Thank you. Good afternoon. I'd like to call the planning commission meeting to order. It is 4:30 on Thursday, May 29th, 2025. Before we go into the agenda, I have some announcements that I'd like to
make. I want all cell phones turned off. If you do have them on vi vibrate because you're expecting a call, please step outside the chamber office before you answer the call. All speakers must step up to the
audience. I know sometimes you want to stay in your seat and talk because you find it difficult to get up to the podium, but we do need it on your uh testimony on record. So, please step up to the microphone. I'm going to limit the amount of
time that you have to question or make your comments. I'd like your comments to be respectful and kept to about 2 minutes. If you are a spokesman for a group, I will allow a little bit longer time, but I don't want a lot of
repetition. So, if we've had four or five testimonies questioning or commenting on one thing, if you have something else to comment on, that would be great. But try to keep your comments concise because of
the size of the audience. And if the commissioners should have to leave early because it's expecting to be a long meeting, please tell us now. So, we but we need to keep a quorum. So, okay. Thank you. Excuse me. We are also going to um
limit the readings as much as possible because you've all had a chance to read and review except for Riverhaven. If someone hasn't had a chance to read or review that because it was posted wrong in the initial mailing, um we'll I'll have more questions when
it comes to that. What we can skip and know what we cannot skip. Excuse me. First item on on the agenda will be the approval of the minutes from the April 24th, 2025 planning commission meeting. Are there any questions,
comments, changes? I'd entertain a motion. I'll offer a motion to approve. I'll second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? I Minutes have been approved. Thank you. Public hearing notice uh public hearing
portion of the meeting is now open. The first item on the agenda is the PUD for Coppers Highland Apartments 901 North Highland staff report please. All right. Good evening commission members and
members of the public. John Nisley, planner with the city of New Alm. Uh this is a public hearing to consider the general development plan associated with the proposed plan unit development zoning district to accommodate an apartment project. The applicant for this plan unit development is Steve
Keepers of Keepers Incorporated. The property owner is Keith Marty. The current legal description of the property are parts of outlots 194, 195, 196, and 197. The proposed uh new legal description
would be lots 1 through 4 block one Highland Apartments edition that includes outlots A and B. Street address uh for the project is 901 North Highland Avenue. The property location is southeast of the Newm High School
northwest of the Kids Excel Excel Center and then west of North Highland Avenue. Deadline for a decision uh on this application is July 11th, 2025. Uh the comprehensive plan land use designation for this property is highdensity
residential. Surrounding comprehensive plan land uses include to the north lowdensity residential, medium density residential, public semi-public. To the east, it's lowdensity residential. To the west, uh, lowdensity residential, and then to the south, commercial
lowdensity residential and parks and open space. Current zoning designation of the property is A-OS, that's the agricultural open space zoning district, and it's proposed to be PUD, that's plan unit development. So the purpose of the
AOS, the agricultural open space district, is to provide areas that will one be retained in agricultural use in advance of the need for these lands for urban purposes. Two, to prevent scattered non-aggricultural uses from developing improperly. Three, to secure
economy and governmental expenditures for public utilities and services. Four, prevent inappropriate development and flood hazard areas of the Minnesota and Cottonwood Rivers. and then five uh to provide locations for public and semi-public uses. Surrounding zoning to
this property to the north is AOS and INSE, that's the institutional education district. To the east it's R1, that's the single family residence district. Uh also R2, that's the single and two family residence district and R3, that's
the medium density residence district. To the south is R1 and then to the west is AOS. Currently, the property is farmed. Current area uses uh include to the north farmed and the new homem twin homes and single family
homes. To the south uh daycare center, single family homes, and then to the west is also farmed. Notice provided to all property owners within 350 ft of the subject property and mailed on May 16th, 2025 and then published in the new journal on
May 17th, 2025. um public comments. So staff has received uh three emails and two phone calls regarding this proposal. Uh the emails provide information in opposition to the proposed pro project and are provided in attachment 9 correspondents
from neighboring residents. I would also note that uh since this was um published uh to the public, we have received a number of other email correspondents regarding this project. Those are also included uh in the packet and and published as
well. Uh the first phone call regarding the project uh was a residence within the neighborhood but now within the 350 ft radius of the area. Uh that uh resident also sent a letter and it's included in the packet here. Uh they were concerned about traffic view from their home and the notice should be
mailed out to residents further than the 350 ft radius. Second phone call was regarding the proposed storm water ponds that would be constructed by the developer of the project. Uh their concern was having water in the ponds and the potential for mosquitoes in the neighborhood. Staff
has been advised that the proposed storm water basins will be uh designed to retain water uh depending on the intensity of the rain event for 1 to two days uh at uh at the most and then will be dry. Two additional emails with concerns over
the proposed project are received on May 23rd 20 uh May 25th and then uh again on May 28th. Uh those emails again are found in the packets included uh included here. I also did receive one additional phone call yesterday morning
regarding the project and it uh uh by a neighboring property owner and we went over the project in details uh of of the proposal. That being said, um there are roughly nine pages of emails and correspondence regarding this project.
Um they are included in the packet and are of public record. Um I'm not going to be reading through those emails uh individually, but we did try to summarize at the end of this presentation what the concerns were and uh staff's response to
them. Uh status of utilities. Utilities are located in North Highland Avenue. Utilities are also located in Fender Drive, Habberly Avenue, and Waru Avenue, and they approach 7th North Street. Portion of the property is served by the storm water pond located adjacent to
Fifth North Street. Storm water is also directed to North Highland Avenue. The developer plans to install additional on-site storm water controls and to be located in the southwest corner of the property and adjacent to North Highland Avenue. The pro property will be fully served by the city and public utility
systems. City engineer has provided more detail regarding the status of utilities in the vicinity of the proposed project. You can see that in attachment 8, city engineers review of traffic circulation and status of utilities. Um the apartment property or
project would have direct access to both North Highland Avenue and the extension of 10th North Street. Curb cuts already exist on North Highland Avenue at 9th 9inth North Street and 10th North Street. Traffic exiting from 10th North Street will only be able to turn
southbound on North Highland Avenue due to the center median. Traffic exiting from 9inth North Street will be able to go north or south on North Highland Avenue. Again, the city engineer has reviewed the project uh site plan and the anticipated traffic volumes uh and
has concluded that North Highland Avenue will be able to accommodate the additional traffic right ofway. Uh the plat uh with the plat developer is dedicating approximately 43,750 ft or approximately 1 acre of rightway to allow for the construction
of the extension of 10th North Street. The city engineer has reviewed the plat and supports the proposed rightaway dedication as shown in the Highland Apartments edition preliminary plat. Um the comprehensive plan does not designate a park within this platted area. So this is a a summary of the
project proposal. We're going to be going through this rather than reading through the entire general development plan which is is uh many pages but that again is of public public record and can be reviewed at any time. So the for the purposes of evaluating this project staff has used the
standards uh assigned to the R4 that's the highdensity residence district. The subject property has a total area of 10.2 acres and the property has been farmed in the past and is currently being farmed. The proposed project would involve the construction of four
three-story apartment buildings, eight detached garages along with a sports court, children's playground, dog park, parking lots, storm water ponds, and the extension of 10th North Street from North Highland Avenue to the west. Each building is proposed to have
two 38 unit apartments along with two 36 unit apartments with a mix of studio, one, and two-bedroom units. Uh the project will be constructed in two phases. There would be a total of 148 units proposed for the site. The R4 lot
area requirements would allow up to 214 units on this property. The developer is proposing uh fewer units than what would normally be allowed on that site. The proposed buildings uh have been positioned in a northeast to
southwesterly orientation. The developer has stated that the reasoning for this orientation was to have the narrowest portions of the building facing the existing residential areas. Staff has received preliminary landscape plans and there are evergreen trees being proposed on all sides of the property facing
residential areas that could provide screening. The developer is proposing to construct an extension of 10th North Street with underground utilities. The street will extend from North Highland Avenue to the west. And the street right ofway will be 60 ft wide and 173 feet in
depth. 107 sorry 730 ft in depth. Environmental review. Staff has reviewed the requirements of the state environmental quality board and their thresholds for requiring a mandatory EAW. The proposed 148 units on the 10.2
2acre site is under the city's highdensity residential land use maximum density amount of 21 units per acre. The proposed project is 14.9 residential units per acre because uh this project does not not meet the mandatory EAW uh
criteria set forth in state statute and EAW is not required chapter. So this is the approval process for a plan unit development project. Uh chapter 7.9 of appendix A of the city code allows for
the establishment of a plan unit uh plan unit development zoning district. The definition of a plan unit development is a type of development development which may incorporate a variety of land uses planned and developed as one unit. The
PUD is distinguished from traditional subdivision process um of development in that zoning standards such as density setback, height limits, and minimum lot sizes may be altered by negotiation and agreement between the developer and the municipality. The intent of the PUD is
to allow for some deviation from the def definitive and precise requirements of the established zoning district. This is permitted if the particular areas can be developed, particular areas to be developed can offer a greater value to the community and can can preserve the
community's health, safety, and welfare if those same areas were to be developed as a singlepurpose district. So to establish a PUD, the following documents need to be approved. Reszoning of the property by ordinance to PUD. Um the resoning of the property
would be effective upon the city council's adoption of the PUD general development plan for the project. Um a PUD general development plan as described in chapter 7.9, a development agreement, and then finally a final
plat. Uh the approved general de development plan will establish the permitted uses within the development that are desirable in achieving the objectives of the plan unit development. However, there must be clear evidence that such uh that such um uses are
desirable and appropriate with respect to the primary purpose of the development. Such uses are not of a nature or so located uh to exercise a detrimental in influence on the development or the use of surrounding neighborhood. The general development plan is uh
intended to illustrate the intent and the general nature of the proposed PUD and to establish the requirements and standards that will apply to the project. I would note that we have that same um we have that same language in all three uh plan unit development items
tonight. I'd prefer if I just read through that one time and then uh not read that on the other two if that's okay with the commission. Please. Okay. We're in agreement. Super. So, documents to be approved to secure
the uh plan unit development zoning district. Uh number one is a general development plan and that's currently being considered here tonight. Um two is an ordinance approving the plan unit development designation that's pending. Development agreement. It's also pending. And then a final plat. Uh
preliminary plat was approved at the May 6, 2025 council meeting. The final plat is to be considered by the planning commission at today's meeting. So what we put together, I'm going to pull this up on the screen are exceptions to the R4
development standards that the developer is uh requesting um some de uh derivation from. And if you look uh if you go through the ordinance standards for the R4 district um the building
setbacks for the front yard uh would be 30 feet. The developer is proposing 30 ft. So they meet that requirement. They also meet the requirements of the interior sideyard setback. The street sideyard setback uh that would be on 10th uh the numbered street and then the
35 ft rear yard setback. They also meet the parking setbacks. That was verified by their engineer uh again today uh of 30 ft. Um they are required to have with 148 units 296 stalls. That's two units
per apartment you two parking stalls per apartment unit. Um they're proposing 304 so there would be eight uh eight additional stalls on the site for guest uh things like that. So they meet that criteria. Um the maximum building height
in the R4 zoning district is uh 45 ft. Uh the developer is proposing a 40 foot 3 inch height. So they're under the maximum building height. Uh the minimum lot area uh for uh in the R4 is 18,000
square ft. The lot area here because there are four uh four different lots range from 87,991 ft to 100,623 feet. So they also meet that criteria. Um minimum lot area per dwelling unit is
2,000 square ft. Uh they're proposing uh 2315 to 2,647 square ft uh per unit. So they meet their criteria as well. Minimum lot width is 100 ft and their uh lot widths range from 216 to
233 feet. That criteria is also met. They also meet the minimum lot depth uh criteria. Um where they the one criteria that they do not meet in the R4 zoning district and uh this standard applies to all residential districts is that you
are our zoning ordinance does not allow uh detached accessory structures to be placed in front of the permitted structures on the site. The permitted structures on the site would be the residences. So in this case it would be the apartment complexes. uh the buildings meet the setbacks
um but they don't but they don't meet the other criteria of being in front of the residents and I'll go through that in a little bit more detail and and why that was uh proposed that
way. There are 10 attachments. Um first we have the uh application by the developer. Uh the second attachment is
the general development plan uh by the developer. And again, this goes over uh the whole project proposal uh what's on the uh what's on the site and answers all the questions in the plan unit
development uh criteria that we have in our city zoning ordinance. Um scroll through that a little bit. Um this is the site plan.
So, here is North Highland Avenue. Um, this is south, that's north, that's west. The two 38 unit apartments, which would be proposed to be constructed in phase one, are here and here. Buildings one and two, those would front North
Highland Avenue. The two 36 unit apartments, which would be constructed in phase two, uh, are Thank you. I thought Steve fixed that. Okay. um would be here on the on the south and
west side of the property. Uh the developer provided a couple a number of renditions uh of the site. So this would be North Highland Avenue over here, 7th 7th North
over there. Uh looking to the west, as you can see, the proposed uh apartments are inside um inside of the property with the garages on the perimeter. the developer described in their general development plan. Part of the purpose of
providing or putting the garages on the exterior is to break up uh the height of the apartments that are located behind it to help it blend in better with the existing residential neighborhood. So again, he's uh they're proposing a 40
foot tall uh structure. In the R1 zoning district or in the other residential zoning districts, the maximum height your house can be is 35 ft. So, they're five foot higher than what our maximums would be in our single family residence districts. Um, you can also see in the
middle here, uh, we have a sports court. Um, and then we also have a, uh, playground for residents or their children at that site. Here's another rendition. Um
uh this is attachment three uh the site location map. So again, North Highland Avenue, the the area here outlined in black is the as the property we're discussing here today, New High School, uh airport to the west, and then the Milford Heights development to the
south. Um, here's the zoning map. Uh, INSE is the institutional education district, the high school. We have R2 along North Highland Avenue. That's single and two family residence district. R1 back here, that's single family. R3 over here, um,
by the, uh, by the chancery. You have R2 over here to the south and uh more R1 and then a little bit more R4 here in the middle. This again is is a layout of the property. You can see this area in
darker gray is the parking lot uh area and then uh proposed extension at 10th North Street. Here is the uh the land use map and the comprehensive plan. This area was designated or um changed to
highdensity residential uh this spring. The planning commission heard uh heard that application and provided a recommend recommendation to the city council in February. City council heard that recommendation, recommended
approval in March. Took a couple pictures uh of the site. This is facing south and west. You can see there in the background that's the MLC fieldhouse. Here is um from the corner of kids excel center looking north and
west uh to the new public high school. Uh this is a a photo from the uh south side of kids excel center again looking kind of straight west towards the high school and the airport area.
Uh this is from the southwest side of the property looking back towards the uh neighborhoods across North Highland Avenue. Um attachment 8 is the city engineers review of traffic and the
status of utilities. I will get into this a little bit more um further on. Um, so we had a number of letters and correspondents from neighbors uh who were in opposition uh to the project.
