to be noisy and they want to do something with
that to to soundproof it or do something with that. But we also have depending on what occupancy it is, we may have to do a fire separation in there also. So >> HVAC system needs to be looked at. >> Yeah. Right. So it's it's all going to
depend on what the uses are and when they go in and stuff. It's >> it's no different than if somebody would move out of that strip mall and somebody else come in there. We'd have to look at the buildout of that to see if it >> requirements for separation and stuff.
>> Okay. >> That particular site just kind of unique. Is that its own private roadway then coming in where the the why it's not driving off of Broadway say instance towards the Burger King in more cuz I see the dental office using more where
it's blocked off >> it um it's a public street up until just past the dental office. >> Okay. And then it's private. >> Then it's private. >> Okay. So Burger King is sort of an outlot like sort of a situation in
>> Burger King has street access public but it is an outlot situation as well. >> Okay. >> You know their um drive-thru is you know winds around the the back of the building while the that access is still a public street.
>> Okay. Have we heard anything on that? Is it just going to stay empty or? >> Oh, no. >> Nothing. >> Okay. Anything else, folks? Do you have enough to take the next step, staff?
>> Yeah. >> Okay, good. Uh, then let's move on to our next agenda item, and that is I think it's probably council report, David. >> Yeah. Okay. At the um April 7th meeting,
they first off of all uh received the Herman Monument Reconstruction and Cost estimate report and authorize staff to pursue funding uh strategies.
Um, another item was um they approved a conditional use permit for Craig Portner at 1016 North Valley Streets. He was a gentleman that wants to build a garage on the lot
that does not have um a permitted use on it. Um, also at that meeting, they approved a conditional use permit for the scooters coffee drive-in service
with uh and in both cases it was with the conditions and then on some nonplanning commission items um they awarded their annual contract for public improvements
um in the city for 2.4 million. Um they also awarded contract for the airport crosswind runway. Um I think it's contingent on it is
contingent on receiving federal and state uh companion grant. Uh that cost was $1.6 million. Um and then they also um approved plans and specifications
for a new trap range building which is something that has been in the planning process for a while. Um I have nothing of significance at the April 21st meeting.
Elwood, we have something from the heritage folks, Heritage Preservation Commission. >> Yeah, we had one design review for Golden Home Care for um repainting the outside of his building and it was passed. >> That was it.
>> Thank you. We have anything else? Anything not on? May maybe it's worth not just a a note with the um with the airport crosswind runway changing
um the the current existing crosswind runway there's really not any development that can really happen in that area. So that will be going away. Um and that may um there may be property properties in there that could be developable. I just it's just
interesting because it's uh on our zoning map right now there's a there's a triangular strip that goes out and right now you really can't do much in that area but that will be going away and there'll be a new crosswind runway implemented. >> Could you I mean it's sort of spur of
the moment but could you show us like maybe on a zoning map how that lays out how it will change and what we might gain from it in terms of development? would note that we actually have two crosswind runway safety zones.
We have the existing one and we have the future one and that was mandated by um the department of aeronautics who's with MINDOT >> is is the future one that is on the map
the one where the new cross with Got it. Yes. >> Thank you. I couldn't get it out, so I'm glad you answered yes. >> Didn't mean to put you on the spot, John. >> If I can't get it up, >> you can just show it to us next. Yes,
that would be fine. It would be interesting to note what what we might be able to do if the if the map changes. Okay. Anything else then? Right, we stand adjourned.