Um, and we've included them here. Uh, this letter that we received yesterday from Mr. Gustanzi also had 10 signatures on it um, from neighboring property owners within that neighborhood who uh, had opposition to the project proposal. One of those neighbors did call me
yesterday and we had a discussion about the project and their concerns. Um we had another uh we had another letter from Nicole Palmer um which is provided here. Um
uh email from Mr. Ryder. Um and then uh we also had uh another letter from uh Mr. Mr. and Mrs. Budan. They were outside. Those are residents
that are outside the 350 foot uh required notice area. Um but they they also had called and we had a discussion about the project too prior to receiving their letter. Um then I had one more uh letter
email sorry come in yesterday afternoon from Miss Ura um and that's included as well. So staff staff tried to well we read through and discussed all of the letters and
concerns that we we had received and I think what we can do then is take a look at those and there were some reoccurring themes that kept popping up and what we tried to do in sorry about that guys. uh what we tried
to do was to address them uh to address them uh kind of together to see if we could answer a number of the different concerns uh uh at the same time. So the first uh comment that we received was that our process was
inconsistent with Minnesota statute 462.357 regarding zoning regulations and the consistency with the city's comprehensive plan. So, a formal public hearing process did take place uh in front of the planning commission and city council to amend the comprehensive plan for this area to be changed from
medium and lowdensity residential to highdensity residential. That process followed state statute and the process outlined in the city zoning ordinance. Public hearings took place at the planning commission in February and then again at the city council in March. Notice of public hearings were sent to
residents within 350 ft of the subject property and published in the new home journal according to statute. Planning commission recommended and the city council approved the amendment and the comp plan as amended now guides the property for highdensity
residential. There was also concern that we are uh spot zoning and setting a legal precedent uh with this um with this proposal. So surrounding land uses to this site include the kids excel center, single family homes, twin homes to the south, twin homes and single
family homes to the east, and a farm field in the new home high school to the north. The wide rayway of North Highland Avenue, 120 foot rightway. Uh area of mixed residential densities and varied uses in the area would provide for the consideration of higher d higher density
residential uses in the area. Current zoning designation is AOS which is uh which one of the purposes of the AOS district is to ret be retained in agricultural use in advance of the need for these lands for urban purposes. City
has been consistent with the AOS district as a holding district for future urban development. The remainder of the Marting property will be AOS and the future development and road layouts will be contemplated by the planning commission at a and the city council at a future date.
There's concerns about procedural pro uh deficiencies and due process um um in this uh with this project. So, the city has followed state statute along with the requirements outlined in the city's zoning ordinance for both the consideration of the comprehensive plan
amendment and now this proposed plan unit development. Notification was sent in the mail 10 days prior to the public hearing being conducted and published in the journal 10 days prior to the public hearing. as well. Notice was sent out to property owners within 350 ft of the subject property as required by statute
and our zoning ordinance. Environmental review obligations. Storm water management for this project is required to be adhered to to both the city storm water standards and the standards provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Storm water management must be conducted
on site during on-site during and following construction indefinitely. The city engineer city engineering department has storm water staff that will review the proposed storm water plans inspect uh the controls implement implemented by the developer during
construction and following construction regarding the mandatory EAW requirements cited. city uh attorney has determined uh for the construction of the project with the projected number of attached units um being less than 150 um
we would not require an EAW or it wouldn't be required by state law. The most up-to-date plan from the applicant uh contains 148 attached units. Um the developer is now proposing to construct two 38 units apartments uh fronting North Highland Avenue as phase one of
the project and two 36 unit apartments at the rear of the property as phase two of the project. There was concerns uh many concerns about traffic utility infrastructure and public safety that was echoed in many of the letters. uh
the city engineer, public utilities engineer um and the public utility director have all reviewed the project proposals and its implementation implement implications on the city streets and utility systems. So first let's go with
streets. The city engineer has used the EPA mixuse trip generation model to estimate the amount of traffic to be generated from the site. That model estimates up to 1,023 trips per day with 77 trips during the peak AM, 99 trips
during the peak PM hour. This model assumes that uh each unit will house up to 2.5 persons and have 1.85 vehicles per unit. When incorporating the additional traffic estimated to be generated uh to be generated uh to the
traffic study done by MDOT in 2021, we end up with a total number of uh traffic volume of 4566 vehicles per day using this segment of North Highland Avenue. That amount of traffic is comparable to existing traffic today on North uh Garden Street
between 5th North Street and US Highway 14. In addition, in 2006, North Highland Avenue improvements uh feasibility study anticipated traffic volumes on North Haven Highland Avenue between 7th North Street and US Highway 14 to be 4,670
uh vehicles per day by 2026. So, what I'm saying here is the anticipated traffic volumes to be generated because of this project are consistent with what we estimated in 2006 all the way out to the year 2026.
City engineer has stated that after the completion of the project, traffic volumes and patterns will be monitored and considered uh and consider future improvements as traffic patterns are established. Utilities. City engineer, public utilities engineer, and the d uh public
utilities director have reviewed the utility needs for gas, electric, water, wastewater, storm water, and determine there is adequate capacity to serve the project of this size with the existing utility infrastructure already in place without any interruptions to existing neighborhoods in the
area. There was concerns about parking and visual blight. The developer has proposed to locate the garages on the site on the perimeter to uh visually break up the taller apartments on the interior. The proposed apartments are 40t 6 in in heights. Again, residents
and single family homes can build their homes up to 35 ft in height. In the developer general development plan, they stated that their buildings use quote broken facades, undilation, balconies, color, texture, and banding that serve to break down the scale of buildings so
that they are more uh relatable to the human scale. The buildings will have traditional res residential aesthetic that will relate to neighboring residential buildings. City zoning requirements uh specify that each unit is required to have two off- streetet parking stalls per unit. The developer
has provided 304 parking stalls both uh with surface lot parking and indoor uh garage parking. Parking stalls meet the minimum standard in the city's zoning ordinance of 9 by 20 ft. Uh and the driving lanes are designated uh 26 ft in width. Our
requirement is 24 ft. Both the stalls and the driving lanes meet the standards outlined in the city zoning ordinance. dumpsters on the property will be located uh will be located internally and properly screened as per city zoning regulations. There's concerns about
property values and tax equity. So, the city of New Alm has worked with the Brown County uh assessor's office in review of uh increased property values or property values near multifamily buildings. Since 2019, property values for all residential properties uh has
dramatically increased. I think we're all aware of that. So we gathered sales data for residential properties directly adjacent to multifamily part uh multif family properties since 2019 to today. Um that data shows that there are 11 sales of properties that uh met both the
location criteria and the single family residence criteria. Of the 11 properties, eight sold for uh more than the estimated market value and three sold for less. One of the three I would note that was a foreclosure and a bank sale. So, precedent and long-term
consequences. Uh, the city relies on its comprehensive plan and zoning uh regulations for making decisions on all land use applications. In cases where the proposed land use may not directly line up with both the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, procedures in those documents are followed that involve
public hearings, neighbor notifications uh for the proposed use. These procedures were developed based on state statute and also uh went through a public hearing process before being adopted by the city council of the city of New. We have followed those procedures outlined in the comprehensive
plan and the zoning uh ordinance in review of this proposal. So there was uh there was concerns that we don't have the proper utility infrastructure in the North Highland area to serve this type of project. So in 2006, a feasibility study of North
Island Avenue was undertaken between 7th North Street and US Highway 14. This study was conducted before the reconstruction of the major arterial roadway in the community. The study considered four roadway options uh that were provided through previous fil
through a previous fil feasibility study that was conducted in 1999. At that time, option two uh was selected and slated this section for North Highland Avenue to be a four-lane parkway with no no parking on either side of the street.
However, in selecting this option, the city council acted to modify this typical uh section to a two-lane roadway with uh parking allowed on both sides uh for the foreseeable future. when traffic volumes dictate a four-lane roadway on North Highland Avenue, the parking would
be removed and com uh converted to vehicular use. So, North Highland Avenue uh was designed to carry uh more vehicular traffic if deemed necessary. Public safety uh traffic public safety and pedestrian cross uh
crossings across North Highland Avenue. Um so, we went through traffic volumes and estimates stated uh earlier. Uh the city engineer has determined that if traffic volumes and movements dictated, traffic control measures and pedestrian crossings may be uh may be improved if
warranted, we will continue to monitor traffic volumes and movements in the North Highland Avenue area. There's also concern about noise pollution and car alarms. Um we noted that noise pollution or noise from traffic and car alarms has the potential to increase in any residential development, not just a
multif family to residential development. um safety of kids playing in the street on the east side of North Highland Avenue. That was brought up in one of the letters. Uh staff anticipates traffic generated from the project uh site to enter North Highland Avenue and either travel north or south on North
Highland Avenue. Uh there should be no need for this traffic to enter the neighbor uh neighboring streets to the east of North Highland Avenue. And these streets all end up flowing to North Highland Avenue regardless. There was a a comment that we should consider locating this project further
to the north um just north of 12 North Street and the Walner uh gravel mining pit. So this area was considered by the develop developer in the initial review of properties within the city. This location does not provide adequate space for the development has topographical
issues as you go to the east and does not uh and has future North Highland Park in the middle of the property. Additionally, the Walner pit may be further expanded in the future and continue mining to the south. Access to 7th North Street uh was
another item that was brought up rather than having traffic go out to North Island Avenue on 9th and 10th. So, the developer has contemplated having uh tenant traffic use 7th North Street as an additional access point or replacement access. city city engineer
would prefer the site have vehicular traffic access North Highland Avenue directly rather than 7th North as both options put uh all the vehicular traffic back on North Highland Avenue. There's a question on whether or not there's enough provided play space
on the property um and in the development proposal. So, the city uh does not have a requirement for a certain amount of play space for a development of this type. What we do have is a requirement for 5% uh play space or open outdoor
area for kids to play if we were to do a manufactured home park. Again, that's 5%. So, if let's just say we were to this is hypothetical. Let's just say we were to apply that to this type of project. Um it would require the developer to have 22,000 square ft of
open play space on the site. Um based on our calculations, the developer has provided uh approximately 55,900 square feet of open or play space on the site that is between the buildings on the interior of the property, not on
boulevard areas, not in the areas between the buildings and the sidewalk or the buildings in the parking area. So that uh equates to roughly 12.5% of the site to be open space for recreational use or play area um or sports
courts. There's also a question that we had a low parkland dedication fee for this project. Uh the city's requirement for the parkland dedication fees are $1,50 per lot and $350 per residential unit. So for parkland dedication fee for
this project is $56,000. So um following that uh staff does have a recommendation uh and would recommend approval of the application for the plan unit development and general development plan and the reasons for this
recommendation can be uh found in the attached findings of facts forms. Uh we would recommend uh two conditions. one that the applicant/owner will pay the cost to record necessary documents with the Brown County Recorders Office and that two that the establishment of the
PUD will require the approval of the following documents. Reszoning of the prop a reszoning of the property by ordinance B development agreement and C final plat. Um, we do have two potential motions.
One to recommend approval of the application to the city council. Um, and one to recommend denial. And that concludes the staff report. Thank you. At this point, um, I would like to
know if the developers first have something to say or if they'd like to hold off till I have audience participation. Hold off. Thank you. Any questions from the commissioners? I have a couple. Okay, go. John, would you um
identify for us the the several conditions or or or zoning standards for the R4 district that are not being met by this proposal? Most of them are. So, essentially, it feels to me like a an R4 apartment project. And there's only a
couple of things that don't meet those standards, right? The the only thing that doesn't meet those standards is actually a standard that's applicable across all residential zoning districts and that's to have a detached accessory structure in front of the permitted structure which is typically the home. So all the setbacks are now being met.
Those were modified. Correct. Okay. Thank you. The second question I've got is um is there a landscaping plan available we could take a look at? I don't have it available with me today and I think they're in the process of finalizing that, but we do have standards set forth
in the city zoning ordinance. Typically, what we end up seeing is that landscaping plan coming with with the development agreement and building permit process, there will be required to adhere to the city's uh landscaping plan requirements. Well, the reason I
ask is um since since we're looking at um an apartment project being on on North Highland and since it's a PUD, the city is has the authority or flexibility to ask for landscaping to be enhanced and I'm wondering if it's possible to do
some of that enhancement along North Highland. Certainly, we can certainly ask that of the developer. But I would I would also note that the city's uh landscaping requirements are quite high, very high. Um and um we do also allow
some tradeoff because we go by total plant units. So if they want since the number of shrubs could be required to be in the thousands, they can trade some of that for things like trees, full-size trees that could provide more screening
on the site. Okay. And I have just one more if I may. Oh, go ahead. Um I if I understand right, the the the reasonzoning itself is still pending approval by council or or maybe it has been approved. Nope. It hasn't been It's been It's pending approval by
council based on the recommendation of the P. Okay. Well, the question I've got is on on zoning maps when you do a PUD, it shows up on the map as PUD, which means nothing to anybody except that we don't know what rules apply. Is it is it possible on that zoning map when when it
is redone to call this one, for example, an R4 PUB since essentially that's what it is and then when council members or planners or or neighbors look at the map, they understand what they're looking at. Yeah, I certainly think that's possible since each one of these
PUDs is individually reviewed and given a title, let's say, of a zoning district. So if if the uh city council would would like that to be the title of this district, we certainly can write that in the ordinance that would change through reszone the property. Okay.
Thank you. Yeah, we got a couple questions. One of them is has city staff have any conversation with the school district and expansion? I think one of the letters kind of asked, you know, are we land blocking the school for future growth? Right. So, has there been
conversation? We've reached out to the school uh and they have not responded, but we have also been in multiple meetings with this uh school superintendent, Mr. Kester, and he knows about this project proposal and has not provided any opposition towards uh
towards this project. They also received both the letter of the comp plan. They received notice of the comprehensive plan amendment along with the notice of the planning unit development uh project and has not provided any response to either of those. Okay. My next question
is so this um development here is about 10 acres. If it would be a single family for instance, how many homes would be on that area? So in a low density residential district you could have uh you could have 12 units per acre. Okay.
Okay. So, this project is proposing 14.9 units per acre. Okay. Does the commission have any other questions? If not, I'll open it up to the audience. Again, if you have a question, please step up to the
microphone, state your name and address or if they have anything else they'd like me to pull up on the screen, I can certainly do that as as part of the planning commission packet here. Thank you. There must be a question. Well, then I'm going to if
there are no questions or comments, does the developer have anything they want to offer? Thank you for hearing this. Thank you. Um, if not, I'm going to close the public hearing portion of the meeting and move on to the finding effects.
Okay. All right. Public hearing portion of the meeting and the finding of facts is open. The fi portion is closed. We'll discuss the finding of facts. Has the commission had a chance to read and agree or disagree or have
any questions about the proposed finding of facts that we received in the packet? Madam chair, I just have one. Um I know that the city engineer and and planning staff have looked at um all existing
systems um including the road system. I'm just would like to hear some comments from John if you would on on potential future development to the rest of the property. There are several access points that exist, one that's being provided. And really what I'm
interested in knowing and is making us feel comfortable that what's left of that property still is um logically developable. Right. And uh we have taken some preliminary looks at that. One logical extension of a roadway in the area would be Oak Street and that would
be connect uh to connect Oak Street to 7th. Mhm. Um and then within that we would probably have uh neighborhood streets uh uh residential streets. But though there's a number of different layouts that are being considered before
any of those are decided upon or um or anything like that it's going to be brought to the planning commission for their review and input on any propos proposals. So again I ask has everyone read or do we want to individually go through every
question? I I think we should go through each question. Okay. Are adequate property controls established and provided to protect the individual owner's rights and the property values and to define the legal responsibilities for maintenance and
upkeep? Uh staff responded, "Yes, there is only one property owner. Their name is Highland Apartments of Newm uh LLP. The entire property will be managed by Prairie Lakes Management LLC. This firm is directly a affiliated with Keepers Incorporated."
Does the commission agree? Yes. Yes. Yes. Is the project site ad adaptable to the PUD general development plan? Uh staff responded yes. The general development plan would facilitate the construction and operation of a market
rate multif family housing project at 901 North Highland Avenue. Site plan for the project would include two 38-unit apartment buildings and two 36-unit apartment buildings with site amenities. The total number of dwelling units would equal 148. Each building would consist
of a mix of studio, one and two-bedroom units. The project would also involve the construction of a segment of 10th North Street and west uh west of North Highland Avenue. The total lot area uh less the street right ofway is uh
384,199 square ft or 8.82 acres. This acreage amount could accommodate up to 192 dwelling units using the city's R4 lot area standards uh of um 2,000 square feet per unit. The proposed project uh
would be 40 less units than uh permitted by the R4 zoning district. Uh and the project would be constructed in two equal phases. And this is a yes answer. Does everyone agree? Yes. Thank you. Will the proposed PUD be
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare to of the community? Uh staff responded uh no. Uh the project involves the development of four apartment buildings, eight garage
structures with uh 80 enclosed spaces, and 224 surface parking spaces. a large shared green indoor uh sorry outdoor community space that includes a play area, sports court, grill areas, and a fence dog park. These facilities are common to apartment complexes in many
cities and are not known to cause any safety problems. As a result, the proposed project will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the community. And again, do I ask this commission agree? Yes.
Does the interior circulation plan and access from and onto public rightway address, excuse me, address congestion or dangers and be adequate for the safety of the project, residents, and
general public? Um staff responded yes that the project will be constructed in two phases. A total of 76 units uh in two buildings will be built in phase one and an additional 72 units in two buildings will be built in phase two. The only traffic uh generated for this
project are vehicles associated with the dwelling units in these four buildings. The interior core of the property contains four apartment buildings and those four buildings will be surrounded by a large interior green space. The buildings in turn will be surrounded by one or more rows of surface uh surface
parking and an internal circular driving lane that provides access uh to those surface parking areas. Um on the exterior of the circular driving lane, there are eight garages. The driving lane will provide access to North Highland Avenue is an existing major
collector street. Uh a new street will be constructed as part of the project and it will be the extension of 10th North Street. It will also inter intersect North Highland Avenue and both the city's transit systems, the Brown County Heartland Express and Herman Herman Express will both have access to
the apartment area. The proposed circulation system and parking arrangement is common with these types of apartment complexes. The location of these facilities will not be detrimental to to or endanger the public health, safety, welfare, comfort, or sorry, safety, comfort, or general
welfare of the community. North Highland Avenue also has a lane width and capacity to absorb additional traffic generated by the project. Does everyone agree with the findings? Yes. Thank you.
Is there sufficient amount of usable open space provided? Staff responded yes that the site plan shows open space between the four apartment buildings. As we stated earlier, there's roughly 55,900 ft² of open space in that area. Within that area, there is room for a
large green space, separate play area, sports court, grill areas, and a fence dog park. There are also two locations for a smaller storm water retention ponds. On the south side of the property, from North Highland Avenue to uh County State Aid Highway 27, abuts 20 foot wide alley uh lane that has not
been constructed. This space has the opportunity be to be used for a bike trail or walking trail. at some future date. The rightway also provides access to Fender Park. This park has 6.6 acres and is close proximity to the apartment area. Additional biking and walking
trails are possibilities for this park in the uh park area in the future. Park has not been developed. Uh but as this area experiences additional residential development uh pressure, it may be necessary to proceed uh with these types of improvements. project facilities will
not unreasonably disrupt the privacy, use, enjoyment or surround uh enjoyment of the surrounding property owners or reduce the value of adjacent properties. Is the commission in agreement? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Will the arrangement of
the building structures and accessory uses unreasonably disturb the privacy use and enjoyment of surrounding property owners or reduce the value of adjacent properties? Uh staff responded no that the project
site has been designed so that all tenants will have access to shared outdoor community space that consists of a large central green space, play area, sports court, basketball and pickle ball grill areas and a fence dog park. This location will be the primary location for tenant activities. It's also possible that residents will use
facilities located in Fender Park. It should be noted that the garages will also serve as a screening uh service screening from the building um and tenant recreational areas. Surrounding lane uses and their distances from the edge of the apartment buildings or garages are as follows. So to the east
um 165 ft to the north um 110 ft to the future setback line of any future development uh 580 ft to the new high school property line to the west 147 ft to the property line and then to the south 135 ft. The distances between the
building structures and extra accessory uses and those currently in existence are not unreasonable and will not disturb the privacy, use, and enjoyment of surrounding property owners or reduce the value of adjacent properties. In agreement? Yes.
Thank you. Is the architectural design of the project compat of the project compat compatible with the surrounding area? Staff responded yes that the apartment building uses broken facads, undulation,
decks and balconies, colors, texture and banding that serve to break up the scale of the buildings so that they are more relatable to the human scale. The buildings will have a traditional residential aesthetic that will relate to neighboring residential buildings. The garages will have a rectangular
shape and uh more limited landscaping. Portion of the building will have a brick facade and different colors. Is the commission in agreement? Yes. Thank you. I'm going to make this larger. Is there adequate provisions for off streetet
parking and loading, pedestrian access, walks, lighting, landscaping, and other necessary facilities? staff responded yes that the applicant is provided off streetet parking and loading that meet the requirements found in the city zoning ordinance. Total number of parking spaces is require required in
the ordinance uh is two per unit for a total of 304 spaces. Uh this is the total number of required stalls in the R4's uh zoning ordinance uh for highdensity residential uses. Site plan shows a sidewalk system allowing both pedestrians to access all residential
facilities with and uh within and outside the project area. Sidewalk system also provides access to parking, public sidewalk and street locations. The applicant has also provided lighting and a landscaping plan uh that will be required by the city's zoning ordinance.
An agreement. Yes. Yes. Will the project place a burden on existing m municipal infrastructures including utility and drainage systems?
Uh the answer to that should be no. Uh the existing utility system have sufficient capacity to serve this area of the community. Ex extension of 10th north street will facilitate uh service to this general area. Util utility systems would include water, sanitary
sewer, storm sewer, gas, and electricity. The s the city also has two providers of telephone and internet service in the area. Does the commission agree with a no answer? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Will the will the PUD general development plan
schedule ensure a logical development of the site protecting the interests of project residents and general public use? staff responded yes that the applicant anticipates starting phase one construction on the project in the fall of 2025. This would be uh the two uh
easternmost units facing North Island Avenue. Construction is anticipated to be completed in the spring of 2027. Phase 2 would start in the summer of 2027 and would be completed by the fall of 2028. Does the commission agree? Yes. Yes.
Is the PUD in compliance with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance adopted comprehensive and adopted comprehensive plan? Uh staff responded yes. The PUD is in compliance with the intent and purpose of the adopted zoning ordinance and the city's comprehensive plan.
Commission in agreement. Yes. With that said, I'm going to ask are there any other questions from the commission for the city? Uh just one comment that like previously I'm abstaining from anything on this property. Thank you.
I would entertain a motion. They're way back on pay. If I may, I will. Okay. I move to recommend approval with the conditions outlined by staff and a suggestion that um zoning district call this an R4
PUB. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? If not, all in favor? I opposed. Motion is carried. When does this appear before the council? This
would go to the city council on June 3rd at 4:30. June 3rd. Thank you. I'm going to open the next public hearing. It's the PUD for River Haven Housing LLC,
1,800 North Highland Avenue and 1425 to 1625 Maplewood Drive. Just give me a second here to get reorganized. That's fine. Okay. So, this is a public hearing to consider
the general development plan associated with the proposed planning development uh zoning district to accommodate a mixeduse residential housing project. Um the applicant for this uh project is River Hazing Haven Housing LLC. Uh the
property owner of this um of this site is City of New. Uh the legal description for the property is part of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 24 township 110 north range 31 west. Street address for the
property uh is 1,800 North Highland Avenue. The property is located east of North Highland Avenue and south of Maplewood Drive. Uh deadline for a decision on this uh application is July 11th, 2025. Uh the comprehensive plan land use designation for the property as
highdensity residential. Surrounding land uses in the comprehensive plan uh designates the areas to the north, south and east as lowdensity residential and then to the west is parks, open space and municipal airport. Uh zoning designation for the property is
currently PUD uh plan unit development number one. Uh surrounding zoning uh to this property is R1 single family residence district and R2 single and two family residence district. Uh to the south we have the Brown County A1 that's
agricultural district. To the east R1 um and the AOS agricultural open space uh district to the west uh we again have Brown County A1 uh the city R2 and AOS. Currently, the site is farmed or
isow. Current area land uses include to the north single family residences and twin homes. To the south crop farming, to the east undeveloped property and gravel mining, to the west storm water pond and crop farming and airport. Uh notice was provided to all property owners within 350 ft of the subject
property and then published in the journal. Uh on May 17, 2025, uh staff has received phone calls from uh area resident concerned about the project. Uh those concerns included the following. One, the ability to sell individual lots with an apartment being
constructed behind them. Two, the individual single family lot uh lots and twin home lots having enough space for adequate backyards. Three, having enough parking for the development. four, removing trees on the northeast end of the project area for single family
homes. And then uh sorry, number five, mowing and weed control on the site. Utilities are located in uh North Highland Avenue and the am Maplewood Drive. Uh the developer proposes to connect to utilities uh installed uh in
Maplewood Drive for the single family and twin homes. Uh the city engineer has requested that the developer install all utilities um from Maplewood Drive into the single family and twin home lots at one time. Um utilities serving the apartments and
town homes will be provided uh from North Highland Avenue. Uh the site is served by city storm sewer. Uh the applicant will provide some on-site storm water treatment as required on lot 17 for the apartments and town homes.
Uh the the project site will be fully served by the city and public utilities systems. Uh so traffic accessing the apartments and town homes will enter the property from North Highland Avenue. Traffic entering the twin and single family uh home lots will enter from
properties enter the properties from Maplewood Drive. Um so this uh the right ofway the property is located adjacent to North Highland Avenue to the west, Maplewood Avenue to the north and undeveloped Ryan Road to the east. North Highland Avenue
was designated as a major collector street and Maple uh Maplewood Avenue was uh designated as a local residential street. Comprehensive plan does not designate a park uh within this platted area. So summary of the project here. Um for purposes of evaluating this project,
staff again use the standards assigned to the R4, that's the highdensity residential zoning district. Uh the subject property has a total of uh a total area of 7.6 acres. Approximately six of those acres uh on the site are being farmed currently and 1.61
um acres uh was formally mined and is not an active use. Uh the project consists of 17 building lots uh in the approved River Haven Edition Plat Lots 1 through 10. I'm going to pull this up on a map so we all
can visualize this. Sorry about that. Okay, I'll get there. Um, okay. So, lots one through 10 here, here, uh, those would be, uh, developed as twin twin home lots. Lots 11 through 16
would be developed as single family home lots. Um, let me get back here. Um and then uh the two apartment buildings as seen on this site plan uh would be here and here
and the proposed town homes would be here back in the let's call it the uh south and east corner of the property. Um the project is proposed for the following number of dwelling units uh in the two apartment building
buildings 48 units per building totaling 96 dwelling units. Uh so uh in total the two apartment buildings will include eight studio, 56 one-bedroom and 32 two-bedroom units. In the town homes again to the south and east uh would be
one row home consisting of six dwelling units. Twin homes would be five buildings uh a total of 10 dwelling units and then single family homes would of course be uh six individual uh dwelling units. So the total number of dwelling units proposed on the site
would be 118. The developer is proposing to construct the two 48 unit apartments as the first phase of the project and the town homes as phase two of the project. Both the apartments and town homes would be owned and operated by the by the developer. The developer estimates that site
grading could start in the summer or fall of 2025 with the potential for construction to start in the fall or winter of 2025. Uh the developer is proposing to sell the twin home lots and single family home lots to area developers or individuals. The development schedule
for these homes is unknown and will be subject to the market demand. There will be four different types of housing units on the property. Apartments, town homes, single family homes, and twin homes. Uh each housing type will have its own architectural style. So, previous approval
um in 2022, the city council approved the plan unit development proc uh project uh for this site. Um at that time the project consisted of the same number of dwelling units, housing types and configuration but all of the units
uh in that proposal were to be owned um by the developer and then rented out. Uh staff believe that the change in plans uh to now sell the single family and twin home lots warranted another public hearing. Um in addition the PUD and
development agreement uh that the project was to start with uh state that the project was to start within two years of approval and that timeline is now passed. Outline we have the approval process. I went through that in the previous plan unit development um
process uh sorry uh application. I I' I'd care not to read through that. Um again it's this exact same process. um documents to be approved and secured by the plan unit uh development zoning designation. Um a general development
plan uh that's currently under consideration by the planning commission. Uh an ordinance approving the PUD designation that's pending. Um development agreement that's pending. Uh and then final plat uh so filing of that plat is pending. Let me scroll back up
so the audience can see. Okay, so exceptions to the R4 highdensity residential and the R2 uh two family residence district ordinance standards for this project. Um so the
minimum lot widths in our R2 uh zoning district um for a twin home would be 60 ft. Uh the applicant is proposing um lot widths of 62.57 feet uh ranging all the way up to
82.57 57 ft. So they meet that uh minimum lot width criteria. Uh single family home lots um requirement is a 65 ft lot width. The developer is proposing a range from 54
u.94 to 69.13. So they do not meet that uh width requirement. Um, minimum lot area for a twin home in our standards is 7,500 ft². The developer is proposing uh
6,789 to 8,961 square ft. So, um there are a few of the lots that do not meet that uh standard. Uh single family home uh requirements in the R1 district would be
9,000 ft per residence. Um and they're proposing a range between 6,798 to 9,797. Um minimum lot depth uh for a twin home is 125 ft. Uh the developer is
proposing lot depths of 107 to 108. Um single family homes uh minimum lot depth is 125 and the developer is proposing 102 to 122. I would note that if you um go go directly across the street on the twin homes that are already developed
across Maplewood Avenue, the two lots on the far uh let's call it let's call it the east end of the twin homes also received a variance uh back in 2007 to shorten uh the length or the depth of those lots. Um the shortest one being a
lot depth of 100 ft similar similar to what's here. Um maximum building coverage uh for twin homes um on a property is 35% uh the the applicants proposing 20 uh
24% lock coverage. So they're under uh that maximum building coverage number. Uh same with single family which the requirement is 35% and the developer is proposing 24% again that's under uh the maximum amount allowed. Uh parking
stalls required uh for this type of development again is two stalls per residential unit. So they'd have to have 236 stalls. The developer is proposing to have 236 stalls on the site so they meet that requirement. Um mixeduse
residential housing. So, uh, the city doesn't allow different types of mixeduse residential housing, um, to take place. Um, typically those are are separated. Um, and the developer is proposing mixeduse residential housing.
That also is the reason why we're going through the plan unit, one of the reasons why we're going through the plan unit development process. So, the maximum height of the uh, allowance for an apartment like this uh, would be 45 ft. the developer uh proposing 45 ft 1
in. I would note that has been a change from the previous uh proposal which at that time the developer was proposing a maximum height of 50 ft 10 in. So they lowered the height uh by 5'9 in.
Um attached we have the plan unit development application uh the general development plan site location map and zoning district map. and I'll just go through a few of those. Um, so let me get
there. Here's the proposed uh here's the renderings provided um by by the developer um showing uh what the inside of the apartment uh apartments could look like.
um rendering of the uh outside of the apartment building. Um some renderings of single family homes. Um here's the site plan they provided. Again, I would note that the site plan hasn't changed from what was originally
approved by the city council in in 2022. The main change we have here are both the laps in time um before a shovel was put in the ground for a development or a building permit was pulled and again the change in selling those single and twin
home lots rather than um keeping them under one common ownership and renting them out. Here is the location of the subject property in red. Uh here is the uh this the subject property and the surrounding
zoning. Here's a closer up view uh of the site. Um here's the comprehensive plan use showing the different land uses uh designated around the site. Um here's a number of photos. This so this is from taken from North
Highland Avenue facing southeast. Uh this is from Maplewood Drive facing mostly west. Um and for perspective here what they're proposing for the twin homes and the
single family homes. This is kind of the break line. So those single family homes would start roughly in this area and continue to go east. The twin homes would be roughly in this area and then continue out towards North Highland Avenue. Um the proposed apartments would
be constructed on top here and then to the south and east would be the proposed uh six town homes. This is a shot uh taking a look directly at the lots that would be um single family.
Here is uh a photo from North Highland Avenue looking directly to the east um and showing where the apartment uh buildings would be constructed in that area. And then we have uh the the
findings of fact. So that would conclude the staff report. Thank you. One of the questions that came up last time and is coming up I see again this time is the trees that are on that one
corner. Now I if I recall correctly that was addressed because that was going to there were going to be more trees planted than were in that existing. Is that still applicable? Yes, they would be they'd be required to sit to meet the city's landscape requirements and there
would be many more trees uh than what would be lost there. Now, if the developer would consider saving some of the trees on the site because they're older trees or mature trees, we would certainly uh we would certainly recommend doing that. Okay, that is the
area where the single family residential homes could be. So, there is the possibility that they could save the trees in the backyard some degree. The other question that I have is Ryan Road, right? Is that still not going to be developed that it's going to stop where
it exists, but future plans do at some point call for that extension with this proposed project. The extension of Ryan Road is not part of the plans. Um there's still some uh decisions decisions that need to be made by uh the
the owners of the Walner pit and how we're going to meet elevations to match up the road to get it at the right uh elevation to service that area. And all accesses except for the twin homes along Maplewood Drive were all filtered out
onto Highland. Is that still correct? Correct. So, the apartments and the town homes would enter and exit onto North Highland Avenue. The single family homes and the twin homes would enter onto Maplewood Drive. Okay, that was my question. Can I just follow up on that?
If Ryan Road is not going to be extended at this point, is the only access to the town building through the parking lot of the apartment building? Yes. What do you use for an address? How do normal people find that? Right. So we we had reviewed all of that with uh the US Postal
Service and EMS when we were initially going through this process in 2022. Okay. And the conclusion they come up with they came up uh to is it would be apartment whatever the the address apartment A B and then you have a
number. Okay. And then the same would go for it would be unit 1 2 3 4 5 six in the town homes. Okay. Are there any other questions from the commission? I'm opening this up to the audience. Does the audience have any
comments or questions or statements they wish to make? Please state your name and address. Thank you. Uh Paulo Peglieri, 1828 Henley Drive. First, I'd like to say I'm not against the development of the housing. I think it's a great opportunity for the city. I love to see
new warm have 30,000 people so I don't have to drive my wife to mano to go shopping. So I do appreciate the development. However, uh when we built our home, we built on the assumption that we're building a neighborhood of
low density homes. Uh and that's what we we did and that's what we support. We don't want that that um uh housing to be changed now to high density. And I saw that John showed some pricing on house property. I do think that some of those
older properties, it's okay. You might not lose value, but now you have homes there that are selling for half a million dollars. And I would never buy a home for half a million dollars that is on a high density populated neighborhood. And I don't think anybody here would. So, I don't think I think
it's a great opportunity for the town to have those developments, but I think they're reszoning a neighborhood that has been built on a trust that the city would maintain that word and keep that development on as what it was. It's the strength of our town and it's what our
neighborhood wants. It wants to have the confidence that the city is going to support us so that we can invest in the city. Um, and I think there are other areas. There is behind running there is the big open lot there by the rental units. Why isn't this proposed to be there? There's a lot of other rental
units in the same region region and going down 29 county there, county road 29, there's a bunch of area that is open which would probably be a better fit for this type of development. So I don't want to take up a lot of time but I think that I am supporting of the housing development but not of the
resoning of our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. John, do you have anything to address those concerns? Um, well, apprec I appreciate the comments. Um, this is similar to something that's
been similarly brought up when we went through the public hearing process to change the land use designation and also the first time I went through the process of the plan unit development or reszoning of the property. Uh so I appreciate and and it's clear that uh
the neighborhood um still has those similar concerns. Couple things uh about the area behind Runnings and I I anytime a developer comes into town, we show them that site that that property owner is not interested in selling that
property out on County Road 29. Uh and I appreciate that comment too cuz that's that makes a lot of sense. uh that that area there's parts uh of that area that are outside the city limits and um when
we recently went through the orderly annexation agreement with Milford Township, one of the property owners out there uh specifically wanted to be not included in that orderly annexation agreement and it's unlikely that area will be developed into the future or at least come into the city of New. So I
just want to point out those two things. Thank you John. what it's sort of water or the dam at this point, but what was the um land use designation and the count plan before it was amended? It was low
density residential. So that's what the comment was referencing. That's when they bought, they bought with that vision. Okay. John, could you touch base maybe? So the acreage here, if that was all single family dwelling, how many homes we would have? Do you have a to I
could do the math quick here. um you know to that you know or are we over or under boy I'm going to have to do the math here real quick. Give me a second. So they would allowed 12 units per acre. Um we have just about 8 acres.
So they'd be allowed 9 roughly 96 and we're at 118. Yep. Okay. Are there any other audience members that wish to comment? John, I don't want to take too much. Please step up to the
microphone. In in regards to the pricing, Paulo Peglear 1828 Henny driving in regards to the pricing of the other properties that you assessed like the the 11 you assessed and eight sold for whatever the market was and three were under. Do you have an idea what the
price of those homes were and then how old were they? So that just so we have a fair comparison to what's going to happen to our pricing. Sure. So, I have if if if you would like, I could certainly share those with you. Um, we were we were basing it off of we don't
have any new multifamily housing where new homes have been built next to that for a very for a very long time. That's the point. They're all older homes. They're already not as high price where else they were quite high priced. Um, and if you don't give me a second
here, they're not in that $500,000 range. Um but here so yeah so they're relatively high but like you said they're not where our neighborhood is right now cuz right now
market prep for for tax purposes my home for example is above 400 to sell the house would be at least a half a million and there's no way I would pay or anyone in here would pay a half a million dollars to live near an apartment.
Thank you. name and address, please. My name is Jim Scaliski. Uh I live at 1612 Maplewood Drive. Uh when my wife and I bought that property, uh we specifically asked the
developer uh what was going to be across the street from us and we were assured it was going to be residential, twin homes, same style housing that we have. This is changing all that. Uh it's
definitely going to affect the value of our property. Um I have a question for John. Um, has an EAW been done? So, this is under that 150 150 attached
unit threshold. So, a mandatory EAW wouldn't be required for this site. How about an EIS? Environmental impact study. Yes. Nope. Hasn't been done for this site. So, I request that that be done on this site. Environmental impact
study. What could Sorry, excuse me. Could you um tell me what he specifically would like to know? Is it a a storm water issue or a wetland issue? Uh all the issues that pertain to building on the property that you're
proposing. Um if you could go back to the slide where um the standards of the lots and all the nose, the lot sizes aren't the right size. uh many things that have that are nos on
on that sheet. So I'm wondering why we're proposing to build something when it doesn't meet the codes. I think you went too far. Right there. The lot sizes aren't big enough. Um
they're not wide enough. They're not deep enough. Um this one, mixed residential housing not permitted. Uh we're proposing to permit it. Um maximum height 45 ft. Uh we're saying that the
apartment building can be 45 ft 1 inch. [Music] Um the general view of our neighborhood and we're very tight neighborhood is we don't need the elevation of the
property across the street from us uh goes up. So on top of that you're going to build a fourstory building towering over us. Um I live across the street. anybody that they're going to sell these
twin home lots in and on Maplewood. Number one, their lot is narrow and it's not very deep and the parking lot is going to be right up to the back of their property. They're not going to have how much backyard do they say they're going to have? It's not much.
So, who are you going to sell those lots to? Who's going to develop that? It's undesirable. It's going to be, like I say, um, the airport, is the airport signed
off on this project? I mean, the FFA, FAA. Yes. Um, it just seems odd that just a block away on Henley, they made the city take down the street lights because it interfered with the airport.
But now we're going to build a block away from that a four-story building. It it that to me that doesn't make any sense. Um green space. Um if you look at the picture or the description, I don't
see any green space for this apartment building. All I see is parking lot. I see a building and a huge parking lot. Um, John assured me that there was 204, I believe, over 200 parking spaces.
And the the picture that they show us is a great picture of a nice building with what, five, six cars around it. I mean, I'd like to see a rend rendition of a picture with a hundred cars in that parking lot. And what do they do when we
get five inches of snow? Where are those people going to go? I've asked all along a developer, somebody develop the property to build one with garages, you know, make it three stories with garages
or my my dream would be build a garden terrace across the street from us. use the whole property that you've you've purchased and de develop it into a garden terrace where when I get old enough I can take care of my lawn. I can
move across the street uh and and have a garage. You know the we're in Minnesota. Nobody wants to leave their car outside. So, um I I
guess our third word rep uh is not here. Um I I was hoping some support from him. Um he's not here. So, I guess I invite anybody on the council uh to come to my address, 1612
Maplewood, and sit in my driveway and look at what I'm going to see. Uh I'm okay with twin homes across the street, but that is not going to block a four-story building sitting on top of a hill because it's on top of a hill where
they're projecting to build it. It just seems like this is such a what do I want to call it? I'll use good words. They're trying to put 10 lb 10 lbs of sugar in a 5 lb bag. This
is a very small piece of property, 7 acres, and they're trying to squeeze this big apartment building on there. Uh, and it it's going to be an eyesore. It's going to be all parking lot.
That's what I have to say. Thank you. Do you want to address the issue of green space? I can you go back to the slide with the green space. this this slide. Okay, that's fine. Uh
so the the green space uh shown on this site would include green space just along here south property line boulevard just inside the property line here in the middle corners of the
buildings here and then uh back behind the row homes. Thank you. Did you have something to say? Please step up. State your name and address. Hi, Mary Henley. Um, representing NewM Real Estate, 1227
North Broadway in New. Um, I just have a few comments that, you know, people are approaching us because they are definitely concerned with their property values. Um, if this would be the case and this would go ahead.
um the way the land is architecturally or it it is quite higher then it is going to be like looking down. So was wondering if there's going to be any there to level that out. Um the
other thing that's come up is with both apartments and thank goodness we're getting some market rate apartments. So again, the city my um this is workforce rate, is it? It's not workforce now
market rate. Okay, thank you. Um just we're so blessed and thankful that we're getting some market rate housing. So thank you for that. Um that it seems like your apartment building, the first one and this one, they're having almost
different requirements. um your green space, different things. So, people have brought that up and also the the traffic. So, with the both of them with the Highland and then the
students driving um that they're very worried about accidents and pedestrian um things. The other thing just as a a real estate agent, I think the city that if you're owning the lots with the
parking lot directly behind um and they're smaller, it will have to be definitely um a developer that's thinking outside the box because if it has one uh garage stall, um again, you're
limiting quite a few people right there that may want and need more than that. I mean, we're kind of it's kind of functionally obsolescence, but even now in no triple garages are getting to be that people just seem to want more of that. So, so those are the things I had
to say. Thank you. John, would you address the traffic and the speed again? Um it's it seems to be a recurring issue and that's a study that will be done after the development. It will be reassessed after
the development is traffic patterns and yeah I mean this the city engineer and uh always takes a look at um traffic patterns as development increases within the community because they need to take into account those extra vehicles that could be in a neighborhood or traveling
along North Highland Avenue. Uh North Highland Avenue in this segment um basically between the roundabout and US Highway 14 is substantially lower in volume um to the amount of roughly 300 sorry 3,000 less vehicles uh per day. Um
but a full traffic study will be depon be done by the Department of Transportation we anticipate in 20 uh sorry 2026. So, they're going to reassess this segment of North Highland Avenue to get a more current number because the last time uh a traffic study
was done up here by MDOT was 2021. Okay. What about the height of the apartment as far as land? Is that going to be shaved down to be level or is it going to remain elevated?
Yeah, the the developer is proposing to uh grade that site down. Um I I don't think we have a final a grading plan that says what how how much lower or if it's going to be lower than the existing elevation. There is screening to to take
place that would screen a lot of the apartment buildings also. Correct. Well, there there will be screening uh provided on the sorry on the back side of the twin and uh single family home lots between uh those and the apartments.
State your name and address, please. Robert Wise, 1624 Maplewood Drive. I live just about right there. Okay. On that corner. And um I don't I'm not I I am not um Could you
step a little closer to the microphone, please? I'm not as in favor of of as as Paulo is of um having a having a town of 30,000 people. So I'm from Gibbon. So I'm used to 854 people. Um
but anyway, so so the apartment buildings and stuff don't really excite me too much. Um although I see the need for them because I've was a banker my whole life and I understand housing needs and things like that. But um I would like to
point out I guess I guess a couple things that you have asked questions on. Um, those are the twin homes and they're going to have probably I don't know maybe 30 20 30 ft of backs back backyard space and they're
going to be right up to the line of the property and I don't see any plan that puts any screening between them and the the apartment and the parking and stuff. um that the that is on a ridge that's the ridge is probably the equivalent of
two more stories. So it's like if you're looking at it from my place or Jim's place, you're looking at not a fourstory building, you're looking at a sixstory building, the equivalent of if they don't bring that down at at some point.
Um the other thing I wanted to address was the um traffic. I'm not concerned about the traffic. We're used to the traffic on North Highland, but since they made Maplewood a through street, which it didn't didn't used to be. Um,
it has increased the traffic on there quite a bit. Um, a lot of it school traffic go kids going to and from school. Um, probably not with the best driving habits that you can imagine. um we have as much or more dump truck
traffic on that street than we had before. I don't know how that street will will put up with that as long as that pit is open and they're still using that street. Um that and as an example of the safety
issue and our concerns is se you know many of us are senior citizens on on that street. Um, we already have one that is backing into her driveway and into her garage so that when she comes out, she can come out forward facing and
see the traffic and see what's going on in order to to actually get onto Maplewood. So, those are some of the issues we're talking about when it comes to traffic safety. We don't it's not North Highland, it's Maplewood that we're worried about. So, thank you.
Thank you. Has any engineering study been done in relationship to this? You know, we've talked about traffic on North Highland as has Maplewood come up uh about the increased traffic volume. Uh the city engineer has not indicated
um that he has reviewed that uh for substantial increases of traffic volume. Again though, we're talking about 10 uh 10 um units for twin homes and we're talking about uh six units for single
family homes. We're not talking about the apartment complex. Not that they couldn't use Maplewood Drive, but they are all exiting onto North Highland Avenue. Okay. You may step to the microphone, please. State your name and address.
Craig Opel 1827 Henley. So I'm right on the corner right here. The question I have is with the town I have big objections to this. Just trying to figure out right across the street from us where how much how
far back will those houses start based on the drawing there? Because it is, if you stand at our house on sidewalk cuz we're up a little, there's a grade that goes up there, that whole thing is almost a 30 foot tall grade. How are
they going to get down to get enough depth for a house? How are they going to do that? And then if they do, aren't they going to have 20 foot? Because these are going to be butt right up to that back. Aren't you going to have a 20 foot drop? I need
you to speak to the microphone, please. Thank you. Oh, Wendy, did you want to talk about the green plan? State your name and address, please. Wendy Anderson, excuse me. So, as far as
the addressing Mary's thing, there's two stall garages. It's just the photo that they sent over showed one cut off. As far as a grading plan, I know they have to take a lot of dirt off the site, grade it down according to the civil
plans. Okay. As far as we don't have a landscaping plan, but there'll be trees and things planted too to break and the purpose was to reflect maple cross maple do twins reflect
singles. Okay. Thank you. Please step up to the microphone. Name and address, please. El Neighbor6004 Maplewood. Thank you. I
have one objection to this. The lot size. I'm the recipient of the pie on the end. There's not enough room in the back for anybody. That was not my problem when I moved there.
But as I see it going forward, why isn't somebody allocated enough space to play or have a garden or anything like that in the back? And if do you know what the grade is going to be taken down?
I'd have to I'd have to review uh sorry, I'd have to take a look at uh any final grading plans that that would be submitted. Um, and we could certainly share those uh with the planning commissioner, the city council u when we have those.
Right. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to address the state your name and address please? Hello my live 1900 Henley. I also have the same objection that Mr. Per did
about changing the D from the one which is what it was when we built the houses. Also, I don't think that traffic considerations have been adequately considered. You can have all these people going somewhere like school for example. It's 8:00. So at the same time,
same plan to work all those things like that. I think no consideration has been given to that. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else that come speak again? Yes, please. Yes, please.
I'm assuming, Jim, that you're speaking for the a group. I am. Thank you. One of the things that bothered me about this project is um the city sent out this letter on the 16th. It was a Friday, so
none of us got it until the following Monday. Um, and then we have Memorial Day in here. So, I myself have not really had a lot of time to prepare for something like this. And I'm sure a lot
of us here have not had time to prepare. So, I like that also be to be considered that they don't decide on this project uh as a go-ahad. And I I would really like to
see the city do an EIS on this property to evaluate it before you make a decision. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Is an EIS 10 seconds. Just something on the record. Um, I have a 10 kilowatt PV
system in my house and uh, I want it to be known that if there's shading from the proper property that minimizes my output on that solar panel, I would like to be uh, monetarily rec uh, compensated for that loss due to this apartment
being built there. You know, if it's shading on my solar panels, I'm not be producing any electricity, especially in the winter months. And if I'm not being if I'm not getting that production then who is going to pay for my loss of
income due to that shading. Thank you. Come Craig Opal 1827 Handley as a followup as they say in court. Okay. That's fine. on the grading. It seems like one of the big questions everybody has is the grading here because if you look straight from our house, if you go
up toward Highland, it's lower, right? But if you try to put a house in right across from us, I don't care about a house there and just a house going to you're going to have to dig out, you know, 20 30 feet and that's the depth of the whole rest of the property back
there. And I don't know that we sounds like we haven't had a real answer of how they going to do that and how far back do they have to dig because if you go you drive by there where they mow Mhm. beginning open part of it is only half
of that before you're starting to go when you get down towards our place only half of that to get up to a 20ft grade. And that gets you up to the top of the property. And that also gets you to the level that the apartment will be on,
which again I I just don't know how you're gonna get how the they must have a gigantic wall or something back there. So it's about grade. Wendy, do you want to address the grade again, please?
So, this plan has been uh looked over and produced by Bolton and Meek to hit all the city stuff with all the city meetings with the engineers. So, I know that there's quite a bit of like uh dirt that has to be moved. I can't tell you
how much, but it did reduce the height. So, there'll be height difference. So, there is grading great dealing. A lot of dirt that B has us moving. Okay. Okay. Do I have any other questions, comments,
concerns? Does the developer have anything that they wish to address besides grading? Are there any questions from the commission now that we've heard from the public? Madam Chair, John, I've got a couple of um procedural questions. The
first is has the approval for the original PUD sunseted? It has not, has it? Only the development agreement? No. the the approval for the PUD uh in order for that to have continued the project would have needed to been constructed
within two years of the approval date by the city council and that time period has lapsed. Okay. And then two others is there some reason why we don't at this level for the public hearing get a landscaping plan and a grading plan? They can be preliminary but it would be
nice if we could see some of this. Sure. So that's that's a typically what the city has done is we re we receive those along with the building with the building construction plan. So that hasn't been a practice in the past, but if the planning commission warrant it uh warrants it or would like to see that in
the future, that's something we certainly could provide. Speaking for myself, I absolutely would. I mean, and I think the public has a right to see it too at the public hearing. Okay. And we can address that in in in the next off-site meeting.
Yeah, sure. Is that acceptable? Okay. Anyone else have any questions? John, would it be possible that we table this to ask for that uh you know topography plan, you know, for the site
elevation and then the study that he was looking for for the environmental needs and bring that back at the next planning commission meeting. So the uh the city attorney is on on the line too. So if he can correct me if I'm wrong here, but there are there are three options the
planning commission has at their disposal. One is to recommend approval to the city council, recommend denial, or to table this to come back to the next meeting in June. John by it could be the state statute has changed since I practiced because
I'm sure it has. But do we still have the option to extend um the deadline for um deciding by 60 days or does that require developers consent? Robert, would you mind helping me with
that question? Not at all. Thank you, commissioners. We would have to have it in. Uh there is still the option under the 60-day rule for the city if it needs more time to consider an application to unilaterally extend the uh time period to consider the application by another 60 days. It
just has to be communicated in writing prior to the expiration of the original 60 days. Good. So I not speaking for everybody else but for myself I think that grading is such um a critical issue that I would like to
um recommend tableabling this I actually move to table this until we are able to get a grading plan and a landscaping plan. Would we like to include maybe the environmental study that that's a different thing? an environmental impact statement is is something that you can't
take care of in 60 days. Okay. It was your your your motion was to cover the table until we are able to look at and review as a as a commission um a grading plan and a landscaping plan.
just and that and that extension is with for 60 days. Well, I'm not if we have the time to extend and then I would have staff formally extend that. I simply would say that we should table this until we have the information we need to
make a good decision. And just to clarify too is that we're making the recommendation this would go this tableabling would go to the city council for approval. Correct. Well, it doesn't leave this body if we table it. Okay. Thank you.
[Music] I have a motion on the floor. Are there any questions or is there second to the motion? I would second that motion. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion on tableabling
this hearing? None. All in favor? I I opposed. Motion has been tabled. Closes the public hearing portion of the River Haven Develop Housing LLC. I'm going to open a public hearing on the PUD, the plan unit
development for Land Haven Development LLC, 2211 Jacob Street. Okay. All right. Let me get things organized. Yes, it is. Mhm. Okay. Does anybody on the planning commission need to take a
short break or are we good to go? I'm still good. I'm good. You You're the one doing all the reading. Thank you. Okay. Uh so this next item on the agenda is to consider the general development plan associated with the
plan unit development zoning district uh to accommodate a mixeduse storage facility. Um could close that one. Thanks. Can I have a quiet in the audience, please? Thank you. So, uh, the applicant for this project
is Anthony Golden on behalf of Land Haven Development LLC. Uh, the property owner, um, of this site is the city of New. Uh, the legal description for the property currently is lot one, block one, Airport Industrial, Third Edition.
Uh it's proposed to be lots 1 through 29 block one outlot A and outlot B of the Land Haven edition. Uh the street address is 2211 Jacob Street. The property location is west of Jacob Street and east of Walmart. Deadline for a decision on this application is July
8th, 2025. And the land use designation uh in the city's comprehensive plan for this property is industrial. surrounding land uses um in the comprehensive plan to the north east uh are both industrial to the south it's commercial and then to the west and uh it's industrial and
parks and open space uh currently the property is uh zoned I1 that's the uh planned industrial district uh it's proposed to be PUD uh that's plan unit development um surrounding zoning of the property.
To the north is the Brown County I1 uh industrial district. Uh to the east it's uh I1 to the south it's B2, the general business district. To the west it's the Brown County I1 Industrial District. Again, currently the site is farmed. Uh
current area land uses include uh crop farming to the north, crop farming and industry to the east. Uh to the south we have Walmart and the airport and then to the west we have crop farming and minards. notice was provided to all property owners within 350 ft of the subject property and published in the
journal on May 17th, 2025. To date, staff has not received any p uh public comment on this proposal. Uh utilities uh are located in Jacob Street and Baron's Boulevard. Uh the developer intends to connect utilities installed in Jacob Street.
Private utilities will be installed uh in a privately developed roadway or easement areas within the project area. The site is served by the city city's storm sewer system. The applicant will also provide some on-site storm water treatment in our lot A and B. Uh because
of the development size, the project will be fully served by the city's PUC uh city and PUC utility systems. Uh the project will have direct access to Jacob Street uh Jacob Street Samson and uh Samson Street and Barons
Boulevard will serve as a secondary means of access. uh to and from the site. Jacob Street also connects directly to US Highway 14. As this area develops in the future, other streets will be constructed to serve this property and others in the area. Uh the
city engineer has reviewed the project site plan and and anticipated traffic volumes uh from the project and concluded that Jacob Street will be able to accommodate the additional traffic generated from the project. Uh lot 29 will serve as a private street. The
street is U-shaped uh with the exception of a small extension on its north south leg. City has found that the uh the street to this city has found that the street adequately provides access uh necessary access to the lots within the
project area. The east side of the pro uh property abuts Jacob Street. Jacob Street was designed to accommodate industrial traffic and eventually uh and eventually um traffic through this area. All roads within the project area will be privately uh privately owned and
managed by the applicant and eventually by an association. Uh the comprehensive plan does not designate a park area within the platted uh platted area. So for the purpose of evaluating uh this project staff has used the development standards
assigned to the I1 planned industrial district. Uh the proposed project would involve platting uh the platting of 28 lots um and one lot designated for a private use uh U-shaped street and uh two outlots for storm water uh retention
purposes. 28 of the lot 28 of the lots would be established uh for a barnaminium uh style of building with uh units with gas, electric, water and sewer services. uh six lots um would be established for
storage condominiums um with only gas and electric. Sorry, that was I misread. It should be 22 lots for barnuminiums, six lots for storage sheds only. My
apologies. Um an association will manage the entire project area. uh association documents also known as governing documents are legally binding rules that govern the association. These documents define the rules and regulations for the community and outlined the rights and
responsibilities of the property owners. Uh they will establish a framework for the community management decision-making and dispute resolution within the within the property. Uh the associ association documents will further describe the style, color, size, and buildings constructed on the
property along with utility and maintenance responsibilities. Property owners that reside within this area will be advised that their association uh property abuts industrial and commercial land uses. As a result, uh they may be subject to dust, traffic, noise, vibration, refues,
garbage, glare, odors, and smoke generated by area properties. These nuisances are not normally found within residential areas. Um the storage condominiums uh would be constructed for personal
property storage and uh and use on an individual basis. Uh the barnaminiums could be constructed uh with an internal residential dwelling unit that cannot exceed uh that would not exceed 50% of the building footprint. The remainder of the building will have an openhouse uh
open floor plan. The building would be steel- sighted and have the uh have the same colors as the storage condos. Storage condos are permitted use in the I1 zoning district. Uh barnuminiums are not a permitted
use. So again, the PUD approval process is outlined in the staff report. Uh documents to be provided to secure a plan unit development designation include the general development plan which is what we're considering tonight. Ordinance approving the PUD designation
development agreement um and preliminary plat. The preliminary plat will be considered by the planning commission at tonight's meeting. Um so exceptions to the I1 industrial district ordinance standards. Um, so in the I1 district, our minimum
lot width uh for for a lot is 100 ft. The developer is proposing 60 ft. So it does not comply with the minimum lot width requirement. Minimum lot area uh in the I1 um planned industrial district
is 20,000 square ft and the developer is proposing a range of 6600 to 18,126 ft. Um so that is less than the minimum lot area requirement. Parking stalls uh they're proposing um one stall
per storage building and two stalls uh or sorry the ordinance requires one stall per storage building and two stalls per residence. A minimum of two stalls uh per lot for the barnaminiums and one stall per storage unit is being provided. So they do meet that
requirement. Uh the required yard setbacks uh in the I1 um would be 30 ft in the front yard, 15 ft in the uh 15 ft in the interior sideyard, and then 25 ft in the rear yard. Um the developer is
proposing a front yard setback of 20 feet, interior sideyard of 10 ft, a rear yard of 15 feet. So it doesn't meet those uh yard requirements. Uh maximum building height in that zoning district is 45 ft and these buildings will not exceed uh that height. Um maximum
building coverage uh in the I1 is uh 50%. This project uh is proposing the buildings not to exceed 50% of the lot uh total lot area. Um so again, residential uses aren't uh aren't permitted in the I I1 zoning district
and they're proposing to have up to 28 residential units. Um so the amount of residential space within a storage building also um this is in the uh residential zoning districts. Um you're not allowed to have um you're not
allowed to have more than 50% of the total area of the building or footprint of the building to be garage space if it's a residence. In this case, um the garage space will exceed uh the store, sorry, the garage space will exceed the
residential living quarters uh within the building. Um we have uh number of attachments, the PUD application, general development plan, site location map. Um I'm going to go through a few of
those things. One thing I I would note that the I1 uh planned industrial zoning standards uh were set forth with the or designed with the idea that we were going to develop these much larger lots um for
single industrial purposes. So if some place like uh well like up in that uh zoning district we have DLC or we have Zinnel boring the idea was that they'd have large enough lots um planned out in those areas so they could construct
their business and have future area to expand on the site. Uh so this uh this project is kind of looking at a mix of things both um at an allowed use which would be the storage buildings um um in that zoning district
but then adding in uh the fact that people could reside in those buildings. Um I would note that this concept is new to new um but it's not unique to Minnesota. It's not unique to the Midwest. Uh these in fact when I was out
uh going to South Dakota this fall I drove by a whole series of barnaminiums on the far north side of Brookings. So uh they are out there and there seems to be interest uh from area residents as well as uh uh people from outside the
area in this type of this type of dwelling unit. Here's a rendering uh that has been provided. This would be the storage condos that they're proposing. They're also, as you can see here, uh they're proposing stone facades on the front um
of of the building. So, those storage condos. Here's another look uh at a storage condo. Here would be the look of the entire uh development
space. Um as I mentioned earlier, uh they're going for a uniform look in both color, height. Um, but they do have four different floor layout options if I'm correct. Um, sorry. This is the barnaminium. My
apologies. This is the look of the storage condo. So, this is the location of the subject property here. Uh, to the south is Walmart. Um over here is um industrial property that has been
developed uh for um for industrial I1 industrial uses and then to the north and to the west it's vacant um property that is also owned by the city of New uh here is the zoning map. You can see
all this in light blue is the I1 zoning district. Here is the proposed lot layouts over the top of an aerial photo. So, you can see that uh pro anybody that would be um
interested in purchasing one of these properties could enter off of Jacob Street and it more or less makes a U around the entire property. So, there's two access points uh for anybody that would uh look to purchase one of those properties. Here is the comprehensive
plan land use map. Um area in purple is industrial. This area over here in green is parks open space. That's also the airport safety zone. Here is the uh taking a look at
the property from the uh from from the north looking to the west towards Walmart over here. Here again is just a little bit closer shot. The reason I took these photos is because you can see the farmer
has already uh tilled the areas that are outside of this property. Um, and the area that's untilled over here, uh, is what we're referring to this application. Here's a photo taking a look to the northwest from
Jacobs. And then, uh, the staff, uh, completed findings facts. Um so uh staff would recommend approval of the application uh for a gen a PUD general development plan and the reasons for
this recommendation would be found in the findings of fact form. Uh there would be two recommended uh conditions. uh one that the applicant/owner will pay the cost to record uh necessary documents with the Brown County Recorders Office and two
that the establishment of the PUD project will require the approval of the following documents which include A reszoning of the property by ordinance, B development agreement and then C a final pl. Uh we have two motions, one to ex uh recommend approval and then one to
recommend denial. Uh that concludes the staff report. I would note that I think the developer has a number of folks here representing um Land Haven um that I'm sure would be willing to talk or answer any questions you might have. It's kind of fun watching people leave and filter
in. I have um a couple questions and I know you talked about the city yet working with these people for storm water development and and placement, but I I want to when I look at that particular
site map, it's very compact, which is great. I mean, it's a good land use. Where are they going to put their snow um plowing? because it says it's privately plowed. It's not a not city.
They're responsible for their own cleaning and it is an association. So where is that going to go besides on public property? So there would be room within the lots to to push that snow. I don't know if the developer
has other uh other ways they want to remove uh snow from the property, but the city will not be involved with removing snow from the property. That's for them to decide in their private development. So, it stays on that property. Correct. Doesn't get shoveled
off into the middle of Jacob Street and left. Nope. Okay. Are there any other questions? I I can count on you. Yes. Thank you. Has there been a closing on the property
sale already? Uh the city council approved the the purchase agreement with the developer. closing won't happen on uh until or andor if the city council approves the plan unit development or general development plan. Good. Just
wondering um so if you could put up maybe the air photo of the site and immediately surrounding area. I've got a question on uh that one would do right there. This one will work. Um, essentially the property immediately
to the west of the site will continue to be city-owned, but um, if it's, you know, a large user that wants to pick up the rest of that piece or part of it, it ends up having an odd configuration. I don't I wouldn't say that it's landlocked, but it makes it more difficult to develop because you
can't get at it easily. Has that already been considered? it has been considered and I would note there's actually a few unique circumstances on this site that really aren't shown on aerial photos. Okay. So, in addition to where roadways uh could be placed on the site and and
moving further to the west, there is also a shared tile major tile line that serves much of the property past Thompson Slooh. Okay. Going to the west on Highway 14 that cuts through the corner right about in this area. that
already cuts up cuts up that property significantly. One thing that because of the strange configurations of of where that tile line is on the property, one thing being considered by the city and especially the public utilities is locating the next substation out in that
area. Okay. Would that like take most or all of what's left of that piece? Uh it it could. Yes. Yep. All right. I was kind of happy to see the
barnaminium part of it, but when I look at the map, the barnaminiums, I'm assuming, are the exterior portion and the interior, but that can't be all storage. They have to be some barnaminiums because there was
six barnam. So if I understand uh correctly, are proposed to be um 1 through 22, 23 through 28 would be the storage condominium. Oh, okay. Thank you. That was unclear to me. And I and I do believe and Michelle can probably set
my mind at rest cuz in your profession, you probably see more barnaminiums now. Yes. than we have in the past because I mean insurance has always been a struggle on this kind of project but I understand that there has been
some concerns that yeah we haven't had any issues financing them we haven't had any issues with insurance they're popular yeah okay we we call them shes I'm guessing it's similar okay but yeah
okay what what do you call them shouse combination house Cool. Is there anyone from from the audience that wishes to speak? This group's quiet. Okay. Could I just pose one more? Yes. It's it's just
a thought. Um planners are allergic to single loaded streets. Why why is there a single loaded street here? we just not enough demand for additional row of of of
barnaminiums or it just cries out for future requests to to to load the other side of the street. I know it's private, but on on the north, are you referring to? Yes. Right. So, one of the things the city would like to consider in the future on this property, we're going to be following the same process that we
would be doing with that North Highland project. Coming back to the planning commission with conceptual layouts of roadways in that area cuz we have to consider a couple things. both that that uh line that was tile um where the PUC substation could be located and then
also where storm water is ultimately going to be located on the site. So there's a number of different factors we have to take into consideration and we we don't have that at this time but we'll come back to the planning commission with that. So is there the possibility there's a phase two to this one and the other side of that private
street gets loaded instead of wasted? Uh, I suppose there could be there could be or there could be. Um, yeah, that would that would that would make logical sense. Um, but I think the city isn't interested in in in any way, shape, or
form taking over that private street at all. It's it is publicly speaking substandard. And why would we want to? Yeah. Right. Are there any other questions? audience commission, would you like to go through the finding
of facts prior to closing the public hearing or do you want to continue be before we move on the uh so when I look at the uh rendering of the whole area? Right. I'm just curious about the private uh
the private streets cuz what what we see with these these types of buildings is maybe private truckers or something. So, semis being stored inside and whatnot. Um is there room on these streets to be able to
uh maneuver semi-truckss into those into those shes? this the city engineer reviewed this site and this would this would meet the standard for internal movements for a private development like this not for a city street we would
require at least probably a 60 ft roadway um in cases like this now having a narrower roadway in in this case isn't some we we don't really dictate how wide that has to be so if the developer can't accommodate someone who wants to use a
semi and purchase one of these properties that's really their own issue that they have to deal with and and not the city's responsibility. Okay. Um and then what was the other question?
Oh, is the developer planning to construct the whole property at once or are they going to construct them as they're sold? Is that kind of the plan? If I understand correctly, they may put up one as kind of a showcase piece and
then develop them as they're sold. Okay. Yes. Back to the private street and utilities. Um have have has staff seen association documents yet? We have not seen them. So you don't really know if the mechanism for taking care of these
streets is adequately addressed or not yet. We don't know that, but we will have uh we will have those mechanisms in the association documents because we will review those before they're recorded with the Brown County Recorders Office. We've done this with a similar situation where we had uh we had
attached sheds and we had to review the we had conditions uh that went along with the approval of those uh that project and then found or not found but were given the association documents for review by the city attorney prior to that. uh project moving forward. Okay.
Thank you. Any other questions? I'm going to move on to the finding facts and close the meeting after in case any correct any questions come up. Is that all right? Yeah. I'm assuming you want this read. Uh that's that's up to the commission. Has
the commission read the finding the facts forms and or do they agree or have questions before I Has everyone had a chance to read them? Yes. Do you want them read or do you want to accept them as presented? Let's
accept them. Accept them just as they're presented. Yes. Everyone is agreement. Okay. We are willing to accept the finding of facts as presented. So I am going to close the public hearing portion of this meeting and call for a
motion. All right. I'd like to move that we recommend approval of this um general plan, this PD general plan with the conditions that have been specified by city staff. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any
further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I. Opposed? Motion carried. When does this appear? June 3rd. This will go to the city council on June 3rd. Next Tuesday at 4:30. Thank you all very
much. Next item on the agenda is the variance request from Renee Peterson, 608 South Front Street. staff. One second here. I don't want you all to be upset that I'm getting angry.
I think we all are. It's not your fault. Uh, so this is a public hearing on a variance request to allow the construction of a 28x35 ft residential detached garage to be constructed between the existing home and the front
yard setback line. Uh, the applicant is Renee Peterson. She is also the property owner. Legal description is lot 3, block 6, south of Center Street. Uh the street address for the property is 608 South Front Street. And the property is generally located on the west side of uh
Front Street between 6 South uh Street, 6th Street South, and then 7th uh South Street uh in the middle of the block. Deadline for a decision on the application is July 1st, 2025. Uh the land use designation for the property is low density residential. Surrounding
land uses uh all include lowdensity residential. zoning designation for the property is the RT2. That's the traditional neighborhood single and two family residence district. Uh that same zoning district uh surrounds the property on all sides. Uh currently the site is used as
a single family home with associated uh residential accessory structures. Current area land uses uh to the north, south, uh east, and west are all single family homes again with associated residential land uses. Uh notice was provided to all property owners within
350 ft of the subject property and published in the journal on May 10th, 2025. Uh we did receive uh two phone calls from neighboring properties inquiring about details of the proposal. The first uh phone call was inquiring about uh where the proposed garage would be placed in the property. Um and after
a discussion with that uh resident, uh they were not appropped uh to the variance. Uh the second phone call was again asking for more detail on the proposal um and asked that uh potential storm water coming from the building be kept on the site
and not allowed to flow onto neighboring properties. Uh we also did receive a letter on five uh May 27th, 2025 regarding the variance. Um and that is included with your um staff reports. Um
um so the property requesting the variance is located in our typical 50x 165 uh grid lot arrangement. Uh the applicant is proposing to in uh to install that uh 28x35 residential uh detach garage. Uh that would be
approximately 980 ft. Uh, in a residential zoning district, property owners are allowed uh to build a detached accessory structure up to 1,000 square ft. Um, all detached accessory structures on the property count towards that one 1,000 square ft allowed on the
property. Uh, the garage is proposed to be built slab on grade with the driveway off of South Front Street. Uh the applicant would need to secure a curb cut uh permit from the city engineer with a maximum curb cut allowance of 24 uh feet in width. Um section 9.3 of the
zoning ordinance requires that in a residential zoning district and any detached accessory structure be located to the side or behind the principal structure on the property. Principal structure in a residential district is typically typically the residence. This is the same item we had discussed uh
with the Highland Apartments project. Um the required front yard setback uh for the zoning district is 30 ft. Uh in residential zoning districts where adjacent structures within the same block have front yard setbacks uh different from those required. The front
yard minimum setback shall be the average of the adjacent structures. So, what I mean by that is if there are houses or structures on either side of the lot we're we're looking at um and they're closer to the front yard property line than what's required by
the zoning ordinance, you can essentially draw a line from one to the other um from the closest point of one to the closest point of the other to the front property line. And any proposed structure on the interior lot has to be uh along that line or behind it.
Um both side and reard setbacks would be maintained with this proposal. So site conditions uh the existing house on the property was constructed in 1952. Uh the location of the house on this proxim uh property is approximately 110 ft from
the front property line, 5 ft from the north or side property line, 22 feet from the south or side property line, and then 0 feet from the rear alley property lines. Uh it's literally buted right up to the telephone pole located in the
alley. Um the neighbor's house to the north is approximately 12 ft from the front yard property line and the neighbor's house to the south is approximately 18 ft from the front yard property line. Uh the pro the garage being proposed um
is to be 10 ft set back from that average front yard property line or the front of those uh those property lines between the house to the north and to the south. Uh the proposed garage size um would not fit between the existing
home uh on the south side of the property. If the garage were attached to the home, the garage would need to install a 42-inch frost footing at minimum to match the footing depth of the home. Staff has reviewed aerial photos of the RT1 and RT2 zoning district and found nine other properties
within the city where the home is set back on the rear uh rear lot property line or or directly abuing the alley. So, there are other locations within the city where this type of house configuration is is applicable. Um the application provides the
following information on the project. We're proposing uh to place a garage behind the front uh line of the home uh and to our north um and south as it will not interfere with their uh front line of the homes to our north and south. So
it will not interfere with their sight lines. Our home is set back further than all the other homes in the neighborhood and approximately 85 ft from the fronts of the houses to the north and the south. uh we did not construct our home at this location. The home was constructed in 1952 and at that time
they did not likely understand that setting the home at this location would cause further issues. Um we are not asking to go in front of the required setback for the zoning district. So evaluation um staff believes the location of the house on the property
butting the rear uh property line and alley is unique to this site and the neighborhood. Uh the home that was constructed on the site in 1952 was not built by the current owner and therefore the owner has not created the situation on this site that uh that necessitates the variance request. Uh the proposed
location of the garage is behind the required front yard setback line and is situated in a way that would not cause sighteline issues with neighboring properties. Uh the request being made is reasonable use of the property and will not change the essential character of the neighborhood. Um further staff
evaluation can be found in attachment 7 that uh the staff completed findings of facts. Um we did have included in the attachments or sorry we did have seven attachments. Uh first is the application. Second is the site location
map. You can see we have the railroad uh the railroad to the west and the Minnesota River to the east. Residential surrounding that. Here is the uh zoning map. Um here is the site map um as to
what the applicant is is proposing to do on the site. So, just to get back oops, excuse me, to get back to the thousand square foot allowance of a detached accessory structure on the property, if they were go if they were to go to the
980 that's being proposed, um this shed will certainly need to be removed and then they're only allowed to have 20 extra square feet of storage bu detached storage building on the property. So, if that other uh shed needs to come down, that will also be a requirement. um that
should also be a requirement uh to or a condition uh to consider this uh variance request. Here you can see that front yard uh setback line and the applicants proposing go roughly 10 ft uh behind that
line. Here's a picture of the um of the property looking towards uh the rear. And here in the back, this blue uh this uh is the blue house right here. Um, here is uh from the rear of the property. As you can see, the telephone
pole is right there. Generally speaking, in the city of New Alm, the telephone pole is at the property line or a foot a foot off of the property line. So, it's it's very close. Um, and then we have our staff completed
uh findings of facts. Um st if if considered for approval, uh staff would recommend actually four conditions. Um two two new ones that weren't in the staff report. Um so
first, the applicant shall pay the cost to record the variance with the Brown County Recorders Office. Two, that the applicant will contact the city to verify the location of the building once it is staked. three, that any buildings on the property that will cause the property to exceed the allow the allowed
1,000 square foot of detached accessory structure um on the site to be removed within 90 days of the submittal of the building plan. So that would be the triggering mechanism. Um four down spouts on the buildings shall be
installed so that water from the structure is directed towards the front uh meaning uh south front street or the rear alley side of the property as to not put water onto the neighboring properties. Um that concludes the staff
report. Oh sorry sorry about that. I was just wondering if you could repeat that the condition that the trigger condition. Sure. So, um, that would be condition number three, and that currently reads that any buildings on the property that
will cause the property to exceed the 1,00 square f foot uh, detached accessory structure allowance on the site be removed within 90 days of the submittal of the building per building
plan build, no building application for the new garage. That's the way it should read. Can I clarify? It's got to be done before the building of the actual garage. No, because what we're trying to do is provide a little bit of space in there between the time period when the
building application is submitted where they can build the garage yet still have storage space available for whatever they need it for. Um, and then at least provide a reasonable time period to get that constructed and then get those buildings removed. John, is the entry to
the garage off the street or from the rear of the property? It would be from the from Front Street. There would be a new curb cut. Um, I want to address the letters and the and one of the questions seems to be noise. Mhm. And I, you know, I, God
forbid, I um limit someone's access to to a motor vehicle and repairs and that kind of thing, but this is not a business being run out of this garage. I want that addressed first. Well, I we can make it clear that there I mean our
our zoning ordinance doesn't allow any motive any automotive types of business to be in a located in a residential zoning district. We we went through that process and clarified that process uh very clearly. Um and we don't even give a conditional use permit or a variance
to operate any automotive. So and and there are sound restrictions that if that there are limits to times that you can be out was it 10:00 11:00 9:30? What is it? Uh if I'm I I believe it is from
8 to 10 Monday through Friday and then 9 to 9 on Saturday and Sunday. Wrong. I would correct me if I'm wrong on that. 9:00 on week nights, 10 on the week. It's reversed. Yeah. Yeah.
So, if that being the case, um the tools we have at hand for that is is to simply call the police department. Um and I know that's not always the the the best tool, but that's the tool we have at our disposal for those noise disturbances. And we really can't restrict what
someone is doing in their garage on their time unless it's exceeding an ordinance that the city has in place. Correct? Yep. Y there. Any other questions? Could I go back to that trigger? Sure. Is the applicant okay with 90 days from
building permit application? I asked that because when I built my garage, it took me longer than that to finish it because I did it myself. So, are you okay with that? Well, uh, I guess step up to the microphone, please. State your name and address. Thank you.
State your name and address. Uh, Justin Deu, uh, 608 South Front Street. Um, I guess the biggest thing would be when he would start the garage, like time frame after that. Okay. All
right. Because I don't know how soon he would be able to even start it. So, if you're all okay with that, then I'm not going to make another suggestion, but maybe 30 days from final inspection works as well. Sure.
It's up to you. It's okay. Thank you. There any other questions? I mean, we can if if you would like to make that change, that's a reasonable change as well because some there are times where we get we get building permit applications, they don't start the
project for another 40 days, right? So, it it may be a better uh trigger to to have it 30 days after the final inspection. Right. I think that's reasonable. Anyone else? Is there a time limit on
the building construction permit? I don't know. 180 days. 180 days. Um, but that's if it goes dormant. So, if there's progress on the on the building, it could go for
for a year more. Just depends on what what the timeline is for the construction. Yeah. Yeah. Name and address, please. Sue Sullivan, 604 South Front. I'm in the north lot
adjacent to them. Um, my biggest concern is water issues and I don't know if you saw the pictures that I submitted. Um, and the runoff that I already had to deal with with them not maintaining their downspouts, the elevation of their house already. Um, the other factor is
too is I don't believe that on the GIS on the property lines that that is the existing property line. If you look to the north of me, that house was constructed about 6 years ago. And the GIS um zoning shows that the property line is literally on the roof of their house. So, when it states that their
house is 5T off of the north lot, it's not accurate. I had Brad Krauss at one point who is a city um assessor or not assessor surveyor that actually surveyed because I was curious where that property line was with that house being so close to the alley and to my lot. and
he stated that it's about 6 in off the property line. So, with that said, you know, where they're proposing on putting their garage and water issues, I did talk to Mr. Nisley and he said there can be conditions done um to prevent water
issues while they're building, but if they're not maintaining their downspouts and directing that water off, you know, a little bit of water off of a 28 by 35 ft garage can do a lot of devastation to a a house. And would you have an address to that as
far as property and and runoff? Is that part of your inspection to make sure that the there's drainage? We look at drainage from the structure. Um it's required 6 in and 10 ft that slopes away from the structure for houses and that
um we can look at um recommending swells and stuff but it it becomes a private issue. It's there's nothing addressed in the city ordinances of stating that water stays on your property. That's as much as we get into
it. Right. And so I had a realtor come and look at the situation too to see because of the elevation to where they're going to be putting the garage from Front Street. It's considerably high. Yes. And so you're going to have this massive, not I shouldn't say massive, but a three-stall garage that
not any other location on Front Street has facing the front. Um she said property value may not be deteriorated by it, but she said definitely it's going to be a hindrance for resale and then it also um if there is any water
issues, it will devalue my house considerably. I understand. So, those are my my big issues that I have with it. And then also figuring out where the exact property line is and the setbacks and where they're going to put that garage.
Yeah, I understand. I have a similar situation at my house. I have a garage that is abuing a a telephone pole exactly like that. I happen to spend a lot of time watching the drain off and things like that because other neighbors, but this is a house and
residence and it probably has more drainage and the garage is quite a bit of drainage and I I was at the site and I looked at it and it is well even when they put that they didn't put it up but the previous owner had put up that deck in front right that also
has a retaining wall so that's also raising the elevation considerably there too for runoff right and I can't believe that the city approved that back in the day. I don't think a retaining wall requires approval by the city. Even the location of the deck and the size off the property line cuz there was no
setback there. So, but I yeah, I would like to know, you know, more if that h has to be surveyed to figure out where that property line is and where that garage is going to actually be put. And then also, you know, if you look at those pictures that I took too and their
downspouts to their house, there's a lot of drainage that's affecting their foundation as well. So, they're not maintaining that either. And so, you know, because of looking at that, how is there going to be a guarantee that they're going to maintain that waterhed from that garage? Even having downspouts on it, they can clog even if gutter
guards on. As far as property um placement of the garage, are you you do make sure that that is well within the setbacks and lines of the property. Is that not correct? Correct. Yeah. Right. But what property lines are you going off of?
Because the GS the GIS isn't correct. Correct. So there's um either getting a survey, finding property pins or if it's to the interior of the of the lot, measuring off the streets and that's approximately within a foot or two feet
of where the property lines are. So for correct and that's why I was saying when Brad Krauss did that and you guys have it stated in the proposal that it's 5t off the property line their house is. It's not right. And I I don't know where they're if they're lining up to the
interior of the lot. The lot's um 50 foot wide. If they're doing 35 feet, we've got 15 feet on either side if they center it in the lot. They were proposing to do it 10 feet off of the north lot. So that's why I was just questioning Sure. that it's not further
over than what they're proposing. Yep. Because a lot of the water issues as well. So it's you're looking like probably have to get surveyed, right? And that is the purpose when they stake the the garage out. That is one of the things you look for that that it's
staked properly. Okay. And then I'm also talking about the integrity of the neighborhood with that garage, you know, being elevated up on facing the front street. So I understand. I can't do anything about
the elevation. No, I know. But it's also going against, you know, at the city code. Yeah. of having a building in front of their existing residence. So, okay. Thank you. Oh, and then also what is So, if you give them
the the 30 days or whatever to tear down those buildings, what happens if they don't? What's the guarantee? Well, you are free to call the city and and and speak to Elwood if that 30 days is I
heard that you can put a condition onto it for like a dollar value that if they don't then there's a dollar value that that I I would have we'd have to talk to city attorney on on that issue. But it would be a matter of sending a letter and and going how the ordinance is
written for violations of the of the ordinance. And then the other thing that I had too was um in regards to the noise issue, he does um body repair, not repair or uh work on demo cars and that's been a big issue. So if he moves
that to the front, that's going to be by residential housing instead of in the alley. So that's going to be causing a lot more nuisance as well. And that I addressed um there's only so much we can do there. And that's again um if it
exceeds noise times of day then you have the option to call police and have and and report. Correct. But the city code also states that if it interferes with what's an existing normaly of a residency with the noise then that there's an issue too that they're not
supposed to exceed that. So that would definitely change you know listening to your TV or having a conversation with somebody in your own residence by having that towards the where it would normally be a house and at that point then I think you have
to report it to the police because it's in violation. Okay. Okay. I got a question for couple for John. So, John, I think you said that there was 11 existing homes in the community that are in the rear of a lot, something
like that. Yeah. Yeah. And might have been nine, actually. Okay. Or nine. Okay. So, my question is, do they have a garage in the front yard in any of these rare circumstances? Uh, some do, some don't. A lot of them have them on the
sides like we see here. Okay. Isn't there one on Fifth North by your right down from you? T typically though, you know, these ones that are right on the property line in the rear of the property, um they might not even have had a garage at some point. They had a
parking space or a a paved space to the side of the the house. None of those that none of the nine that we discussed are new houses. Um they are all relatively old 60s or earlier. I just looking for consistency
if they someone else built a garage in the front yard, you know, not an existing one. There any other discussion before I move on to the finding of facts? One question. Do we do we have preliminary plans yet for the for the garage? Do we know if there's going to be windows on
the north side? Do we know if there's going to be soundproofing or what the construction? Right. So, they're they're proposing to um get a garage that is supposed what they've told me is is going to be uh have vinyl on it and to match the existing home and to have uh
windows on at least the home side of of that garage space. They didn't mention having windows on the neighboring sides. Um, I do not know about sound control or if they're proposing to insulate that. We
don't have a we don't have a building uh permit that's been submitted yet. One more time, questions. Anybody from the audience that has any comments or questions? If not, I'm going to move to the finding of facts. Do do you want
them read or do you want to accept the finding of facts as published? That's again up to the planning commission. Sounds like the planning commission would like to maybe consider some
additional conditions. Um, yes, I think we should read them in, you know, we're going to look at other conditions and just go through it. I just have to find them. I think I missed him. Page 16.
There we are. Okay. Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the city's zoning ordinance? Uh staff responded, "Yes, the proposed detached garage uh is consistent as a residential um detached accessory
structure um and consistent with the character of neighborhoods or residential neighborhoods and does not impede the orderly development of the area. Is everyone in agreement or do they are the questions? Yes, I agree with what's
said and I think we need to um specify we're not talking about use. We're talking about structure and then I agree. I agree. Yes. Does everyone agree? Yes. Thank you.
Is the variance request consistent with the city's comprehensive plan? Uh so the proposed detached garage is low density residential in character. The property is located in a low density uh residence land use area. So therefore, the garage
is consistent with the land use designation. Do we agree? Yes. Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner not permitted by the city or city
zoning ordinance? Uh staff responded yes. The setback from which the variance is being sought relief from is the city's regulations that do not allow a detached accessory structure in front of the permitted structure on the property. Because the home is located uh on right
on the rear property line, there are few options for detached accessory structures um on the property other than in front of the home um that could be of this size. I'm missing question four. It's on the
next page. Yes, it's on the next page. But oh, okay. Is that the question or I was thinking that was okay. I got to enlarge this. Does a proposal compare adequately? To go back to number three. We didn't say yes. Oh, I'm sorry.
Okay, I'm busy. Does everyone agree with number three? Yes. Does a proposal impair adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, unreasonably increase congestion of the public streets, increase the danger of
fire, substantially diminish property values, and will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the zoning district or neighborhood in which the property is located. Staff responded,
"No, that the proposed location of the detached garage uh does not ne negatively impact safety. Um, it's not expected to diminish property values or cause injury to the property or improvements in the neighborhood.
Do we agree or disagree?" Agree. Agree. as long as the drainage is taken care of properly and there's a condition of approval to that effect. So yes. Okay. Are the physical surroundings, lot size
or shape, topography, water conditions or other physical conditions unique to this property? Uh the location staff responded yes. The location of the existing home is the reason for the variance request. The home was placed on the rear of the property at uh property line ab buddy in
the alley. Locating your garage in line or behind the front of the house is a challenge on this site. Does everyone agree or disagree? Yes. Agree. The unique circumstances related to the property do not generally apply to other
properties and building in the same zoning district or vicinity. Staff responded yes that the property is unusual in the fact that the home is abunding the rear property line. Staff found nine other properties in the community with similar configurations in the grid section of new homem. We agree
or disagree? Agree. Agree. The unique circumstances related to the property were not created by the owner of the property. Uh staff responded yes that the home on the property was constructed in 1952 prior to the existing uh homeowners owning the property.
We agree or disagree? Agree. Will the variance alter the essential charact character of the locality? Uh staff responded that no, the proposed garage will be behind the front of the home to the north and the south and the
garage will be residential in nature and architecture and proposed to match the existing home on the site. Do we agree or disagree? Agree. Is the variance request the minimum amount necessary to eliminate the
practical difficulties? Staff responded, um, no economic considerations were not a reason for the proposed placement of the garage. That's not That's
10 off one. I was just Oh, sorry. the simply uh uh staff responded yes that's the minimum amount. Okay, we agree. Yep. Agreed.
Question 10. Do economic considerations alone not allow for the reasonable use of the property? Uh staff responded no economic considerations were not the reason for the proposed placement of the garage. Does anyone wish to address more
questions or concerned or would they like to put their amendments in the conditions when they make a motion? John, would you repeat the four that you have
identified? A second. So the first one was that the applicant shall pay the cost to record the variance with the Brown County Recorders Office. Number two is that the applicant will contact the city to verify the location of the building once it is staked. Uh number three that any buildings on the property that will
cause the property to exceed the allowed 1,000 square ft of detached accessory structures on the site be removed. We're changing this to within 30 days of the final inspection of the new building. Um, and then number four, that
downspouts on the the building uh shall be installed so that water from the uh structure be directed towards the front or rear of the property and not to the sideyard areas. Um, and for condition number two, are are is it within our authority
to ask for them to have a surveyor uh shoot that line? Then I Okay, I will add that then. Shall I make a motion or may I please? Um, I move that we recommend approval um of this variance request
with the four conditions um outlined by John, except that we would amend number two to require um a surveyor to to shoot that line so that staking is is certain. Okay,
I have a motion. Do I have a second? A second a motion. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I opposed. Motion is carried. And this is
June 3rd. June 3rd. Okay. Closes the public hearing for the variance request for Renee Peterson. And I am opening the public hearing portion of the meeting for the COP request for Caitlyn Cordis 1501 North Minnesota Street. staff.
Maybe we should just bring a little light to the conversation tonight, too. Dave Schnober, who's worked with the city for over 40 years, told me that tonight's meeting is the longest agenda he's ever experienced in his life. I ever want to experience again. Also, he knows when to take a vacation. Yeah,
I should have brought lunch. to the right. Okay. Uh this is public hearing request for a conditional use permit to allow 6ft tall fence in the front yard setback area. Uh the applicant is Caitlyn Cordis. The property owners are Ronnie and Sue Cortis. The legal
description of the property is lot one block 81 north of Center Street. Uh the street address is 1501 North Minnesota Street. Uh the property is located to the west side of North Minnesota Street and north of North of
15th North Street. Deadline uh sorry deadline for a decision on this application that is incorrect in the staff report that is also July 11th, 2025. Okay.
Um the land use designation uh from the comprehensive plan is lowdensity residential. Surrounding land uses uh to the north, south and east are lowdensity residential and then to the west commercial. Uh zoning designation of the property is RT2. That's the traditional
neighborhood single two family residence district. Surrounding zoning of this property to the north, south, and east are RT2. To the west it's B2. That's the general business district. Uh the current site land use is a single family residence. Uh current area land uses
include to the north, south, and east single family residences and then to the west single family residence and commercial uses. Uh notice was provided to all property owners within 350 ft of the subject property and published in the journal on May 17th, 2025. To date, we haven't received any public comment
on this application. Um so section 13.2 Two of Appendex A describes the front yard as an open unobstructed yard extending along the full width of the front uh lot line between the side lot lines and extending
from the abuing street right ofway to a depth required in the setback regulations for the zoning district in which the lot is located. Uh this property has two front yards, one facing North Minnesota Street and one facing 15th North Street. Uh when the property has two front yards or is a corner lot,
uh the opposite property lines are considered to be sideyards. So that um that would be the rear alley side and then the side abuing the neighbor's property. Um for properties located on numbered streets in the RT2 zoning district and the front yard setback area
is 10 ft. In this situation uh part uh of the fencing facing 15th North Street is located within the front yard setback area um and is required to be no taller than 48 in. Um uh section
10.3EB states that fences not exceeding fences not exceeding 48 in in the in the in height. Uh fences exceeding 48 in in height may be located within the front yard setback area. Um may not be let me restate that you're not supposed to have
a fence that's 6 feet in height uh in the front yard setback area. Uh this the applicant was issued a fence permit uh by uh mistake by city staff. Um and when staff saw the fence was being installed at 6t tall in this location, they
contacted the property owner uh require uh regarding the height of the fence in this location. Um the applicant immediately stopped construction on the fence and um waited till we are here today to discuss this matter. Uh after discussion with the applicant and the
city attorney, it was decided that the property owner could apply for a conditional use permit to allow a fence in that location at that height. Um fences 48 in or less in height located in the front yard uh may be located within uh may be located within 12 in or
greater may not be located within 12 inches or greater from the property line. um if they have been located. Um if they are located if they want to locate the fence right on the property line, they either have to have the uh survey pins to go off of or the property
be surveyed. Um um so uh fences when locating fences within the front yard setback area, there exist required sight uh safety areas uh where the fence is not allowed or needs to be 50% or more uh transparent. These areas
include fences abuing the driveway or street corner and the fence in its current location uh staff would consider to be in compliance with this provision. Provided there might need to be one post uh may be moved um right here to provide a better sight
line to the driveway. Um uh other than that, the fence is uh compliance uh is in compliance with other than height. Um the application provided and stated the following information on the project. Uh the fence
will be constructed out of white vinyl uh panels and match the look of the residential neighborhood. Uh we will be closing off one of the driveways entirely um and keeping vehicles parked in the alley side of the property. uh the fence uh they would like the fence in this
location for multiple reasons. One to keep the larger dog in and then also to address recent issues with people trespassing into the yard from the sidewalk. Um so we do have uh six attachments. The
application uh site location map, zoning map, uh site map, ground level photographs of the property, and then staff's response to the findings of fact form. Uh the applicant prop uh conditions being proposed by staff will
be that the applicant property owner will pay the cost to record the permit with the Brown County Recorders Office. two, that the fence will be regularly maintained but not become uh and not become or remain in a condition of disrepair or constitute a nuisance. Uh the permit and number three, the permit
is limited to the location and dimensions of the installed fence located in the front yard area and shown on attachment for uh site map. I would note that um we had issued a fence permit uh a conditional use fence permit to be located within the front yard
setback area for us a similar uh lot configuration. It was a corner lot um on 7th South and Broadway. I believe it was a year or two ago. Mhm. So, wasn't there another one down by Houndstein in that development in there, too, where she The
fence was already up and and there's a front yard setback down by the Frisbee golf because it was an oddshaped yard and everything too. Yeah, it's got two front yard setbacks. So, that would conclude the staff report. I have a question for Elwood. Is
this is this acceptable if it's considered a sideyard? Well, it's considered a front yard. I know it's considered a front yard, but when I look at the house, it's the sideyard. I I mean, it's it's back to the old argument. There's two front yard setbacks for this property, right? Y.
So, so yeah, it's it's spelled out in our ordinance and our diagrams of the corner lots have the two front yards and Yeah. Um 48 in is the requirement. Mhm. That's a nice fence. Yeah. Mhm.
With regard to the mention of the one post may be needed to be removed, let's use English. Um, how is that going to affect the construction having a diagonal portion
in there? Is that going to be is that we have we would have to talk to the applicant about that and maybe Ronnie's here. I think he's doing the construction of the of of the fence. State your name and address, please. Ronnie Cortis, um 1501 North Minnesota
Street. Thank you. Um we our original plan was to have that square corner there as it was drawn up. Um for us to change that now, the panels aren't going to come out to even panels. So, you know, we the posts are
already those pearls are already currently located where they're going to be and everything was measured out to have full panels. So, for us to go across there now is going to change the entire layout of the whole works all the way down the line. And over half of the
posts are already currently set because we were told we could start and have what we wanted. That one in the back is set is for us to move it now is going to be a pain. I'm going to just ask Elwood would there you'd have to have a 45 there or some
sort of for sight view off of a garage driveway. Well, the way it's or would they would it be okay? The way it stated in the code, we're supposed to be 25 ft from the driveway back along the sidewalk, then at least 25 ft up to the garage or the garage is closer up to the corner of the garage and 45 it off of
that or whatever the angle is at the angle that or have 50% or more viewing through the fence and then it can go square. If that was a 4ft fence, would the requirement be the same that you
have that diagonal? Correct. Yes. So whether it's 6 foot or 4 foot that diagonal should be there unless it's 50% or more transparent then it can be then it can go square. So if that portion were chain link it
would be fine. Correct. Okay. Yes. Um, as I understand the height restriction on front yard fencing, it more or less is to create an openness to avoid sort of
tunnelizing and in traditional neighborhoods. Um, is that is that correct? Or what is what is what is the reason for a 48 in front yard instead of a 6oot? Well, I would say aesthetic reasons are
are part of the equation. Correct. Okay. and the safety concerns of being able to see in the see in the yard or out of the yard. Okay. Is there So the followup to that where I'm going with this is is it possible to allow the six feet but to
have panels that are solid to 48 and then I don't know something else above that. We're going by cup. Yeah, we we had that discussion. I had that discussion with the property owner and they are not interested in pursuing that and they couldn't find the panels that would work for them. Of
course. All right. So am I to understand the reason the project was stopped was because it was 6 foot not 4 foot or was it stopped because al in addition this diagonal is not there
because noticing of the sixoot fence in the front yard set back. Okay. And now the the diagonal has to has to be there or you have to have a see-through fence. Correct. All right. I mean it it doesn't have to be a
diagonal. It could be the geometry of the It could still be squared off. It just have to be moved back east a ways so that there would be open space there. I think that's right. You could have a box like a square corner. Correct. Yeah.
Yeah. There's there's opportunity. So, not ideal. Yeah. But, but we're addressing the heights. So, and we've done it before, so we're consistent. You're correct. We are
addressing just the height. Not the angle. Yeah. Are there other questions or concerns? Does anyone have any other questions before I go to the finding of facts? Please state your name and address. Susan Cordis. uh 501 North
Minnesota. I would just like to say that two blocks down from Caitlyn's house um across from ARR Construction there is a 6ft fence wooden dark not as nice fence as and it's
exactly what Caitlyn wants. It goes up to the front of the house along the sidewalk and then back to the garage. And that sits on it. Well, not sits right on the alley. There's the body
shop there, but that fence is exactly like Caitlyn's. So, there are fences in town like Caitlyn's. Caitlyn's is going to be nicer, newer, but yeah.
So, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? finding the facts. Are you wanting to go through each one of them or are we That's my question. Do we want to address each issue or do we want to No. Okay. I'm okay. We are
accepting the finding of facts as presented. Is that correct? Correct. Correct. Then I'm going to close the public hearing portion of this meeting and call for a motion. Could I pose one more question
first? Go ahead. The the the fence that you were just referring to down Minnesota, is that on property that's zoned other than residential? I mean, it feels like it's a different neighborhood there. I would have to double check. Are they referring to what would that be? 18
north about 15 19th. Yeah. Yeah. Straight across from AR Kitty corner. Yeah. Yeah. That might be industrial and that fence may have been constructed before the fencing ordinance was okay for Okay.
Does that answer your question? Yep. Thank you. I'll make a motion to uh recommend approval with conditions uh the conditional use permit application of Caitlyn Cordez to allow a 6ft tall fence to remain in the front yard setback area
of the 15th North Street uh side of the property zoned RT2 and legally described as lot one block 81 North of Center Street. I'll second. I have a motion and a
second. Is there any further discussion? If not, all in favor? I opposed. Thank you. This appears June 3rd also before the council. That closes the public hearing portion of
this agenda. Moving on to consideration for approval of final plats of the keepers highland apartment edition. Okay. So I have a proposition for the planning commission. Um we have
two final plats that you're going to be reviewing tonight. One is for the Highland Apartments uh or Highland Apartments edition. The other one is um the other one is for the Sarah Hills
fourth edition. Consider them together. We haven't made any uh changes to either of those final plats from the review of the preliminary plat. So what I could do um if you want is go skip all the background
information and move on to move on to just a few of the details. So, is that all right with you? Please do. I'm fine. All right. Otherwise, someone's going to have to make a run. Okay. So, uh this would be this first
one is the final plat of the Highlands Apartment Edition. Um the area proposed for planning uh is 9.09 acres. Uh the property generally slopes from north to south and the property currently
consists of parts of four lots. Uh the plat will divide the property into four lots and will also provide street right ofway extension of 10th North Street. Uh the four lots have a uh frontage on the extension of 10th North Street, North
Highland Avenue and 7th North Street. The lots have the required frontage onto an existing proposed street. Uh the plat will divide the property as follows. Lot one would be uh 93,44 square ft. Um lot two would be
105,538 ft². Lot three would be 87,94 ft. Lot 4 would be 100,790 ft. And then the 10th North Street would be 4 43,756 ft for a total area of 40
431,244 ft. Um this is the property we re we reviewed earlier and is proposed uh for platting as the uh plan unit development district. Um all four lots comply with the city zoning standards for the R4 zoning district. Uh the proposed
buildings comply with the city's setback requirements. So the status of uh of the Parkland uh dedication fee payment is pending uh to provide uh an electronic file of the plat in AutoCAD 2016 or newer. Uh notice has been provided to
the surveyor. Uh entering into a development agreement. Uh that agreement is pending. Uh resolution approving the plat will be filed with the Brown County Recorders Office. Uh that filing is pending. uh determine if the connection fee must be paid for access to the storm
water quality pond located uh south of 7th uh 7th North Street. Uh that decision is pending. And then uh secure a plan unit development resoning designation uh for the property and that uh designation is also pending city
council review and approval. Um there were two attachments provided with the final plat. Um one is the final plat and then the other is the site location map. Uh staff would
recommend staff would recommend approval of the final plat with the condition uh condition otherwise the plant complies with the city code requirements. Um the recommended conditions are the completion of those pending items uh I
just listed. There's two potential motions. Um, one is to uh recommend approval and one is to recommend denial of the final plat to the city council. And are the the conditions the same for both plats?
No. No. No. Okay. They're different. So, we are voting on conditions for Highland. We're going to do them as two separate items because I'd have to I'd have to change uh the description a little bit. I don't remember in those condition list
of of things to be taken care of yet. I'm going to beat a dead horse. Is the landscaping plan in there? Not with the plat. Not with the plat. That's part of the the general plan. The conditions. Got it. Okay. The conditions for Highland are pay the parkland
dedication. Provide the electronic file. Um enter into a development agreement. Okay. Yeah, I'm okay with those. I get a question on I noticed on the plat that there's a that on the neighboring property um that the childc care um
building there business there's an alley platted. Was that ever it's platted but was it ever improved and opened or never been improved open? It's just platted. Okay. And that too is what we referred to earlier. It'd really actually be a nice recreational access point either
for a sidewalk or a bike trail or a walking trail, right? because it kind of connects the neighborhoods down to Fender Park. Okay, I get that. It's like like a gateway. Yeah. Are we ready for a motion? We are ready for a motion on the Highland Apartments
edition. I'd uh move approval with the conditions that John has outlined for us. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor? I
opposed. I want you to all to know that I hold the record for the longest meeting of HPC. Also, good luck. Thank you guys. Appreciate it. Thank you. Sarah Hills edition final plat
staff. All right. Um so this is the final plat of Sarah Hills fourth edition. Um let me get to the project description. The platted uh platted area
totals 2.75 acres. Uh the property is generally flat. The property property currently consists consists of four outlots on one parcel of property and then the plat will divide the property into two lots. Both lots will have the required amount
of frontage on either Allison Avenue or Ryan Road. Uh the plat would divide the property um into into two lots. Lot one, block one would be uh 12,500 ft. Lot two, block two would be
11,7761 square feet and the alley uh will be 1,200 square ft or 002 acres. Both lots again have the required amount of frontage on either Allison or Ryan Road. The two lots comply with the zeni uh city zoning
standards for the R1 zoning district. Largest portion of the lots are 60 ft wide and was the former location of the airport road. Airport Road has never been dedicated as a public street and therefore did not need to be vacated. It had been the city's intent to establish two lots in this location with platting
of the Sarah Hills first edition in April of 2005. Um status of conditions. Uh condition number one is to pay the platting fee of $260. Um that payment has been received. Number two to pay the parkland dedic
dedication fee of $100 for the two undeveloped lots. payment has been received. Number three, to provide an electronic file of the plat in an AutoCAD 2016 or newer format. Notice has been provided to the surveyor. And then number four, provide uh an easement a
10-ft easement abuing the front property lines of lot one lot and lot two Allison Avenue and Ryan Road. And then also a 5-ft easement abuing the rear or alley property line for lot one and lot two. And that status is easement areas have
been provided on the plat. There are two attachments, the final plat and then the site location map. Here's the final plat. Here's the site location map. Staff would recommend approval of the preliminary plant with conditions since it complies with the city code requirements. Um and uh this is final
plot. Yep. This is a final plan. So those conditions would be uh those conditions would be um let me see here I think uh to provide the following e those easement areas as discussed in the
status of conditions um and then also to provide that 2016 or newer um format to the city of NewM. So those are the only two conditions outstanding. By easement, do you refer to some kind
of document or simply by inclusion in the plat? It would be inclusion in the plant. And it's already there, aren't they? Yeah, they're already there. Okay. Are there any questions? Further questions? Entertain a motion. I make a motion to
recommend approval with conditions of the preliminary plat of Sarah Hills fourth edition. Second. I'll second. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I opposed.
No. The motion is carried. Um, are we considering for approval the preliminary plat of Land Haven? Yeah. Now again, I I can skip the introductory part of this because this is the same property as the Land Haven PUB. Okay, if you're fine
with that, I'm going to do that. Okay. Uh so the total platted area is 6.85 acres. The approximate dimensions of the property are 497 ft by 600 ft. The property has 498 ft of frontage on Jacob
Street. The plat is configured in a U format with a total of 28 lots and two out lots um two out lots and a private street. Water and sanitary sewer will be extended from Jacob Street between the
lots 1 and 7 and lots 8 through 14. So we're referring to as the utilities will be coming right through here. Once the utilities leave Jacobs, is are they private as well? Correct. Okay.
You're too happy. Yep. Um water and sanitary. Okay. I just read through that. Uh and also provided on uh lots 8 through 14. 14 of the lots will be uh a 14, that's incorrect. 22 of the
lots will be able to accommodate uh residential living space. Um natural gas and electricity will be extended to all the lots. Uh the platted area consists of the following areas. Private road 1.26 acres. Uh lots
1 through 14 um 2.66 acres. Lots 15 through 21 1.3 acres. Lots 22 through 28 1.3 acres. And then all lots A and B.29 acres for a total of 6.85 acres. Um, so would you like me to go through
the lot dimensions? I can. Okay. Um, outlot B uh has always been uh part with the city. The remainder of uh that property was the next in the city on two se in September 21, 2022. The applicant
again is proposing to develop a mix of residential housing on the property in two phases. Uh boy, this one wasn't my staff report. So I do have to say there's um the property is proposing to develop
a mix of both uh uh barnaminiums uh 22 barnaminiums and then uh eight or sorry six storage condominiums. Uh association will manage the activities within this uh development. Uh we do have attachments which include the
preliminary plat, site location map, zony map, site map, and ground level photos. Uh staff would recommend approval of the preliminary plat with conditions since it complies with the city code requirements. Um recommended conditions would be to pay the platting fee of
$480. Um pay previously paid the parkland dedication fee of $1,50. Um, and then the apprect. Yeah, that's not correct either. Um, I'm going have to check on that. Well, to pay any parkland
dedication fees uh required to this property with this property um applicant uh to provide an electronic file of the AutoCAD 2016 or newer format and then uh the applicant shall enter into a development agreement and provide uh an
association agreement for review by the city. Um, and that a resolution uh approving this plat be filed with the Brown County Recorders Office. That concludes the staff report. Go ahead, John. In those conditions, do
we specify when these additional documents are due? Are they due with the final plat application or with something or No, they No, they typically um typically they're handled within the time period between now and the final plat process. um we could make it a condition, you know, immediately
following the approval of the final plant. We haven't done that in the past or provided a time period, but that's a good suggestion. Just seems that things get out of joint and out of sequence and then things that are important to making decisions aren't available until after the decision's been made. And that
bothers me a bit. Well, would you have a day uh a recommendation? I mean, well, let's we'll talk about that. I'll think about that. I don't know exactly, but it just seems like it's out of sync. Sure. Has there been an issue in the past? No,
just cranky me. No, but we have That's my point. He's angry. Oh, you shut up. No, we have had in the past a number of plats that haven't been filed. One, in fact, we looked at tonight uh that have
been sitting out for a long time. Okay, good point. Yeah, thank you. [Music] Okay. Um, are there any questions? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion.
Rec make a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of the Newm River Haven Edition with conditions. No, it's land. Sorry. Newm Land Haven Edition with conditions. Correction. typo. Is there
motion there in letter E there? No, River Haven and the Land Haven. Mhm. Wow. Okay. There were lots of reports to write. There were and we had a very early morning discussion and I didn't
get that far either. So, I didn't see that. I'm sorry. I would I'll read further before I call you next. We'll make that correction before it goes to the city council. Okay. So, I have a motion. Do I have a second? I'll second. I have a motion and a
second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I I opposed. Motion is carried. City council decisions concerning planning commission. Do I really care? I didn't prepare a report for that. Okay. Oh,
thank you. So, okay. We can catch that in June. We'll get We'll save that one for Dave. Okay. Helwood, I do have a report. Oh, great. I'm so glad. Two hours. Uh we did
approve one uh canopy with some signage um for Grays, the co new co-op. Um talked about removing the George's property from the historical district. Yes. There anymore. talked about the
Shipo conference coming up this fall. And then we got a request for any comments on the Garden Street project because it is a mindot project. So they had to go through and give us a chance to comment on any properties on that
project which there are none. So that's it. Is the conference planning coming along? Well, yeah. Nobody panicking yet? Not yet. Okay. If that comes for the for the Shipo conference. Yeah. We got to get through today first, then we can
panic. I really think it's important. I do too. Yeah. On the map. Yes, it does. It certainly does. Are there any Is there any further business to come before the
commission hearing? None. This meeting stands adjourned. Okay.